Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

956750 Posts in 63176 Topics- by 15429 Members - Latest Member: joro2548
Jump to:  
The Trombone ForumPractice BreakChit-ChatPurely Politics(Moderators: bhcordova, RedHotMama, BFW) Those whacky gun owners at it again....
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 56   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Those whacky gun owners at it again....  (Read 95701 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
TillerTrom

*
*
Offline Offline

Location: Jumping around
Joined: Jan 9, 2011
Posts: 973

View Profile
« Reply #520 on: Mar 26, 2012, 10:32AM »

the stand your ground law was/is passed b/c of the "common law" or existing statutory duty to avoid conflict before using force to defend yourself.

If you were in a "public space" and could safely retreat from the "situation" without unreasonably exposing yourself or another to the likelyhood of bodily harm or worse, you were to retreat.

the "stand your ground" laws removed that duty to attempt to retreat.  it relieves the person threatened from relying on a jury/prosecutor from agreeing with the decision to act.

even under "stand your ground", force must be met with like force, it isn't supposed to be a "license" to start shooting.

You will get no argument from me there. Drawing your firearm is always the option of last resort. Every concealed, tactical and saftey course I have taken preaches that. Taking someone's life is a very serious thing that can never be undone. I own many firrarms, have a carry permit and always have two firearms on me at all times I can legally do so. I hope and pray to God I will never be in a situation where I would ever have to use one, let alone display one. I do not seek trouble, nor do any gun owners I know. I practice situational awareness at all times. But if trouble ever finds me, and I have no way to run, I will at least have a fighting chance to live another day.


This lunatic in Florida may not have broken the letter of the law when we learn all the facts and all the police tapes are released, but he broke the spirit of it. I hope the Grand Jury finds cause to indict him on something.
Logged

...you are a trombonist.  :)  In short, you are a sucker.  You are being used.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Online Online

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 16321
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #521 on: Mar 26, 2012, 10:55AM »

the stand your ground law was/is passed b/c of the "common law" or existing statutory duty to avoid conflict before using force to defend yourself.
It's more about the burden of proof being placed upon the defender. If you're not a highly tactical individual a decent prosecutor could turn a legit act of self-defense into a failure to bug out--shifting the standard to an uninformed jury to that which might be appropriate for a member of Seal Team 6.
 
If you were in a "public space" and could safely retreat from the "situation" without unreasonably exposing yourself or another to the likelyhood of bodily harm or worse, you were to retreat.
There's the rub though. It's a good standard, but who's qualified to make such a determination, and what standard of badassery gets imposed upon the defender?
 
the "stand your ground" laws removed that duty to attempt to retreat.  it relieves the person threatened from relying on a jury/prosecutor from agreeing with the decision to act.
In the FL case that's true, and it's a big problem (obviously), but in other states with SYG laws it's left up to a jury. The burden of proof is established/tweaked from the problematic version, and one's "peers" make the determination. It's still not perfect of course, but it's far better in all other cases than in the FL law.
 
even under "stand your ground", force must be met with like force, it isn't supposed to be a "license" to start shooting.
"Force must be met with like force"?
 
But yeah, you're absolutely right--it's certainly not supposed to be a license to kill, but functionally an argument can certainly be made that's precisely what the FL law "accomplishes".
 
Anyway, here's the problematic section that's unique to the FL version of the SYG law:
Quote
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

So apparently the law does actually prevent arrest and prosecution if the "defender" raises the defense of self-defense, unless the police find probable cause that the force used was unlawful. This is unique to the FL SYG law, and this is why FL prosecutors and police were against the law. The rest of the SYG laws allow for a jury to decide, which can be a problem, but I don't see a better way to do it. So it's starting to look like the PD acted "appropriately" in the Trayvon Martin case, as absurd as that sounds, and the law is the problem. Of course the Zimmermans out there are the real problem, but they're not going away, so how we deal with them is the functional issue.
Logged

- Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking is as mastery of theory.
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. -Richard Feynman
sly fox
love old trombones' engravings

*
Offline Offline

Location: here, there, anywhere but mostly Topeka KS
Joined: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 15292
"trombone enthusiast, photos of trombones - gallery"


View Profile
« Reply #522 on: Mar 26, 2012, 11:04AM »

thanks baron for the distinction.  I was speaking generally of the "stand your ground" laws  around the nation based on what I knew of them. 

Thanks for pointing out the specifics of the Fl SYG law.
Logged

Allen
First and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband.  They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind).  Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.
SensitiveJohn
*
Offline Offline

Location: Boston
Joined: Nov 23, 2001
Posts: 10390

View Profile
« Reply #523 on: Mar 26, 2012, 02:13PM »

Now that I'm privy to the new information, it doesn't seem as cut and dry as before.
Logged
Najataagihe

*
Offline Offline

Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Joined: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 3104

View Profile
« Reply #524 on: Mar 26, 2012, 02:23PM »

 Bad dog.  No Biscuits.

Remember Rodney King and how the entire country just KNEW the cops had no business hitting him until the JURY looked at the film frame-by-frame and determined that innocent little Rodney (Can't we all just get along?) had attacked the officers and continued to attack, as shown by the REST of the footage the media did not bother to make public?

That misconception by the Court of Media Opinion was dead wrong and it directly caused the riots that followed.

God forbid a jury not reach the predetermined decision of a bunch of gossips and thrill-mongers.


Of course, it is not possible that all those people with an opinion in THIS case could be wrong - after all, they were all there watching.

Quote
Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch captain, was walking back to his SUV when Martin approached him from behind. The two exchanged words, and Martin decked him with a punch to the nose and began beating him. He told police he shot Martin in self-defense.

Witnesses said they heard someone cry out in distress, some of them telling NBC News and other news organizations that it was Martin. But police told the Sentinel their evidence indicated it was Zimmerman.

( http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/26/10868250-report-police-say-evidence-indicates-trayvon-martin-attacked-zimmerman )

Now, some folks are going to cry "the cops are covering his butt" and "you don't shoot somebody for punching you in the nose”, BUT, since NONE of you were there, why don't we leave this up to the JURY (of our fellow citizens) who will have the task of doing complete research before JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS BECAUSE "SOMEBODY SAID..."!

And you people wonder why I say this civilization is on a downward spiral when you outstanding, upright citizens, DON'T EVEN FOLLOW YOUR OWN DAMNED LAWS!!!


"Innocent until proven guilty", my back side.

Military service for this country is a colossal waste of time.

It deserves to be overrun.


 Yeah, RIGHT.
Logged
sly fox
love old trombones' engravings

*
Offline Offline

Location: here, there, anywhere but mostly Topeka KS
Joined: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 15292
"trombone enthusiast, photos of trombones - gallery"


View Profile
« Reply #525 on: Mar 26, 2012, 02:40PM »

I'm not jumping to any conclusions except that:

it will be very difficult to investigate the facts 30 days late

no testing of the shooter will hamper the criminal case greatly

voice id on the 911 phone calls will be difficult so can they help with the issue of who was crying for help???

if true, it is some what odd that the shooter did not seek medical aid for his broken nose until the next day

if true, struggle b/t shooter and "victim" does not automatically determine self defense issue, the "victim" might have been trying to defend himself

the school suspension has nothing to do with what happened that night, imvho, ymmv.

if "victim" was fleeing, why the ambush????,  shooter stated the victim was fleeing and he was following, against advice/order of police dispatcher, from the reports I have read.
Logged

Allen
First and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband.  They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind).  Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Online Online

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 16321
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #526 on: Mar 26, 2012, 03:23PM »

Remember Rodney King and how the entire country just KNEW the cops had no business hitting him until the JURY looked at the film frame-by-frame and determined that innocent little Rodney (Can't we all just get along?) had attacked the officers and continued to attack, as shown by the REST of the footage the media did not bother to make public?
My understanding is that the jury bought into the continuum fallacy in that case though (if you can't identify which blow made it brutality you can't say what's brutality and what's not).
 
I agree with your underlying point, but using the Rodney King case as your argument is essentially arguing the gullibility of selected members of the public refutes the stupidity of the public at large.
 
Now, some folks are going to cry "the cops are covering his butt" ...
How about the cops are going by the only "evidence" they have (it's evidence in a legal and binding sense, but not really evidence in any sound epistemic sense), which is the testimony of the only survivor schtick? ... that seems pretty likely to me, particularly under FL's poorly written SYG law.
 
Did you see the problem section of that law?
Logged

- Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking is as mastery of theory.
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. -Richard Feynman
timothy42b
*
Offline Offline

Location: Colonial Heights, Virginia, US
Joined: Dec 7, 2000
Posts: 9665

View Profile
« Reply #527 on: Mar 27, 2012, 05:35AM »

I just found a copy of Freeman Dyson's Weapons and Hope at a book sale. 

It's a bit dated - he thanks his typist! in the foreword, and the Soviet threat is very real. 

So far though it's very interesting. 

I'm not sure it's relevant to Zimmerman et al, but maybe to the larger topic. 
Logged

Tim Richardson
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Online Online

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 16321
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #528 on: Mar 27, 2012, 06:09AM »

More, hopefully sobering info here--indicates why everyone should heed Najataagihe's caution.
 
The law is the only thing that's clearly in the wrong in this case (imposes upon the police the uncritical presumption that this testimony and such aren't questionable, literally as well as in the sense of presumed credibility), though I'd argue Zimmerman's zeal, at least, was as well. But it seems to me the motives and actions of Zimmerman and Martin aren't as clear as most seem to want to presume. Even if Zimmerman was being a dumbarse wannabe "enforcer" type that doesn't mean it would be legally okay to attack him. On the other hand it does mean, I'm pretty sure, that at the very least he's ethically complicit and to some significant degree also legally responsible for the incident ... or should be/would be in any other state. "Stalking" someone like that is questionable, even if they hadn't told him "we don't need you to do that", and it's also pretty clearly provocative to the stalkee. Again, to me it seems clear, at the very least, that the law should not be giving Zimmerman such a degree of immunity, and it may very well turn out this immunity isn't doing him any favors.
 
But Naj is absolutely right that we don't have enough information to form sound conclusions, only emotional ones. If we don't irresponsibly invest too much in our "conclusions", though, they're less problematic/far less entrenched/far more easily corrected if the facts turn out to indicate they're wrong.
Logged

- Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking is as mastery of theory.
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. -Richard Feynman
Russ White

*
Offline Offline

Location: Orange City, Fl
Joined: Feb 27, 2007
Posts: 3906

View Profile
« Reply #529 on: Mar 27, 2012, 07:48AM »


Remember Rodney King and how the entire country just KNEW the cops had no business hitting him until the JURY looked at the film frame-by-frame and determined that innocent little Rodney (Can't we all just get along?) had attacked the officers and continued to attack, as shown by the REST of the footage the media did not bother to make public?


WHat I remember seeing is 8 or 10 cops on the scene at the time of the beating. Even in the small (7.5 sq. mi.s) jurisdiction I worked in, it would have taken an extended period to get that many officers on a scene. THat video was taken after the incident had been underway for a decent period of time, and I would suspect it is pretty hard to "attack" multiple someones armed with batons from a prone position with them standing over you. Granted, King could have stopped the bludgeoning at any time by simply playing possum, but that beating was in no way defensible. Period.
Logged

Better than yesterday, better yet tomorrow.
badger

*
Offline Offline

Location: Permian Basin
Joined: Sep 27, 2010
Posts: 806

View Profile
« Reply #530 on: Mar 27, 2012, 08:10AM »

FYI on Texas Castle doctrine:
http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/03/23/sen-royce-west-challenges-texas-castle-law-after-florida-shooting/

For comparative purposes:
http://www.rc123.com/texas_castle_doctrine.html

Excerpt:
Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor [he] would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) [if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and
[(3)] when and to the degree the actor [he] reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used [requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor].
c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
Logged
Najataagihe

*
Offline Offline

Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Joined: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 3104

View Profile
« Reply #531 on: Mar 27, 2012, 10:19AM »

I'm not jumping to any conclusions except that:

it will be very difficult to investigate the facts 30 days late

Are you proposing that the police have not conducted an investigation until now?  Seriously?

Is it not far more likely that this investigation, like most others, is being conducted with as little public involvement as possible until ALL the available facts have been ascertained?


Quote
no testing of the shooter will hamper the criminal case greatly

What kind of testing?  (curious)


Quote
voice id on the 911 phone calls will be difficult so can they help with the issue of who was crying for help???

Unnecessary when you have eyewitnesses verifying the testimony of the shooter.


Quote
if true, it is some what odd that the shooter did not seek medical aid for his broken nose until the next day

Not really.

It is quite possible (probable, actually) that he didn't know his nose was broken until he woke up the next morning.

Adrenalin during and shock after the event would seriously delay any realization of being wounded and constant stress of the aftermath with the police would keep the adrenalin flowing until well after he went to bed.

I'm not saying that is the case, I am saying it is not unreasonable for him to have not gone for treatment on his own before the next day.

This is why it is vitally necessary for medical personnel to check folks out at the scene.


Quote
if true, struggle b/t shooter and "victim" does not automatically determine self defense issue, the "victim" might have been trying to defend himself

Not when the attacker was on top of the shooter banging his head into the sidewalk!

The deceased was not the victim - the investigation is showing that the shooter was the victim.


Quote
the school suspension has nothing to do with what happened that night, imvho, ymmv.

Of course it does - it is a datum in establishing the mindset of the attacker.


Quote
if "victim" was fleeing, why the ambush????,  shooter stated the victim was fleeing and he was following, against advice/order of police dispatcher, from the reports I have read.

The reports you have read were not conducted by the police, but by the media.

According to police, the shooter was trying to get into his SUV when the deceased walked up to him, exchanged words, hit him in the face, knocking him down, and proceeded to pound the shooter's head into the sidewalk - all verified by witnesses at the scene per police investigation, not media supposition.


Like I said, don't jump to conclusions based on what the media reports at a time when no one has had time to investigate an event.

First reports should just report what happened, but today's so-called journalists can't resist speculating on causes.

These speculations take on the aura of fact due to constant repetition.

They often have no resemblance to what is found to actually be the case upon competent investigation.



Today's pattern of journalism is:

MODERN LYNCHING ! - WASP RACIST KILLS INNOCENT BLACK TEEN AFTER PROLONGED FOOT CHASE!

Then the truth of the matter comes out - no chase, no racist, no WASP (half white, half brown), no innocent teen, but an aggressive attacker.

FOLLOW-UP STORY:

"oops, my bad."


If, if, if, if, if...

"If" ALWAYS indicates supposition and/or assumption.

Neither have any place in a proper investigation

BOTH are nothing but different words for GOSSIP.


Spare me.

 Yeah, RIGHT.

Logged
Najataagihe

*
Offline Offline

Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Joined: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 3104

View Profile
« Reply #532 on: Mar 27, 2012, 10:23AM »

... using the Rodney King case as your argument is essentially arguing the gullibility of selected members of the public refutes the stupidity of the public at large.

Nope!

The Rodney King case is an excellent example of the truth being distorted by the media.

The jury may have been right, wrong or hoodwinked, but the simple fact of the matter is: the jury saw something different than what the media presented and that which "Eva-body knew" was wrong.



 :D
Logged
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Online Online

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 16321
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #533 on: Mar 27, 2012, 10:41AM »

Nope!
 
The Rodney King case is an excellent example of the truth being distorted by the media.
 
The jury may have been right, wrong or hoodwinked, but the simple fact of the matter is: the jury saw something different than what the media presented and that which "Eva-body knew" was wrong.

 :D

Sorry, but I'm skeptical, and I recall at least a couple of jurors essentially explaining the continuum fallacy is why they voted the way they did.
 
I agree this same "modern lynching" problem--good term by the way--with the media and public opinion was alive and well then as it clearly is now (seems to have become the norm, just with generally intensified histrionics over time), but that doesn't mean the jury was right. All indications in both the Rodney King case and the OJ case were that the juries failed ... miserably. Given the juries on which I've served "a jury of one's peers" is one of the most terrifying phrases in the US. In some areas only maybe 10% of the population is really qualified to honor the oath they have to take in any real, applied sense ... or even understands that oath to a substantial degree. That's not a comment about their intelligence, but the integrity of their intellect--the reliability of their applied critical thinking skills and their capacity for rigor and objectivity ... precisely as you're pointing out.
 
Do you think the conditions you're pointing out here somehow disappear when people form into a jury?
Logged

- Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking is as mastery of theory.
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. -Richard Feynman
Najataagihe

*
Offline Offline

Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Joined: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 3104

View Profile
« Reply #534 on: Mar 27, 2012, 10:49AM »

Did you see the problem section of that law?


Quote
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.


Why should I, as a shooter, have to suffer the indignities of arrest, including an automatic impediment to continued or future employment, loss of immediate income to my family, automatic impediment to obtaining credit, increase in insurance premiums, etc., and the stress of defending myself against a presumption of guilt (in DIRECT opposition to the provisions of the Constitution) merely for preventing my own death?


On the other hand, could a shooter could meet a victim in an blind alley, murder him and claim self-defense to avoid immediate arrest and then flee the jurisdiction?

Not likely, because:


Quote
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.


Standard procedure is to detain all witnesses until statements are made, identities verified and addresses obtained.

It is during this phase that the officer at the scene determines if there is a possibility the force used was unlawful.

If he even SUSPECTS it is unlawful (probable cause), then the shooter will be arrested, immediately.

If there is no probable cause, i.e., it is obvious to the police officer the shooter acted in self-defense, why should he arrest the shooter?


Quote
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).


If the probable cause turns out to be unfounded, the shooter gets his expenses paid.

After the fact.

Months after the fact.

Months after losing your job and whatever is repossessed after not being able to pay your bills.

Etc.


It sounds, to me (clearly labeled as opinion), that you want a cut-and-dried, across-the-board action requiring the arrest of anyone who kills anyone else, regardless of circumstances.

Have you really lost that much faith in the judgement of law enforcement officers?

Do you realize just how much an arrest, even if it turns out to be unfounded, is going to screw up the life of the one arrested?


If the cop has the least scrap of probable cause to arrest you for killing someone, fine.

BUT, if there is no probable cause to believe the shooter is lying about it being self-defense, why SHOULD he be arrested?


To avoid media criticism?

Is the media REALLY who you want to determine justice?


THAT sounds more like satisfying the blood-lust of the public, not justice.


Again, spare me unverified gossip.

 :(

Logged
Najataagihe

*
Offline Offline

Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Joined: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 3104

View Profile
« Reply #535 on: Mar 27, 2012, 10:57AM »


Sorry, but I'm skeptical, and I recall at least a couple of jurors essentially explaining the continuum fallacy is why they voted the way they did.

Oh, so am I!

I am not arguing the validity of the outcome, merely that the media did not present an accurate picture - one upon which the opinion of the public was based.


I read several reports from different sources that stated that, had the media aired the rest of the footage, a different story would have been revealed, but it would not have resulted in selling as much news.

At the very least, according to one reviewer, there would have been different opinions on the issue, instead of the mono-block convictions encouraged by the press.

 
Quote
Do you think the conditions you're pointing out here somehow disappear when people form into a jury?

Oh, HELL, no!

But the jury will, at least, be given a picture of events as revealed by a police investigation, rather than relying only on what they read in the papers!


 :D
Logged
sly fox
love old trombones' engravings

*
Offline Offline

Location: here, there, anywhere but mostly Topeka KS
Joined: Oct 25, 2008
Posts: 15292
"trombone enthusiast, photos of trombones - gallery"


View Profile
« Reply #536 on: Mar 27, 2012, 11:22AM »

first, please note, I have used term "victim" in "" not to indicate who was the actual victim, I wasn't there, I don't know, nor do you who was victim.  I used "victim" to designate the one killed just to id that individual.  I have not made up my mind who was the aggressor and who was the true victim.  I only know the shooter and the deceased.

Are you proposing that the police have not conducted an investigation until now?  Seriously?

Is it not far more likely that this investigation, like most others, is being conducted with as little public involvement as possible until ALL the available facts have been ascertained?

cannot tell what type of investigation was done, rumours abound that it wasn't a thorough one.  one witness has reported she wasn't recontacted b/c her story didn't fit the thoughts of the investigating detective.  true or not???



Quote
What kind of testing?  (curious)

drug/alcohol testing of shooter

was any examination/testing done to determine how far apart shooter/"victim" were when shots fired???

was there gun powder residue on body of the "victim"?

photos of scene???  body??? 


Quote
Unnecessary when you have eyewitnesses verifying the testimony of the shooter. . . .

issue is who was aggressor, rumour has one teenager backing up shooter's version, is there more???  eye witness testimony is notoriously erroneous.  911 tape, which I have not heard, has been cited to say "victim" was crying out for help and not to be shot????


Quote
Of course it does - it is a datum in establishing the mindset of the attacker.

 what, that he was a drug crazed marijuana user who was fleeing and then doubled back and staged an ambush????

Quote
The reports you have read were not conducted by the police, but by the media.


and are you reading the actual police reports or "leaks" to the media which are supposed to be from police reports???

we both have the same source and I have not yet made up my mind who was the aggressor in this case.

Quote
According to police, the shooter was trying to get into his SUV when the deceased walked up to him, exchanged words, hit him in the face, knocking him down, and proceeded to pound the shooter's head into the sidewalk - all verified by witnesses at the scene per police investigation, not media supposition. . . .

he was supposedly headed back to his SUV when "attacked" not at his vehicle, one teen age witness has supposedly concurred, not ided otherwise, or can you give me link to info I have missed????


Quote
Like I said, don't jump to conclusions based on what the media reports at a time when no one has had time to investigate an event. . . .

again I haven't
Logged

Allen
First and foremost I'm a proud Dad & lucky Husband.  They say great minds can differ (not that I claim to have a great mind).  Remember that $ and my opinion buys coffee at the diner.
tsmart

*
Offline Offline

Location: Lenoir, NC
Joined: Apr 9, 2009
Posts: 3663
"M R ducks. M R not ducks. O S A R !"


View Profile
« Reply #537 on: Mar 27, 2012, 11:37AM »

I wonder if....
Christopher Newsom would have owned a gun, how would this have turned out?

http://worth-reading-blog.blogspot.com/2010/08/knoxville-horror-channon-christian.html

What a shame.

T.
Logged

the fellowship  of  the slide

Μολὼν λάβε
Baron von Bone
Fear is the Mind-Killer.

*
Online Online

Location: Athens, GA (USA)
Joined: Jul 16, 2002
Posts: 16321
"Reality Junkie"


View Profile
« Reply #538 on: Mar 27, 2012, 11:44AM »

Why should I, as a shooter, have to suffer the indignities of arrest ...

Maybe you shouldn't.
 
But maybe you should.
 
Actual immunity from investigation and prosecution is a pretty rare bird in most moderin legal systems ... no? Sound right all you lawyer types around here?
 
In any case the problem is the lack of oversight when you disable any means of correcting for a single agency's error or lack of capacity or means, or misconduct (or whatever). You know it's not sound strategy to eliminate checks and balances when the stakes are very high at all, and when it comes to whether a homicide was justified or not, if we want to maintain a civil society the stakes are obviously quite high.
 
If you shouldn't have been arrested then you'll have to trust the legal process, and the odds are pretty good that if there's nothing substantial upon which to question or challenge your innocence the case won't make it to trial. If it does then, unfortunate as it may be, you'll have to trust the process, including a jury.
 
If you should have been arrested but you weren't, and as in the unique FL SYG law there's no means by which to correct the error, then there's a more serious problem, because the means by which we ensure justice in our society (such as it is) has just been by-passed. If it fails that at least carries with it the potential for correction, but if it's just cut out of the process ... it's done.
 
It amounts to a systemically supported field execution carried out by a standard issue private (i.e. one who hasn't somehow fallen into a circumstantial command role).
Logged

- Reason is to understanding as theory is to music, and critical thinking is as mastery of theory.
- Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves. -Richard Feynman
lethargicllama7

*
Offline Offline

Location:
Joined: Oct 27, 2010
Posts: 653
""Never look at the trombones, it encourages them.""


View Profile
« Reply #539 on: Mar 27, 2012, 12:43PM »

Something I came across.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 25 26 [27] 28 29 30 31 32 ... 56   Go Up
Print
Jump to: