| Author | Post |
|---|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 07:11 pm |
|
HungSquirrel wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Let me tell you a story.
Let me tell you a story.
In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. Police officers Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy passed by in a Ford Taurus when they thought Diallo matched the description of a (since-captured) serial rapist and approached him. The officers were in plain clothes. The officers claimed that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". As the suspect reached into his jacket, Carroll believed Diallo was drawing a firearm and yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. The officers opened fire on Diallo and during the burst McMellon fell down the steps, appearing to be shot. The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times. Investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a wallet.
On March 25 a Bronx grand jury indicted the officers on charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. On December 16 a New York appellate court ordered a change of venue to Albany, New York, stating that pretrial publicity had made a fair trial in New York City impossible. On February 25, 2000, after two days of deliberations, a mixed race jury unanimously voted to acquit the officers of all charges.
During the case, the attorneys argued that because the police officers thoughy the victim was reaching toward a gun, they were legally justified in shooting the victim and the jury must acquit.
So, tell me, since the police officers of the largest police department in the United States are held to the standard of "any shoot is OK if you think a perp has a hand on a gun", is it logical to hold citizens to the same standard? The police are, after all, public servants, and in any just society, public servants are held to the same standard of conduct as civilians, if not higher.
Well you gotta keep in mind that is NY. Quite different from AL. Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 702 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 07:13 pm |
|
suntzu wrote:
Not defending anything--I don't know what he was or was not thinking--anymore than you or anyone else does. I said--if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fear of his life--he absolutely should be set free.
You don't know why he was scared--maybe the OD officer moved his hand toward his weapon--maybe he had his hand on the weapon--the story does not say and only those who were there actually know.
I'm saying that if he was in fear of his life, and actually felt that his life was in danger--he should be set free. The same as it would be if a LEO became nervous, and thought a person was reaching for a weapon and opened fire...Now on the other hand--if the 18 y/o simply shot just to shoot--then they should give him the maximum penalty under Alabama law.
Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.
See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.
(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 07:16 pm |
|
Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
Not defending anything--I don't know what he was or was not thinking--anymore than you or anyone else does. I said--if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fear of his life--he absolutely should be set free.
You don't know why he was scared--maybe the OD officer moved his hand toward his weapon--maybe he had his hand on the weapon--the story does not say and only those who were there actually know.
I'm saying that if he was in fear of his life, and actually felt that his life was in danger--he should be set free. The same as it would be if a LEO became nervous, and thought a person was reaching for a weapon and opened fire...Now on the other hand--if the 18 y/o simply shot just to shoot--then they should give him the maximum penalty under Alabama law.
Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.
See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.
(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)
Right, but when you see a fellow OC'er in public, do you fear your life? That's about the best comparison I can think of since to the guy's knowledge, Brandon was just OC'ing in public.
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 702 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:10 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
Not defending anything--I don't know what he was or was not thinking--anymore than you or anyone else does. I said--if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fear of his life--he absolutely should be set free.
You don't know why he was scared--maybe the OD officer moved his hand toward his weapon--maybe he had his hand on the weapon--the story does not say and only those who were there actually know.
I'm saying that if he was in fear of his life, and actually felt that his life was in danger--he should be set free. The same as it would be if a LEO became nervous, and thought a person was reaching for a weapon and opened fire...Now on the other hand--if the 18 y/o simply shot just to shoot--then they should give him the maximum penalty under Alabama law.
Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.
See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.
(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)
Right, but when you see a fellow OC'er in public, do you fear your life? That's about the best comparison I can think of since to the guy's knowledge, Brandon was just OC'ing in public.
Nooooo....to YOUR knowledge Brandon was just OC'n in public.
To the best of MY knowledge, we (the general public) do not have the benefit of being able to access the alleged perpetrators official sworn statement. A newspaper quote does not qualify. We can only infer/guess/presuppose the events and his perceptions thereof because we were not there.
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:21 pm |
|
Phssthpok wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
Not defending anything--I don't know what he was or was not thinking--anymore than you or anyone else does. I said--if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fear of his life--he absolutely should be set free.
You don't know why he was scared--maybe the OD officer moved his hand toward his weapon--maybe he had his hand on the weapon--the story does not say and only those who were there actually know.
I'm saying that if he was in fear of his life, and actually felt that his life was in danger--he should be set free. The same as it would be if a LEO became nervous, and thought a person was reaching for a weapon and opened fire...Now on the other hand--if the 18 y/o simply shot just to shoot--then they should give him the maximum penalty under Alabama law.
Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.
See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.
(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)
Right, but when you see a fellow OC'er in public, do you fear your life? That's about the best comparison I can think of since to the guy's knowledge, Brandon was just OC'ing in public.
Nooooo....to YOUR knowledge Brandon was just OC'n in public.
To the best of MY knowledge, we (the general public) do not have the benefit of being able to access the alleged perpetrators official sworn statement. A newspaper quote does not qualify. We can only infer/guess/presuppose the events and his perceptions thereof because we were not there.
That was his verbal statement upon leaving the precinct heading to metro to be booked. It's on channel 5 and 10's websites. All you gotta do it go there and watch it.
Here I will make it even easier for ya:
http://www.wkrg.com/crime/article/man_apologizes_for_killing_mobile_police_officer/76238/
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:22 pm by smttysmth02gt
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:44 pm |
|
Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
Not defending anything--I don't know what he was or was not thinking--anymore than you or anyone else does. I said--if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fear of his life--he absolutely should be set free.
You don't know why he was scared--maybe the OD officer moved his hand toward his weapon--maybe he had his hand on the weapon--the story does not say and only those who were there actually know.
I'm saying that if he was in fear of his life, and actually felt that his life was in danger--he should be set free. The same as it would be if a LEO became nervous, and thought a person was reaching for a weapon and opened fire...Now on the other hand--if the 18 y/o simply shot just to shoot--then they should give him the maximum penalty under Alabama law.
Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.
See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.
(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)
In a normal society where the burden of proof actually lies with the state you would be right--but as we all know, we are presumed guilty until we prove ourselves innocent--that is the way it works, sad but true.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:45 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
Not defending anything--I don't know what he was or was not thinking--anymore than you or anyone else does. I said--if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fear of his life--he absolutely should be set free.
You don't know why he was scared--maybe the OD officer moved his hand toward his weapon--maybe he had his hand on the weapon--the story does not say and only those who were there actually know.
I'm saying that if he was in fear of his life, and actually felt that his life was in danger--he should be set free. The same as it would be if a LEO became nervous, and thought a person was reaching for a weapon and opened fire...Now on the other hand--if the 18 y/o simply shot just to shoot--then they should give him the maximum penalty under Alabama law.
Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.
See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.
(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)
Right, but when you see a fellow OC'er in public, do you fear your life? That's about the best comparison I can think of since to the guy's knowledge, Brandon was just OC'ing in public.
No I don't--BUT if I see an OC'er stand and confront me and put his/her hand on their sidearm as if they are about to draw I most certainly am going to become extremely concerned.
|
Phssthpok
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 702 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:45 pm |
|
Again...none of us were there. We don't know if it was a casual conversation or if it was a highly charged atmosphere and the un-badged but openly armed officers request for him to leave was perceived as an immediate threat.
Maybe there was still a bit of a tussle going on as he spoke (say...trying to restrain/separate belligerents) and his arm went back in a random motion that was perceived as a reach for the sidearm.
The point is...you don't know....I don't know....none of us KNOWS what the suspect's perception was that caused him to shoot. Additionally, to base a conclusion that there were no other factors to his decision to shoot based solely on the statement in the video is questionable at best. The man seems pretty much out-of-it mentally and who could blame him?.....he faces capital murder charges for what (he claims) was self defense. I dunno about you, but that would jack my mental functions pretty good for a while.
Again, please understand... I'm neither defending nor indicting his actions....I'm merely stating that WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:48 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: HungSquirrel wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Let me tell you a story.
Let me tell you a story.
In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. Police officers Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy passed by in a Ford Taurus when they thought Diallo matched the description of a (since-captured) serial rapist and approached him. The officers were in plain clothes. The officers claimed that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". As the suspect reached into his jacket, Carroll believed Diallo was drawing a firearm and yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. The officers opened fire on Diallo and during the burst McMellon fell down the steps, appearing to be shot. The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times. Investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a wallet.
On March 25 a Bronx grand jury indicted the officers on charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. On December 16 a New York appellate court ordered a change of venue to Albany, New York, stating that pretrial publicity had made a fair trial in New York City impossible. On February 25, 2000, after two days of deliberations, a mixed race jury unanimously voted to acquit the officers of all charges.
During the case, the attorneys argued that because the police officers thoughy the victim was reaching toward a gun, they were legally justified in shooting the victim and the jury must acquit.
So, tell me, since the police officers of the largest police department in the United States are held to the standard of "any shoot is OK if you think a perp has a hand on a gun", is it logical to hold citizens to the same standard? The police are, after all, public servants, and in any just society, public servants are held to the same standard of conduct as civilians, if not higher.
Well you gotta keep in mind that is NY. Quite different from AL. Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.
it is what it is--there are two sets of rules--one for them and one for the peasants, er citizens....
they feel threatened then the persons friends and family might as well go ahead and call a funeral home, because the citizen is going to get killed, more often than not due to the trigger happy nature of more than a few LE who think they can shoot first and ask questions later....
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:50 pm by suntzu
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:52 pm |
|
Phssthpok wrote: Again...none of us were there. We don't know if it was a casual conversation or if it was a highly charged atmosphere and the un-badged but openly armed officers request for him to leave was perceived as an immediate threat.
Maybe there was still a bit of a tussle going on as he spoke (say...trying to restrain/separate belligerents) and his arm went back in a random motion that was perceived as a reach for the sidearm.
The point is...you don't know....I don't know....none of us KNOWS what the suspect's perception was that caused him to shoot. Additionally, to base a conclusion that there were no other factors to his decision to shoot based solely on the statement in the video is questionable at best. The man seems pretty much out-of-it mentally and who could blame him?.....he faces capital murder charges for what (he claims) was self defense. I dunno about you, but that would jack my mental functions pretty good for a while.
Again, please understand... I'm neither defending nor indicting his actions....I'm merely stating that WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS.
He actually never claimed self defense at all. He simply said he was scared and shot him.
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:54 pm |
|
suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: HungSquirrel wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Let me tell you a story.
Let me tell you a story.
In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. Police officers Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy passed by in a Ford Taurus when they thought Diallo matched the description of a (since-captured) serial rapist and approached him. The officers were in plain clothes. The officers claimed that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". As the suspect reached into his jacket, Carroll believed Diallo was drawing a firearm and yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. The officers opened fire on Diallo and during the burst McMellon fell down the steps, appearing to be shot. The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times. Investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a wallet.
On March 25 a Bronx grand jury indicted the officers on charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. On December 16 a New York appellate court ordered a change of venue to Albany, New York, stating that pretrial publicity had made a fair trial in New York City impossible. On February 25, 2000, after two days of deliberations, a mixed race jury unanimously voted to acquit the officers of all charges.
During the case, the attorneys argued that because the police officers thoughy the victim was reaching toward a gun, they were legally justified in shooting the victim and the jury must acquit.
So, tell me, since the police officers of the largest police department in the United States are held to the standard of "any shoot is OK if you think a perp has a hand on a gun", is it logical to hold citizens to the same standard? The police are, after all, public servants, and in any just society, public servants are held to the same standard of conduct as civilians, if not higher.
Well you gotta keep in mind that is NY. Quite different from AL. Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.
it is what it is--there are two sets of rules--one for them and one for the peasants, er citizens....
they feel threatened then the persons friends and family might as well go ahead and call a funeral home, because the citizen is going to get killed, more often than not due to the trigger happy nature of more than a few LE who think they can shoot first and ask questions later....
That may or may not be true. I know several LEO's that I would trust with my life, if I was in a situation where I was unable to defend myself. That being said, I know a few that I'd be quickly to distance myself from in a bad situation, knowing that they do not necessarily care about the law itself, but what they "think" is the law.
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:55 pm |
|
suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
Not defending anything--I don't know what he was or was not thinking--anymore than you or anyone else does. I said--if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fear of his life--he absolutely should be set free.
You don't know why he was scared--maybe the OD officer moved his hand toward his weapon--maybe he had his hand on the weapon--the story does not say and only those who were there actually know.
I'm saying that if he was in fear of his life, and actually felt that his life was in danger--he should be set free. The same as it would be if a LEO became nervous, and thought a person was reaching for a weapon and opened fire...Now on the other hand--if the 18 y/o simply shot just to shoot--then they should give him the maximum penalty under Alabama law.
Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.
See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.
(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)
Right, but when you see a fellow OC'er in public, do you fear your life? That's about the best comparison I can think of since to the guy's knowledge, Brandon was just OC'ing in public.
No I don't--BUT if I see an OC'er stand and confront me and put his/her hand on their sidearm as if they are about to draw I most certainly am going to become extremely concerned.
Again, he never said he put his hand even on the firearm. He simply said he told them to leave and had the gun on his hip. Got scared and then shot him.
|
HungSquirrel
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Mobile, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:58 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote:
Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.
I was responding to an earlier post of yours. Here it is again:
So you're saying if Brandon put his hand on his pistol, the kid should be released simply because he "thought" he was going to shoot? I think I'm in fear of my life all the time, hence the reason I even carry a firearm, but I don't go around shooting potential threats.
So, if police are held to that standard, I believe the public at large should be too. Of course, I think police should be held to a much higher standard than that!
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 08:59 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
1. I am not defending anyone--I am saying that if the LEO provoked this fight then the guy who shot him should be justified. You would say the same thing if the situation was reversed and it was your friend who had just shot an "apartment complex courtesy employee" or an average citizen in a similar situation...
2. the "code of conduct sop" bit was funny--you mean like the officers in Mesa Az. who are now in trouble? At least one of which is alleged to have flushed an aborted fetus down a toilet like so much garbage--others in trouble for alleged excessive force? SOP?
3. if they are OD--then they are OD. if they want to be on duty all the time--then my advice is don't go home, don't change into civilian clothes--stay on the job and in uniform 24/7/365
Off duty means exactly that--they leave their cop mentality at work--they are average joe citizen when they take off that uniform.
4. If a LEO wants to work private security as a security guard--then quit being a LEO and start being mall security. LE should absolutely NOT be allowed to hold any other jobs while they are employed as a LEO--none whatsoever.
5. If he was not in uniform he should not have been trying to act in a LE capacity.
6. the lesson OC'ers could learn from this is vigilance--and I say again, as I have said over and over--keep your hand away from your gun when you are in public unless you are preparing to draw it.
1. Irrelevant since we already know it was not provoked.
2. No.
3. Incorrect. I would suggest you educate yourself on this.
4. Your opinion on what LE "should NOT be allowed" is irrelevant to the actual reality of the way things currently are. You do not make up the rules.
5. Yes, actually he should, as it was his job to do so. A courtesy officer is not a security guard. It is an officer who is OD hired as a contractor, should he be needed to act as a LEO. Incorrect again.
6. The lesson OC'ers should learn from this is, you could very well be shot for doing nothing more than OC'ing and engaging in a situation, regardless of your intentions. My advice would be, if you continue to OC, mind your own business to the best of your ability, or conceal your firearm should you choose to engage in a situation in an attempt to keep the peace or simply help someone out. Your logic is irrelevant due to the fact that we already know he did not draw his pistol. A druggie with a stolen, and illegal weapon shot an OD police officer because he was "scared" after seeing a holstered pistol on his hip and no visible identification. We do not know if Brandon told him he was a police officer or not. That is actually irrelevant to my point, as he appeared to be a person like anyone on this board, who OC's.
My entire point in posting this story was not to provoke an arguement, as one is not even merited. My point is simple. As per the assailant, Brandon appeared to be someone like many of you who open carry, and told them they needed to leave. So, you guys are OC'ing and see a fight and tell everyone they need to break it up and leave whereever they are...your neighborhood or apartment complex or a parking lot...whatever. You could be put in the same situation Brandon was in. My message was informative if anything at all.
1, It is not irrelevant--do you know for a FACT--110% indisputable fact that the fight was not provoked? Did you witness the shooting to know that your friend did not provoke the fight? It is far from irrelevant.
2. no--what? elaborate.
3. then by all means show me where a LEO is on duty regardless of where they are or what they are doing. Off duty means exactly that--it means check the LE attitude at the door on your way out, because once you are on the street--you're an average person subject to the same rules as everyone else.
4. Neither does your opinion matter--but irregardless of opinions--a LEO who wants to moonlight as a security guard should not try to act in ANY LE capacity while not directly engaged in his job as a POLICE OFFICER...two totally different jobs there--pick one or the other.
5. So you would justify your friend if he killed someone while off duty who reached for a weapon, but condemn another who may have done the same thing to your friend? That is ridiculous beyond words. Self defense is self defense--thankfully you are not in control.
6. What OC'er need to learn is not that they can be shot simply for OC'ing, but the way you act WHILE OC'ing. If your friend moved his hand to his weapon as if he was about to draw--I don't blame the guy for drawing--whether he should have fired or not I can't say, I was not there--but if he felt threatened then he was justified in drawing his firearm, and if he reasonably felt that unjust deadly force was about to be used against him--then he was completely justified in pulling the trigger and I for one would not vote to convict him of anything except stupidity for talking when he should keep his mouth shut.
7. Your friend was a security guard--you can call it a "courtesy officer" if it makes you feel better--but when the rubber hits the road--it's still a security guard position and a LEO should not be allowed to hold them ever.
8. your friend was in regular clothes, not a uniform yes?--he was off duty and therefore should not have been acting in any LE capacity while working as a private security guard.
1. Yes, as per the statements the assailant made.
2. I answered your sarcastic question about the code of conduct with some irrelevant statement about someone in OK.
3. You'd have to speak to LE or possibly find out how to obtain the documentation about their code of conduct. I know from speaking to many LE's about the subject, both management, detective, and regular patrol.
4. Wrong again. I never said anything about my opinion.
5. No, I would not justify a cop killing someone for placing their hand on their firearm. Nice assumption though.
6. I can agree with that absolutely. If someone moves to draw or appears to, you should do the same, otherwise carrying at all is pointless.
7. Nope. A courtesy police officer is not a security guard. The news might say that and some other people might, but it isn't the same.
8. Wrong again. Yes he was in regular clothes, and if I'm not mistaken, they are still supposed to wear their badge at least to make it known they are LE. He was wrong if he wasn't doing that. I've been told the policy is for them to be in uniform but some of them will wear police shirts and their badge as well.
I'm not sure where you got your information, but I got mine from actual LEO's so I'm not really sure why you keep arguing your opinions over the way things actually are.
1. We all know about statements made in the heat of the moment don't we...
2. We might as well agree to disagree about "code of coduct"
3. LE can show their "code of conduct" all day long--but it isn't enforced and they more often than not don't abide by it anyway. Again--we might as well agree to disagree.
4. You gave your opinion I gave mine.
5. you would most certainly have justified your friend shooting someone in a similar circumstance--you have already said as much in previous statements.
6. "courtesy officer"=security guard. Same thing--it is semantics regardless of how you want to paint it. And if your friend was off duty--he most certainly should NOT have been trying to engage in a private job in a law enforcement capacity
7. you can get opinions from LEOs all day long--and at the end of the day that is exactly what it is--an opinion. just like they have an opinion regarding OC'ing. Opinions are a dime a dozen--they mean absolutely nothing.
8. If he was in street clothes and off duty he should not have been on a private job acting in a law enforcement capacity.
I'm sorry your friend is dead--but both of them obviously made mistakes that day.
The question now is whether they arrested him simply because the person he shot was an off duty police officer, or if they REALLY felt he violated the law...The other question is--will he be able to use the self-defense statute to justify the shooting?
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:00 pm by suntzu
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:01 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: suntzu wrote:
Not defending anything--I don't know what he was or was not thinking--anymore than you or anyone else does. I said--if he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in fear of his life--he absolutely should be set free.
You don't know why he was scared--maybe the OD officer moved his hand toward his weapon--maybe he had his hand on the weapon--the story does not say and only those who were there actually know.
I'm saying that if he was in fear of his life, and actually felt that his life was in danger--he should be set free. The same as it would be if a LEO became nervous, and thought a person was reaching for a weapon and opened fire...Now on the other hand--if the 18 y/o simply shot just to shoot--then they should give him the maximum penalty under Alabama law.
Not to get OT again, but I have a problem with this statement, and I think it stems more from sentence structure than intent. However words mean things, and one must strive to accurately express their thoughts, lest one begin to inadvertently corrupt the idea contained therein.
See...as I understand it, the burden is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did NOT have a valid fear. The way the highlighted words above read, the accused must prove his innocence beyond doubt. This is not how it works....at least it's not SUPPOSED to work that way.
(I offer no opinion either way re: the guilt or innocence of the individual....merely pointing out a matter of procedure)
Right, but when you see a fellow OC'er in public, do you fear your life? That's about the best comparison I can think of since to the guy's knowledge, Brandon was just OC'ing in public.
No I don't--BUT if I see an OC'er stand and confront me and put his/her hand on their sidearm as if they are about to draw I most certainly am going to become extremely concerned.
Again, he never said he put his hand even on the firearm. He simply said he told them to leave and had the gun on his hip. Got scared and then shot him.
And maybe he really believed his life was in danger...
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:01 pm |
|
double post...
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:01 pm by suntzu
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:02 pm |
|
HungSquirrel wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.
I was responding to an earlier post of yours. Here it is again:
So you're saying if Brandon put his hand on his pistol, the kid should be released simply because he "thought" he was going to shoot? I think I'm in fear of my life all the time, hence the reason I even carry a firearm, but I don't go around shooting potential threats.
So, if police are held to that standard, I believe the public at large should be too. Of course, I think police should be held to a much higher standard than that! I do too...and if the people are held to one standard, then the police should be held to the exact same standard...
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:05 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: HungSquirrel wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Let me tell you a story.
Let me tell you a story.
In the early morning of February 4, 1999, Diallo was standing near his building after returning from a meal. Police officers Edward McMellon, Sean Carroll, Kenneth Boss and Richard Murphy passed by in a Ford Taurus when they thought Diallo matched the description of a (since-captured) serial rapist and approached him. The officers were in plain clothes. The officers claimed that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". As the suspect reached into his jacket, Carroll believed Diallo was drawing a firearm and yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. The officers opened fire on Diallo and during the burst McMellon fell down the steps, appearing to be shot. The four officers fired forty-one shots, hitting Diallo nineteen times. Investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a wallet.
On March 25 a Bronx grand jury indicted the officers on charges of second-degree murder and reckless endangerment. On December 16 a New York appellate court ordered a change of venue to Albany, New York, stating that pretrial publicity had made a fair trial in New York City impossible. On February 25, 2000, after two days of deliberations, a mixed race jury unanimously voted to acquit the officers of all charges.
During the case, the attorneys argued that because the police officers thoughy the victim was reaching toward a gun, they were legally justified in shooting the victim and the jury must acquit.
So, tell me, since the police officers of the largest police department in the United States are held to the standard of "any shoot is OK if you think a perp has a hand on a gun", is it logical to hold citizens to the same standard? The police are, after all, public servants, and in any just society, public servants are held to the same standard of conduct as civilians, if not higher.
Well you gotta keep in mind that is NY. Quite different from AL. Besides, you would have to be a bit more specific, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is in posting that.
it is what it is--there are two sets of rules--one for them and one for the peasants, er citizens....
they feel threatened then the persons friends and family might as well go ahead and call a funeral home, because the citizen is going to get killed, more often than not due to the trigger happy nature of more than a few LE who think they can shoot first and ask questions later....
That may or may not be true. I know several LEO's that I would trust with my life, if I was in a situation where I was unable to defend myself. That being said, I know a few that I'd be quickly to distance myself from in a bad situation, knowing that they do not necessarily care about the law itself, but what they "think" is the law.
the vast majority of what is employed in LE now are more interested in the power trip than anything else. If a LEO feels threatened by an individual--that individuals family might as well call the funeral home...the police have been trigger happy for some time now...
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:07 pm |
|
suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
1. I am not defending anyone--I am saying that if the LEO provoked this fight then the guy who shot him should be justified. You would say the same thing if the situation was reversed and it was your friend who had just shot an "apartment complex courtesy employee" or an average citizen in a similar situation...
2. the "code of conduct sop" bit was funny--you mean like the officers in Mesa Az. who are now in trouble? At least one of which is alleged to have flushed an aborted fetus down a toilet like so much garbage--others in trouble for alleged excessive force? SOP?
3. if they are OD--then they are OD. if they want to be on duty all the time--then my advice is don't go home, don't change into civilian clothes--stay on the job and in uniform 24/7/365
Off duty means exactly that--they leave their cop mentality at work--they are average joe citizen when they take off that uniform.
4. If a LEO wants to work private security as a security guard--then quit being a LEO and start being mall security. LE should absolutely NOT be allowed to hold any other jobs while they are employed as a LEO--none whatsoever.
5. If he was not in uniform he should not have been trying to act in a LE capacity.
6. the lesson OC'ers could learn from this is vigilance--and I say again, as I have said over and over--keep your hand away from your gun when you are in public unless you are preparing to draw it.
1. Irrelevant since we already know it was not provoked.
2. No.
3. Incorrect. I would suggest you educate yourself on this.
4. Your opinion on what LE "should NOT be allowed" is irrelevant to the actual reality of the way things currently are. You do not make up the rules.
5. Yes, actually he should, as it was his job to do so. A courtesy officer is not a security guard. It is an officer who is OD hired as a contractor, should he be needed to act as a LEO. Incorrect again.
6. The lesson OC'ers should learn from this is, you could very well be shot for doing nothing more than OC'ing and engaging in a situation, regardless of your intentions. My advice would be, if you continue to OC, mind your own business to the best of your ability, or conceal your firearm should you choose to engage in a situation in an attempt to keep the peace or simply help someone out. Your logic is irrelevant due to the fact that we already know he did not draw his pistol. A druggie with a stolen, and illegal weapon shot an OD police officer because he was "scared" after seeing a holstered pistol on his hip and no visible identification. We do not know if Brandon told him he was a police officer or not. That is actually irrelevant to my point, as he appeared to be a person like anyone on this board, who OC's.
My entire point in posting this story was not to provoke an arguement, as one is not even merited. My point is simple. As per the assailant, Brandon appeared to be someone like many of you who open carry, and told them they needed to leave. So, you guys are OC'ing and see a fight and tell everyone they need to break it up and leave whereever they are...your neighborhood or apartment complex or a parking lot...whatever. You could be put in the same situation Brandon was in. My message was informative if anything at all.
1, It is not irrelevant--do you know for a FACT--110% indisputable fact that the fight was not provoked? Did you witness the shooting to know that your friend did not provoke the fight? It is far from irrelevant.
2. no--what? elaborate.
3. then by all means show me where a LEO is on duty regardless of where they are or what they are doing. Off duty means exactly that--it means check the LE attitude at the door on your way out, because once you are on the street--you're an average person subject to the same rules as everyone else.
4. Neither does your opinion matter--but irregardless of opinions--a LEO who wants to moonlight as a security guard should not try to act in ANY LE capacity while not directly engaged in his job as a POLICE OFFICER...two totally different jobs there--pick one or the other.
5. So you would justify your friend if he killed someone while off duty who reached for a weapon, but condemn another who may have done the same thing to your friend? That is ridiculous beyond words. Self defense is self defense--thankfully you are not in control.
6. What OC'er need to learn is not that they can be shot simply for OC'ing, but the way you act WHILE OC'ing. If your friend moved his hand to his weapon as if he was about to draw--I don't blame the guy for drawing--whether he should have fired or not I can't say, I was not there--but if he felt threatened then he was justified in drawing his firearm, and if he reasonably felt that unjust deadly force was about to be used against him--then he was completely justified in pulling the trigger and I for one would not vote to convict him of anything except stupidity for talking when he should keep his mouth shut.
7. Your friend was a security guard--you can call it a "courtesy officer" if it makes you feel better--but when the rubber hits the road--it's still a security guard position and a LEO should not be allowed to hold them ever.
8. your friend was in regular clothes, not a uniform yes?--he was off duty and therefore should not have been acting in any LE capacity while working as a private security guard.
1. Yes, as per the statements the assailant made.
2. I answered your sarcastic question about the code of conduct with some irrelevant statement about someone in OK.
3. You'd have to speak to LE or possibly find out how to obtain the documentation about their code of conduct. I know from speaking to many LE's about the subject, both management, detective, and regular patrol.
4. Wrong again. I never said anything about my opinion.
5. No, I would not justify a cop killing someone for placing their hand on their firearm. Nice assumption though.
6. I can agree with that absolutely. If someone moves to draw or appears to, you should do the same, otherwise carrying at all is pointless.
7. Nope. A courtesy police officer is not a security guard. The news might say that and some other people might, but it isn't the same.
8. Wrong again. Yes he was in regular clothes, and if I'm not mistaken, they are still supposed to wear their badge at least to make it known they are LE. He was wrong if he wasn't doing that. I've been told the policy is for them to be in uniform but some of them will wear police shirts and their badge as well.
I'm not sure where you got your information, but I got mine from actual LEO's so I'm not really sure why you keep arguing your opinions over the way things actually are.
1. We all know about statements made in the heat of the moment don't we...
2. We might as well agree to disagree about "code of coduct"
3. LE can show their "code of conduct" all day long--but it isn't enforced and they more often than not don't abide by it anyway. Again--we might as well agree to disagree.
4. You gave your opinion I gave mine.
5. you would most certainly have justified your friend shooting someone in a similar circumstance--you have already said as much in previous statements.
6. "courtesy officer"=security guard. Same thing--it is semantics regardless of how you want to paint it. And if your friend was off duty--he most certainly should NOT have been trying to engage in a private job in a law enforcement capacity
7. you can get opinions from LEOs all day long--and at the end of the day that is exactly what it is--an opinion. just like they have an opinion regarding OC'ing. Opinions are a dime a dozen--they mean absolutely nothing.
8. If he was in street clothes and off duty he should not have been on a private job acting in a law enforcement capacity.
I'm sorry your friend is dead--but both of them obviously made mistakes that day.
The question now is whether they arrested him simply because the person he shot was an off duty police officer, or if they REALLY felt he violated the law...The other question is--will he be able to use the self-defense statute to justify the shooting?
Well the problem with our opinions is, you're standing by yours instead of accepting the way things actually are. You can "think" that because they are off duty, their job is over and it doesn't matter if they're on a courtesy job or not, that they are a regular citizen. The problem is, you're thinking this instead of knowing it. Whereas, I actually know that is not correct. So, you can continue thinking that if you'd like, but you'll continue to be wrong. Among several other things you've said...the same statement I just made could be applied to them.
He is not claiming self defense. If he were, then he would not be so apologetic about it.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 09:08 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: Again...none of us were there. We don't know if it was a casual conversation or if it was a highly charged atmosphere and the un-badged but openly armed officers request for him to leave was perceived as an immediate threat.
Maybe there was still a bit of a tussle going on as he spoke (say...trying to restrain/separate belligerents) and his arm went back in a random motion that was perceived as a reach for the sidearm.
The point is...you don't know....I don't know....none of us KNOWS what the suspect's perception was that caused him to shoot. Additionally, to base a conclusion that there were no other factors to his decision to shoot based solely on the statement in the video is questionable at best. The man seems pretty much out-of-it mentally and who could blame him?.....he faces capital murder charges for what (he claims) was self defense. I dunno about you, but that would jack my mental functions pretty good for a while.
Again, please understand... I'm neither defending nor indicting his actions....I'm merely stating that WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS.
He actually never claimed self defense at all. He simply said he was scared and shot him.
if he gets a lawyer that knows what he is doing--he'll claim self-defense.
if he can get a jury to believe he really was in fear for his life, then he can and should get off. That is what the law is for.
|
Current time is 11:40 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|
|
