| Author | Post |
|---|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 10:12 pm |
|
suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
He was not a close personal friend, but I did know him. I also never said I've never been in a threatening position. Wrong on both counts...I simply know what information we already have and know things you are in some form of denial about concerning SOP/code of conduct with Mobile LE. I guess we should agree to disagree about this from here on out since you're so adamant that your opinion is fact.
So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?
The fact is, regardless of how you might like to say you will act in a particular way--you simply don't know how you will respond until you actually are put in the situation--regardless of how you might like to posture.
And the "information" that you have is of little use--because it tells me nothing. That is what a jury is for.
I'm not the only one who thinks opinion is fact--you're in that same category.
As for "code of conduct and sop"--we've been through that. "Code of conduct" for LE is a joke by and large.
Whether it be a joke or not is not the issue. The problem here is your refusal to accept what it is or is not based upon what you "think" it should or should not be.
Please don't group me in the same category as you. I do not base my opinion on inaccuracies, my own personal opinion (when factual information is available) and empty "possibilities".
I'm not refusing anything. All you have given is your opinion--same as me
you obviously do base your opinion on the opinions of others....it is perfectly clear from your posts.
and I'll ask again since you brought it up--since you seem to say that you have been in a threatening situation before--So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?
In most situations with CCW or OC, once the threat realizes you are armed, the need to draw goes away. I'm not saying that is the case every time, but most criminals are going to back down once they see your piece. Hence it being, the greatest crime deterrent. I have been in situations that forced me to place my hand on it ready to draw, but have never had to draw. Besides, that's some what irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about a druggie, with a stolen, and ILLEGAL gun who shot someone for OC'ing because he was scared. That's all the information we have, so we can't speculate anything further (ie: he grabbed his gun, so he shot him, etc.).
so you've put your hand on, but have never drawn...when you have been put into a situation where you have drawn your weapon and were ready to shoot then you know you can talk about threatening situations. I sincerely hope you are never in such a situation
Now how do you know the guy is a druggie?
I am saying--if he can prove he was legitimately in fear for his life--he should get off. IF on the other hand he just shot because he saw someone with a gun--then I say he should be locked away forever. I'm fair. if it was defense--turn him lose, if it was just shoot the first person you see with a gun cop type mentality--then lock him away from society for the rest of his life.
as for "seeing the piece"--if you are justified in putting your hand on your gun/showing the gun then the threat is real enough to draw it. Don't play games with criminals--because the first time you do they are going to take that piece away and shoot the person with their own gun...
He is 18, which is too young to carry a pistol. The pistol was stolen, and he was in possession of marijuana. There must be proof of the fear for his life. You can't just shoot someone because they have a pistol holstered and claim self defense. That is what we're looking at right now. Anything else is speculation.
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 10:13 pm |
|
suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: Phssthpok wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
Well if someone shoots you for OC'ing they should be freed too because they felt threatened.
You seem to be (deliberately) ignoring the fact that there was a confrontation involved here.
Your friend wasn't simply walking down the street and blind-sided with a shot from an alley.
These two were in conflict......the intensity of which is a factor, a has yet to be determined.
I'm not ignoring that, I'm basing my opinion on the information currently available, in conjunction with current Mobile LE SOP/code of conduct.
we've been through that over and over again.
You are correct. The problem is I'm not interjecting what my personal opinion is, or arguing that my opinion does not line up with Mobile LE SOP/COC so therefore it's incorrect, or adding scenarios that according to the evidence thus far, never occurred. :-)
but that is the problem--you don't know what occurred or did not occur--you were not there were you? All you have is the statement of an individual who was clearly troubled because of a violent situation he was allegedly involved in--his statements at that time are suspect at best, but suspect or not they'll be used against him in court.
Exactly. The problem is, you're not paying attention to what HE SAID. You're adding "what ifs" into the equation instead of basing your opinion on current information. If more information comes out later then fine, that'll be new information. But as it stands right now, from his statements, he shot him for OC'ing because was scared. All other information at this point is nothing more than speculation.
see that is the point-the news is already speculating. I am saying that it IS POSSIBLE he felt threatened. We simply don't know and won't for a while. All I am saying is he could have legitimately felt threatened--and until more comes out, we really don't know. I never said otherwise. I said it is POSSIBLE the security guard provoked it--again we don't know--you don't know, and I don't know what started that fight. All we know is one is dead and one is in jail as a result of it.
it is just a sad case all around.
now how about we quit bickering over petty things?
I agree to stop bickering over petty things and speculation when it stops being brought up in this thread. Sheesh.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 10:17 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote:
He was not a close personal friend, but I did know him. I also never said I've never been in a threatening position. Wrong on both counts...I simply know what information we already have and know things you are in some form of denial about concerning SOP/code of conduct with Mobile LE. I guess we should agree to disagree about this from here on out since you're so adamant that your opinion is fact.
So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?
The fact is, regardless of how you might like to say you will act in a particular way--you simply don't know how you will respond until you actually are put in the situation--regardless of how you might like to posture.
And the "information" that you have is of little use--because it tells me nothing. That is what a jury is for.
I'm not the only one who thinks opinion is fact--you're in that same category.
As for "code of conduct and sop"--we've been through that. "Code of conduct" for LE is a joke by and large.
Whether it be a joke or not is not the issue. The problem here is your refusal to accept what it is or is not based upon what you "think" it should or should not be.
Please don't group me in the same category as you. I do not base my opinion on inaccuracies, my own personal opinion (when factual information is available) and empty "possibilities".
I'm not refusing anything. All you have given is your opinion--same as me
you obviously do base your opinion on the opinions of others....it is perfectly clear from your posts.
and I'll ask again since you brought it up--since you seem to say that you have been in a threatening situation before--So you tell me--do you know what it is like to draw your gun in a hostile situation? When your heart is pounding, and you're faced with the possibility that you might be forced to shoot? Do you know? Have you been there?
In most situations with CCW or OC, once the threat realizes you are armed, the need to draw goes away. I'm not saying that is the case every time, but most criminals are going to back down once they see your piece. Hence it being, the greatest crime deterrent. I have been in situations that forced me to place my hand on it ready to draw, but have never had to draw. Besides, that's some what irrelevant to the discussion. The discussion is about a druggie, with a stolen, and ILLEGAL gun who shot someone for OC'ing because he was scared. That's all the information we have, so we can't speculate anything further (ie: he grabbed his gun, so he shot him, etc.).
so you've put your hand on, but have never drawn...when you have been put into a situation where you have drawn your weapon and were ready to shoot then you know you can talk about threatening situations. I sincerely hope you are never in such a situation
Now how do you know the guy is a druggie?
I am saying--if he can prove he was legitimately in fear for his life--he should get off. IF on the other hand he just shot because he saw someone with a gun--then I say he should be locked away forever. I'm fair. if it was defense--turn him lose, if it was just shoot the first person you see with a gun cop type mentality--then lock him away from society for the rest of his life.
as for "seeing the piece"--if you are justified in putting your hand on your gun/showing the gun then the threat is real enough to draw it. Don't play games with criminals--because the first time you do they are going to take that piece away and shoot the person with their own gun...
He is 18, which is too young to carry a pistol. The pistol was stolen, and he was in possession of marijuana. There must be proof of the fear for his life. You can't just shoot someone because they have a pistol holstered and claim self defense. That is what we're looking at right now. Anything else is speculation.
1. how do you know the pistol was stolen?
2. how do you know he had marijuana?
and you are correct to a point--he must be able to convince the jury that he was in legitimate fear for his safety.
the DA will say he just shot a man down in cold blood and will put forth one story to back it up--a good defense atty will put forth a case of self-defense and try to show he was in fear for his life.
if he does not plea bargain or plead guilty then it is all going to come down to how 12 people see the events of that night. And a lot of emphasis is going to be placed on the fact the guard was OC'ing--the def. atty might try to show that he was "looking for trouble" that night....again more speculation of course.
and I don't know about Alabama, but in several states you can OC at 18...you only have to be 21 as I understand it to buy a handgun from a dealer--but from a private person in many states you only have to be 18--at least from the things I have been reading in different forums anyway.
Last edited on Fri Jun 5th, 2009 10:18 pm by suntzu
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 10:19 pm |
|
suntzu wrote:
1. how do you know the pistol was stolen?
2. how do you know he had marijuana?
and you are correct to a point--he must be able to convince the jury that he was in legitimate fear for his safety.
the DA will say he just shot a man down in cold blood and will put forth one story to back it up--a good defense atty will put forth a case of self-defense and try to show he was in fear for his life.
if he does not plea bargain or plead guilty then it is all going to come down to how 12 people see the events of that night. And a lot of emphasis is going to be placed on the fact the guard was OC'ing--the def. atty might try to show that he was "looking for trouble" that night....again more speculation of course.
1. It was covered in the news.
2. It was covered in the news.
There has already been talk of a plea bargain. A LE buddy I talked to doesn't have much faith in the DA.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 10:19 pm |
|
then let us both stop speculation and let the thread drop--it has been went over and kicked around enough.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 10:21 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote:
1. how do you know the pistol was stolen?
2. how do you know he had marijuana?
and you are correct to a point--he must be able to convince the jury that he was in legitimate fear for his safety.
the DA will say he just shot a man down in cold blood and will put forth one story to back it up--a good defense atty will put forth a case of self-defense and try to show he was in fear for his life.
if he does not plea bargain or plead guilty then it is all going to come down to how 12 people see the events of that night. And a lot of emphasis is going to be placed on the fact the guard was OC'ing--the def. atty might try to show that he was "looking for trouble" that night....again more speculation of course.
1. It was covered in the news.
2. It was covered in the news.
There has already been talk of a plea bargain. A LE buddy I talked to doesn't have much faith in the DA.
faith that the DA will get a conviction if it goes to trial? Or faith that the DA even has enough of a case to take to trial?
|
HungSquirrel
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Mobile, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 10:24 pm |
|
He is 18, which is too young to carry a pistol.
Show me the Alabama law saying an 18-year-old cannot carry.
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 10:25 pm |
|
suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote:
1. how do you know the pistol was stolen?
2. how do you know he had marijuana?
and you are correct to a point--he must be able to convince the jury that he was in legitimate fear for his safety.
the DA will say he just shot a man down in cold blood and will put forth one story to back it up--a good defense atty will put forth a case of self-defense and try to show he was in fear for his life.
if he does not plea bargain or plead guilty then it is all going to come down to how 12 people see the events of that night. And a lot of emphasis is going to be placed on the fact the guard was OC'ing--the def. atty might try to show that he was "looking for trouble" that night....again more speculation of course.
1. It was covered in the news.
2. It was covered in the news.
There has already been talk of a plea bargain. A LE buddy I talked to doesn't have much faith in the DA.
faith that the DA will get a conviction if it goes to trial? Or faith that the DA even has enough of a case to take to trial?
Let's just say in past similar instances, the plea bargains gave the criminal too much lee way.
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 10:26 pm |
|
HungSquirrel wrote: He is 18, which is too young to carry a pistol.
Show me the Alabama law saying an 18-year-old cannot carry.
I could be wrong, but I thought the age for concealed carry was 21. I can't remember.
|
HungSquirrel
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Mobile, Alabama USA |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 11:23 pm |
|
| Mobile County arbitrarily refuses to issue permits to those under 21, but no such restriction exists at the state level.
|
smttysmth02gt
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun May 10th, 2009 |
| Location: | Eight Mile, USA |
| Posts: | 84 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 11:28 pm |
|
HungSquirrel wrote: Mobile County arbitrarily refuses to issue permits to those under 21, but no such restriction exists at the state level.
Right...therefore they say it's an "illegal possession". Just another ridiculous "law" or lack thereof. The constitution doesn't say you can keep (own) and bear (carry) arms if you're 21, and agree to pay for a license to do so, and only do so in certain areas and with only certain kinds of firearms and ammunition.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 11:30 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: HungSquirrel wrote: He is 18, which is too young to carry a pistol.
Show me the Alabama law saying an 18-year-old cannot carry.
I could be wrong, but I thought the age for concealed carry was 21. I can't remember.
the age to purchase a handgun from a dealer is 21 by federal law.
many states--and Alabama may be one of them--will allow an 18y/o to buy a handgun from a private citizen, and there are more than a few states that have no restrictions against an 18y/o OC'ing...especially in states where you do not need a permit to carry openly.
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 11:32 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: HungSquirrel wrote: Mobile County arbitrarily refuses to issue permits to those under 21, but no such restriction exists at the state level. The constitution doesn't say you can keep (own) and bear (carry) arms if you're 21, and agree to pay for a license to do so, and only do so in certain areas and with only certain kinds of firearms and ammunition.
It will if the government has its way--but then again if they have their way we won't even be allowed to own a gun period....just like in glorious ol England...
our British cousins handed their rights away on a silver platter and tucked their tale between their legs and just bent over and took it....where is the spine in people anymore?
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 11:33 pm |
|
HungSquirrel wrote: Mobile County arbitrarily refuses to issue permits to those under 21, but no such restriction exists at the state level. does Alabama have preemption?
if it does then perhaps Mobile County needs a lawsuit or two...
|
suntzu
Regular Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 22nd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 5th, 2009 11:34 pm |
|
smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote: smttysmth02gt wrote: suntzu wrote:
1. how do you know the pistol was stolen?
2. how do you know he had marijuana?
and you are correct to a point--he must be able to convince the jury that he was in legitimate fear for his safety.
the DA will say he just shot a man down in cold blood and will put forth one story to back it up--a good defense atty will put forth a case of self-defense and try to show he was in fear for his life.
if he does not plea bargain or plead guilty then it is all going to come down to how 12 people see the events of that night. And a lot of emphasis is going to be placed on the fact the guard was OC'ing--the def. atty might try to show that he was "looking for trouble" that night....again more speculation of course.
1. It was covered in the news.
2. It was covered in the news.
There has already been talk of a plea bargain. A LE buddy I talked to doesn't have much faith in the DA.
faith that the DA will get a conviction if it goes to trial? Or faith that the DA even has enough of a case to take to trial?
Let's just say in past similar instances, the plea bargains gave the criminal too much lee way.
well they do care more about the criminal than anything else...so that does not surprise me.
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 943 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 28th, 2009 09:19 pm |
|
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.
How did the police explain the fear of a gun when you can't get a concealed
permit even if you never had so much as a jaywalking ticket. How then if they
are looking for a serial rapist would they ever believe he got a permit to have a
gun. Guess that is why they move to upstate, no one in NYC would believe
anyone but a cop has a carry permit to have a gun on them.
But as for AL, lets not forget that upstanding citizen in Hunstville, argued that
the gun he put to the drivers head and pulled the trigger on didn't have
bullets in it. So he is free to go, it was the dead drivedrs fault. I still can't believe
any one could buy that excuse. So what you pulled the trigger, all guns are
loaded, so pull the switch and fry em'.
But getting involved with an altercation and one party has a gun, nope...
it is time to pull back and assess the situation at best.
Now if he starts after me at that point and places his hand on gun,
I tried to withdraw, did all I could. With all the police impersonators
around these parts I would be hard pressed to hold back even if he says
he's a cop. If so better leave the gun alone till I am satisfied.
|
Current time is 08:19 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6 |
|
