Posted on 11/25/2015 11:57:19 AM PST by IChing
“Except somebody’s apparently started to use them for target practice now. Could make it interesting.”
If you are referring to the BLM protest where 3 men were shooting at a black crowd there is a great link interviewing “youths” attending the event that admit to attacking the people and they started shooting when they were swarmed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRhZL3QLtEQ
Some key quotes
“everyone started rushing them.”
“Someone punch one of them, POW”
“Then somebody hit someone again”
“So we start chasin’ them”
Language warning.
I was referring to legal definitions apart from this case.
in the coroner's report, If the shots are numbered in the order that the were fired the shots #1 & 2 would have been fatal and all others would have been irrelevant.
Article sums up the situation very well.
Too many folks that have never been involved in anything more dangerous than a pillow fight feel comfortable telling someone else how to handle a deadly force situation.
Based on training and policies and procedures. LEOs are very familiar with the minimum response concept. 16 rounds is a gross violation of that concept in this case.
We agree that premeditation does not apply if the defendant can successfully demonstrate self defense. Is that what you’re looking for?
That’s so he won’t get convicted. It’s a bullshit overcharge that no jury will convict him of.
Who said anything about accidental? Justified killing can be preceded by deliberate thought, but without the element of malice.
I encourage you to read the case of Jerome Ersland. A pharmacist robbed at gun point. The court has ruled that he originally shot under the terms of self defense. But subsequent shootings were not self defense and were in fact 1st degree murder. The legal definition of what constitutes self defense is a good thing for people to know. Especially to know when you are no longer acting in self defense, of yourself, or of anyone else.
LOL thanks
There is a mind set that says.... if you’re gonna shoot someone, be sure you kill them so they can’t sue you. I would say... more than that... make darn sure there’s not a video of you pumping additional rounds into them when they are clearly no longer a threat. If you want to argue self defense in court.
I was just clarifying that not all killing preceded by deliberate thought is murder. Malice is the critical element. Thanks.
Did you write the article?
4 White guys legally filming on a public street assaulted and chased because of the color of their skin.
Funny how the guys with masks on want the Crackers to take off their's.
Yes indeedy.
Boy, do you bull shit much? Of course whatever evidence is obtained will be used. But the fact is, video by itself has convicted tons of people.
...
So name one case where video was the only evidence at trial. You can’t, so you attack me personally.
I figured. I might not have 30 years of LE experience, but the verbatim description on your home page and “his” Twitter account added up. I’m also watching Sherlock Holmes right now, so I’m kind of an expert myself... :)
So I say, based on the training I received, no way was this recognized internally as a good shoot.
...
Police aren’t trained the same way as CCW holders. The law that apples to them is different, too.
affect=effect
Based on training and policies and procedures. LEOs are very familiar with the minimum response concept. 16 rounds is a gross violation of that concept in this case.
...
Is there a specific policy you can cite? The departmental policy of the officer in question would be good.
Ah, so that’s why I haven’t been hearing anything much about it. Thanks for the link!
Still, the Left is trying to instigate a violent confrontation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.