Re: Marine killed in his own home

>**and again you ignore that there is an element of uncertainty about
whether he pointed his rifle at the cops.  It does matter.  And since the
evidence we have right now supports them identifying themselves properly....<

And then murdering a guy who was not actually threatening them.  If you're fine 
with that just say so, but I'm not and never will be.  



>***that's your interpretation of a pretty lousy video, that's all I will
say,  You cannot even say for sure he fired it.<

Either is is good or it is lousy make up your mind, this is the same video you 
want to use to conclusively prove they identified themselves sufficiently.  I 
tend to believe my eyes when I can see something over and over again and it sure 
looks to me like the guy was shooting a pistol into the doorway.  But if that is 
the best counter argument you have I guess you have to use it.


>>They are justified in acting reasonably.  They weren't acting reasonably.

>***play with the definitions all you want.<

Really?  That is your response?  


>
We know that the gun was on safety.  We know that the guy was a marine,
(hmmm not so irrelevant now is it?).  Its is reasonable to think that a trained 
marine, (back from Iraq IIRC), wouldn't be pointing a safety engaged weapon
that would be kind of pointless. 

>***objections assumes facts not in evidence.<

<sigh> you really should know what that means before you start tossing it 
around.  


>Did they 'know' he was a
marine?  Could they see his gun was on safety from down the hall?  I mean I
know all of your guns has the gigantic dayglo safety flag but did his?  Was
he trying to disengage it when shot?  Was he trying to fire and forgot tot
take the safety off?

***there are a lot of theories and no evidence.<

I know I'm using this line a lot lately, but I don't think that word, 
(evidence), means what you think it means.


And if the helmet cam, (assuming there was 
one),  showed him pointing the gun don't you think it would have been
released 
by the police? 

>***Another convenient assumption.  You are engaging in your own straw men
now.<

Ditto to what I just said.


Add all that evidence up and I'd say you have pretty good 
circumstantial evidence that they guy wasn't pointing his gun at them.  

>***all the evidence?  What evidence?  We saw them arrive code three (lights
and sirens) exactly as they said they did.  We saw them knock and announce
as they said they did.  All this contrary to the wife's account.  <

Um you saw that all on "one lousy video"?  We did not see them arrive, (not in 
the video I posted); we heard *a* siren; and there was some noise that may have 
been them saying "police" at some point.  Whether anyone heard it inside is 
another story.  I certainly didn't hear or see pounding/banging on a door; I 
didn't see how they broke it down, (was there a ram?), and I didn't hear what I 
though would be the appropriate volume/length of announcing that they were the 
police and they were breaking in.


Are you kidding me?  Militarized raids to execute drug raids aren't a
problem?  

>***not when they are used PROPERLY, as in used in a case where the threat of
violence is REAL.  Don't be deliberately dense.<

I said DRUG RAIDS.  I wasn't being dense deliberately or otherwise.  Why don't 
you try reading more carefully.

Mike F. 
-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot