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.  

***now we are calling this murder?  You are usually the one who dislikes
that sort of exaggeration.


>***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. 

***Because the sound is better than the visual quality


 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.

***it does look like it is possible, and if so an inquest should raze the
guy.  I am just saying that we do not *know*.


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

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

Really?  That is your response?  

***yes, because when an officer is confronted with a weapon pointed at them
in a threatening manner, use of force for protection is reasonable.  Heck,
you are also allowed to do so when someone points a gun at you, and you know
it.  Your whole argument is based on an assumption that he did not, and the
FACT is that we do not know.  SO you feel justified in assuming the worst,
while I m holding judgment in the face of uncertainty.  


>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.  

***You should slow down, put your outrage in your pocket for a moment and
act like a lawyer and distinguish facts from speculation and theory.

>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.

***I do know the difference between knee jerk strawmen arguments and facts.


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"? 

***which in regards to him NOT pointing the gun at them is more than you can
see, hmm?

 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 grant that actually, maybe they did not.  But it is clear they thought
they were acting in compliance with the law.

  I certainly didn't hear or see pounding/banging on a door; 

***watch again.  You can see the guy with the ram, you can hear the banging,
you see a guy walk up, knock and walk back.  It may or may not have been
enough, but there is no denying they did at least that much.

I 
didn't see how they broke it down, (was there a ram?), 

***it was clearly a ram.  You didn't see that yet you are absolutely certain
that the guy was shooting blindly?

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.

***I agree that is open to debate.


>***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.

***Yes, you are.  Some DRUG RAIDS may have an actual threat so YES they are
justified when they are.  You want to use this as a case point for
elimination of drug laws, I am saying that that is a distraction from the
real issue.

***And in the absence of seeing why they thought this one was, all I can say
is that they screwed up.
 


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