Man shot, killed by off-duty Dallas police officer who walked into wrong apartment p3

Thermal said:
As plague says, prob a separate topic that warrants another thread. I asked the mods to split one off earlier but nah.

In my most humble of opinions, most guys carrying are a wannabe Reapers. Lots of practice in killing at the range, very little in actual defensive tactics. But another argument
Click to expand...

I'd say you could start sorting by whether they have a Punisher symbol on any of their gear. Not a perfect measure, but a good start, at least.
 
Thermal said:
Yea, but they have a lot of training in non lethal methods, too. Tasers, calling for backup, deescalation, and more. Guyger forgot all about those and went straight to killing a man that by her own testimony, posed no threat to her other than what was between her ears. I have a huge problem with that.
Click to expand...

No question. But a taser is only good for a certain distance and some people are not affected by pepper spray. Going in alone with a non-lethal weapon would have been wrong. Going in for that matter was wrong.
 
Thermal said:
As plague says, prob a separate topic that warrants another thread. I asked the mods to split one off earlier but nah.

In my most humble of opinions, most guys carrying are a wannabe Reapers. Lots of practice in killing at the range, very little in actual defensive tactics. But another argument
Click to expand...

I don't know about most. But many are.
 
BStrong said:
That's not jury nullification.

A jury that refuses to convict because they believe the law to be misapplied or simply because the law is offensive to their conscious constitutes examples of jury nullification.

A jury that votes to convict absent evidence is committing a criminal and civil rights violation.
Click to expand...

I'm saying the concept is the same. It also seems to me that we could just as easily label conventional nullification as a crime, rather than tacitly accepting it as a safety valve. Think about it from the victim's point of view. "We recognize that the prosecution has proven a crime under the law, beyond reasonable doubt, but we're going to ignore that." Why shouldn't all twelve of those scofflaws be up on charges of contempt of court and obstruction of justice?
 
Dr. Keith said:
I'd say you could start sorting by whether they have a Punisher symbol on any of their gear. Not a perfect measure, but a good start, at least.
Click to expand...

Also questionable: What Would Gogo Do bracelets.

Pretty much any glorifying of outright murdering should be a cop fashion faux pas
 
acbytesla said:
What blew me away was this was three people in 3 different cars. I decided at that moment I wanted to get outof AZ as fast as I could. It is the Wild West down there.
Click to expand...

Friend of mine had a full career in the Phoenix PD. Last assignment before retiring was homicide. First thing he and his wife did when he retired was leave AZ.
 
theprestige said:
I'm saying the concept is the same. It also seems to me that we could just as easily label conventional nullification as a crime, rather than tacitly accepting it as a safety valve. Think about it from the victim's point of view. "We recognize that the prosecution has proven a crime under the law, beyond reasonable doubt, but we're going to ignore that." Why shouldn't all twelve of those scofflaws be up on charges of contempt of court and obstruction of justice?
Click to expand...

Maybe in your philosophical approach, but I see a major difference in "concept" between a jury letting someone off the hook and a jury voting to convict someone "because."

Take it a little closer to the ground.

See any difference between pulling a traffic stop on someone over a minor traffic offense, giving them the lecture and sending them on their way and stopping someone who hasn't violated any portion of the VC and citing them?
 
Not to go too hard on Arizona, but a martial Arts instructor I had bought a .357 mag there, which he keeps loaded within reach of his bed. He said he has not fired it but once at the range, and has not cleaned or serviced it ever, even after firing it. He transported it to NJ loaded in his luggage when he moved here

He has kept it this way since 2001, when he bought it after the attacks.

18 years...
 
What would John Wick do?

Find true love, retire from the business, lose his true love, mourn in solitude, get a dog, and drive classic muscle cars on closed courses to release his pent-up sadness and rage. As long as you don't kill his dog, you should be fine.
 
Darat said:
What grounds has she for an appeal?
Click to expand...
A couple of possibilities: She was denied change of venue. An "expert witness" on "inattentional blindness" wasn't allowed to testify before the jury. I'm sure they'll come up with more.
 
BStrong said:
Maybe in your philosophical approach, but I see a major difference in "concept" between a jury letting someone off the hook and a jury voting to convict someone "because."
Click to expand...
No. Not "because."

Rather, "because the twelve of us unanimously agree that the spirit of justice and the well-being of our community demand criminal consequences for this person, even if the law does not strictly provide such in this case."

Compare with, "because the twelve of us unanimously agree that the spirit of justice and the well-being of our community demand no criminal consequences for this person, even though the law clearly requires such in this case."

Neither jury is dissenting from the law just "because."
 
theprestige said:
What would John Wick do?

Find true love, retire from the business, lose his true love, mourn in solitude, get a dog, and drive classic muscle cars on closed courses to release his pent-up sadness and rage. As long as you don't kill his dog, you should be fine.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the spoiler tags.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom