- Messages
- 1,116
- Reactions
- 1,261
Stone age weapon of war, modern weapon of war. They both can be, and are deadly. Yeah, needs more of the 'story' to be revealed but don't discount what a 'rock' can do to your skull! Historical precedents abound!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bless you!We have zero way to know any of this. Unless more has "come to light", what we have is legacy news telling us this is what happened. The same legacy news that has such a stellar reputation for lying. I suspect them not being able to get an indictment and him getting his job back says we are FAR from being told the "truth" here.
There was some info coming out of the Sheriffs office from the officers on site that provided a little more context as to why they felt they had due cause for an arrest. I'm sure they would initially try to avoid arresting him as a courtesy... unless... they felt there was overwhelming cause and couldn't justify turning that much of a blind eye, but yeah....We have zero way to know any of this. Unless more has "come to light", what we have is legacy news telling us this is what happened. The same legacy news that has such a stellar reputation for lying. I suspect them not being able to get an indictment and him getting his job back says we are FAR from being told the "truth" here.
The fact that the dead guy had meth on board removes ambiguity for ME. In this circumstance....Personally though, I have to wonder why a man known to have mental issues, only posed a minor threat to a well trained officer, and was admittedly leaving the area at one point, would warrant lethal force. Simply discouraging the man with a warning shot or disabling him with a leg or shoulder shot is likely to have been effective, and would have allowed the opportunity for mental health assessment/treatment, vs. just dusting the guy(?)...
I wrote, "in this circumstance", for ME. Meaning MY opinion. Given what little other "facts" are known.
I still feel a tiny bit sorry for some of those addicts. But really on a tiny bit.I wrote, "in this circumstance", for ME. Meaning MY opinion. Given what little other "facts" are known.
What happened in the Philippines was interesting. In another country. By edict.
I still feel a tiny bit sorry for some of those addicts. But really on a tiny bit.
Tweakers aren't usually missed.
Without knowing all the relevant facts, or as many of the facts as possible, it is better to presume innocence, IMHO. It is what I would want for me if I were in that situation.There was some info coming out of the Sheriffs office from the officers on site that provided a little more context as to why they felt they had due cause for an arrest. I'm sure they would initially try to avoid arresting him as a courtesy... unless... they felt there was overwhelming cause and couldn't justify turning that much of a blind eye, but yeah....
The facts are obviously being obscured and not much available to the general public. The way the DEA stepped all over their jurisdiction could also be ample cause to assume it's been simply another case of them protecting their own... the law be damned.
We really don't and likely won't ever know the truth.
Personally though, I have to wonder why a man known to have mental issues, only posed a minor threat to a well trained officer, and was admittedly leaving the area at one point, would warrant lethal force. Simply discouraging the man with a warning shot or disabling him with a leg or shoulder shot is likely to have been effective, and would have allowed the opportunity for mental health assessment/treatment, vs. just dusting the guy(?)
I don't believe a trained officer with a rifle was "in fear of imminent death" to warrant summary lethal force. What IS believable.... a hot head used to being in a position of power was sick and tired of having to deal with the mentally deficient and intrusive man, saw an opportunity to terminate the situation permanently, possibly even prodding the incident a bit to "fit", and now hiding behind the letter of the law.
IOW, his true intent and reason for use of lethal force doesn't "appear" to be in line with the intent of the law protections afforded for a person to legally "defend" themselves... IMHO.
Fortunately, my personal opinion weighs for nothing with any regard to innocence or guilt. It's simply an observation for conversations sake, but worthless in the whole scheme of whatever situation exists and presented for public consumption in the brief media reports.Without knowing all the relevant facts, or as many of the facts as possible, it is better to presume innocence, IMHO. It is what I would want for me if I were in that situation.
Being under the influence of an intoxicant does not warrant a death sentence, any more than it excuses behavior.The fact that the dead guy had meth on board removes ambiguity for ME. In this circumstance.
ABSOLUTELY!Being under the influence of an intoxicant does not warrant a death sentence, any more than it excuses behavior.
Sounds like the good ole boys club worked.In Mississippi, a trespasser, a killing and DEA meddling
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Agent Harold Duane Poole was waiting with his semiautomatic service rifle — and an explanation — when deputies arrived at his sprawling wooded property on a warm spring night last year and found a bullet-riddled body near the driveway. A veteran of the DEA’s...news.yahoo.com
Drug use is considered as a "Graham Factor" where knowledge of past drug use and current intoxication could be considered as part of the totality of circumstances….The fact that the dead guy had meth on board removes ambiguity for ME. In this circumstance.
But it does check a box. Graham v. Connor established objective reasonableness standards and intoxication is usually considered an officer safety risk.Being under the influence of an intoxicant does not warrant a death sentence, any more than it excuses behavior.
Drug use is considered as a "Graham Factor" where knowledge of past drug use and current intoxication could be considered as part of the totality of circumstances….
Pretty sure that a large majority of members here are not familiar with Graham v. Connor, nor even Tennessee v. Garner... not do they care. Pena v. Leombruni would be a stretch (as would Elliot v. Leavitt)But it does check a box. Graham v. Connor established objective reasonableness standards and intoxication is usually considered an officer safety risk.