JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
26,684
Reactions
62,689

Another of the nut cases that voters decided they want to allow to roam free. Attacks people and gets shot. Local Police of course are angry that prosecutors are not going after the victims. 🤬
 
I'm pretty sure attorneys are all professionally required to make arguments in good faith... Of course, not all do, but one would expect the chief of police to want them to fulfill that professional obligation.

Consequently, what the hell does he actually think will come of a grand jury? The jurors will be told that 10 experienced prosecutors independently concluded that self-defense could not be disproven. I wish I could say it's astonishing smdh.
 
I grew up in Renton, they have always been not running on all cylinders.
They changed the name of our high school, because it offended someone.
Then the lied about how the school got its name.
 
My personal creed:

Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
Psalm 82

Sometimes their business becomes yours when you are a soldier for God.
Sometimes living around where they let the kooks roam free you are minding your own and one of them attacks you. This is what happened here. There are a lot of these kooks running around who will just randomly attack. Every time one of them gets dropped it soon comes out they had a LONG history of this yet they still want to hang the victim. 🤬
 
Article says cops are continuing to try to pin the misdemeanor charges on them. I wonder what those are for? If it's justifiable self defense it would have to be something unrelated to that I would think.
 
Article says cops are continuing to try to pin the misdemeanor charges on them. I wonder what those are for?
Several of the comments to the video mention the shooters were underage, and one saying 'So what about them having weapons illegally? 18 and 20 years old' , and another mentioned ' then they left instead of calling the cops.'

If all this is in fact true It might have a bearing on this, and maybe why there was essentially no mention of any info about the shooters.
 
Based on that article alone, my guess is the Renton police "leaders" are injecting political bias against the shooters. Renton is a suburb of Seattle, if "ten senior prosecutors reviewed videos of the shooting and all independently agreed there was not enough to disprove a self-defense claim" in a highly liberal area all agree it was self defense my guess is the Renton police "leaders" don't know the law.

 
From a Fox 13 clip:

'In the meantime the plan is to send the case to municipal court for charges unlawful possession of a weapon because the men who had the guns were underage'

My thinking is it's not so much the Renton police 'leaders' not knowing the law but having to deal with this aspect of it and were initially trying to keep it on the QT.

If this is a highly 'liberal' area word of underage people illegally carrying will only fan the flames.
 
From a Fox 13 clip:

'In the meantime the plan is to send the case to municipal court for charges unlawful possession of a weapon because the men who had the guns were underage'

My thinking is it's not so much the Renton police 'leaders' not knowing the law but having to deal with this aspect of it and were initially trying trying to keep it on the QT.

If this is a highly 'liberal' area word of underage people illegally carrying will only fan the flames.
That's interesting, and different from the komonews article which states "The decision outraged Renton police leaders, who say the shooting was not justified."

Legal firearm possession is an entirely different subject and certainly if they illegally possessed the guns then they can be charged with that crime but that does not unjustify the lawful use of force.
 
but that does not unjustify the lawful use of force.
This is correct but if the weapons they were using for their 'lawful use of force' were in fact illegal for them to be carrying it could negate this.

Being a highly liberal area It's easy to see how the 'police leaders' could use this to their advantage, and I suspect that is why the Chief was so adamant about his lack of justification position.
 
This is correct but if the weapons they were using for their 'lawful use of force' were in fact illegal for them to be carrying it could negate this.
I don't see how unless it was written in the states law. I read somewhere on this that breaking one law doesnt invalidate lawful self defense unless written in state law, a little obscure trivia if I recall there is only one state that has such a law but cant recall.

Not that a prosecutor wouldn't try but in this story 10 prosecutors agree this was lawful self defense. I still suspect the police "leader" doesn't know the law hes trying to enforce but I don't see why he couldn't charge them with illegal possession.
 
I'm pretty sure attorneys are all professionally required to make arguments in good faith... Of course, not all do, but one would expect the chief of police to want them to fulfill that professional obligation.

Consequently, what the hell does he actually think will come of a grand jury? The jurors will be told that 10 experienced prosecutors independently concluded that self-defense could not be disproven. I wish I could say it's astonishing smdh.
Grand Jury ?...LOL . is this the Secret Court where State prosecutors can shop the case infront of as many number times they wish till get the results they want to achieve.
 

Another of the nut cases that voters decided they want to allow to roam free. Attacks people and gets shot. Local Police of course are angry that prosecutors are not going after the victims. 🤬
According to the news article, ". . . ten senior prosecutors reviewed videos of the shooting and all independently agreed there was not enough to disprove a self-defense claim." That right there might seem like a good thing, a DA office trying really hard to do its job according to law. OTOH, it's hard to believe they routinely have TEN senior prosecutors reviewing videos instead of just telling one to go run with it. To me, it seems more like the DA was "prosecutor shopping" in hopes of finding one of 'em who thinks there's enough evidence to overcome a self defense argument in court.

As for taking it to a Grand Jury, that'd be totally one-sided because the prosecutor has total license to decide what witnesses are called, and what evidence gets presented. Even with that game weighted in their favor, it seems they hold no cards.
 
According to the news article, ". . . ten senior prosecutors reviewed videos of the shooting and all independently agreed there was not enough to disprove a self-defense claim." That right there might seem like a good thing, a DA office trying really hard to do its job according to law. OTOH, it's hard to believe they routinely have TEN senior prosecutors reviewing videos instead of just telling one to go run with it. To me, it seems more like the DA was "prosecutor shopping" in hopes of finding one of 'em who thinks there's enough evidence to overcome a self defense argument in court.

As for taking it to a Grand Jury, that'd be totally one-sided because the prosecutor has total license to decide what witnesses are called, and what evidence gets presented. Even with that game weighted in their favor, it seems they hold no cards.
$10 says the shooters were not of a certain demographic and is the reason why no prosecutor wants to touch the case.
 
According to the news article, ". . . ten senior prosecutors reviewed videos of the shooting and all independently agreed there was not enough to disprove a self-defense claim." That right there might seem like a good thing, a DA office trying really hard to do its job according to law. OTOH, it's hard to believe they routinely have TEN senior prosecutors reviewing videos instead of just telling one to go run with it. To me, it seems more like the DA was "prosecutor shopping" in hopes of finding one of 'em who thinks there's enough evidence to overcome a self defense argument in court.

As for taking it to a Grand Jury, that'd be totally one-sided because the prosecutor has total license to decide what witnesses are called, and what evidence gets presented. Even with that game weighted in their favor, it seems they hold no cards.
Pretty sure grand jury is required by the 5th Amendment before actually indicting the dudes 🤔
 

Upcoming Events

Back Top