shooting down the road from me at the west medford albertsons

[slimmer13]

We simply know (based on second hand witness info and US Marshall info, he did not turn off his car and surrender.
It is my perspective that what transpired after that is a result of his decision.

LEO's have the same rule as we do. You cannot use deadly force on someone simply trying to flee, but if can be proved that the deceased was using the vehicle as a weapon then good shooting marshall.

 

[cotillion]

Up date, Coroners report, Homicide. So out of 38 shots fired, they got 18 confirmed hits to the deceased. 2 were fatal, one to the face,and one in the chest-heart. I keep trying to put myself behind the drivers seat where my grandson was and I'm convinced the Lord protected those two boys in the back. I heard that the video didn't capture the event. Not sure yet. Also heard that one witness is pissed because one round missed his baby in a car seat by a mere 2" in the car. We will be seeing more and more as it unfolds. If you people don't want me posting here just say so. I know it's not your battle. But thanks to all for the support. If any of you believe in God, we accept all Prayers. Terry

Wow was there really 38 shots fired? I showed up to the albertsons gas station shortly after it happened and the attendant said there were MANY shots fired, I didn't think it'd be that many. Makes me wonder how anyone can even question what really happened here with that many shots fired. The wife and I have had several heated debates over this incident the past few days and I know there are people out there defending the marshals actions, and people with the "don't be a criminal then" attitude, but a life is a life. I'm 29 and my wife is 28 and the only thing that separates us from the victim when we were 20 was he got caught. Unfortunately now he doesn't have the chance I had to turn my life around because some cops made the choice to attempt an arrest in a grocery store parking lot during prime shopping time and then unloaded on him for trying to get away. Justify it however you want, but unless you've lived a life like his or dealt with drug addiction then you really can't understand what the kid was thinking.

To the victims family, I'm so sorry you're having to go through this. Please let all the wish wash you read on the internet roll off your shoulders. It's become all to easy to judge these days.

 

[cotillion]

LEO's have the same rule as we do. You cannot use deadly force on someone simply trying to flee, but if can be proved that the deceased was using the vehicle as a weapon then good shooting marshall.

Good shooting? You know his family reads this right? That would be like your mom getting run over and me giving the driver a high five. Have some respect you puke of a human being

 

[slimmer13]

Im sorry but if the shooting was justified and in defending himself the Marshall was able to eliminate the threat without injuring anyone else then yep.

 

[slimmer13]

And If the shooting was unjustified and unwarranted then the marshall should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Thats the way it is, like it or not.

 

[oa98pistol512]

So this kid was arrested in the first place and beaten with no warant???? No wonder he ran...does anyone with a concealed weapon license feel they would be justified by shooting assialant 30 some times??? If you have to reload on a dead person their is something truly wrong with you. my two cents

 

[Gunner3456]

You can call it what you like I guess but the intent of a forum like this is the exchange of ideas (opinions etc....)
There are clearly going to be two sides to this. If you believe my perspective is not legitimate then you seem to have made up your mind without having been there either.
We simply know (based on second hand witness info and US Marshall info, he did not turn off his car and surrender.
It is my perspective that what transpired after that is a result of his decision.
Like I have said before, if any evidence comes to light that shows otherwise I will be all too glad to modify my comments. I have no dog in this fight.

I agree this is a forum for exchanging ideas and I also have mine. My idea is that all we have right now is hearsay, so I don't know what happened. I don't even know that he refused to turn his car off. I know only that someone who wasn't there to see it said so.

In order to be a witness to anything, you have to see, feel, touch, smell or taste it yourself. Now you're a witness. If all you have is a report from me that I tasted it and what I thought it tasted like, your information is "hear (what I) say." Hearsay. Your testimony is inadmissible because you didn't personally taste it.

If there is a court case, all of the true witnesses who were there, and verifiable documents will be admitted as evidence. Then the jury will deliberate to try to decide what the facts (truth) are.

I want a lawsuit, to see if a jury agrees that the shooting was justified after they hear and see all of the true admissible evidence. A jury weighs the evidence and decides if someone should have died, and if others should have been traumatized.

Maybe they will find it all justified.

 

[Gunner3456]

...does anyone with a concealed weapon license feel they would be justified by shooting assialant 30 some times???...

If he was trying to run away and I shot him I'd go to jail. But then I'm not a cop with an arrest warrant.

Hey we haven't seen all of the evidence, and we don't know what happened.

 

[auditrevor]

couldn't agree more gunner3456

 

[mambo]

...We simply know (based on second hand witness info and US Marshall info, he did not turn off his car and surrender.
It is my perspective that what transpired after that is a result of his decision...

I have concerns with the degree of LE response. I will not participate in a rush to judgement as there are many facts still unknown. Did the Feds ID themselves? Why attempt to apprehend AFTER Georgeson entered (or did not exit) a vehicle. Local LE were not aware of the attempt to arrest, as the Feds are not required to inform them.There are number of unknowns.
From what I have read and heard, Georgeson was attempting to drive away (escape). Attempting to flee while armed (with a vehicle) is pretty much all the justification LE requires. Unfortunately, that resulted in those with Georgeson and bystanders being subjected to a dangerous, traumatic event that could have been avoided. It also could have been much worse.
My hopes and prayers are with everyone involved, on both sides of the gun. It is not a good thing.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

I agree this is a forum for exchanging ideas and I also have mine. My idea is that all we have right now is hearsay, so I don't know what happened. I don't even know that he refused to turn his car off. I know only that someone who wasn't there to see it said so.

In order to be a witness to anything, you have to see, feel, touch, smell or taste it yourself. Now you're a witness. If all you have is a report from me that I tasted it and what I thought it tasted like, your information is "hear (what I) say." Hearsay. Your testimony is inadmissible because you didn't personally taste it.

If there is a court case, all of the true witnesses who were there, and verifiable documents will be admitted as evidence. Then the jury will deliberate to try to decide what the facts (truth) are.

I want a lawsuit, to see if a jury agrees that the shooting was justified after they hear and see all of the true admissible evidence. A jury weighs the evidence and decides if someone should have died, and if others should have been traumatized.

Maybe they will find it all justified.

Well you will more than likely get your wish.
My money is on no indictment but I would be pretty surprised if there was no civil suit.

 

[Gunner3456]

Well you will more than likely get your wish.
My money is on no indictment but I would be pretty surprised if there was no civil suit.

That's my guess too.

 

[mambo]

Well you will more than likely get your wish.
My money is on no indictment but I would be pretty surprised if there was no civil suit.

I agree. What particularly chaps me is that if the Feds lose, it is OUR money that gets paid out.

 

[kev1]

I am sure with all the bystanders it should come out if he ran or not. If he did not try to run til he was shot at us tax payers will pay for sure. If he just ran to get away, what did he expect. What do we expect, should he just be let go. If he runs some kids over or t-bones a car at the light is that leos fault? I feel bad for the family they are victims. I am not sure it is leos fault yet.

 

[d2the3]

As of right now I'm not on either side. I have not read/heard enough on the matter to pick one. But the fact that "38" shots we're fired at the "perp" and no bystanders were physically injured in the altercation is either amazing training and control or an absolute miracle! However this mess turns out our hearts go out to all affected.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

LEO's have the same rule as we do. You cannot use deadly force on someone simply trying to flee, but if can be proved that the deceased was using the vehicle as a weapon then good shooting marshall.

I believe you are mostly correct but based on specific circumstances LEO may use deadly force if he believes the fleein suspect is likely to be an immediate danger to the community.
Hopefully someone here can clarify this.

 

[WhyteCheddar]

As of right now I'm not on either side. I have not read/heard enough on the matter to pick one. But the fact that "38" shots we're fired at the "perp" and no bystanders were physically injured in the altercation is either amazing training and control or an absolute miracle! However this mess turns out our hearts go out to all affected.

Based on the bit that I understand about this I still think that this was a good shoot, I have to wonder why they chose such a populated spot to take him down in. Crowded supermarket?
If he was under surveilance why couldnt they follow him and stop him out on the street in a slightly less congested location? Would it be the fear of a potential chase? I suppose that would put others at risk too.
They had to assume that since he had a history of getting physical with Marshalls that apprehending him might get interesting.
Stopping him somewhere else might not of changed the ultimate outcome but had the possibility fewer citizens at risk.

 

[evltwn]

Amid all the "ifs", "what ifs", and prejudgements, surely we can recognize that a young man lost his life, and that under whatever set of circumstances we could call that a tragedy. My heart goes out to the grieving family, I praise God that no innocent bystanders were hurt. I am not interested in speculating, or deciding who did what. Others will be more than willing to take that role. Its difficult for me to understand God's plans at times, and this is certainly one of those.

The investigation hopefully will establish the body of facts here, which will mean little or nothing to those that grieve. My condolences...

 

[mkwerx]

You have to scroll down, but there's an article on mentalhealthportland about this incident. It details a lot more about "Jimmy's" history than the other articles I've seen on it do.

Mental Health Association of Portland

This "kid" wasn't a one time offender, and it seems that his conviction for assaulting the Marshal wasn't trumped up, as a family member claimed. He had a record of theft, burglary, assault, drug possession, and assault on a police officer by the time he was 18. How he got nailed with the federal charge? Seems he was high on E hiding in another fugitive's bathroom when Marshals were conducting a search warrant. He fled from that residence into another apartment - and when they caught up with him, he tried tackling one of the Marshals from behind (perhaps with thoughts of grabbing his gun? who knows). He was tased and taken into custody. Court records showed that he had ecstasy, cocaine, and meth in his system when he was arrested.

He was far from an innocent kid - he was a multiple time felon - and it's not hard to believe at all after learning this - that this "kid" tried running down the police in order to avoid being taken back into custody. Won't be surprised if this kid had drugs in his system - he walked out of court ordered inpatient drug treatment that was a condition of his probation = hence the warrant for his arrest.

He was a turd, and he used his car as a weapon, and got himself killed and put his friends in jeopardy. I'm sorry the family has to go through this - but what sympathy I had for the dead felon is gone. This incident is just like every other incident where a multi-time looser gets shot by the police - the family will seen money and try to paint the rosiest picture of the deceased as possible.

 

[PaulZ]

You have to scroll down, but there's an article on mentalhealthportland about this incident. It details a lot more about "Jimmy's" history than the other articles I've seen on it do.

Mental Health Association of Portland

He was far from an innocent kid - he was a multiple time felon - and it's not hard to believe at all after learning this - that this "kid" tried running down the police in order to avoid being taken back into custody. Won't be surprised if this kid had drugs in his system - he walked out of court ordered inpatient drug treatment that was a condition of his probation = hence the warrant for his arrest.

He was a turd, and he used his car as a weapon, and got himself killed and put his friends in jeopardy. I'm sorry the family has to go through this - but what sympathy I had for the dead felon is gone. This incident is just like every other incident where a multi-time looser gets shot by the police - the family will seen money and try to paint the rosiest picture of the deceased as possible.

Great Post! We could save the trouble of jury trials and judges and the whole works by just having internet trials!
In your inestimable wisdom; you have branded a mentally ill drug user as a "turd" unworthy of our consideration.
The family ain't "seen" money, or they would have been able to buy treatment for the kid.
There but for the grace of god goes Myself and many others on this forum.