In your second story, the victim did not have an injured arm, and it is unknown why he was approaching the officers, but he was in the habit of carrying a towel to wipe away sweat when he went for walks.
GEEBUZ. Things were very different when I was going to law school. Self defense was an affirmative defense in the majority of states (I believe it was the case with the overwhelming majority of states).
I don’t know that a jury will see things exactly as you do but I am surprised at where the law has gone since I was in law school. I remember having the distinct impression that things were heading in the other direction but then again, crime was at an all time high and there were vigilantes riding the subway.
And can you admit that there is a disparity in how cops treat white dudes and how cops treat black dudes?
Frankly, cops are more prone to crime across the board when compared to teh average concealed carry permit holder.
I am pretty sure that most of what we are arguing about can be settled with button cameras.
He shot through the window of a car containing his ex wife who may have been still alive. That is a direction other than himself. BTW, shooting doesn’t always mean killing.
So you are under the impression that the Cops in Neptune are familiar with the cop in Asbury Park? That this was a matter of professional courtesy?
Racism is probably not the sole cause but you’d be foolish to think it wasn’t relevant.
No. I was referring to posts on here where you and Steophan said it was fine for a guy to load a gun in a supermarket, and the police shouldn’t have done anything even if they had been there, while in other posts you’d also backed the police shooting a guy whose only weapon was a towel. It is common to compare different posts - it doesn’t mean you’re claiming that all the points being compared were in the same post. And at no point did I say the police were on the scene while the gun loader was in the store.
Talk about misrepresentation.
Speaking of misrepresentation, there’s a huge gulf between “fine” and “not illegal, nor imminently threatening someone”. It may be that panic rooms and evacuation was a reasonable response to his legal, not imminently threatening actions, but that’s not really a relevant discussion for this thread.
Lets make something clear. Had someone shot the Walmart gun loader, then it would need to be proven that they weren’t in imminent danger, which under the circumstances would probably be impossible, so I’d be defending them. However, they didn’t, and it’s the gun loader that’s being accused of wrongdoing - again, without proof, so he’s the one that gets defended.
As for towel guy, there’s not enough information out there to make a judgement yet, and I don’t think I’ve commented on it. But I will now. Unless and until you can prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the cop who shot him could not have reasonably feared imminent death or serious injury, he is innocent of any crime. If someone wants to provide that proof, go ahead.
You have claimed to show, statistically, that young black men are to be feared. So a cop who shoots a young black man and claims he was afraid would be automatically innocent, right?
Steophan, again :
A. Shoot a white guy loading a gun in a store: you have to prove you were in imminent danger.
B. Shoot a black guy with a towel: you have to assert you were in fear.
Well shit.
Hentor, why give Steophan any room here by misrepresenting his argument? His assertions are actually:
A. Shoot the Walmart shotgun brandisher and prosecutors would have to prove you weren’t reasonably fearful of imminent danger.
B. Shoot the towel holder and prosecutors would have to prove you weren’t reasonably fearful of imminent danger.
Yes, I paraphrased, but so did you. On the other hand, my phrasing better reflects Steophan’s consistent position in regards to self defense. Of course, he’s also said that the civilians in Walmart had no reasonable fear (because “freedom!” or something) and would’ve been wrong to shoot the shotgun guy.
But he’ll [very consistently] defend their right to be murderously wrong.
The problem with this position isn’t that he’s applying an explicitly different standard between black/white victims or between LEO’s/civilians. I don’t see that this is the case. There are actually some more critical problems with the standard itself and with the application of that standard.
-
Steophan (and Smapti, doorhinge et al) is assuming a fear is “reasonable” by default. In reality, even in those states where self defense is not an affirmative defense, there are still strict criteria by which such a plea can be impeached, and the “reasonability” of the fear can be -and has been- frequently and successfully rebutted by prosecutors. You don’t typically see those cases because they typically end up as a plea-bargained “guilty” plea. Because “I was in fear” doesn’t cut it for civilians without other extenuating circumstances, all of which are also impeachable.
-
Where fear is found to be reasonable by juries, or assumed to be reasonable by prosecutors who choose not to charge the shooter, the race and appearance of the victim may indeed (and statistics strongly suggest that it is) a factor in the deciding parties’ perspectives of the shooting. This is where the disparity comes in; it’s disparate impact, which is probably why our erstwhile conservatives can’t see it. That sort of idea is invisible and untouchable, covered as it is in liberal cooties.
-
The idea of a strictly protected right to self defense based on "fear’ is not reconcilable with the idea of a strictly protected right to “open carry” of lethal weaponry, and neither of these is compatible with using the same standard of “reasonability” for LEO’s as is used for civilians. Such a system could not be better designed to encourage widespread use of deadly force by law enforcement.
(post shortened, underline added)
In which state(s) is self-defense not an affirmative defense?
I do not consider the mere claim of self-defense, or imminent danger, to be an automatic get-out-of-jail-free card. That’s why we have grand, and petite, juries.
As to the open-carry incident at the Walmart, the Police Chief could be called to testify that he had repeatedly said no one had been threatened. No one who was present in the Walmart has publically come forward to say they were in imminent danger. I assume the shotgun-toter will testify that he had never threatened anyone.
I assume the internet’s opinion will not be called to testify in this case.
Both Walmarts in Gulfport, MS are gun stores. As well as electronics stores, cleaning supply stores, fishing supply stores, shoe stores, clothing stores, etc.
Do you consider your describing Walmart as a “supermarket” to be a deliberate misrepresentation, or was it just a convenient sound bite to distract from the fact that this Walmart sells shotguns and ammunition?
To be fair:
“According to police they received multiple calls about the men who had possibly done the same thing at a local Winn-Dixie, forcing police to divert officers to the Walmart to form a perimeter as the SWAT entered and searched the store. By the time police had arrived, the two men had left.”
(post shortened)
Did you hear this alleged factoid from MSNBC?
Also there seem to be more than one Wal-Mart in Gulfport which is a Neighbrhood Market–supermarket.
One of which is near a Winn-Dixie
To be fair, does that media report make sense to you? Multiple calls about open-carry at the Winn-Dixie forcing police to divert officers to the Walmart. Really? Was the light better at the Walmart? Is the reporter suggesting that the police were trying to avoid the shotgun toter? There’s little wonder that the men had left by the time police arrived at the wrong store. Or did the “reporter” simply screw up the story reporting?
I only have access to the same sources as you.
Apparently, the pair did the same schtick at Krispy Kreme.
and they’re facing charges
http://www.sunherald.com/2015/06/26/6295868_men-who-carried-rifle-into-wal.html?rh=1
According to the link posted by Steophan in post 4637, every state except Ohio.
Right, because MSNBC is a staunch defender of concealed carry rights.:rolleyes:
This statistic came up in the whole gun control debate when the gun control folks tried to paint people who carry guns as dangerous nutjobs and insisted that only cops should have guns.