Is defending yourself really that bad?

[canadyjd]

Oopsie! AJC Video Appears to Show Ahmaud Arbery Entering Home on McMichael's Street, Running Out After He's Spotted By Neighbor

Notice the phrase “appears to show” and the assumption he ran out after being spotted by a neighbor. Where’s the neighbor?

Even if true, and the evidence is not convincing since you have a distant security video of a dark skinned man in a white t-shirt, you have a trespassing complaint at best.

You then have several minutes (6 minutes) pass and a man fitting the general description is seen some blocks away jogging on a sidewalk.

It is not reasonable to confront the man brandishing a shotgun in these circumstances.

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

Notice the phrase “appears to show” and the assumption he ran out after being spotted by a neighbor. Where’s the neighbor?

Even if true, and the evidence is not convincing since you have a distant security video of a dark skinned man in a white t-shirt, you have a trespassing complaint at best.

You then have several minutes (6 minutes) pass and a man fitting the general description is seen some blocks away jogging on a sidewalk.

It is not reasonable to confront the man brandishing a shotgun in these circumstances.

peace to you

The problem is, you dont know the circumstances. You know what the media has reported. The D.A.(who has the evidence) not wanting to prosecute and having it scheduled for Grand Jury tells me all I need to know. Flip flop Kemp jumped in because he was scared of riots.

 

[Reynolds]

Are you saying you had no idea that the word “neutralize” can be used in military and paramilitary type situations to mean kill or destroy?

peace to you

You act like I am a killer just wanting to gun down people. In my career, I charged 11 people with Aggravated Assault on a peace officer, which I was the victim. That means I could have clear cut, justifiably shot 11 people. How many did I shoot? ZERO. I understood and still understand use of force.
You make a point they shot 3 times. That has to be looked at by a jury in real time. No slow motion. No frame by frame. Real time. In real time, it looks appropriate to have shot 3 times.

 

[canadyjd]

I would suggest that a lawyer planning such a tactic be very sure she can make the definition stick. If another is the applicable one, a jury is unlikely to be positively impressed by the obvious attempt to twist the truth, or the incompetent ignorance of the lawyer, depending.

Jurors bring their experiences into the court. How many have heard the word “neutralize” to mean “kill”? No twisting is necessary, just reinforcing what they already believe.

If they have never heard a phrase like, “use the amount of force necessary to stop the threat”, they are processing something new that seems (hopefully) well thought out and reasonable.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

The problem is, you dont know the circumstances. You know what the media has reported. The D.A.(who has the evidence) not wanting to prosecute and having it scheduled for Grand Jury tells me all I need to know. Flip flop Kemp jumped in because he was scared of riots.

The DA knew the father and/or son. That is automatic recusal, no need to wait 2 1/2 months. Call attorney general and request a prosecutor to look at it.

I find your derogatory comments about the motives of the Attorney General to be unfounded. Why not assume the best, they he is searching for truth and he has looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

......
You make a point they shot 3 times. That has to be looked at by a jury in real time. No slow motion. No frame by frame. Real time. In real time, it looks appropriate to have shot 3 times.

If the three shots looked appropriate, you must have seen the entire video. Do you have the link where all three shots are shown? I can’t find it. It seems to stop just prior.

please share the link to the entire video.

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

The DA knew the father and/or son. That is automatic recusal, no need to wait 2 1/2 months. Call attorney general and request a prosecutor to look at it.

I find your derogatory comments about the motives of the Attorney General to be unfounded. Why not assume the best, they he is searching for truth and he has looked at the evidence and came to a different conclusion.

peace to you

My comments are about the Governor. I know him. No question in my mind.
Everyone knows half the people in small town. By your standard, DA would have to recuse himself from half the cases and the judges would too.

 

[canadyjd]

You act like I am a killer just wanting to gun down people. In my career, I charged 11 people with Aggravated Assault on a peace officer, which I was the victim. That means I could have clear cut, justifiably shot 11 people. How many did I shoot? ZERO. I understood and still understand use of force.....

You have had an interesting career.

Just to be technical, unless you are a prosecutor, you haven’t charged anybody with anything. You may have arrested 11 people for alleged aggravated assault on a police officer (yourself), and took/given statements to a prosecutor to review, the prosecutor brings the charges.

I also find your statement that an allegation of aggravated assault on a police officer automatically equals a “clear cut, justifiable shooting.” Circumstances always dictate what is justifiable.

But you...even more amazing.... eleven times someone tried to kill you as a police officer just doing his duty and not once were you forced to shoot someone, not even once, and a SWAT member at that.

You had a very interesting career.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

My comments are about the Governor. I know him. No question in my mind.
Everyone knows half the people in small town. By your standard, DA would have to recuse himself from half the cases and the judges would too.

Only the cases were an unarmed black man is shot the middle day by a shotgun wielding son of a former police officer, while the father stands with a weapon in the back of a truck.

please provide the link where the entire video is shown, including the three shots from which you concluded the three shots were justifiable.

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

You have had an interesting career.

Just to be technical, unless you are a prosecutor, you haven’t charged anybody with anything. You may have arrested 11 people for alleged aggravated assault on a police officer (yourself), and took/given statements to a prosecutor to review, the prosecutor brings the charges.

I also find your statement that an allegation of aggravated assault on a police officer automatically equals a “clear cut, justifiable shooting.” Circumstances always dictate what is justifiable.

But you...even more amazing.... eleven times someone tried to kill you as a police officer just doing his duty and not once were you forced to shoot someone, not even once, and a SWAT member at that.

You had a very interesting career.

peace to you

Your ignorance of the law is what is amazing. The officer brings the charges. He is listed on the warrant as the affiant in one section and as the prosecutor in another. The warrant is signed by a judge and then goes to the prosecuting attorney.
Work Narcotics, Vice, and Swat and you will see how many times you are assaulted. Of course 4 of those happened when I was on the road. Domestic violence calls.

Aggeavated assault on a police officer does not in every case mean someone tried to kill you. It also can mean they put you at risk of great bodily harm. It is justification to use deadly force. You can not meet the elements of Ag assault on a peace officer without meeting the elements of deadly force justification.

 

[xlsdraw]

s
not trying to stop you at all - feel free to continue
But It is interesting to be aware of the background of folks who have interesting opinions

Sounds more like a lawyer or a lawyer wanna be to me. Regardless, nothing escapes the justice of our Lord.

 

[just-want-peace]

Sounds more like a lawyer or a lawyer wanna be to me. Regardless, nothing escapes the justice of our Lord.

I have noticed that he is VERY adamant & detailed re: his opinionated replies, assumptions, & conclusions.
‘Pears to be more “ego”, than reasoned differences!!!

JMHO!!!!

 

[canadyjd]

Your ignorance of the law is what is amazing. The officer brings the charges. He is listed on the warrant as the affiant in one section and as the prosecutor in another. The warrant is signed by a judge and then goes to the prosecuting attorney.
Work Narcotics, Vice, and Swat and you will see how many times you are assaulted. Of course 4 of those happened when I was on the road. Domestic violence calls.

Aggeavated assault on a police officer does not in every case mean someone tried to kill you. It also can mean they put you at risk of great bodily harm. It is justification to use deadly force. You can not meet the elements of Ag assault on a peace officer without meeting the elements of deadly force justification.

Please provide the link where you saw the entire video, including all three shotgun blasts and was able to conclude, after seeing the entire video, that the shooting was justified.

Thank you

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Sounds more like a lawyer or a lawyer wanna be to me. Regardless, nothing escapes the justice of our Lord.

Agreed....nothing and no one will escape the justice of God.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Just reported on Fox News that the man was shot prior to rushing the son with the shotgun, apparently while he was running down the street.

Plus, the DA from a neighboring county put false information into the file to influence the new DA who was deciding whether to bring charges.

It looks worse and worse for the father/son and for the DA’s office.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

.......You can not meet the elements of Ag assault on a peace officer without meeting the elements of deadly force justification.

hummmmm....
A police officer is walking down the street when a drunken man blindsides him by striking him in the head with a beer bottle. The drunken man immediately falls to the ground passed out, unconscious.

The police officer draws his weapon. Is he justified in using deadly force?

He is the victim of aggravated assault, but is not justified in using deadly force.

The circumstances always decide what is justified.

Please provide the link to the video in which you saw the entire incident, including shots fired, and was therefore able to judge the shooting justified.

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

hummmmm....
A police officer is walking down the street when a drunken man blindsides him by striking him in the head with a beer bottle. The drunken man immediately falls to the ground passed out, unconscious.

The police officer draws his weapon. Is he justified in using deadly force?

He is the victim of aggravated assault, but is not justified in using deadly force.

The circumstances always decide what is justified.

Please provide the link to the video in which you saw the entire incident, including shots fired, and was therefore able to judge the shooting justified.

peace to you

Were the elements met at a point in time during the assault? Yes.

 

[canadyjd]

Were the elements met at a point in time during the assault? Yes.

You are correct.

Please provide the link where you saw the entire incident, including all three shots, and was able to conclude the shooting was justified.

I would also like your comment about the Fox News report that the man was shot prior to the altercation the son with the shotgun. If he were shot while running down the street, was that justified?

Also, that the DA from a neighboring county put false information into the file to influence the new DA reviewing the file? Is the DA’s actions still all that you need to know?

Are you still so certain this was justified?

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

hummmmm....
A police officer is walking down the street when a drunken man blindsides him by striking him in the head with a beer bottle. The drunken man immediately falls to the ground passed out, unconscious.

The police officer draws his weapon. Is he justified in using deadly force?

He is the victim of aggravated assault, but is not justified in using deadly force.

The circumstances always decide what is justified.

Please provide the link to the video in which you saw the entire incident, including shots fired, and was therefore able to judge the shooting justified.

peace to you

Did I say all the shots were justified? No.
I said I didnt see any shots that were not justified.

 

[Reynolds]

You are correct.

Please provide the link where you saw the entire incident, including all three shots, and was able to conclude the shooting was justified.

I would also like your comment about the Fox News report that the man was shot prior to the altercation the son with the shotgun. If he were shot while running down the street, was that justified?

Also, that the DA from a neighboring county put false information into the file to influence the new DA reviewing the file? Is the DA’s actions still all that you need to know?

Are you still so certain this was justified?

peace to you

I think it should be handled normally. The Governor should have stayed out of it and let Grand Jury handle it. We dont have all the evidence. I trust the DA who was handling it and the Grand Jury who would have heard it. I dont know if the shooting is justified or not. What I know is that it was not simply an innocent black jogger murdered by two white men for no reason. The case is not racial at all. The race pimps are blowing it up.