Baton Rouge Shooting

[Maverick44]

Obviously you don't know me that well. LOL My take is we put down every one of those habitual thugs end of story. When this Country was ran by hard thinking and valued folks there were less of his type running around. The weakening of this Country was due to bleeding hearts as I've stated and look at how out of control it is now....

Ignoring the law isn't going to change that, it's only going to make things worse. I don't like thugs either, and frankly I think that anyone who's in a violent gang should be at the very least put in prison for life. That doesn't mean that I think cops should go out and look for excuses to shoot them. That's not justifiable, it makes good cops look bad, and not only are those officers going to be in legal trouble, it's just going to create more excuses for BLM terrorists to attack our cities.

 

[FunnyFarm]

If he's not actively trying to harm someone

This is where I suspect you are losing most folks. You seem to have taken the stance that Sterling was passively resisting and not trying to arm himself. When asked why your response is that's what witness's said. I believe you speaking of Abdullah Muflahi who claimed that Sterling was not trying to access a gun. The problem I have with this is that Muflahi was also filming at the time and from his angle his camera was unable to see Sterling's right arm so I don't believe he could see Sterling's right side either.

Again as I pointed out earlier it was obvious that Sterling's right side was obscured by the car and the officer. I think you're giving too much credit to a witness that said he saw something (or lack of) when his camera appears to show he was unable to actually see what was going on. Frankly I call BS on his claim.

On the other hand you have a witness (the officer on Sterling's right) who was in direct contact with his right arm and made an excited utterance that was documented on camera. Yet you seem to give a lot of credence to something that I think the camera disproves.

 

[texas skeeter]

Our Country is becoming jaded and conditioned to be PC soft and compassionate on crooks, rapists and murders. That's WHY we have lost this country! End of story.....


Add- And I agree with you Mav, Cops shouldn't just go out and shoot without warrant. It should be a Tactical Thug squad formed to clean up society!! LOL!!

 

[Maverick44]

This is where I suspect you are losing most folks. You seem to have taken the stance that Sterling was passively resisting and not trying to arm himself. When asked why your response is that's what witness's said. I believe you speaking of Abdullah Muflahi who claimed that Sterling was not trying to access a gun. The problem I have with this is that Muflahi was also filming at the time and from his angle his camera was unable to see Sterling's right arm so I don't believe he could see Sterling's right side either.

Again as I pointed out earlier it was obvious that Sterling's right side was obscured by the car and the officer. I think you're giving too much credit to a witness that said he saw something (or lack of) when his camera appears to show he was unable to actually see what was going on. Frankly I call BS on his claim.

On the other hand you have a witness (the officer on Sterling's right) who was in direct contact with his right arm and made an excited utterance that was documented on camera. Yet you seem to give a lot of credence to something that I think the camera disproves.

For the record, I have not made the assumption that he did not go for the gun, I've only argued against the assumption that he did. Whether he did or not is still up in the air.

There were two witnesses, and the camera may not show everything they could see. A camera has the tendency to obscure things in low light that the human eye can see just fine. I would not be so quick to condemn their testimony, or praise that of the officers. If the officers did do wrong, then could they be trusted to tell the truth knowing that they would be pretty much condemned to prison?

There is far too little evidence released for us to say one way or the other who was at fault for this death. I've said this numerous times throughout this thread, and yet people still think I'm somehow picking a side. I'm arguing against assumptions and opinions, but arguing for no one. If someone stated those officers were 100% at fault, I'd argue against that statement as well.

 

[texas skeeter]

He "IS" John McCain! LOL

 

[Maverick44]

He "IS" John McCain! LOL

because I'm not making idiotic assumptions based on vague evidence, and because I'm not suggesting that we purge the streets of anyone we don't like (Hmm, who does that remind me of? )?

 

[texas skeeter]

I'll clarify a bit more for you.... Convicted hardened violent dangerous detriment to society thugs!

 

[Maverick44]

I'll clarify a bit more for you.... Convicted hardened violent dangerous detriment to society thugs!

That's what he said too.

 

[zincwarrior]

Killing someone who is not actively trying to harm someone is not justice in any way shape or form regardless of their past. Trying to say otherwise doesn't change that fact.

Agreed. Thats not justice. Thats a vigilante death squad.

 

[Coop45]

Well, I'm waiting. If you have something to say, then say it.

It wasn't meant to be a compliment. Figure it out.

 

[texas skeeter]

I'll say this again as it is the truth and some just don't see it....

We have become jaded and conditioned to be PC soft and compassionate on crooks, rapists and murders. That's WHY we have lost this country!

 

[Charlie]

I'll say this again as it is the truth and some just don't see it....

We have become jaded and conditioned to be PC soft and compassionate on crooks, rapists and murders. That's WHY we have lost this country!

Don't say "we" 'cause I don't think I have been conditioned, etc. But I understand where you're coming from!

 

[texas skeeter]

Yer not Jaded? lol

 

[Maverick44]

It wasn't meant to be a compliment. Figure it out.

If I'm McCain, that must make you Hilary.

 

[Charlie]

Hope not!

jaded
1. the state of being emotionally bankrupt
2. having no illusions
3. unfeeling, uncaring, emotionally numb or empty

 

[texas skeeter]

Hey I'm all 3 LOL

 

[Charlie]

1. the state of being bankrupt (financially but not emotionally)
2. having no illusions (although many illusions when I find some good Scotch, etc.)
3. unfeeling, uncaring, emotionally numb or empty (see #2).

////////////////////////////////////////////

 

[Renegade]

If he's not actively trying to harm someone, you are NOT justified in the use of deadly force. That is the law.

Wrong again.

The law clearly allows deadly force BEFORE you are actively harmed.​

[FONT=&amp]Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.[/FONT]

 

[FunnyFarm]

Whatever dude. Nowhere did I praise the officers or condemn Sterling. I am merely pointing out what you seem to refuse to acknowledge. Look at your posts throughout this thread and you will see a pattern. You repeatedly back Muflahi's assertion and nowhere do you recognized the officers excited utterance caught on film.

Earlier you said that "Based on the videos and witness statements, that does not seem to be the case. His hand was no where near his pocket, and he had two grown men on top of him holding him down." The only thing refuting Sterling's hand being anywhere near his pocket is Muflahi's statement. You didn't see this on video because it wasn't captured on video.

Yup, not taking sides, ugh;

Well, they tazed him and then shot him. I guess they though both were warranted.
The more I learn about this, the more I think this was not a justified killing.

Yeah, how dare they attempt to use non-lethal force before lethal.

I would not be so quick to condemn their testimony, or praise that of the officers. If the officers did do wrong, then could they be trusted to tell the truth knowing that they would be pretty much condemned to prison?

How is pointing out a statement made in the heat of the moment and caught on camera praising the officers? No one here is stupid, they can all see in one breath your claim that the facts are not all in and your not picking a side then your insinuations about how bad it's looking for the officers.

 

[Maverick44]

Wrong again.

The law clearly allows deadly force BEFORE you are actively harmed.​

[FONT=&amp]Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.[/FONT]

I said "if they are actively TRYING to harm someone", NOT "they had to harm someone". That would fall under the definition of that law. If they're not TRYING to harm you, you would have no way of knowing that you had to "prevent the other's imminent commission of murder".

No, you don't have to be harmed before you can use lethal force (NO ONE said you had to be harmed first), but you cannot use lethal force if someone is not threatening harm.