Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 15
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 7/30/2024 11:51:17 PM EST
[#1]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


It’s not going to change until voters elect lawmakers who will pass an ironclad “do not fire until fired upon” ROE for law enforcement.  Every cop skinning his sidearm without a lethal threat present is fired, arrested for aggravated assault and tried.  Yeah, we will have fewer cops and they’ll be more expensive.  I’d rather have that than roided-up amateurs.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

I suspect she grabbed it as she was trying to do what the derranged man who just threatened to kill her ordered her to do.

Just like Shaver, we have the police putting innocent people into an impossible position then killing them for not meeting unobtainable standards of human response.  The fact that too many cops see that as "lawful but aweful" is shocking to the public and will lead to more restrictions on police behavour that the bad cops who good cops have "not defeneded" will 100% have earned themselves.


It’s not going to change until voters elect lawmakers who will pass an ironclad “do not fire until fired upon” ROE for law enforcement.  Every cop skinning his sidearm without a lethal threat present is fired, arrested for aggravated assault and tried.  Yeah, we will have fewer cops and they’ll be more expensive.  I’d rather have that than roided-up amateurs.


Agreed.

Its lunacy how loose police ROE is compared to actual war zones.

It starts in the damn academies with the us vs them.  That is going to leave cops in the crossfire between the community and the thugs.
Link Posted: 7/31/2024 2:16:12 AM EST
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



I don't share your perspective.

They were called to investigate a possible intruder.  There is a vehicle with busted out windows in the driveway.  They try to figure out who it is they are talking to while in the home.  Later they ask her to turn off the flame on the stove while she is hunting for ID.  Instead she picks up a pot of boiling water and makes a crazy statement that could be taken as a threat and only then is the threat to shoot made.  She has means to do remote harm, is told to drop that means, and then moments later decides to hurl it at the officers.  I sure as hell do not see a 1st degree murder charge here.  As I said I'm not ready to say it was a 'good shoot' but this is a Ben Crump case and the assertions being made are predictably absurd.  

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

From my perspective it doesn't matter.  After the officer threatened her with illegal lethal force then she would have been within her right to remove his head with a shotgun, although it would have obviously been tactically unwise.

The officer created this entire situation through his unlawful thread of lethal force and put her in a fight or flight response to which the confused lady responded poorly.



I don't share your perspective.

They were called to investigate a possible intruder.  There is a vehicle with busted out windows in the driveway.  They try to figure out who it is they are talking to while in the home.  Later they ask her to turn off the flame on the stove while she is hunting for ID.  Instead she picks up a pot of boiling water and makes a crazy statement that could be taken as a threat and only then is the threat to shoot made.  She has means to do remote harm, is told to drop that means, and then moments later decides to hurl it at the officers.  I sure as hell do not see a 1st degree murder charge here.  As I said I'm not ready to say it was a 'good shoot' but this is a Ben Crump case and the assertions being made are predictably absurd.  



She called for a prowler outside, not an intruder.

So what if there's a vehicle in the driveway with broken windows?

She doesn't have to give them ID. They can fuck off at that point.

The woman didn't say anything crazy. There is nothing "crazy" about rebuking someone in the name of Jesus.

You missed the important part the officer began with - you better not rebuke me or I'll shoot you in the fucking face.
Link Posted: 7/31/2024 2:28:46 AM EST
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
So the boiling water wielding lady was going to propel the water up and over the partition to disable the officer long enough to conclude the exorcism?
Now that is one magical pot of water.
I do find it odd the the officer flipped a switch almost immediately at the name of Jesus.
View Quote


Possible reaction of demonic oppression.
Link Posted: 7/31/2024 2:44:05 AM EST
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I think it is even weirder to point a gun and kill a 90 pound old lady after you were called there to help her. Their ID fetish caused this entire situation. Where was the de-escalation?
View Quote


Perhaps an obedience fetish?
Link Posted: 7/31/2024 3:09:28 AM EST
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Possible reaction of demonic oppression.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
So the boiling water wielding lady was going to propel the water up and over the partition to disable the officer long enough to conclude the exorcism?
Now that is one magical pot of water.
I do find it odd the the officer flipped a switch almost immediately at the name of Jesus.
Possible reaction of demonic oppression.
Sean Grayson underwent a dramatic and violent demonic manifestation when Sonya Massey performed the exorcism, during which she said, "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" ("Te reprehendo in nomine Iesu").

The Exorcist (1973) Priest scene part 2 (1080p HD)
Link Posted: 7/31/2024 3:13:21 AM EST
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

We can't ignore a literal psychopath murdering an old woman because we are afraid that hypothetical people will not want to become cops. I see this as we are agreeing with commies because this is fucked up to everyone that doesn't have a badge.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
2) What is the likely outcome, IMHO? Less good candidates want to take on the job of peace officer. More racist policies and DEI because of the way the left is framing this as racial. I don't think this shooting was racially motivated in any way.

We can't ignore a literal psychopath murdering an old woman because we are afraid that hypothetical people will not want to become cops. I see this as we are agreeing with commies because this is fucked up to everyone that doesn't have a badge.

You're right. I want this prosecuted too. I am, however, being extra cautious of what the media puts out and am pessimistic as to what the ultimate fallout will be from the liberal narrative of events.
Link Posted: 7/31/2024 3:52:53 AM EST
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It’s weird that multiple people misunderstood what you said.  I’m sure it has little to do with you saying “he adds reasonableness to the deputy's response to the word” when you really meant “It increases the possibility that the officer misunderstood or misinterpreted it”.
View Quote
It did not occur to me that my statement could be twisted in that manner before I posted it.

It IS weird that multiple people didn't realize "there's no way that's what he meant" before responding.  I do not have an explanation for that.  Perhaps you could explain it?
Link Posted: 7/31/2024 8:41:02 AM EST
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It did not occur to me that my statement could be twisted in that manner before I posted it.

It IS weird that multiple people didn't realize "there's no way that's what he meant" before responding.  I do not have an explanation for that.  Perhaps you could explain it?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
It’s weird that multiple people misunderstood what you said.  I’m sure it has little to do with you saying “he adds reasonableness to the deputy's response to the word” when you really meant “It increases the possibility that the officer misunderstood or misinterpreted it”.
It did not occur to me that my statement could be twisted in that manner before I posted it.

It IS weird that multiple people didn't realize "there's no way that's what he meant" before responding.  I do not have an explanation for that.  Perhaps you could explain it?


Why would anyone think that what you said isn't what you meant when it was congruent with your tone in the thread?  
Link Posted: 7/31/2024 9:33:38 AM EST
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It did not occur to me that my statement could be twisted in that manner before I posted it.

It IS weird that multiple people didn't realize "there's no way that's what he meant" before responding.  I do not have an explanation for that.  Perhaps you could explain it?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
It’s weird that multiple people misunderstood what you said.  I’m sure it has little to do with you saying “he adds reasonableness to the deputy's response to the word” when you really meant “It increases the possibility that the officer misunderstood or misinterpreted it”.
It did not occur to me that my statement could be twisted in that manner before I posted it.

It IS weird that multiple people didn't realize "there's no way that's what he meant" before responding.  I do not have an explanation for that.  Perhaps you could explain it?


Link Posted: 7/31/2024 7:17:39 PM EST
[#10]
The TRUTH About the Sonya Massey Shooting - from an ACTUAL lawyer who litigates police shootings
Link Posted: 7/31/2024 7:28:12 PM EST
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Agreed.

Its lunacy how loose police ROE is compared to actual war zones.

It starts in the damn academies with the us vs them.  That is going to leave cops in the crossfire between the community and the thugs.
View Quote


Citizens who are non police actually have a more loose ROE than police.


Link Posted: 7/31/2024 7:40:24 PM EST
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Citizens who are non police actually have a more loose ROE than police but union lawyers and qualified immunity tip Lady Justice's scales in their favor.


View Quote



FIFY

Pantera - The Badge (The Crow)



Link Posted: 7/31/2024 7:42:03 PM EST
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I'm starting to wonder if governments don't hire them because they are broken.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

Governments just keep hiring & retaining individuals like Grayson, no matter their sordid history. I don't see it changing, so I guess I'm jaded about it at this point.


I'm starting to wonder if governments don't hire them because they are broken.


Enemies of the State won’t end up in ditches by themselves. Though personally, I wonder if Grayson wasn’t hitting the ‘roids. Roid rage would explain his dickish behavior up to and including when he escalated to murder.
Link Posted: 7/31/2024 7:50:13 PM EST
[#14]
Looks like the goose stepping Einsatzgruppen have struck again.
Link Posted: 7/31/2024 7:54:27 PM EST
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
It did not occur to me that my statement could be twisted in that manner before I posted it.

It IS weird that multiple people didn't realize "there's no way that's what he meant" before responding.  I do not have an explanation for that.  Perhaps you could explain it?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
It’s weird that multiple people misunderstood what you said.  I’m sure it has little to do with you saying “he adds reasonableness to the deputy's response to the word” when you really meant “It increases the possibility that the officer misunderstood or misinterpreted it”.
It did not occur to me that my statement could be twisted in that manner before I posted it.

It IS weird that multiple people didn't realize "there's no way that's what he meant" before responding.  I do not have an explanation for that.  Perhaps you could explain it?

Link Posted: 7/31/2024 8:01:55 PM EST
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Citizens who are non police actually have a more loose ROE than police.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


Agreed.

Its lunacy how loose police ROE is compared to actual war zones.

It starts in the damn academies with the us vs them.  That is going to leave cops in the crossfire between the community and the thugs.


Citizens who are non police actually have a more loose ROE than police.


That’s a good one.  Keep that for your stand up routine.
Link Posted: 7/31/2024 11:04:24 PM EST
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Citizens who are non police actually have a more loose ROE than police.


View Quote


Spoken like someone who has never even known someone who had to kill to save their life.

That's gotta be a fucking joke.
Link Posted: 8/1/2024 12:22:07 AM EST
[#18]
Removed
Link Posted: 8/1/2024 3:43:12 AM EST
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Why would anyone think that what you said isn't what you meant when it was congruent with your tone in the thread?  
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It’s weird that multiple people misunderstood what you said.  I’m sure it has little to do with you saying “he adds reasonableness to the deputy's response to the word” when you really meant “It increases the possibility that the officer misunderstood or misinterpreted it”.
It did not occur to me that my statement could be twisted in that manner before I posted it.

It IS weird that multiple people didn't realize "there's no way that's what he meant" before responding.  I do not have an explanation for that.  Perhaps you could explain it?
Why would anyone think that what you said isn't what you meant when it was congruent with your tone in the thread?  

I tried to imagine what would make that actually reasonable and came up blank.  It's even more ridiculous when compared to what I've been pointing out.  Some CLEOs will throw their officers under the bus is true no matter what side you're on.  Saying she and the deputies were in different rooms is misleading and not indicative of an honest review is true no matter what side you're on.  Someone setting down the (potential) weapon and dropping out of sight is not analogous to a moving automobile is true no matter what side you're on.  And, of course, a lawyer rebuking someone for their reaction to a word or phrase that the lawyer doesn't understand is ironic no matter what side you're on.

I did realize that I saw the state attorney's statement on the other thread so assuming everyone in this thread saw and read it is a foolish mistake and resulted in a frustrated post regarding it.
Link Posted: 8/1/2024 8:43:53 AM EST
[#20]
Interesting:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/police-unions-often-defend-their-own-but-not-after-the-sonya-massey-shooting/ar-BB1r0PMB?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=22e89c27649a45fd95393fd1685ef81e&ei=19
Link Posted: 8/1/2024 8:51:18 AM EST
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Citizens who are non police actually have a more loose ROE than police.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:


Agreed.

Its lunacy how loose police ROE is compared to actual war zones.

It starts in the damn academies with the us vs them.  That is going to leave cops in the crossfire between the community and the thugs.


Citizens who are non police actually have a more loose ROE than police.




At least you didn't use the word "civilian". Just my perception though, it seems prosecutors take a different, much harsher, view of "joe citizen" shootings than they do police shootings. Did the cop in the Airman shooting get prosecuted? How about the "cop shoots woman through window because she had a gun" shooting? Etc.?
Link Posted: 8/1/2024 9:49:22 AM EST
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I tried to imagine what would make that actually reasonable and came up blank.  It's even more ridiculous when compared to what I've been pointing out.  Some CLEOs will throw their officers under the bus is true no matter what side you're on.  Saying she and the deputies were in different rooms is misleading and not indicative of an honest review is true no matter what side you're on.  Someone setting down the (potential) weapon and dropping out of sight is not analogous to a moving automobile is true no matter what side you're on.  And, of course, a lawyer rebuking someone for their reaction to a word or phrase that the lawyer doesn't understand is ironic no matter what side you're on.

I did realize that I saw the state attorney's statement on the other thread so assuming everyone in this thread saw and read it is a foolish mistake and resulted in a frustrated post regarding it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It’s weird that multiple people misunderstood what you said.  I’m sure it has little to do with you saying “he adds reasonableness to the deputy's response to the word” when you really meant “It increases the possibility that the officer misunderstood or misinterpreted it”.
It did not occur to me that my statement could be twisted in that manner before I posted it.

It IS weird that multiple people didn't realize "there's no way that's what he meant" before responding.  I do not have an explanation for that.  Perhaps you could explain it?
Why would anyone think that what you said isn't what you meant when it was congruent with your tone in the thread?  

I tried to imagine what would make that actually reasonable and came up blank.  It's even more ridiculous when compared to what I've been pointing out.  Some CLEOs will throw their officers under the bus is true no matter what side you're on.  Saying she and the deputies were in different rooms is misleading and not indicative of an honest review is true no matter what side you're on.  Someone setting down the (potential) weapon and dropping out of sight is not analogous to a moving automobile is true no matter what side you're on.  And, of course, a lawyer rebuking someone for their reaction to a word or phrase that the lawyer doesn't understand is ironic no matter what side you're on.

I did realize that I saw the state attorney's statement on the other thread so assuming everyone in this thread saw and read it is a foolish mistake and resulted in a frustrated post regarding it.


Open floor plan homes separate "rooms" with counters or even just furniture.

Yes, they were in different rooms. She was in the kitchen, he was not. The state attorney's statement even mentions separate rooms between defendant and victim.
Link Posted: 8/1/2024 10:01:51 AM EST
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


At least you didn't use the word "civilian". Just my perception though, it seems prosecutors take a different, much harsher, view of "joe citizen" shootings than they do police shootings. Did the cop in the Airman shooting get prosecuted? How about the "cop shoots woman through window because she had a gun" shooting? Etc.?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:


Agreed.

Its lunacy how loose police ROE is compared to actual war zones.

It starts in the damn academies with the us vs them.  That is going to leave cops in the crossfire between the community and the thugs.


Citizens who are non police actually have a more loose ROE than police.




At least you didn't use the word "civilian". Just my perception though, it seems prosecutors take a different, much harsher, view of "joe citizen" shootings than they do police shootings. Did the cop in the Airman shooting get prosecuted? How about the "cop shoots woman through window because she had a gun" shooting? Etc.?


Yeah that's obviously bullshit. Anyways, here's the law in Illinois.

Self defense in Illinois can be asserted as an affirmative defense by someone who uses force against a police officer under certain circumstances:

“A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.” Id. § 7-7.


The Illinois standard for police use of force:

The peace officer’s use of force when making an arrest is governed by section 7-5, which provides, among other things:

“[A peace officer] is justified in the use of any force which he reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, to be necessary to effect the arrest and of any force which he reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, to be necessary to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest.” Id. § 7-5(a)….

“The decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time of the decision, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force.” Id. § 7-5(f)….

If the officer’s use of force is not justified under section 7-5, then it is considered excessive, and section 7-7 no longer applies to the arrest. People v. Bailey, 108 Ill.App.3d 392, 398 (1982).

After the officer uses excessive, unlawful force-but not before (see People v. Haynes, 408 Ill.App.3d 684, 691 (2011))-the arrestee’s own use of force is instead governed by section 7-1(a), the general self-defense statute, which states, “[a] person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.” 720 ILCS 5/7-1(a) (West 2022). Section 7-1 is limited in turn by section 7-4, which provides that a person’s use of force is generally not justified if he is the aggressor, except in certain specific circumstances. Id. § 7-4.


Therefore, the use of excessive force by a police officer in Illinois invokes the arrestee’s right of self defense, just like any other situation where someone is using unlawful force. A jury assessing this would consider the following factors:

“In order to instruct the jury on self- defense, the defendant must establish some evidence of each of the following elements: (1) force is threatened against a person; (2) the person threatened is not the aggressor; (3) the danger of harm was imminent; (4) the threatened force was unlawful; (5) he actually and subjectively believed a danger existed which required the use of the force applied; and (6) his beliefs were objectively reasonable.” People v. Jeffries, 164 Ill.2d 104, 127-28 (1995).


Here’s the general Illinois self defense law that applies when police officers use excessive force and lose the protections of Illinois law authorizing police use of force:

“A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.” 720 ILCS 5/7-1 (West 2002).


But, self defense is not available as an affirmative defense to an assailant who:

(c) [I]nitially provokes the use of force against himself, unless:

(1) Such force is so great that he reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(2) In good faith, he withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.” 720 ILCS 5/7-4(c) (West 2002).


Here, former-deputy Grayson is forced to assert the Illinois general self defense statute, which prohibits him from doing so, if he was the initial aggressor. Or, I suppose he could contest the application of the police use of force statute by arguing that he did not use excessive force. Either way, he faces some difficult legal hurdles.






Link Posted: 8/1/2024 10:04:11 AM EST
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I tried to imagine what would make that actually reasonable and came up blank.  It's even more ridiculous when compared to what I've been pointing out.  Some CLEOs will throw their officers under the bus is true no matter what side you're on.  Saying she and the deputies were in different rooms is misleading and not indicative of an honest review is true no matter what side you're on.  Someone setting down the (potential) weapon and dropping out of sight is not analogous to a moving automobile is true no matter what side you're on.  And, of course, a lawyer rebuking someone for their reaction to a word or phrase that the lawyer doesn't understand is ironic no matter what side you're on.

I did realize that I saw the state attorney's statement on the other thread so assuming everyone in this thread saw and read it is a foolish mistake and resulted in a frustrated post regarding it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It’s weird that multiple people misunderstood what you said.  I’m sure it has little to do with you saying “he adds reasonableness to the deputy's response to the word” when you really meant “It increases the possibility that the officer misunderstood or misinterpreted it”.
It did not occur to me that my statement could be twisted in that manner before I posted it.

It IS weird that multiple people didn't realize "there's no way that's what he meant" before responding.  I do not have an explanation for that.  Perhaps you could explain it?
Why would anyone think that what you said isn't what you meant when it was congruent with your tone in the thread?  

I tried to imagine what would make that actually reasonable and came up blank.  It's even more ridiculous when compared to what I've been pointing out.  Some CLEOs will throw their officers under the bus is true no matter what side you're on.  Saying she and the deputies were in different rooms is misleading and not indicative of an honest review is true no matter what side you're on.  Someone setting down the (potential) weapon and dropping out of sight is not analogous to a moving automobile is true no matter what side you're on.  And, of course, a lawyer rebuking someone for their reaction to a word or phrase that the lawyer doesn't understand is ironic no matter what side you're on.

I did realize that I saw the state attorney's statement on the other thread so assuming everyone in this thread saw and read it is a foolish mistake and resulted in a frustrated post regarding it.

I don't think you understand what the use of force expert was expressing in that statement.

It was simply explaining that the officer created an exigency and referenced perhaps the most common or well known example.
Link Posted: 8/1/2024 10:05:52 AM EST
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Open floor plan homes separate "rooms" with counters or even just furniture.

Yes, they were in different rooms. She was in the kitchen, he was not. The state attorney's statement even mentions separate rooms between defendant and victim.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It’s weird that multiple people misunderstood what you said.  I’m sure it has little to do with you saying “he adds reasonableness to the deputy's response to the word” when you really meant “It increases the possibility that the officer misunderstood or misinterpreted it”.
It did not occur to me that my statement could be twisted in that manner before I posted it.

It IS weird that multiple people didn't realize "there's no way that's what he meant" before responding.  I do not have an explanation for that.  Perhaps you could explain it?
Why would anyone think that what you said isn't what you meant when it was congruent with your tone in the thread?  

I tried to imagine what would make that actually reasonable and came up blank.  It's even more ridiculous when compared to what I've been pointing out.  Some CLEOs will throw their officers under the bus is true no matter what side you're on.  Saying she and the deputies were in different rooms is misleading and not indicative of an honest review is true no matter what side you're on.  Someone setting down the (potential) weapon and dropping out of sight is not analogous to a moving automobile is true no matter what side you're on.  And, of course, a lawyer rebuking someone for their reaction to a word or phrase that the lawyer doesn't understand is ironic no matter what side you're on.

I did realize that I saw the state attorney's statement on the other thread so assuming everyone in this thread saw and read it is a foolish mistake and resulted in a frustrated post regarding it.


Open floor plan homes separate "rooms" with counters or even just furniture.

Yes, they were in different rooms. She was in the kitchen, he was not. The state attorney's statement even mentions separate rooms between defendant and victim.

The memo even stated "The pot was located in another room of the home, separated by a large counter" and didn't try to imply it was behind a wall and door.
Link Posted: 8/1/2024 10:06:14 AM EST
[#26]
We have a guy here that doesn’t understand that the kitchen is a different room from the living room.
Link Posted: 8/1/2024 10:21:24 AM EST
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


At least you didn't use the word "civilian". Just my perception though, it seems prosecutors take a different, much harsher, view of "joe citizen" shootings than they do police shootings. Did the cop in the Airman shooting get prosecuted? How about the "cop shoots woman through window because she had a gun" shooting? Etc.?
View Quote


Eddie Duran has not been charged in the murder of Roger Fortson AFAIK. Despite being fired for using deadly force with no legitimate reason to do so.

Aaron Dean was sentenced to 12 years for killing Ms. Jefferson.
Not just "she had a gun". He claimed she pointed her gun at him, and testimony from her nephew seemed to back that up. I would argue that having a guy appear in your bedroom window shining a flashlight at you is more than ample reason to grab a handgun and cover the window with it.
Link Posted: 8/5/2024 7:22:12 PM EST
[#28]
Any new updates?
Link Posted: 8/6/2024 7:39:20 AM EST
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Any new updates?
View Quote
No, he's still sitting in a jail cell this morning.
More calls for the sheriff to resign.
More Calls For Sheriff Campbell to Resign, Plus the Latest Updates in the Death of Sonya Massey

Link Posted: 8/6/2024 10:36:31 AM EST
[#30]
Thank you
Link Posted: 8/7/2024 1:24:19 PM EST
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

IMO, something is wrong with him mentally by the way he was triggered by her saying "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" it was like that really offended him.  I would think a LEO hears much worse almost daily.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't like him. I just think it was a justified shooting based on what I've seen. I've come down against cops in the past too.

I don't think two prior DUIs proves he's "not of sound mind". I don't like that, and I don't think people with multiple DUIs should generally be cops, but it doesn't mean that he's mentally cooked or anything.

IMO, something is wrong with him mentally by the way he was triggered by her saying "I rebuke you in the name of Jesus" it was like that really offended him.  I would think a LEO hears much worse almost daily.
There's a few moments that I wonder if being possessed by demons might be a real thing, and I'm not talking about the schizophrenic lady.
This is one of those moments.  That cops reaction to that was absolutely unhinged.
Link Posted: 8/9/2024 1:45:32 PM EST
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
There's a few moments that I wonder if being possessed by demons might be a real thing, and I'm not talking about the schizophrenic lady.
This is one of those moments.  That cops reaction to that was absolutely unhinged.
View Quote

I’m of the same mind , thinking the name of Jesus triggered his inner demon
Link Posted: 8/9/2024 1:49:09 PM EST
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Bad doop, gud chute. Threatening a LEO with a pot of boiling water was a poor choice
View Quote


Bad shoot. I hope you're not an officer. Hot water from 10' away isn't a justifiable reason for lethal force.
Page / 15
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top