User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 11:24:54 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's say Corey Jones fires at Nouman Raja and kills him, because he feels his life is threatened. Nouman never identified himself as a police officer. It would be justified, I wonder how the jury would see it ? I say good shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 11:27:53 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If he never IDd as a LEO, which it sounds like he didn't, and the first guy drew his gun in a defensive manner then yes, I could convict him if I was on the jury. His own stupid actions caused him to have to kill the drummer Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I said from the get go that the officer did everything wrong. I figured when the evidence came out it would be pretty easy to prove culpable negligence. That audio confirms what I thought. Couple that with the unorthodox unmarked vehicle with no lights/siren and the fact he was in jeans/t-shirt/ball cap and you have someone that should easily be convicted of the manslaughter. Just spitballing this. You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road. You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns. The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact. Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys. One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead. Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation? I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did. If he never IDd as a LEO, which it sounds like he didn't, and the first guy drew his gun in a defensive manner then yes, I could convict him if I was on the jury. His own stupid actions caused him to have to kill the drummer So you roll up on a stranded motorist, the motorist pulls a gun on you, you draw and fire your weapon it wouldn't be self-defense? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 11:38:47 AM EDT
[#3]
You guys that want to be cops are crazy, go to school, learn a trade, get a college degree and a profession. When you deal with the marginal elements of society sooner or later you will be dragged down to their level. It is not worth the mental and physical wear and tear on your bodies. You guys that are cops already and you are looking uphill towards retirement, start looking for another job. Those downhill, avoid, avoid avoid or be exposed exposed exposed. And if you get hurt, don't get up off the floor, make it be your last day at work.
Anyone, and I mean anyone, the gov, the bosses, the civilians that jeopardize your safety DO NOT deserve your respect. Fuck them. I have seen cops slowly destroy themselves, I saw the effects of dealing with the worst of society, the corruption and alcoholism, the effect of smoking, bad habits and bad eating |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 12:53:16 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you roll up on a stranded motorist, the motorist pulls a gun on you, you draw and fire your weapon it wouldn't be self-defense? As a private citizen (as the cop gave every indication of being), yes - unless I did what this idiot did, repeatedly asking a cryptic question that sounds an awful lot like the beginning of a jack. Sad that the victim didn't have the safety off and one in the pipe. It would have been appropriate for him to draw and aim when he became convinced that a forcible felony was afoot, and to shoot when the officer went for his gun. What we have here is an apparent private citizen giving a man reasonable cause to believe that he is under attack. I don't think the apparent aggressor's employment matters. If anybody (not in a marked unit/uniform) did what he did, prosecution would be in order. The only thing I can figure with the Att. 1* charge is that one or more of the wounds was inflicted postmortem, indicating that the shooter tried to kill someone who was already dead - thus the "Attempted" qualifier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 1:24:37 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a private citizen (as the cop gave every indication of being), yes - unless I did what this idiot did, repeatedly asking a cryptic question that sounds an awful lot like the beginning of a jack. Sad that the victim didn't have the safety off and one in the pipe. It would have been appropriate for him to draw and aim when he became convinced that a forcible felony was afoot, and to shoot when the officer went for his gun. What we have here is an apparent private citizen giving a man reasonable cause to believe that he is under attack. I don't think the apparent aggressor's employment matters. If anybody (not in a marked unit/uniform) did what he did, prosecution would be in order. The only thing I can figure with the Att. 1* charge is that one or more of the wounds was inflicted postmortem, indicating that the shooter tried to kill someone who was already dead - thus the "Attempted" qualifier. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you roll up on a stranded motorist, the motorist pulls a gun on you, you draw and fire your weapon it wouldn't be self-defense? As a private citizen (as the cop gave every indication of being), yes - unless I did what this idiot did, repeatedly asking a cryptic question that sounds an awful lot like the beginning of a jack. Sad that the victim didn't have the safety off and one in the pipe. It would have been appropriate for him to draw and aim when he became convinced that a forcible felony was afoot, and to shoot when the officer went for his gun. What we have here is an apparent private citizen giving a man reasonable cause to believe that he is under attack. I don't think the apparent aggressor's employment matters. If anybody (not in a marked unit/uniform) did what he did, prosecution would be in order. The only thing I can figure with the Att. 1* charge is that one or more of the wounds was inflicted postmortem, indicating that the shooter tried to kill someone who was already dead - thus the "Attempted" qualifier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 1:28:46 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a private citizen (as the cop gave every indication of being), yes - unless I did what this idiot did, repeatedly asking a cryptic question that sounds an awful lot like the beginning of a jack. Sad that the victim didn't have the safety off and one in the pipe. It would have been appropriate for him to draw and aim when he became convinced that a forcible felony was afoot, and to shoot when the officer went for his gun. What we have here is an apparent private citizen giving a man reasonable cause to believe that he is under attack. I don't think the apparent aggressor's employment matters. If anybody (not in a marked unit/uniform) did what he did, prosecution would be in order. The only thing I can figure with the Att. 1* charge is that one or more of the wounds was inflicted postmortem, indicating that the shooter tried to kill someone who was already dead - thus the "Attempted" qualifier. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you roll up on a stranded motorist, the motorist pulls a gun on you, you draw and fire your weapon it wouldn't be self-defense? As a private citizen (as the cop gave every indication of being), yes - unless I did what this idiot did, repeatedly asking a cryptic question that sounds an awful lot like the beginning of a jack. Sad that the victim didn't have the safety off and one in the pipe. It would have been appropriate for him to draw and aim when he became convinced that a forcible felony was afoot, and to shoot when the officer went for his gun. What we have here is an apparent private citizen giving a man reasonable cause to believe that he is under attack. I don't think the apparent aggressor's employment matters. If anybody (not in a marked unit/uniform) did what he did, prosecution would be in order. The only thing I can figure with the Att. 1* charge is that one or more of the wounds was inflicted postmortem, indicating that the shooter tried to kill someone who was already dead - thus the "Attempted" qualifier. Curious of your take on a couple things from your position and experience. That is one hell of a long complaint submitted for a warrant. It reads much more detailed like parts of an information filed with the court. It appears a SAO investigator completed it, wonder if it wasn't gleaned from a draft of the information they were preparing. The two charges still seem somewhat baffling, in light of his actions, to some degree couldn't the factors/actions of the two charges be used to bolster a single charge showing his premeditation or intentional actions? It seems that his actions would bolster his taking these actions in an intentionally depraved state of mind. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 1:31:40 PM EDT
[#7]
Verbal judo |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 1:53:45 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As a private citizen (as the cop gave every indication of being), yes - unless I did what this idiot did, repeatedly asking a cryptic question that sounds an awful lot like the beginning of a jack. Sad that the victim didn't have the safety off and one in the pipe. It would have been appropriate for him to draw and aim when he became convinced that a forcible felony was afoot, and to shoot when the officer went for his gun. What we have here is an apparent private citizen giving a man reasonable cause to believe that he is under attack. I don't think the apparent aggressor's employment matters. If anybody (not in a marked unit/uniform) did what he did, prosecution would be in order. The only thing I can figure with the Att. 1* charge is that one or more of the wounds was inflicted postmortem, indicating that the shooter tried to kill someone who was already dead - thus the "Attempted" qualifier. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you roll up on a stranded motorist, the motorist pulls a gun on you, you draw and fire your weapon it wouldn't be self-defense? As a private citizen (as the cop gave every indication of being), yes - unless I did what this idiot did, repeatedly asking a cryptic question that sounds an awful lot like the beginning of a jack. Sad that the victim didn't have the safety off and one in the pipe. It would have been appropriate for him to draw and aim when he became convinced that a forcible felony was afoot, and to shoot when the officer went for his gun. What we have here is an apparent private citizen giving a man reasonable cause to believe that he is under attack. I don't think the apparent aggressor's employment matters. If anybody (not in a marked unit/uniform) did what he did, prosecution would be in order. The only thing I can figure with the Att. 1* charge is that one or more of the wounds was inflicted postmortem, indicating that the shooter tried to kill someone who was already dead - thus the "Attempted" qualifier. Personally I think they filed the elevated charges for politics. I don't see how they are going to get beyond a reasonable doubt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 2:11:06 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Personally I think they filed the elevated charges for politics. I don't see how they are going to get beyond a reasonable doubt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you roll up on a stranded motorist, the motorist pulls a gun on you, you draw and fire your weapon it wouldn't be self-defense? As a private citizen (as the cop gave every indication of being), yes - unless I did what this idiot did, repeatedly asking a cryptic question that sounds an awful lot like the beginning of a jack. Sad that the victim didn't have the safety off and one in the pipe. It would have been appropriate for him to draw and aim when he became convinced that a forcible felony was afoot, and to shoot when the officer went for his gun. What we have here is an apparent private citizen giving a man reasonable cause to believe that he is under attack. I don't think the apparent aggressor's employment matters. If anybody (not in a marked unit/uniform) did what he did, prosecution would be in order. The only thing I can figure with the Att. 1* charge is that one or more of the wounds was inflicted postmortem, indicating that the shooter tried to kill someone who was already dead - thus the "Attempted" qualifier. Personally I think they filed the elevated charges for politics. I don't see how they are going to get beyond a reasonable doubt. Didn't they only file manslaughter? Doesn't seem elevated, seems appropriate. I don't think the officer's self serving/inaccurate statment goes towards proving malice aforethought so manslaughter is the right charge. Not commenting on the attempt charge because I don't understand it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 2:15:14 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you roll up on a stranded motorist, the motorist pulls a gun on you, you draw and fire your weapon it wouldn't be self-defense? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I said from the get go that the officer did everything wrong. I figured when the evidence came out it would be pretty easy to prove culpable negligence. That audio confirms what I thought. Couple that with the unorthodox unmarked vehicle with no lights/siren and the fact he was in jeans/t-shirt/ball cap and you have someone that should easily be convicted of the manslaughter. Just spitballing this. You have one guy who is legally armed and afraid of other guys with guns broke down on the side of the road. You have another guy who is legally armed and out looking for bad guys with guns. The officer can legally be where he was at. He could legally make contact. Both men in this situation see each other as potential bad guys. One guy sees the other guys gun draws and fires. Guy is dead. Are you really going to get past beyond a reasonable doubt that the guy who fired his gun did not do so in what he believed to be a self-defense situation? I'm not talking about potential policy violations just straight up two legally armed guys meeting up like they did. If he never IDd as a LEO, which it sounds like he didn't, and the first guy drew his gun in a defensive manner then yes, I could convict him if I was on the jury. His own stupid actions caused him to have to kill the drummer So you roll up on a stranded motorist, the motorist pulls a gun on you, you draw and fire your weapon it wouldn't be self-defense? If I roll up on a stranded motorist on a dark highway, in a sketchy area, at night, in plain clothes, in an unmarked unit that looks like a hood ride, seemingly aggressive and say nothing more than "you good? You good?" and he draws on me, it's my own dumbass fault. That's why A) i don't stop for stranded vehicles 99.9% of the time, and B) He should have been wearing something to ID himself and verbally IDd himself |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 2:28:13 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If I roll up on a stranded motorist on a dark highway, in a sketchy area, at night, in plain clothes, in an unmarked unit that looks like a hood ride, seemingly aggressive and say nothing more than "you good? You good?" and he draws on me, it's my own dumbass fault. That's why A) i don't stop for stranded vehicles 99.9% of the time, and B) He should have been wearing something to ID himself and verbally IDd himself Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So you roll up on a stranded motorist, the motorist pulls a gun on you, you draw and fire your weapon it wouldn't be self-defense? If I roll up on a stranded motorist on a dark highway, in a sketchy area, at night, in plain clothes, in an unmarked unit that looks like a hood ride, seemingly aggressive and say nothing more than "you good? You good?" and he draws on me, it's my own dumbass fault. That's why A) i don't stop for stranded vehicles 99.9% of the time, and B) He should have been wearing something to ID himself and verbally IDd himself I don't disagree. But if you shoot the guy is it self-defense? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 2:29:51 PM EDT
[#12]
Here's a little factoid that is missed by the vast majority of people, even the LEO's that read that PC.
The 911 call was placed 33 seconds after the last round....which is about 43 seconds after the first shot fired. Under normal conditions that is a bit of time. In a hyper vigilant state when 1 second feels like an hour that is a LOT of time. Time to think about things.....things like, "oh shit....I kinda fucked up". NOW, here is the part that will go over most peoples head...... When he called 911...BEFORE the operator picked up and said, "911, do you need police or paramedics?"....Raja can be heard saying, "Drop that fucking gun right now!" Why would he say that? He wasn't talking to an operator yet....so must be legit right?.....because most people don't realize that the 911 call is recorded from the moment you hit "send"....not the moment the operator picks up. Most people don't know that...... Most people.....don't have a wife that was a dispatcher/911 call taker for years at the small dept you used to work at for 7 years. I guarantee he knew that would be recorded. He screwed up and was already concocting a cover up. He was trying to make it seem like it "was all just happening". 33 seconds is enough time to get back to your car and get your radio......why didn't he do that? My opinion is he was trying to figure out how to spin this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 2:32:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here's a little factoid that is missed by the vast majority of people, even the LEO's that read that PC. The 911 call was placed 33 seconds after the last round....which is about 43 seconds after the first shot fired. Under normal conditions that is a bit of time. In a hyper vigilant state when 1 second feels like an hour that is a LOT of time. Time to think about things.....things like, "oh shit....I kinda fucked up". NOW, here is the part that will go over most peoples head...... When he called 911...BEFORE the operator picked up and said, "911, do you need police or paramedics?"....Raja can be heard saying, "Drop that fucking gun right now!" Why would he say that? He wasn't talking to an operator yet....so must be legit right?.....because most people don't realize that the 911 call is recorded from the moment you hit "send"....not the moment the operator picks up. Most people don't know that...... Most people.....don't have a wife that was a dispatcher/911 call taker for years at the small dept you used to work at for 7 years. I guarantee he knew that would be recorded. He screwed up and was already concocting a cover up. He was trying to make it seem like it "was all just happening". 33 seconds is enough time to get back to your car and get your radio......why didn't he do that? My opinion is he was trying to figure out how to spin this. Really interesting. Still manslaughter though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 2:41:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
NOW, here is the part that will go over most peoples head...... When he called 911...BEFORE the operator picked up and said, "911, do you need police or paramedics?"....Raja can be heard saying, "Drop that fucking gun right now!" Let's spin it some more. The Vic tossed the gun. He finally gets to the Vic's body and thought the guy was still armed. A simple +1 theory, which is a common training practice. So, he gives him orders to drop the gun, but he then realizes the guy had no gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 2:44:55 PM EDT
[#15]
Some opinions, and just that, that his defense will have to address or recover from.
His approach and arrival in the unmarked and un equipped van. He wasn't wearing his TAC vest with identification as directed by a supervisor. He did not have his badge displayed or on him it appears. He did not verbally identify himself, or his reason for making contact (pretty text book cop 101 stuff) His verbal interaction gave no indication of what his intention was, if anything it will be argued that it can easily be interpreted as ambiguous at best and easily suspicious. The foundation of his initial action prior to the shooting will either be used to paint him as incompetent or grossly negligent at best or as a cowboy or trigger happy hot head. The initial shooting, second shooting and his actions during and after that time will be the even bigger hurdle for his defense. Especially when it comes to LE investigations of LEO actions. In my experience suppression of evidence is very rare in these cases. So the ability of the defense to do damage control by winning suppressions is low compared to non LEO defendants. Add in that while he was new to that agency he had 7 years experience with another agency, was an instructor in general LE areas of knowledge (general instructor) and also firearms instructor and emergency vehicle operations instructor with 800 documented hours of instructing at a local academy, his experience and past performance will most likely be open to being brought up. His defense will be an uphill battle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:00:20 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't disagree. But if you shoot the guy is it self-defense? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you roll up on a stranded motorist, the motorist pulls a gun on you, you draw and fire your weapon it wouldn't be self-defense? If I roll up on a stranded motorist on a dark highway, in a sketchy area, at night, in plain clothes, in an unmarked unit that looks like a hood ride, seemingly aggressive and say nothing more than "you good? You good?" and he draws on me, it's my own dumbass fault. That's why A) i don't stop for stranded vehicles 99.9% of the time, and B) He should have been wearing something to ID himself and verbally IDd himself I don't disagree. But if you shoot the guy is it self-defense? Is it, IDK, should it be, no. He created the situation that caused him to have to shoot the drummer by being a dipshit. I sort of liken it to you try to rob someone, they pull a gun and you shoot them first, you don't get to claim self defense because you created that scenario. I understand the difference in the "you're committing a violent felonious act" in my comparison scenario, but if the cop came across as acting or looking like he was fixing to commit a violent felonious act by not being properly identified then he shouldn't get to claim self defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:02:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Looks like good faith (up until the shooting) but unreasonable to me.
I think there is a charge for that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:21:33 PM EDT
[#18]
I wonder if Raja or his attorneys knew what was on the tape recording. Because according to the family they just found out Wednesday.
That recording will be the biggest uphill battle. But there are just too many issues for a properly informed/instructed jury to not find him negligent. Even assuming he said "hey, I'm Police!" It doesn't go with everything else. His dress, his vehicle, his manner of approach, the language and tone. There is no denying that Jones was obviously in fear....fear created by Raja....based on actions that I don't think a single LEO here, or anywhere else, would defend or say is good/normal police practice. Culpable Neglignce resulting in death (Manslaughter) for sure in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:29:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is it, IDK, should it be, no. He created the situation that caused him to have to shoot the drummer by being a dipshit. I sort of liken it to you try to rob someone, they pull a gun and you shoot them first, you don't get to claim self defense because you created that scenario. I understand the difference in the "you're committing a violent felonious act" in my comparison scenario, but if the cop came across as acting or looking like he was fixing to commit a violent felonious act by not being properly identified then he shouldn't get to claim self defense. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I don't disagree. But if you shoot the guy is it self-defense? Is it, IDK, should it be, no. He created the situation that caused him to have to shoot the drummer by being a dipshit. I sort of liken it to you try to rob someone, they pull a gun and you shoot them first, you don't get to claim self defense because you created that scenario. I understand the difference in the "you're committing a violent felonious act" in my comparison scenario, but if the cop came across as acting or looking like he was fixing to commit a violent felonious act by not being properly identified then he shouldn't get to claim self defense. So you roll up on a vehicle on the side of the road, the driver pulls a gun and you are not going to do anything? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:35:50 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Curious of your take on a couple things from your position and experience. That is one hell of a long complaint submitted for a warrant. It reads much more detailed like parts of an information filed with the court. It appears a SAO investigator completed it, wonder if it wasn't gleaned from a draft of the information they were preparing. The two charges still seem somewhat baffling, in light of his actions, to some degree couldn't the factors/actions of the two charges be used to bolster a single charge showing his premeditation or intentional actions? It seems that his actions would bolster his taking these actions in an intentionally depraved state of mind. Thanks. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So you roll up on a stranded motorist, the motorist pulls a gun on you, you draw and fire your weapon it wouldn't be self-defense? As a private citizen (as the cop gave every indication of being), yes - unless I did what this idiot did, repeatedly asking a cryptic question that sounds an awful lot like the beginning of a jack. Sad that the victim didn't have the safety off and one in the pipe. It would have been appropriate for him to draw and aim when he became convinced that a forcible felony was afoot, and to shoot when the officer went for his gun. What we have here is an apparent private citizen giving a man reasonable cause to believe that he is under attack. I don't think the apparent aggressor's employment matters. If anybody (not in a marked unit/uniform) did what he did, prosecution would be in order. The only thing I can figure with the Att. 1* charge is that one or more of the wounds was inflicted postmortem, indicating that the shooter tried to kill someone who was already dead - thus the "Attempted" qualifier. Curious of your take on a couple things from your position and experience. That is one hell of a long complaint submitted for a warrant. It reads much more detailed like parts of an information filed with the court. It appears a SAO investigator completed it, wonder if it wasn't gleaned from a draft of the information they were preparing. The two charges still seem somewhat baffling, in light of his actions, to some degree couldn't the factors/actions of the two charges be used to bolster a single charge showing his premeditation or intentional actions? It seems that his actions would bolster his taking these actions in an intentionally depraved state of mind. Thanks. It is a long complaint, but bear in mind that it isn't a garden variety shooting/killing. Candor is required, so you can't omit the fact that the shooter is LE. Include that and a judge is going to say "You want me to sign a warrant for a cop who shot a guy who pulled a gun?" so you have to include the details showing why it is a bad shooting. Manslaughter is homicide which is not excusable or justifiable and is neither 1* nor 2* Murder. It is not necessary to negate defenses (excusable or justifiable) in the information.IME, an information (charging document) for Manslaughter would only say something like ". . . charges that on the X day of Y, in Z County, Florida, Shooter McGee caused the death of Dead Guy by consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury to Dead Guy, to-wit: by shooting the said Dead Guy, contrary to the provisions of Section 782.07, Fla.Stat." As I mentioned earlier, my only guess as to the facially mystifying charges is that Msltr is for killing him and Att 1* is for shooting him after he was dead. 
The contents of the application were almost certainly lifted by the SA investigator from police reports, which is kosher. Hearsay is OK in a warrant application. If I were the prosecutor, I would have filed an information and had a capias issued for the shooter's arrest rather than creating a warrant application which is just one more document for the defense to use for impeachment. I am happy to discuss this further if I haven't addressed the questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:38:16 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you roll up on a vehicle on the side of the road, the driver pulls a gun and you are not going to do anything? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't disagree. But if you shoot the guy is it self-defense? Is it, IDK, should it be, no. He created the situation that caused him to have to shoot the drummer by being a dipshit. I sort of liken it to you try to rob someone, they pull a gun and you shoot them first, you don't get to claim self defense because you created that scenario. I understand the difference in the "you're committing a violent felonious act" in my comparison scenario, but if the cop came across as acting or looking like he was fixing to commit a violent felonious act by not being properly identified then he shouldn't get to claim self defense. So you roll up on a vehicle on the side of the road, the driver pulls a gun and you are not going to do anything? No, i wouldn't have been there in the first place 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:44:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you roll up on a vehicle on the side of the road, the driver pulls a gun and you are not going to do anything? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't disagree. But if you shoot the guy is it self-defense? Is it, IDK, should it be, no. He created the situation that caused him to have to shoot the drummer by being a dipshit. I sort of liken it to you try to rob someone, they pull a gun and you shoot them first, you don't get to claim self defense because you created that scenario. I understand the difference in the "you're committing a violent felonious act" in my comparison scenario, but if the cop came across as acting or looking like he was fixing to commit a violent felonious act by not being properly identified then he shouldn't get to claim self defense. So you roll up on a vehicle on the side of the road, the driver pulls a gun and you are not going to do anything? I would almost certainly do something, LE or not. This is a very bad situation. The cop gave the shootee ample grounds to display a gun, and probably to shoot him. Had the shootee clipped the officer, it would have been a good shoot IMO. The shoot as it happened is a bad one, at least in part, because the officer was objectively the aggressor because of the situation he created - candy van, plain clothes, "You good?" "You good?" "You good?", maybe drawing a gun before the shootee did. You can't commit what is objectively a forcible felony and then lawfully respond in kind to the objective victim's lawful use or threat of force. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:48:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would almost certainly do something, LE or not. This is a very bad situation. The cop gave the shootee ample grounds to display a gun, and probably to shoot him. Had the shootee clipped the officer, it would have been a good shoot IMO. The shoot as it happened is a bad one, at least in part, because the officer was objectively the aggressor because of the situation he created - candy van, plain clothes, "You good?" "You good?" "You good?", maybe drawing a gun before the shootee did. You can't commit what is objectively a forcible felony and then lawfully respond in kind to the objective victim's lawful use or threat of force. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't disagree. But if you shoot the guy is it self-defense? Is it, IDK, should it be, no. He created the situation that caused him to have to shoot the drummer by being a dipshit. I sort of liken it to you try to rob someone, they pull a gun and you shoot them first, you don't get to claim self defense because you created that scenario. I understand the difference in the "you're committing a violent felonious act" in my comparison scenario, but if the cop came across as acting or looking like he was fixing to commit a violent felonious act by not being properly identified then he shouldn't get to claim self defense. So you roll up on a vehicle on the side of the road, the driver pulls a gun and you are not going to do anything? I would almost certainly do something, LE or not. This is a very bad situation. The cop gave the shootee ample grounds to display a gun, and probably to shoot him. Had the shootee clipped the officer, it would have been a good shoot IMO. The shoot as it happened is a bad one, at least in part, because the officer was objectively the aggressor because of the situation he created - candy van, plain clothes, "You good?" "You good?" "You good?", maybe drawing a gun before the shootee did. You can't commit what is objectively a forcible felony and then lawfully respond in kind to the objective victim's lawful use or threat of force. Appreciate your input on this, but wouldn't this be the victim's subjective view on what was happening? And irrelevant to the shooter's state of mind and subsequent appropriate charge? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:49:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would almost certainly do something, LE or not. This is a very bad situation. The cop gave the shootee ample grounds to display a gun, and probably to shoot him. Had the shootee clipped the officer, it would have been a good shoot IMO. The shoot as it happened is a bad one, at least in part, because the officer was objectively the aggressor because of the situation he created - candy van, plain clothes, "You good?" "You good?" "You good?", maybe drawing a gun before the shootee did. You can't commit what is objectively a forcible felony and then lawfully respond in kind to the objective victim's lawful use or threat of force. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't disagree. But if you shoot the guy is it self-defense? Is it, IDK, should it be, no. He created the situation that caused him to have to shoot the drummer by being a dipshit. I sort of liken it to you try to rob someone, they pull a gun and you shoot them first, you don't get to claim self defense because you created that scenario. I understand the difference in the "you're committing a violent felonious act" in my comparison scenario, but if the cop came across as acting or looking like he was fixing to commit a violent felonious act by not being properly identified then he shouldn't get to claim self defense. So you roll up on a vehicle on the side of the road, the driver pulls a gun and you are not going to do anything? I would almost certainly do something, LE or not. This is a very bad situation. The cop gave the shootee ample grounds to display a gun, and probably to shoot him. Had the shootee clipped the officer, it would have been a good shoot IMO. The shoot as it happened is a bad one, at least in part, because the officer was objectively the aggressor because of the situation he created - candy van, plain clothes, "You good?" "You good?" "You good?", maybe drawing a gun before the shootee did. You can't commit what is objectively a forcible felony and then lawfully respond in kind to the objective victim's lawful use or threat of force. What was the felony in this case that the officer committed to allow the other person to shoot him? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:51:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Appreciate your input on this, but wouldn't this be the victim's subjective view on what was happening? And irrelevant to the shooter's state of mind and subsequent appropriate charge? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I would almost certainly do something, LE or not. This is a very bad situation. The cop gave the shootee ample grounds to display a gun, and probably to shoot him. Had the shootee clipped the officer, it would have been a good shoot IMO. The shoot as it happened is a bad one, at least in part, because the officer was objectively the aggressor because of the situation he created - candy van, plain clothes, "You good?" "You good?" "You good?", maybe drawing a gun before the shootee did. You can't commit what is objectively a forcible felony and then lawfully respond in kind to the objective victim's lawful use or threat of force. Appreciate your input on this, but wouldn't this be the victim's subjective view on what was happening? And irrelevant to the shooter's state of mind and subsequent appropriate charge? What would a reasonable person believe if a man in plain clothes, in a plain van, pulls up to him at 3 in the AM and says only "You good?" several times, perhaps drawing or placing his hand on a gun or reaching for his beltline while doing so? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:53:16 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What would a reasonable person believe if a man in plain clothes, in a plain van, pulls up to him at 3 in the AM and says only "You good?" several times, perhaps drawing or placing his hand on a gun or reaching for his beltline while doing so? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I would almost certainly do something, LE or not. This is a very bad situation. The cop gave the shootee ample grounds to display a gun, and probably to shoot him. Had the shootee clipped the officer, it would have been a good shoot IMO. The shoot as it happened is a bad one, at least in part, because the officer was objectively the aggressor because of the situation he created - candy van, plain clothes, "You good?" "You good?" "You good?", maybe drawing a gun before the shootee did. You can't commit what is objectively a forcible felony and then lawfully respond in kind to the objective victim's lawful use or threat of force. Appreciate your input on this, but wouldn't this be the victim's subjective view on what was happening? And irrelevant to the shooter's state of mind and subsequent appropriate charge? What would a reasonable person believe if a man in plain clothes, in a plain van, pulls up to him at 3 in the AM and says only "You good?" several times, perhaps drawing or placing his hand on a gun or reaching for his beltline while doing so? I get it, if the victim had shot the cop and was on trial that would be an EXCELLENT defense. But what relevance does that have when the cop is the one on trial? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:53:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What was the felony in this case that the officer committed to allow the other person to shoot him? IMO, it would have been reasonable for the shootee to believe he was being robbed, at least. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:56:13 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IMO, it would have been reasonable for the shootee to believe he was being robbed, at least. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What was the felony in this case that the officer committed to allow the other person to shoot him? IMO, it would have been reasonable for the shootee to believe he was being robbed, at least. I don't disagree. So if you are there to help the stranded motorist, he pulls a gun and you shoot him is it self-defense? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:56:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I get it, if the victim had shot the cop and was on trial that would be an EXCELLENT defense. But what relevance does that have when the cop is the one on trial? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What would a reasonable person believe if a man in plain clothes, in a plain van, pulls up to him at 3 in the AM and says only "You good?" several times, perhaps drawing or placing his hand on a gun or reaching for his beltline while doing so? I get it, if the victim had shot the cop and was on trial that would be an EXCELLENT defense. But what relevance does that have when the cop is the one on trial? No one is privileged to use force in response to a lawful threat or use of force. If the shootee's actions were lawful, the shooter's actions could not be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 3:57:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't disagree. So if you are there to help the stranded motorist, he pulls a gun and you shoot him is it self-defense? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What was the felony in this case that the officer committed to allow the other person to shoot him? IMO, it would have been reasonable for the shootee to believe he was being robbed, at least. I don't disagree. So if you are there to help the stranded motorist, he pulls a gun and you shoot him is it self-defense? Not if a reasonable person would believe that you provoked him into lawfully pulling his gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:02:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not if a reasonable person would believe that you provoked him into lawfully pulling his gun. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What was the felony in this case that the officer committed to allow the other person to shoot him? IMO, it would have been reasonable for the shootee to believe he was being robbed, at least. I don't disagree. So if you are there to help the stranded motorist, he pulls a gun and you shoot him is it self-defense? Not if a reasonable person would believe that you provoked him into lawfully pulling his gun. So you would have to let the other person shoot you even though you committed no illegal act? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:03:42 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one is privileged to use force in response to a lawful threat or use of force. If the shootee's actions were lawful, the shooter's actions could not be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What would a reasonable person believe if a man in plain clothes, in a plain van, pulls up to him at 3 in the AM and says only "You good?" several times, perhaps drawing or placing his hand on a gun or reaching for his beltline while doing so? I get it, if the victim had shot the cop and was on trial that would be an EXCELLENT defense. But what relevance does that have when the cop is the one on trial? No one is privileged to use force in response to a lawful threat or use of force. If the shootee's actions were lawful, the shooter's actions could not be. So if it is reasonable that an objective person believed the defendant (officer) was in the commission of a crime when the homicide occurred, shouldn't they have charged him with more than manslaughter? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:04:14 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't disagree. So if you are there to help the stranded motorist, he pulls a gun and you shoot him is it self-defense? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What was the felony in this case that the officer committed to allow the other person to shoot him? IMO, it would have been reasonable for the shootee to believe he was being robbed, at least. I don't disagree. So if you are there to help the stranded motorist, he pulls a gun and you shoot him is it self-defense? If I am behaving aggressively, telling an apparent bullshit story (ex. Ama kop!, ama Kop!, yo homie....) and charging his position visibly armed then my claim to "self-defense" has to be at least questionable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:08:55 PM EDT
[#34]
I always laugh when I hear ex-cop.
The only other two professions I see called out in the media are firefighters and military. It's never ex-plumber does xyz. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:19:55 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you would have to let the other person shoot you even though you committed no illegal act? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not if a reasonable person would believe that you provoked him into lawfully pulling his gun. So you would have to let the other person shoot you even though you committed no illegal act? I seriously doubt anybody would do that. Like I said, it's a very bad situation. Perhaps the reason for the Culpable Negligence Manslaughter charge is the cop's negligence in creating the situation - acting and looking like a robber. I suppose to get to "what you have to do" it's necessary to back up to the officer's decision not to wear his vest, to approach from the wrong direction in an unmarked van, to engage with no effort to ID himself, maybe to preemptively reach for or pull a gun. Random point - his yelling "Drop the gun" while on 911 is significant evidence of consciousness of guilt. On reflection, I think the culpable negligence has to be in the creation of the situation. Clearly, the shooting was intentional and not negligent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:31:55 PM EDT
[#36]
I was in the court room this morning. ..very interesting. .Raja is fuked, he hired a very well known def atty Richard Lubin, not sure who is paying for this as he is a tier 1 defender, but still loses a lot lol.
The family had lots of ghetto goblin s present where I didn't notice any Raja family. He looked rough after spending g the night in jail. The family had A local poverty pimp, Al Sharpton wanna be. Reverend Masters with them, this guy is a professional shit stirrer..I made sure I got my opinion s known when we passed each other. Rev Masters was Bitching that he should be charged with 6 COUNTS of attempting murder lol...as he fired 6 shots.. Raja just posted bail which was 100k and 250k...he is still in custudy..thiugh. He was escorted by the Jail SWAT guys called CERT...very odd ...those guys are huge btw.... Raja is a majority owner of an AR 15 manufacturing business..not sure if he still can have a License for that.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:34:23 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I always laugh when I hear ex-cop. The only other two professions I see called out in the media are firefighters and military. It's never ex-plumber does xyz. He's an "ex-cop" because they fired him after the shooting |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:34:45 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, i wouldn't have been there in the first place Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't disagree. But if you shoot the guy is it self-defense? Is it, IDK, should it be, no. He created the situation that caused him to have to shoot the drummer by being a dipshit. I sort of liken it to you try to rob someone, they pull a gun and you shoot them first, you don't get to claim self defense because you created that scenario. I understand the difference in the "you're committing a violent felonious act" in my comparison scenario, but if the cop came across as acting or looking like he was fixing to commit a violent felonious act by not being properly identified then he shouldn't get to claim self defense. So you roll up on a vehicle on the side of the road, the driver pulls a gun and you are not going to do anything? No, i wouldn't have been there in the first place The officer wasn't supposed to be in that area either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:37:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's an "ex-cop" because they fired him after the shooting Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I always laugh when I hear ex-cop. The only other two professions I see called out in the media are firefighters and military. It's never ex-plumber does xyz. He's an "ex-cop" because they fired him after the shooting Oh. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:43:24 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wouldn't that be more of a tampering with evidence charge? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Part in red....I agree and have said so since last year. Raja was in fact "in fear for his life". That's not up for debate IMHO. However, what put him in that position to be "in fear for his life" was through his own GROSS negligence. Also, after he fucked up, and then realized he fucked up....comes the "malice" of thought. Trying to cover shit up with that bullshit 911 call. Wouldn't that be more of a tampering with evidence charge? Your actions after a crime can be used as circumstantial evidence of guilt and state of mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:51:37 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Let's say Corey Jones fires at Nouman Raja and kills him, because he feels his life is threatened. Nouman never identified himself as a police officer. It would be justified, I wonder how the jury would see it ? I think Mr. Jones would get a ride in Ole Sparky if it was still used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:53:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you roll up on a vehicle on the side of the road, the driver pulls a gun and you are not going to do anything? If I pull up to a vehicle: -Contrary to the flow of traffic -Block the other vehicle -And then act sketchy.............. .....wait..............I wouldn't do that shit. It's dumb as fuck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:53:54 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The officer wasn't supposed to be in that area either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't disagree. But if you shoot the guy is it self-defense? Is it, IDK, should it be, no. He created the situation that caused him to have to shoot the drummer by being a dipshit. I sort of liken it to you try to rob someone, they pull a gun and you shoot them first, you don't get to claim self defense because you created that scenario. I understand the difference in the "you're committing a violent felonious act" in my comparison scenario, but if the cop came across as acting or looking like he was fixing to commit a violent felonious act by not being properly identified then he shouldn't get to claim self defense. So you roll up on a vehicle on the side of the road, the driver pulls a gun and you are not going to do anything? No, i wouldn't have been there in the first place The officer wasn't supposed to be in that area either. He was doing UC work at the Double Tree Hotel re car theft..he saw Jones on the ramp and went over to fuk with him. The cop was still a probie...do they go on UC assignments that early..? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:55:37 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What was the felony in this case that the officer committed to allow the other person to shoot him? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I would almost certainly do something, LE or not. This is a very bad situation. The cop gave the shootee ample grounds to display a gun, and probably to shoot him. Had the shootee clipped the officer, it would have been a good shoot IMO. The shoot as it happened is a bad one, at least in part, because the officer was objectively the aggressor because of the situation he created - candy van, plain clothes, "You good?" "You good?" "You good?", maybe drawing a gun before the shootee did. You can't commit what is objectively a forcible felony and then lawfully respond in kind to the objective victim's lawful use or threat of force. What was the felony in this case that the officer committed to allow the other person to shoot him? Engaging in unjustified violent action. He never made himself known to be LE. He appeared as a normal brigand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 4:58:25 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Raja is fuked, he hired a very well known def atty Richard Lubin, not sure who is paying for this as he is a tier 1 defender, but still loses a lot lol. 
That's how the game goes. You usually don't win as a defense attorney. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 5:00:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't disagree. So if you are there to help the stranded motorist, he pulls a gun and you shoot him is it self-defense? Have I acted in the same way that Ofc. Cowboy did? Am I acting in such a way that can be reasonably construed to be seen as aggression? This whole shooting reads like a law school fact pattern. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 5:00:18 PM EDT
[#47]
Prosecutor announced on tv it was a grand jury indictment
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 5:01:44 PM EDT
[#48]
Victim had a valid ccw
Bad Shoot, bad cop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 5:26:38 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's how the game goes. You usually don't win as a defense attorney. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Raja is fuked, he hired a very well known def atty Richard Lubin, not sure who is paying for this as he is a tier 1 defender, but still loses a lot lol.
That's how the game goes. You usually don't win as a defense attorney. I get it, I was just saying for the rep he has, alot of his clients still end up in the very rough, FL DOC...just lime Raja will. It will be togh to get a jury here in PBC as it is on the news every day... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2016 6:58:04 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I seriously doubt anybody would do that. Like I said, it's a very bad situation. Perhaps the reason for the Culpable Negligence Manslaughter charge is the cop's negligence in creating the situation - acting and looking like a robber. I suppose to get to "what you have to do" it's necessary to back up to the officer's decision not to wear his vest, to approach from the wrong direction in an unmarked van, to engage with no effort to ID himself, maybe to preemptively reach for or pull a gun. Random point - his yelling "Drop the gun" while on 911 is significant evidence of consciousness of guilt. On reflection, I think the culpable negligence has to be in the creation of the situation. Clearly, the shooting was intentional and not negligent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not if a reasonable person would believe that you provoked him into lawfully pulling his gun. So you would have to let the other person shoot you even though you committed no illegal act? I seriously doubt anybody would do that. Like I said, it's a very bad situation. Perhaps the reason for the Culpable Negligence Manslaughter charge is the cop's negligence in creating the situation - acting and looking like a robber. I suppose to get to "what you have to do" it's necessary to back up to the officer's decision not to wear his vest, to approach from the wrong direction in an unmarked van, to engage with no effort to ID himself, maybe to preemptively reach for or pull a gun. Random point - his yelling "Drop the gun" while on 911 is significant evidence of consciousness of guilt. On reflection, I think the culpable negligence has to be in the creation of the situation. Clearly, the shooting was intentional and not negligent. So it's a shit sandwich. 
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
