tvc184

Okay. The takedown by the car appears to have played no part in the outcome.

That’s why I said spin put out for the media. Maybe it’s a poor choice of words. I would hope that the police never start looking at a murder as if they knew the conclusion before they start. After they get into it and determine what happened? Sure. Treating it as (if those were the words used) and appears that it may be are completely different. I have heard a local police chief say after a police involved shooting something to the effect, it appears at this time that our officer was forced to defend himself from a life threatening attack. If the same chief had said immediately after a police shooting, we are treating this like a lawful self defense, how would the people look at that? The police are going into it with a conclusion already made. That was my only point. If he had witnesses at the scene that made it fairly certain that it was self defense, in my opinion the chief should have said that instead of dancing around the question.

Yeah but if taking the prisoner to the ground was the issue, I wanted to be able to see what the prisoner may or may not have done, if this video of the take down by the police vehicle was the main complaint. Does the longer video show another time when he was taken down?

Yes, they almost always go straight to the ground. Leaving a prisoner standing up and being able to kick and head butt isn’t the preferred way to stop the aggression.

The video unfortunately doesn’t show much of anything other than the conclusion. Maybe blown up and enhanced it may give a better indication of what happened but not what was released to the media.

How straight forward? The police may be treating it as something or it is only spin put out for the media but the police shouldn’t treat it as anything. Let the investigation determine what happened. I was taught forty years ago that all deaths were to be treated as a homicide. I agree with that rationale.

The law is almost certainly on the side of the person claiming self defense. If evidence is admitted to the jury at trial that it was defense, the burden then falls to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense. A person doesn’t have to prove self defense in that case, the state has to prove that it wasn’t. For the what if scenario though…. The information that seems to be at this moment that a couple of guys were arguing and one pulled a gun and shot the other. A bystander, son of the person shot, then pulled out a gun and shot the guy who had just shot his father. Clear cut? What if….. the son and father were the aggressors and both came at the other man. He pulled out a gun in self defense as being outnumbered by two guys threatening and coming at him? Who is using lawful self defense at that moment? If the father son are guilty of threatening and then advancing on the now deceased man, does the son have the right of self defense? By my reading (and filing cases with the DA) is that the son cannot lawfully use self defense. In a way it is the Ahmaud Arbery case. The guy that shot and killed Arbery claimed self-defense because Arbery was attempting to take away his shotgun. Yeah but the man and his son illegally attacked and threatened Arbery with death. Arbery had the right of self defense, not the people illegally threatening him. The claimed self defenders in that case got life without parole. We could throw other what ifs such as there was the argument and the father who was shot in the arm, threatened other guy and started reaching into his pocket for a knife. Again the now deceased guy was the one being threatened, possibly with a deadly weapon. Hopefully there are good witnesses and video and it is clear cut but sometimes things that make you go hmmmmm….

Another waste of time. I am okay with the attempt but it is political theater and nothing else.

Less than one minute into the film, the author said that he was offended by a gummy bear stereotype so decided…. “That’s why I’m making this film”. He literally lets you know all that you need to know in the first minute. Essentially he is saying, I am going to search out evidence that meets my objective. He’s entitled but the video is hardly authority on anything other than one man’s opinion

!!score:53/6/f

!!score:53/6/4

!!score:46/6/4

!!score:46/6/3

!!score:40/6/3

!!score:40/6/h

Fumble return…

!!score:40/6/2

!!score:26/6/2

Yes

43 yard FG for LC. !!score:18/6/2

I think Hubert Thomas

!!score:15/6/2

In just noticed. !!score:15/6/1

!!score:6/15/1

2 point conversion LC 15-6