Yeah the number doesn't really matter to me, the fact that they shot him essentially a 2nd time like 10 seconds later is the really important thing. There's no way anyone can justify that. If all the rounds happened immediately that would be one thing, but 2 separate shootings is murder 100%
Did he? If he did, that might show something. As it stands, your original post of how many rounds were fired proves nothing. Once wonder nines arrived on the scene in the 90's cops fire more rounds. If you don't like it join, my Bandwagon for cops to carry revolvers with 6 rounds.
So you are defending the Trump supporters? If protesters disrupt an event they should be beaten then? And you were the guy with the MLK quote in your signature lol.
No....it just wasn't based on how many rounds were fired, it was based on the long gap between the first round of shots and the 2nd round of shots. If 2 or more people are shooting, you can be shot 15 times in a matter of just a few seconds which could be a response to a quick motion and it be deemed justifiable.....but if you shoot someone 15 times with 2 distinct rounds of fire over 10 or 12 seconds while the guy is laid out on the ground, that's murder.
bobby: shooting 16 rounds in 2 separate sets is murder casey: shooting 16 rounds in any configuration is mandatory ?
All i can do is tell you why there was a murder charge, you don't have to accept it. The guy did actually have a knife in his hand apparently now that I've looked into it more, if it wasn't for the 2nd round of shots that was like 10 seconds after the first round of shooting then there's no chance in hell you get a charge against anyone even if they shot him 16 times in the first volley. It was the 2nd round of shots that causes the murder charge because he was no longer a threat at that point so the only intention for shooting again is to kill the guy.
And the second round could have been a single shot to the head and still been murder. Number of rounds is irrelevant. Now, let's see how obtusendagimp twists this to fit his thinking.
Exactly. A cop can shoot 10-12 rounds out of most semi-automatic police weapons in 3 or maybe 4 seconds, so if you have 2 cops shooting, you can get 16 hits REALLY fast and it not be murder at all. If you shoot someone, then stop for 5 or 6 seconds, then go for a kill shot without any provocation, it's always murder. In fact, I can't think of a scenario like that where it wouldn't be murder.
how is this different than my original post? i guess i could have specified that seconds past after he was already laying dead on the ground, even though it's already implied. then the resident semantic zealot wouldn't have spazzed out :grin:
I'm still waiting on a link to that quote. Was it before my username change? Must have been. I don't remember ever typing it.
Because your emphasis was on the number of rounds which is irrelevant, the important part is the gap in time. If they shot him in one volley immediately after his sudden movement, it wouldn't have mattered that they continued shooting him as he went down. So long as it was one burst of gunfire, they can say that they fired until they eliminated the threat and they would be no-billed (unless political pressure caused the DA to give it to a grand jury that would no-bill the officers). In fact, the officers continued firing until the guy was on the ground in the first volley which wasn't wrong.....then one of them went for a few kill shots about 10 seconds later and that is the only thing that makes this murder, but it makes it murder 100%
Yikes. I can't believe I'm being grouped with texxx when I try to look at things objectively. Here's the way I see it. You have the 3 white supremacists taunting the BLM protesters. It was reported that some BLM protesters felt they didn't belong there and escorted them out. A protester punched one of the taunters in the face and that's when the gunfire started. So now think about what went wrong and why. Wrong things: white supremacists taunting BLM protesters, BLM protesters escorting white supremacists out of a public space, BLM protester punching white supremacist, and white supremacists opening fire into the crowd. So the white supremacists, while being douche bags, can legally be douche bags in a public space and anti-protest as much as they want similar to the Westboro church. The BLM protesters don't have much legal ground to remove them, and whether or not they were physically removed is yet to be reported but it sounds like the white supremacists were willingly being escorted. A BLM protester punches a white supremacist in the face, now that's illegal and ignites all the chaos. Why did a BLM protester assault the white supremacist? I can't justify that. So, in response to being assaulted, the white supremacists shot at the protesters who were escorting them out. There's a clear cause and effect of what happened, according to eyewitness testimony. So who is to blame and who's at fault? Well, I think the instigator holds more blame, and that's the BLM protester that threw the punch. Was shooting at the protesters justified? Ehhh, maybe? There's 3 of them, there are a whole lot more protesters, and the first one to become physical was a protester, so you could argue that the white supremacists felt threatened by a mob mentality. The justified use of a firearm the biggest gray area for the legal system to sort out. Now did the white supremacists come out to anti-protest the BLM protesters looking to stir up a fight? Sure sounds like it because they came armed and with body armor, but is it illegal to have a CHL and wear body armor? Not really and I don't see how that matters much legally. Now to shift gears and discuss your hypothetical question: would I defend the Trump protester for shooting at the mob who punched and kicked him? Yeah, I would. The Trump mob clearly assaulted the man and they all should be charged for it, they're a bunch of animals. However, I will say that in that case, the Trump protester was a clear disruption to a private event and could be legally removed by any security, which should've happened by a clear authority figure in security than by an unruly mob.
