ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 6th December 2018, 08:19 PM   #2921
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 21,059
I seem to recall at least 6 different witnesses being mentioned by the press...

A guy who lives right across the hall from Jean.

Two sisters who are reported to live in separate units, and have also been reported to be roommates in the same unit.

Two women inside the same unit with one being the resident and the other a visiting friend. These are Caitlin Simpson and Yazmine Hernandez.

A woman named Alyssa Kinsey.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 08:19 PM   #2922
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,977
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
To make this not murder the idea of an immediate threat to her life has to be added into the scenario, there is no indication in the facts we have at the moment that her life was ever in immediate danger.
True, although we don't know the facts. All we have is a small statement from a warrant about giving orders that weren't obeyed. But, excluding the castle doctrine, in court she would have to provide some convincing testimony on why she felt her life was in danger and that deadly force was immediately necessary and the only means of preventing the attack (other than retreat, which is not required in Texas).

It is odd, though, that she didn't say that he lunged at her or she thought he had a gun or some other reason why she decided to pull the trigger. It is possible her lawyer told her to keep tight lipped on that because they could apply the castle doctrine, in which case she does not have the burden of proving deadly force was reasonable because it is presumed.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 08:37 PM   #2923
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,977
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
I don't remember forum members coming to a conclusion or consensus on the "contradiction". I also don't remember a witness telling the press that she needed to make a clarification about something she said earlier. I need some help finding those things in this big thread.
Well, maybe it was just me who came to that conclusion. I talked about it in post #2414. In that post I mention that I couldn't find the article mentioning the neighbor making the clarification (this was the neighbor who lived across the hall and was in the hallway at the time).

I thought there was an article. It is possible I confused some speculation as an actual fact. I could be wrong.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 09:51 PM   #2924
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
No it wouldn't. The legal “reasonable person“ knows that shooting at someone could result in their death. If you shoot at someone you know you may be killing them, her decision was to shoot at someone, so she can't claim that the person dying was an accidental outcome of her decision. It was an outcome that any reasonable person could have foreseen.

To make this not murder the idea of an immediate threat to her life has to be added into the scenario, there is no indication in the facts we have at the moment that her life was ever in immediate danger.
I was taught the phrase "to stop the threat" regarding use of a firearm in self defense. You are shooting to stop the threat. You are not shooting to kill anyone.

Yes you are aware that the firearm can cause death, but you did not shoot to cause death, but to stop a threat to yourself or your family.

If asked, you fired to end the threat.

If asked why you fired 3 rounds, the answer should be that you perceived the threat to be over at that point.

You never say you shot to kill, or intended to kill, etc.

The police are also using the "threat" phrase.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2018, 11:40 PM   #2925
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,079
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I was taught the phrase "to stop the threat" regarding use of a firearm in self defense. You are shooting to stop the threat. You are not shooting to kill anyone.
....
No offense, but I suspect that the phrase is a PR exercise as much as anything else. Police can't talk about deliberately killing people. But most forces authorize shooting at all only in circumstances where lethal force is appropriate; no "shooting to wound," as if that was possible, no warning shots, etc. When a civilian shoots someone who survives he can be charged with attempted murder. It's not like you just pull the trigger, and what happens next is out of your control.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:45 AM   #2926
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,293
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Possibly. But to be considered a mistake of fact it has to be a "reasonable belief" which means you would have to actually own a car that could be mistaken for the one you hotwired, explain why you would think that was your car when your car was somewhere else, actually have a broken key, and so on.
I was really, really tired. My employer makes me work long hours. Really, it's their fault!


Quote:
I've told the story here before about the time I stole a bike. I had a bike in college that was some cheap off-brand bike that had been in the family for about 15 years. The small dormitory I was in didn't have a bike rack, so I chained it up outside to a back stairway that was basically a fire exit.

One day I rode my bike into town to get some things and then rode back to one of the school buildings. A few days later I walked out the rear of the dorm and found my bike chained up inside to a radiator. Someone had taken the lock off my bike, moved it inside, and chained it up. I got some bolt cutters and freed my bike.

As I as riding across campus I stopped to chat with a friend. He asked about the bike because he had seen one just like it sitting behind one of the school buildings for the past few days. That's when it dawned on me: This isn't my bike! I had ridden the bike from town to the building. When I left the building I forgot that I had ridden my bike there and had walked home. My bike was still sitting behind the building.

By some weird coincidence, a person in my small dorm happened to have the same color off-brand 15-year-old bike that they chained up in a odd place that was right next to the odd place where I usually chained up my bike and had only done so (I had never seen the other bike there before) during the couple of days that I happened to have forgotten that I left my bike somewhere else.

Should I have gone to jail as a bike thief?

How many hours had you worked that day?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 05:29 AM   #2927
SuburbanTurkey
Muse
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 858
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
I was taught the phrase "to stop the threat" regarding use of a firearm in self defense. You are shooting to stop the threat. You are not shooting to kill anyone.

Yes you are aware that the firearm can cause death, but you did not shoot to cause death, but to stop a threat to yourself or your family.

If asked, you fired to end the threat.

If asked why you fired 3 rounds, the answer should be that you perceived the threat to be over at that point.

You never say you shot to kill, or intended to kill, etc.

The police are also using the "threat" phrase.
A gun is lethal force. It's mechanism of stopping the threat is inducing severe trauma on the target. The most effective means of stopping are also the most lethal, destroying the central nervous system or destroying the cardiovascular system.

The framing of "stopping the threat" has more to do with establishing and communicating intent of the shooter. The idea being, there is no illegal malice in the mind of the shooter, but rather a lawful desire to stop a threat. Anyone pulling a trigger is fully aware they are using lethal force. There is no reliable non-lethal way to shoot someone that is also reliable in stopping a determined assailant.

The idea that someone who decides to shoot someone is also not deciding that that person is extremely likely to die is absurd.

The police engage in all varieties of new speak. I would't police PR speak a reliable source of objective fact.

All of this is to say, "stopping the threat" is murder unless you have a lawful right to engage in self defense in the given context, which is the whole crux of this case. Adding this stop the threat language is a pointless diversion from the main topic of negligence, imperfect self defense claims, and the fine differences between murder and manslaughter.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 7th December 2018 at 05:38 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 10:19 AM   #2928
Max_mang
Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
I've told the story here before about the time I stole a bike. I had a bike in college that was some cheap off-brand bike that had been in the family for about 15 years. The small dormitory I was in didn't have a bike rack, so I chained it up outside to a back stairway that was basically a fire exit.

One day I rode my bike into town to get some things and then rode back to one of the school buildings. A few days later I walked out the rear of the dorm and found my bike chained up inside to a radiator. Someone had taken the lock off my bike, moved it inside, and chained it up. I got some bolt cutters and freed my bike.

As I as riding across campus I stopped to chat with a friend. He asked about the bike because he had seen one just like it sitting behind one of the school buildings for the past few days. That's when it dawned on me: This isn't my bike! I had ridden the bike from town to the building. When I left the building I forgot that I had ridden my bike there and had walked home. My bike was still sitting behind the building.

By some weird coincidence, a person in my small dorm happened to have the same color off-brand 15-year-old bike that they chained up in a odd place that was right next to the odd place where I usually chained up my bike and had only done so (I had never seen the other bike there before) during the couple of days that I happened to have forgotten that I left my bike somewhere else.

Should I have gone to jail as a bike thief?
Probably not, maybe a minor punishment for not checking things more closely as long as you returned the bike and replaced the chain/lock.

However, if you killed the person that you thought stole the bike you should be tried for murder.

If you walk into a residence accidentally thinking it's your own you probably shouldn't be tried for breaking and entering if you excuse yourself. But if you kill the person inside you should be tried for murder.
Max_mang is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 01:21 PM   #2929
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 19,471
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
And if you can't see them as they are behind you, or you haven't got your glasses on, or it's dark or their uniform looks like a FedEx driver to you....

It seems absolutely crazy to me that I am meant to obey something someone on the street shouts out at me just in case they are a police officer.
It only seems crazy because it is. The US attitude to their twelve thousand police forces is very odd.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Of course. Citizens are supposed to be able, to at a moments notice, immediately identify the guy that kicked your door in and is screaming orders at you, follow all their instructions (even the ones that contradict the other ones) instantaneously and without question and in no way panic, twitch, move, don't move, act too calm, don't act calm enough, move away from the cop, move toward the cop, don't move, be black, or in any other way not read the cops mind so they don't sense a threat or you will be shot.

Cops are allowed to shoot into the darkness because there might be a threat in there.

Well said. The level of authoritarianism is striking.
__________________
OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcare
http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
jimbob is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 02:28 PM   #2930
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
A gun is lethal force. It's mechanism of stopping the threat is inducing severe trauma on the target. The most effective means of stopping are also the most lethal, destroying the central nervous system or destroying the cardiovascular system.

The framing of "stopping the threat" has more to do with establishing and communicating intent of the shooter. The idea being, there is no illegal malice in the mind of the shooter, but rather a lawful desire to stop a threat. Anyone pulling a trigger is fully aware they are using lethal force. There is no reliable non-lethal way to shoot someone that is also reliable in stopping a determined assailant.

The idea that someone who decides to shoot someone is also not deciding that that person is extremely likely to die is absurd.

The police engage in all varieties of new speak. I would't police PR speak a reliable source of objective fact.

All of this is to say, "stopping the threat" is murder unless you have a lawful right to engage in self defense in the given context, which is the whole crux of this case. Adding this stop the threat language is a pointless diversion from the main topic of negligence, imperfect self defense claims, and the fine differences between murder and manslaughter.
I'm talking about how you speak to the police when you've just shot someone you found in your home.

You tell them you wanted to end the threat. You don't say anything about killing anyone.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:02 PM   #2931
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,428
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
It only seems crazy because it is. The US attitude to their twelve thousand police forces is very odd.
No odder than the European attitude towards the EU's many disparate and independent police departments.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 03:56 PM   #2932
lobosrul5
Graduate Poster
 
lobosrul5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
No odder than the European attitude towards the EU's many disparate and independent police departments.
The EU isn't a single country.
lobosrul5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 04:09 PM   #2933
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 17,501
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
No odder than the European attitude towards the EU's many disparate and independent police departments.
I think there is a difference in scale. By an order of magnitude, I would guess.

While Spain has a bunch of smaller forces, Germany has less than 20 and the UK has about 40. France has three main forces and then many municipal forces of limited jurisdiction, which I think is similar to the situation in Spain. Can you imagine a local sheriff in the US being told he can only handle minor crime and anything major has to be handled by the state police or feds?

I'm not going to add them all up, but they do seem to have far more centralized policing that we do, even though they were completely separate countries not too long ago.
__________________
I once proposed a fun ban.

Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 04:54 PM   #2934
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,428
Originally Posted by lobosrul5 View Post
The EU isn't a single country.
Your idea of what being a single country means is parochial. Insular, even.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 04:58 PM   #2935
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 30,428
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I think there is a difference in scale. By an order of magnitude, I would guess.

While Spain has a bunch of smaller forces, Germany has less than 20 and the UK has about 40. France has three main forces and then many municipal forces of limited jurisdiction, which I think is similar to the situation in Spain. Can you imagine a local sheriff in the US being told he can only handle minor crime and anything major has to be handled by the state police or feds?

I'm not going to add them all up, but they do seem to have far more centralized policing that we do, even though they were completely separate countries not too long ago.
I'm referring to the phenomenon of France and Germany having separate, independent, sovereign police forces, even though their nations belong to a cooperative union governed by a system of collective rules and regulations.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 05:11 PM   #2936
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,293
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm referring to the phenomenon of France and Germany having separate, independent, sovereign police forces, even though their nations belong to a cooperative union governed by a system of collective rules and regulations.
But with different laws.

Which, I appreciate, is what you have across different states, but there do seem to be a massive number of tiny forces across some states. Are there different laws from county to county?

There is the question of the vast, open spaces - how is it done in Australia or Canada I wonder.

Surely more uniformity would lead to at least massive savings in costs due to economies of scale? In a country that's very hot on public spending, surely that alone would make it worth considering?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 05:53 PM   #2937
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 19,041
When I was in college, four different police agencies had authority on the campus, not counting any federal ones. City Police, because we were within the limits. County Sheriff, because we were in the county. State Patrol, because we were in the state. And the Campus Charlies, because we were on campus. The latter were among the most powerful cops in the state, because they'd been deputized to the other three. They were also among the dumbest, because they were pretty much all otherwise unemployable former football stars.
That was just ONE small college town. There was probably a local PD in every other small town in the small county. Some of which probably only had two or three officers. And yes, every damn county and incorporated town has its own ordinances.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 04:14 AM   #2938
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,293
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
When I was in college, four different police agencies had authority on the campus, not counting any federal ones. City Police, because we were within the limits. County Sheriff, because we were in the county. State Patrol, because we were in the state. And the Campus Charlies, because we were on campus. The latter were among the most powerful cops in the state, because they'd been deputized to the other three. They were also among the dumbest, because they were pretty much all otherwise unemployable former football stars.
That was just ONE small college town. There was probably a local PD in every other small town in the small county. Some of which probably only had two or three officers. And yes, every damn county and incorporated town has its own ordinances.

Are there any legislative systems in the USA that are designed to make life easier rather than complicating it as much as is physically possible?
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 04:50 AM   #2939
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 22,609
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Are there any legislative systems in the USA that are designed to make life easier rather than complicating it as much as is physically possible?

Not on purpose.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 06:01 AM   #2940
Planigale
Master Poster
 
Planigale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,940
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Are there any legislative systems in the USA that are designed to make life easier rather than complicating it as much as is physically possible?
Follow the money. Who profits? Lawyers. Who designs the systems? Lawyers.
Planigale is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 07:50 AM   #2941
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,596
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Right, and I didn't say that my link would contain information about what the sisters said to the police. I posted it to newyorkguy because I didn't want anyone to think that I had invented the information about the sisters living separately. His link says that they are roommates while my link says that each has their own apartment.

Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
That witness is not credible at all. Actually you are talking about the two sisters who each have their own apartments near Jean. They seem to agree with each other that they heard the same things. But there is a huge problem with them.

Right after the incident the police interviewed them and they said that they heard only gunshots. Nothing more than gunshots. Then several days later the Jean family attorney Merritt goes to the press and says that the sisters say that they heard loud knocking and a voice say "Let me in" and then gunshots and then another voice say "Why did you do that?"

So why the hell did they tell the police after the shooting that they only heard gunshots if they actually heard a bunch of other stuff as well? The only explanation that I can think of is that they decided to go and tell a big lie after they first talked to the police, or maybe Attorney Merritt is a big liar and the sisters didn't really say those things to him. The cops say they only talked about hearing gunshots.

The prosecutors and the defense probably know what Merritt said about what the sisters told him. I wouldn't be surprised if they are not called as witnesses by either side. They are not credible for anyone to use. Maybe they will be brought in to strictly repeat what they told the cops... "I heard gunshots and that was all I heard." Because if they open their mouths about hearing all that other stuff they will be instantly impeached.
Just in case you forgot the scope of your claims on this matter, now reduced to nothing more than "I'm just saying they don't live in the same unit, that's all!"

So, now having gone and found some evidence to clarify where my beliefs on this come from, could you maybe dig up where you came to believe the sisters told police they heard only gunshots and nothing else?

ETA: A non-quoted line from an article vaguely describing a police department statement in response to an attorney statement is far, far away from your very absolute description of their testimony on the night of the shooting.

Last edited by Delphic Oracle; 8th December 2018 at 08:07 AM.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 09:13 AM   #2942
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
Are there any legislative systems in the USA that are designed to make life easier rather than complicating it as much as is physically possible?
Don't forget "Company Police" which you can have in some US states.

Companies can have their own police forces with full police powers on their property here in NC.

In NC you can have the City Police, the county sheriff's department, the State troopers, University Police, and Company Police, all with full police powers.

Railroad Police as well, which are a separate entity for railroad property, but are considered Company Police.

And then you have Federal cops.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 09:17 AM   #2943
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 16,293
Originally Posted by LTC8K6 View Post
Don't forget "Company Police" which you can have in some US states.

Companies can have their own police forces with full police powers on their property here in NC.

In NC you can have the City Police, the county sheriff's department, the State troopers, University Police, and Company Police, all with full police powers.

Railroad Police as well, which are a separate entity for railroad property, but are considered Company Police.

And then you have Federal cops.

The excess expense must be enormous.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 09:17 AM   #2944
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
Just in case you forgot the scope of your claims on this matter, now reduced to nothing more than "I'm just saying they don't live in the same unit, that's all!"

So, now having gone and found some evidence to clarify where my beliefs on this come from, could you maybe dig up where you came to believe the sisters told police they heard only gunshots and nothing else?

ETA: A non-quoted line from an article vaguely describing a police department statement in response to an attorney statement is far, far away from your very absolute description of their testimony on the night of the shooting.
FWIW, I also remember seeing reports that these witnesses did not relate the same info to police that Merritt claimed they gave to him.

Given where Jean fell, it seems very unlikely that Guyger yelled "Let me in", or that anyone would have heard anything Jean may have said.

If the door was locked, such that Guyger needed to be let in, then Jean would have had to come and open it. That doesn't seem to have happened.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 09:21 AM   #2945
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
 
LTC8K6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail
Posts: 20,532
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
The excess expense must be enormous.
The actual idea was to save local municipalities money by not having to fund larger police forces. Private police could cover the property owned by large companies and universities, and the city didn't have to pay those expenses.

I imagine Duke University spends a lot on it's police force, but it's money the city and county don't have to spend.
__________________
What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing.

2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break?
LTC8K6 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 09:47 AM   #2946
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,851
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
No offense, but I suspect that the phrase is a PR exercise as much as anything else. Police can't talk about deliberately killing people. But most forces authorize shooting at all only in circumstances where lethal force is appropriate; no "shooting to wound," as if that was possible, no warning shots, etc. When a civilian shoots someone who survives he can be charged with attempted murder. It's not like you just pull the trigger, and what happens next is out of your control.
Trying to shoot to wound will get you fired in many if not all police departments. Mozambiqueing is best/safest practice.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 09:52 AM   #2947
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 57,851
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
A gun is lethal force. It's mechanism of stopping the threat is inducing severe trauma on the target. The most effective means of stopping are also the most lethal, destroying the central nervous system or destroying the cardiovascular system.

The framing of "stopping the threat" has more to do with establishing and communicating intent of the shooter. The idea being, there is no illegal malice in the mind of the shooter, but rather a lawful desire to stop a threat. Anyone pulling a trigger is fully aware they are using lethal force. There is no reliable non-lethal way to shoot someone that is also reliable in stopping a determined assailant.

The idea that someone who decides to shoot someone is also not deciding that that person is extremely likely to die is absurd.

The police engage in all varieties of new speak. I would't police PR speak a reliable source of objective fact.

All of this is to say, "stopping the threat" is murder unless you have a lawful right to engage in self defense in the given context, which is the whole crux of this case. Adding this stop the threat language is a pointless diversion from the main topic of negligence, imperfect self defense claims, and the fine differences between murder and manslaughter.
You might want to fix your last sentence in your next to last paragraph...……….
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!

Last edited by fuelair; 8th December 2018 at 09:53 AM. Reason: needed minor addition
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 11:23 AM   #2948
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,988
The fact that Amber Guyger is charged with murder is an indication her statements made before the charge may have been false.

The electronic data stored on the lock of Jean's apartment may have shown that his door was locked when Guyger arrived proving that her claim was untrue that the door was already open when she tried her electronic key.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 12:29 PM   #2949
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,079
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Trying to shoot to wound will get you fired in many if not all police departments. Mozambiqueing is best/safest practice.
I've heard of "mozambiqueing" as a method of using a shotgun in tight spaces (don't know why it's called that). What does it mean here?

ETA: Never mind. Found it: "Two to the body, one to the head ..."
https://www.wideopenspaces.com/maste...re-stop-drill/

So Guyger gave the guy a break, right?

Last edited by Bob001; 8th December 2018 at 12:36 PM.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 12:41 PM   #2950
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,079
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The fact that Amber Guyger is charged with murder is an indication her statements made before the charge may have been false.

The electronic data stored on the lock of Jean's apartment may have shown that his door was locked when Guyger arrived proving that her claim was untrue that the door was already open when she tried her electronic key.
I continue to believe that it's entirely possible that he heard her rattling around his door and opened it himself, to be confronted by a cop screaming at him. We have seen that these apartment doors were equipped with strong automatic closers. Why would he be sitting at home at night with his door deliberately unlocked?
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 01:42 PM   #2951
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,985
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
I continue to believe that it's entirely possible that he heard her rattling around his door and opened it himself, to be confronted by a cop screaming at him. We have seen that these apartment doors were equipped with strong automatic closers. Why would he be sitting at home at night with his door deliberately unlocked?
He was expecting her. She was role playing with a gun she thought she had unloaded. She had removed the magazine, but left one in the chamber. OOops, I killed my evening's stress reliever. No wonder she was so apologetic when she called it in. [/FANTASY]
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 02:46 PM   #2952
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,977
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The fact that Amber Guyger is charged with murder is an indication her statements made before the charge may have been false.

The electronic data stored on the lock of Jean's apartment may have shown that his door was locked when Guyger arrived proving that her claim was untrue that the door was already open when she tried her electronic key.
Maybe that charge is an indication, but certainly not necessary. I think the DA's action suggest that is not the case.

The police chief and DA wanted to charge her with murder. The Rangers charged her with manslaughter. The Rangers took the lock. If the lock showed Guyger was lying, I think they would have charged murder. If the DA subsequently found any evidence that Guyger was lying, I think we would have heard something. Probably not the specific evidence, but I think the DA would have at least said they are pursing murder based on new evidence.

The DA brought in Jean's family to testify before the grand jury. That is unusual. The family would not have much to provide in terms of evidence. It seems like a tactic to appeal to emotion. The DA wouldn't do that if the was solid physical evidence suggesting murder.

There is also the length of the grand jury hearing. It was several days when it is typically no more than one, even for murder. For a murder case there is very little evidence to consider. There is no question of who done it, what the murder weapon was, time of the incident, etc. If the prosecutor had physical evidence contradicting Guyger's account, a murder charge wouldn't have taken long. the length of the hearing suggests the prosecutor is making a more complex argument that requires explaining things like mens rea, modes of culpability, mistake of fact, the castle doctrine, self defense, etc.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 03:00 PM   #2953
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 84,236
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Possibly. But to be considered a mistake of fact it has to be a "reasonable belief" which means you would have to actually own a car that could be mistaken for the one you hotwired, explain why you would think that was your car when your car was somewhere else, actually have a broken key, and so on.

I've told the story here before about the time I stole a bike. I had a bike in college that was some cheap off-brand bike that had been in the family for about 15 years. The small dormitory I was in didn't have a bike rack, so I chained it up outside to a back stairway that was basically a fire exit.

One day I rode my bike into town to get some things and then rode back to one of the school buildings. A few days later I walked out the rear of the dorm and found my bike chained up inside to a radiator. Someone had taken the lock off my bike, moved it inside, and chained it up. I got some bolt cutters and freed my bike.

As I as riding across campus I stopped to chat with a friend. He asked about the bike because he had seen one just like it sitting behind one of the school buildings for the past few days. That's when it dawned on me: This isn't my bike! I had ridden the bike from town to the building. When I left the building I forgot that I had ridden my bike there and had walked home. My bike was still sitting behind the building.

By some weird coincidence, a person in my small dorm happened to have the same color off-brand 15-year-old bike that they chained up in a odd place that was right next to the odd place where I usually chained up my bike and had only done so (I had never seen the other bike there before) during the couple of days that I happened to have forgotten that I left my bike somewhere else.

Should I have gone to jail as a bike thief?
Did you intend to keep the bike?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 03:23 PM   #2954
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,977
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Did you intend to keep the bike?
Not after I realized it wasn't my bike. I immediately returned it to where I had found it.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 03:34 PM   #2955
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 5,540
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Not after I realized it wasn't my bike. I immediately returned it to where I had found it.
You hook him up with a new lock?
__________________
I am looking for other websites; you suck. -banned buttercake aficionado yuno44907
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 03:50 PM   #2956
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,977
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
You hook him up with a new lock?
I did not damage the lock. I cut one link in the chain that the lock was on. I wrapped the chain around the bike the way it was, which made it look like it was locked.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 04:56 PM   #2957
dejudge
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,988
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Maybe that charge is an indication, but certainly not necessary. I think the DA's action suggest that is not the case.

The police chief and DA wanted to charge her with murder. The Rangers charged her with manslaughter. The Rangers took the lock. If the lock showed Guyger was lying, I think they would have charged murder. If the DA subsequently found any evidence that Guyger was lying, I think we would have heard something. Probably not the specific evidence, but I think the DA would have at least said they are pursing murder based on new evidence..........
The timeline of events do not support your claim.

Guyger shot Jean about 10 pm on the 6th of Sept claiming that she went to the wrong apartment and that the door to Jean's apartment was ajar.

She was charged with manslaughter on the 9th Sept.

The warrant for the electronic door lock of Jean's apartment was obtained on the 11th Sept. which is two days after the manslaughter charge.

The data on the electronic door lock would indeed be new evidence if it shows that the door to Jean's apartment was locked.

In addition, the data from electronic door lock for Guyger's apartment may also contradict her claim about the sequence of events.

Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post


The DA brought in Jean's family to testify before the grand jury. That is unusual. The family would not have much to provide in terms of evidence. It seems like a tactic to appeal to emotion. The DA wouldn't do that if the was solid physical evidence suggesting murder.........
How do you know that the family would not have much evidence to provide?

Are you in possession of the phone records or know of conversation he may have made with his family before he was shot?

It seems as though you are actually appealing to speculation rather than dealing with the facts.
dejudge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 05:38 PM   #2958
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,977
Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
The timeline of events do not support your claim.

Guyger shot Jean about 10 pm on the 6th of Sept claiming that she went to the wrong apartment and that the door to Jean's apartment was ajar.

She was charged with manslaughter on the 9th Sept.

The warrant for the electronic door lock of Jean's apartment was obtained on the 11th Sept. which is two days after the manslaughter charge.

The data on the electronic door lock would indeed be new evidence if it shows that the door to Jean's apartment was locked.

In addition, the data from electronic door lock for Guyger's apartment may also contradict her claim about the sequence of events.
Thanks. I got that wrong. There was a Dallas Police Department search warrant on the 7th, but that was not for the door locks. The warrant for the door locks was on the 11th and served on the 14th, both of which were after the arrest warrant of the 9th. The Rangers didn't have the lock before they issued the warrant for manslaughter.

Still, I think if there was something there the DA would have mentioned it. When asked why she asked for a murder charge when the Rangers had charged manslaughter, she said it was because she believed that was the appropriate charge all along. If it was based on evidence from the door lock, I would expect that she would have said it was because of new evidence.

Originally Posted by dejudge View Post
How do you know that the family would not have much evidence to provide?

Are you in possession of the phone records or know of conversation he may have made with his family before he was shot?

It seems as though you are actually appealing to speculation rather than dealing with the facts.
Jean's attorney has been trying to present evidence from the very start that Guyger went to the apartment on purpose. He certainly talked to Jean's family. If the family had conversations or phone records where Jean had talked to Guyger, I think Jean's attorney would have already said so.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 07:03 PM   #2959
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15,985
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Thanks. I got that wrong. There was a Dallas Police Department search warrant on the 7th, but that was not for the door locks. The warrant for the door locks was on the 11th and served on the 14th, both of which were after the arrest warrant of the 9th. The Rangers didn't have the lock before they issued the warrant for manslaughter.

Still, I think if there was something there the DA would have mentioned it. When asked why she asked for a murder charge when the Rangers had charged manslaughter, she said it was because she believed that was the appropriate charge all along. If it was based on evidence from the door lock, I would expect that she would have said it was because of new evidence.



Jean's attorney has been trying to present evidence from the very start that Guyger went to the apartment on purpose. He certainly talked to Jean's family. If the family had conversations or phone records where Jean had talked to Guyger, I think Jean's attorney would have already said so.
Initially, I do'nt think we knew about their history of noise complaints. And if they had other relations, as enemy or friends, that could muddy the waters. Murder an ex lover? Go in to threaten a noisy neighbor with gun out?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 08:16 PM   #2960
DevilsAdvocate
Illuminator
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,977
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Initially, I do'nt think we knew about their history of noise complaints. And if they had other relations, as enemy or friends, that could muddy the waters. Murder an ex lover? Go in to threaten a noisy neighbor with gun out?
Merritt brought up the noise complaints, which was reported by the New York Times on September 9. He addressed that and any connection between Guyger and Jean on the September 11 interview with CNN:

Quote:
No one that I know who has a personal relationship with both of them can connect the two in any meaningful way. The only connection that we have been able to make, she’s his immediate downstairs neighbor. There were noise complaints from the immediate downstairs neighbors about whoever was upstairs, and that would have been Botham. There was a noise complaint that very day about upstairs activity in Botham’s apartment. Bothatm received a phone call about noise coming from his apartment from the downstairs neighbor.
There is no indication that there was a complaint by Guyger. We have nothing showing where Merritt got his information about it coming from a downstairs neighbor. It wasn't even a noise complaint. Merritt, himself, admitted that he got that wrong:

Quote:
The day of the shooting, employees from the South Side Flats leasing office knocked on Jean's door saying there had been a noise complaint, Merritt said.

Jean told his girlfriend what happened and that he was offended by the women's visit because he'd just gotten home from work at PricewaterhouseCoopers and wasn't playing music, said a law enforcement official, who isn't authorized to address the case publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.

Like law enforcement, Merritt has previously said there was a noise complaint about Jean's apartment the day he was shot. But Merritt said Wednesday that he learned that was not true.

Merritt said there hadn't been a noise complaint against Jean in the two months Guyger had lived in the building.
Merritt said on the 11th that he had talked to friends and family and nobody knew of any connection. If any friends or family later found out about a connection, I expect they would have told Merritt and that Merritt would have gone public with that like he did with the noise complaint. The fact that he hasn’t leads me to believe that neither Merritt nor the District Attorney have any such information.


ETA: The apartment management had visited Jean at his apartment the day of the shooting in response to a complaint about the smell of marijuana coming from his apartment. Management determined the smell was not from his apartment. Jean complained to his girlfriend about the visit saying that he was playing loud music or anything to warrant the visit. It appears the information originated with the girlfriend and the police and/or Merritt wrongly assumed that it was a noise complaint. The complaint about the smell almost certainly did not come from Guyger, and probably not from anybody on the floor below Jean.
__________________
Heaven forbid someone reads these words and claims to be adversely affected by them, thus ensuring a barrage of lawsuits filed under the guise of protecting the unknowing victims who were stupid enough to read this and believe it! - Kevin Trudeau

Last edited by DevilsAdvocate; 8th December 2018 at 08:38 PM.
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:43 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.