Sign in to follow this  

Recommended Posts

1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Member Statistics

    41,746
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Hornetpride85
    Newest Member
    Hornetpride85
    Joined


  • Posts

    • No, it’s not all fair game. It has to be relevant to the trial however, if a defendant (or anyone)  takes the stand, you can impeach his testimony by trying to show that he is untruthful. For the guys to claim self defense in this case, I believe they are going to have to take the stand to explain their actions. They obviously don’t have to by law and their lawyers can try to make the case without it but it will be difficult with what I think the state attorney is going to bring. Dropping a case or being found not guilty has nothing to do with a lawful arrest. Probable cause is a way different standard than proof beyond s reasonable doubt. Yes I have seen officers sued and successfully. Deadly force is defined (at least in Texas) by statute. It isn’t merely “generally accepted”. DF used on a person is actual use of deadly force but the threat of deadly force (in Texas) with a deadly Weapon can get you up to 99 years in the hoosegow according who you threaten. Up to 20 years for everyone else. That is the mere threat and not even use. i disagree with your struggle over the weapon makes the use of DF would be “completely useable beyond question”. Welllll.... not so much. If a person displays a weapon and/or threatens DF when it isn’t lawful, he loses his use of self defense. I will quote Texas law (as an example as I don’t like looking at GA) on self defense not being lawful. In your terminology, if a mortal was initiated by the deceased. No, if the shooter had no legal standing for displaying the shotgun, morally initiating the struggle is legal by Arbery. He has just as much right of self defense and stand your ground against an unlawful use of force including the threat. This is Texas law when self defense is not lawful: >>>>>(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;<<<< Does not provoke... if the shooter had no lawful use of a shotgun to stop a man merely running (even away), then the shooter provoked the incident. Also, no defense when engaged in any crime other than C misdemeanor or in other words, a traffic citation. So if brandishing a firearm without the lawful use of self defense is a crime in GA, again (and I bet it is), the shooter broke the law and again, loses lawful self defense. So, you can’t commit a crime and then claim self defense. As my questions were, was an arrest lawful under GA law and was the display of a weapon to make that arrest in that situation lawful. If not lawful on either, case closed.  If the shooter displayed the shotgun unlawfully, it is Arbery that had the lawful right of self defense, not the shooter. I am not sure what the Michael Slager case has to do with this except even an officer can’t guess what “may” happen. If so the police could legally shoot anyone because they “may” do something. 
    • What’s your thoughts on Crenshaw?
    • At this rate, would this be any reason to kill an economy?!  Unless... https://reason.com/2020/05/24/the-cdcs-new-best-estimate-implies-a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-below-0-3/
    • Hey RaiderGirl, I think we sent FalconRus back under his rock!
    • I agree. The only reason they are flying with Biden is the small hopes that his VP role with anointed one, Obama, will somehow pull out a win. 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...