But how do you REALLY feel about people of color Jackie?Wrong. You are confusing people of color with sorry ass piece of shit criminals.
No need to answer. We all know.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHS Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
But how do you REALLY feel about people of color Jackie?
No need to answer. We all know.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHS Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
There is the possibility that if she had intentionally drawn her firearm and shot the person trying to flee that she would have been justified.Appears that Sgt Johnson testified and did not say he felt he was in danger.
The instant she screamed “tazar” but instead pulled the trigger on a pistol changed everything.
Did her partner, who was half way in the car when Dante Wright tried to flee testify? It would be interesting to hear his take on what happened. Originally Posted by Jackie S
Appears that Sgt Johnson testified and did not say he felt he was in danger. Originally Posted by NoirMan
Yes. You are wrong. Originally Posted by NoirManDid you hear all of the testimony?
Yes. You are wrong. Given a hypothetical (which Johndon was given on cross), he agreed that force could be used in those hypothetical situations (which was a hypothetical because it wasn’t the same situation they were in at the time of the use of force). You see that’s how hypotheticals work. You provide additional or nonestablished scenarios to shape the facts to get a specific response which differs from the actual or proven facts.
Johnson did not testify that he (or the other officer at the scene) was in danger at the time that Potter used deadly force, which is EXACTLY what I typed.
I hope now you can see that they are 2 totally different things. Generally when a question starts with “if X had been the case, then “ it’s a hypothetical. Not a recitation of a fact that’s occurred. Interestingly what Johnson did testify to was he moved because he might have been injured by Potters taser. So it’s pretty clear that was something he recognized as a danger to him but being somehow dragged by the car didn’t appear to be his concern.
I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt that you weren’t intentionally trying to mislead and that you simply misunderstood the use of hypothetical examples to elicit testimony favorable to the defendant on cross-examination.
Were Johnson or the other officer in danger, the attorney could have easily asked “isn’t it true that you were in danger of great bodily injury when Potter fired?” A yes response would have provided ample proof of justification. But that’s not what happened. Instead some examples were thrown out there hypothetically of times Potter might have been justified which differed from the actual situation. Originally Posted by NoirMan
Did you hear all of the testimony?
One does not have to believe another is in danger unless that person who doesn't believe is the one who uses deadly force. The person using deadly force is the one who is required to perceive the threat to themselves or a third-person the person is attempting to protect from the danger. And BTW it's a subjective standard relying on the reasonable belief of the person using deadly force. It is not an objective standard of a third-party and clearly not from the point of view of an anonymous loudmouth posting on Eccie.
Originally Posted by LexusLover
You would think NoirMan would know that! Originally Posted by HedonistForeverYou think that repeating or basing anything on the idiocy that comes from LL is folly. Just because he agrees with you does not make his statements any less idiotic and you might want to take that into consideration when agreeing with him.
To bad you didn't understand that when I first brought up "justification", it was a hypothetical.No, not all, since that is not even what was said by Johnson. Read again what was asked and what he said in response. "If Wright had taken off in the car" and "If that were the case . . would it be fair for the officer to use a firearm". See, that is how IF works, you create new sets of facts, and in these the car would have had to have been moving.
So you are admitting that if no taser had been used and Potter merely shot the guy because she feared for the life of her partner, she could be acquitted under current law.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever
I proved you wrong yet you are now trying say you were not in fact saying what you meant. It’s fine though. I’ve come to expect this from you.
If I've gotten this wrong, please explain and I'll admit I made a mistake. If you made a mistake, I would expect an apology for misleading ( if that was a mistake on your part ) information.
Originally Posted by HedonistForever
You think that repeating or basing anything on the idiocy that comes from LL is folly. Just because he agrees with you does not make his statements any less idiotic and you might want to take that into consideration when agreeing with him.
No, not all, since that is not even what was said by Johnson. Read again what was asked and what he said in response. "If Wright had taken off in the car" and "If that were the case . . would it be fair for the officer to use a firearm". See, that is how IF works, you create new sets of facts, and in these the car would have had to have been moving.
So, here we go, just for you, If the car had been moving and Johnson was being dragged or was about to be dragged, she could have fired. Whether he turned out to be injured or not. Your initial statement was a diatribe on what i wrote in response to the question of whether Johnson testified and whether it would be interesting to hear his take, which I responded, he did testify and said he did not express he was in danger.
That said, you went on to explain that there was a possible justification for the shooting, which i explain was in response to a hypothetical. Both of which are not the facts of this case and hence, she was not justified in using her sidearm. This isn't that complicated. And I wont retype my full explanation from above. but the facts of this case did not make justification a valid defense. Even the persons that she might have thought were in danger did not express they were in danger.
So, where is that apology, I am sure I will be waiting. Originally Posted by NoirMan
You think that repeating or basing anything on the idiocy that comes from LL is folly. Just because he agrees with you does not make his statements any less idiotic and you might want to take that into consideration when agreeing with him.
No, not all, since that is not even what was said by Johnson. Read again what was asked and what he said in response. "If Wright had taken off in the car" and "If that were the case . . would it be fair for the officer to use a firearm". See, that is how IF works, you create new sets of facts, and in these the car would have had to have been moving.
Oh, so he would have to have been injured for it to be a defense. Is that the same as waiting till a perp shots your partner before you can take out the perp? You shoot to prevent the perp from dragging your partner not wait to see if he successfully pulls away with your partner being dragged. And YES, Johnson did indicate from the video I showed and that you offered no video evidence of what you said, that IF the perp had pulled away, he most likely would have been injured.
So, here we go, just for you, If the car had been moving and Johnson was being dragged or was about to be dragged, she could have fired. Whether he turned out to be injured or not. Your initial statement was a diatribe on what i wrote in response to the question of whether Johnson testified and whether it would be interesting to hear his take, which I responded, he did testify and said he did not express he was in danger.
That said, you went on to explain that there was a possible justification for the shooting, which i explain was in response to a hypothetical. Both of which are not the facts of this case and hence, she was not justified in using her sidearm. This isn't that complicated. And I wont retype my full explanation from above. but the facts of this case did not make justification a valid defense. Even the persons that she might have thought were in danger did not express they were in danger.
So, where is that apology, I am sure I will be waiting. Originally Posted by NoirMan
I proved you wrong yet you are now trying say you were not in fact saying what you meant. It’s fine though. I’ve come to expect this from you. Originally Posted by NoirMan