4 cops shot dead at a coffeee house in Washington State

[normiss 806]

Depends on the state in the US.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

That is a disgrace in this country. So many of the institutions were closed.. to save money. Most of the people in them were dumped out onto the streets across the country

Or back into jails getting little/no help. But that would be socialism to help people w/mental issues.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Depends on the state in the US.

I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person. I can't see a person being charged when they killed a person while that person was defending another from grave imminent danger. It's gotta be what they call an Affirmative Defense to claim Justifyable Homicide in that case.

[normiss 806]

Check California then.

Or more radically, DC and New York City.

[kallend 2,033]

Quote

Not understandable.
If someone raises a weapon at you (cop or not) you have to right to defend yourself with deadly force.

YMMV.

Amadou Diallo raised his wallet and was shot 39 times.

I would like to see objective evidence in support of the cop's story. As far as I can tell, right now it's just his version that we have.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

Not understandable.
If someone raises a weapon at you (cop or not) you have to right to defend yourself with deadly force.

YMMV.

Amadou Diallo raised his wallet and was shot 39 times.

I would like to see objective evidence in support of the cop's story. As far as I can tell, right now it's just his version that we have.

Hi Prof

So you would like something that you know doesn't exist.

1)Don't be bashful john, just tell us what you think you know happened

2) How do you think the police officer should have handled the situation starting from the point as soon as he found the stolen car.

One Jump Wonder

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Check California then.

Or more radically, DC and New York City.

And your pulling that out of your ass under the giuse of liberal states are icky. Ridiculous logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called in some cases in the United States. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past, would generally not be considered justifiable.

AND:

The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker.


In fact here is California statute referrenced:

Two other forms of justifiable homicide are unique to the prison system: the death penalty and preventing prisoners from escaping. To quote the California State Penal Code (state law) that covers justifiable homicide:

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--

1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,

2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,

3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.

Although the above text is from Californian law, most jurisdictions have similar laws to prevent escapees from custody.


So altho I find your guessing that liberal states must somehow love criminals, I also find it boring as usual.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Check California then.

Or more radically, DC and New York City.

And before you further waste our time by telling me I didn't post Cailf statute, here it is: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,

EDITED TO ADD BY LUCKY: (so even killing a person attempting to rape another person is justifiable)

2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,

3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant or engaged in mutal combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed; or,

4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.


So please, no one here thinks you understand the law, quit being rudamentary.

______________________________________________


http://www.shouselaw.com/self-defense.html

Although some states require that you retreat before responding to force with force, California self-defense law does not.21

So even horrible, liberal California does not require a duty to retreat. Looks like your stereotypes fell thru again. Of course this is a lawyer website, maybe you have a better grasp of the law than they.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

Check California then.

Or more radically, DC and New York City.

And your pulling that out of your ass under the giuse of liberal states are icky. Ridiculous logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called in some cases in the United States. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past, would generally not be considered justifiable.

AND:

The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker.


In fact here is California statute referrenced:

Two other forms of justifiable homicide are unique to the prison system: the death penalty and preventing prisoners from escaping. To quote the California State Penal Code (state law) that covers justifiable homicide:

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--

1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,

2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,

3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.

Although the above text is from Californian law, most jurisdictions have similar laws to prevent escapees from custody.


So altho I find your guessing that liberal states must somehow love criminals, I also find it boring as usual.

In regards to your previous post, "I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person," are you now surprised at how California defines it?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Check California then.

Or more radically, DC and New York City.

And your pulling that out of your ass under the giuse of liberal states are icky. Ridiculous logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

A non-criminal homicide, usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another, may be called in some cases in the United States. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time. A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past, would generally not be considered justifiable.

AND:

The circumstances under which homicide is justified are usually considered to be that the defendant had no alternative method of self-defense or defense of another than to kill the attacker.


In fact here is California statute referrenced:

Two other forms of justifiable homicide are unique to the prison system: the death penalty and preventing prisoners from escaping. To quote the California State Penal Code (state law) that covers justifiable homicide:

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--

1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,

2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,

3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.

Although the above text is from Californian law, most jurisdictions have similar laws to prevent escapees from custody.


So altho I find your guessing that liberal states must somehow love criminals, I also find it boring as usual.

In regards to your previous post, "I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person," are you now surprised at how California defines it?

Not at all, it's right in line with the norm. Normiss was saying some states might not allow killing guy A as he was killing / attacking guy B unless you are guy B. I have never heard of any JH stataute that would require the only person being able to stop the attack with deadly force be the person under attack.

So no, I am not surprised one bit. BTW, whoever thinks Cali is so liberal, watch the last decade or 2 of immigrant propositions and gay marriage props. Cali is not that liberal anymore. They are tougher on guns, but that's about it.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

So then you didn't really mean it when you said, "I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person."
Got it.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

So then you didn't really mean it when you said, "I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person."
Got it.

Yes, I wrote:

I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person. I can't see a person being charged when they killed a person while that person was defending another from grave imminent danger. It's gotta be what they call an Affirmative Defense to claim Justifyable Homicide in that case.

Not sure what hair you're trying to split here, but as I wrote and let me clarify:

"I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently (from other states) than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person."


The issue and context was that Normiss stated that he thought some states, esp Calif, DC, etc had laws that didn't allow a person to kill to save another person, unless you are endanged. IOW's, killing a 3rd party to defend a 2nd party was not legally statuted. Now this is clear to everyone else, but since your brother just looked silly, you feel the need to jump in and split hairs where there are none. FAIL.

[NWFlyer 2]

Actual police blotter report, FWIW.

http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2009/12/01/officer-involved-shooting-in-south-seattle/

Quote

Officer involved shooting in South Seattle

At approximately 2:43 a.m. today, a uniformed patrol officer came upon a suspicious vehicle in the 4400 block of South Kenyon Street. The vehicle, an Acura Integra, was unoccupied. The engine was running and the hood was up. The officer stopped to investigate further and discovered that the Acura was a stolen vehicle.

The officer began doing the stolen vehicle recovery paperwork when something caught his attention. The officer turned around and noticed a subject walking in the street behind his patrol car, approaching on the driver’s side. The officer got out of his car and ordered the subject to stop and show his hands. The officer immediately recognized the subject as Maurice Clemmons, the suspect wanted in the murder of four Lakewood police officers. The suspect refused to comply with the officer’s commands.

As the officer was drawing his gun the suspect reached into his waist area and moved. The officer fired several times striking the suspect at least twice. The suspect went down near some bushes on the north side of the street. Shortly thereafter he was taken into custody. Seattle Fire Department medics responded and pronounced the suspect dead at the scene.

The officer involved was not injured. He was hired by Seattle Police in March of 2005. He has prior law enforcement experience and is also a military veteran. The officer will be placed on paid administrative leave, which is standard procedure in an officer-involved shooting. A Firearms Review Board will be convened in the coming weeks to determine whether or not the shooting was within Department policy.

The suspect was armed with a handgun, located in a front sweatshirt pocket. This handgun has been verified by serial number as belonging to one of the murdered Lakewood police officers.

Seattle Police Homicide and CSI detectives responded to the scene. Seattle Police Homicide detectives will conduct the officer-involved shooting aspect of the investigation.

The Medical Examiner responded to the scene and collected the deceased suspect. The Medical Examiner has yet to identify him. Detectives on scene believe that this person is Lakewood murder suspect Maurice Clemmons.

The Acura Integra had been reported stolen at 1:50 a.m. from the 4800 block of South Chicago Street. It will be impounded and processed for evidence.

The Seattle Police Department continues to offer any and all assistance requested to the Pierce County Sheriff’s Office and the Lakewood Police Department.

This is an active and ongoing investigation. This information is preliminary and subject to change.

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Ron 10]

Quote

Data to establish how cops get a break in court as defendants? Love to read it.

Not really hard to do... I am surprised that a guy with your extensive legal knowledge and math skills is not able to do actual research on the types of crimes committed by LEO vs the rest of the population and compare that to the rate of convictions and the punishments.

You type on here all day long about how others do not have valid data, then you spout invalid data all day long.... Expect to get called on it.

Quote

I thought you, the back peddler decided you looked foolish so you were gonna quit being spell nanny.

To make it 100% clear. YOU were the person going back on their word and looked silly.... Just like here where you bitch at people for not having good data and then spit out BS.

Again,if you can't realized that [SIC] is a proper form of quoting... I don't know what else to tell ya. Its not personal no matter how much you *feel* it is.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

So then you didn't really mean it when you said, "I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person."
Got it.

Yes, I wrote:

I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person. I can't see a person being charged when they killed a person while that person was defending another from grave imminent danger. It's gotta be what they call an Affirmative Defense to claim Justifyable Homicide in that case.

Not sure what hair you're trying to split here, but as I wrote and let me clarify:

"I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently (from other states) than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person."


The issue and context was that Normiss stated that he thought some states, esp Calif, DC, etc had laws that didn't allow a person to kill to save another person, unless you are endanged. IOW's, killing a 3rd party to defend a 2nd party was not legally statuted. Now this is clear to everyone else, but since your brother just looked silly, you feel the need to jump in and split hairs where there are none. FAIL.

It's a pretty damn big hair, son. You stated you would be surprised if any state defined it differently than allowing one person to kill another while protecting a third. The you posted a section of law that contains several other situations where it is allowed yet you fail to see the difference.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So then you didn't really mean it when you said, "I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person."
Got it.

Yes, I wrote:

I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person. I can't see a person being charged when they killed a person while that person was defending another from grave imminent danger. It's gotta be what they call an Affirmative Defense to claim Justifyable Homicide in that case.

Not sure what hair you're trying to split here, but as I wrote and let me clarify:

"I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently (from other states) than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person."


The issue and context was that Normiss stated that he thought some states, esp Calif, DC, etc had laws that didn't allow a person to kill to save another person, unless you are endanged. IOW's, killing a 3rd party to defend a 2nd party was not legally statuted. Now this is clear to everyone else, but since your brother just looked silly, you feel the need to jump in and split hairs where there are none. FAIL.

It's a pretty damn big hair, son. You stated you would be surprised if any state defined it differently than allowing one person to kill another while protecting a third. The you posted a section of law that contains several other situations where it is allowed yet you fail to see the difference.

No, little kid, the context was that of one state allowing it and onither not. If you follow the contcext I was saying that one state wouldn't define JH differently than another state. This is so classicBeligian, looks for hairs to split rather than attacking the meat of an issue. There always is a hair to split, semantics to be found. I hope, for your sake, if you ever get tried for a crime you don't try to sell teh jury a POS argument like that, they become offended. KInda like, "That depends on what the definition of, "is" is." It is a valid point, "is" can be an inquiry, a command and other usages, so Clinton really meant that it depends upon the usage of "is" in the given context, but that is as chickenshit an attempt to dissect an argument as you do. You're patently dishonest, you claim I was hgarrassing you in PM, yet I've posted both PM's twice and you just run like the wind. As long as you're having fun.

"I would be surprised if any state defines Justifyable Homicide differently than allowing a person to kill another while protecting a 3rd person."

[Belgian_Draft 0]

You backpedal so well.
Have you ever considered doing it for a living?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[kallend 2,033]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not understandable.
If someone raises a weapon at you (cop or not) you have to right to defend yourself with deadly force.

YMMV.

Amadou Diallo raised his wallet and was shot 39 times.

I would like to see objective evidence in support of the cop's story. As far as I can tell, right now it's just his version that we have.

Hi Prof

So you would like something that you know doesn't exist.

1)Don't be bashful john, just tell us what you think you know happened

2) How do you think the police officer should have handled the situation starting from the point as soon as he found the stolen car.

I have no idea what exists - maybe there's a video. Maybe someone witnessed the event. I don't know (and neither do you) that the officer is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Events like Rodney King, Abner Louima, the Jon Burge tortures, and Amadou Diallo (among others) tend to make me wary of always believing the cops' versions of events and that cops always wear the "white hats".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Krip 2]

Dear John boy

"Events like Rodney King, Abner Louima, the Jon Burge tortures, and Amadou Diallo (among others) tend to make me wary of always believing the cops' versions of events and that cops always wear the "white hats".

John Boy AKA prof

Thank you for taking the time for you well thought balanced response.

You do have a good pont about being wary of the police I know I am Can you tell me any segment of our society that we shouldn't be wary of.
Dr's
Drug companies
dentists
Lawyers
preachers
Judges
Generals
Bankers
Wall street
Tenured college prof's
USPA
BBB
Federal agencies
Used Car salesman
Chamber of commerce
Congress
VA
College students
Police
FBI
CIA
IRS
DZO's
Airlines
Martians

Are you still wary of Santa clause, the easter rabbit and the tooth fairy on a annual basis or are you reserving your opinion until after you open your prsents.

John Boy aka Prof: Think bell curve No profession is 100% perfect


FWIW local coverage of the subject events

http://www.thenewstribune.com/

One Jump Wonder

[kallend 2,033]

So you agree with me that uncorroborated stories from any source, including cops, cannot be relied on.

I don't see why you needed to be so offensive about it, since we are in agreement.


(And since you appear not to have noticed, this thread is NOT about Martians, lawyers, untenured college professors, etc. If you want to discuss those, start a new thread).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Krip 2]

Quote

So you agree with me that uncorroborated stories from any source, including cops, cannot be relied on.

I don't see why you needed to be so offensive about it, since we are in agreement.


(And since you appear not to have noticed, this thread is NOT about Martians, lawyers, untenured college professors, etc. If you want to discuss those, start a new thread).

Hi John Boy

Thread Creep in SC Review your posts in this thread then start pointing fingers.

In case you haven't noticed I'm not one of your students, don't work for you and your not a mod. So either respond to my post as written or just keep on trucking.

Have a nice day.

One Jump Wonder

[kallend 2,033]

Since you ARE agreeing with me, do you have a point to make or are you just being offensive for the fun of it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Krip 2]

Quote

Since you ARE agreeing with me, do you have a point to make or are you just being offensive for the fun of it?

John Boy

We know you took the time to read my complete post

I'm glad to see that you agree with me that the bell curve exists in all the occupation's that I listed including the LEO's (except the martians.

Or are you being evasive for the fun of it.

FWIW We just returned from Lakewood Wa PD headquarters where we visited the memorial for the fallen LEO's to pay our respects and show our support to their comrades and families.

My Wife and I had to sign FOUR books one for ea LEO. We did not know any of these LEO's (men and women) But we went because we felt it was the right thing to do.

Was it a easy thing to do? Hell no I was crying like a baby the whole time we were there. The last time I cried was when i visited the VN war memorial in DC.

Prior to today when 've been stopped by LEO's (profiled usually) I would answer their questions politely but I never used the term Sir or Mam. From now on I will they deserve it.

Don't bother responding John Boy I'm tired of your BS games. If you want to PM me go for it.

One Jump Wonder

[kallend 2,033]

OK, you lose.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[crazychang 0]

I have both bachelor's and master's degrees in criminal justice, and some other graduate education. I did not need any of it to figure out that Lucky is one dumb asshole.