This is your friendly reminder that you don't have to just make stuff up. There are places where you can go look at actual data for all the things you speculate about.
When one person is telling the story (with the other being deceased) it comes down to who the jury believes, and also, who they identify with. Often that comes down to the racial identity of the juror. It also comes down to if the deceased has a record or not, if he does, then its probably going to be a simple case. IF this would have been his first offense, it gets MUCH more ambiguous.
Voluntary Intoxication is not an effective legal defense to commit a felony...
"Mississippi has a stand your ground law that removes the duty to retreat before using deadly force in defense of oneself or another as long as the person is not the initial aggressor and is in a place they have a right to be. Mississippi law also states that “the killing of a human being” is justifiable “in resisting” certain property crimes." The crucial part of this statement is the initial aggressor. Knocking on a door in the middle of the night is not initial aggression.Despite any commentary here and random opinions, here is a summary of the law in MS. There is a reason you are not allowed to wear hoodies, sunglasses, bandanas over your nose and mouth in a bank. Wonder why? Maybe they want to protect their assets.
Stand Your Ground in Mississippi
Research Mississippi state laws on stand your ground, including what is regulated and what's not. Find related gun law details from Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence today.giffords.org
You are also better off with a security camera that films any incident. Otherwise it is just your statement against the lawyer that may oppose your statement.
That doesn't change the fact that the jury will determine if he "feared for his life" or not.
It is if you claim there was verbal aggression or they moved toward you, if you claim that, then it is initial aggression, especially if the suspect has a record of theft/assault.
To my knowledge defunding only happened in the craziest of leftist places (e.g., austin, portland).
The entire narrative against "defund the police" is dishonest. It was intended largely as satire, juxtaposing calls to defund just about every public function with the opposite treatment of PDs (to no good result to boot). Why is it good to spend less on our kids but more on cops, etc? Too high of a concept for most to catch apparently.....
That's just BS. To the extent anybody supporting the defund the police movement had any intentions, they failed to clue in the vast majority of their fellow proponents.
Well i'm not facing a jury now am i Chem E?
Reality? Reality is that many leftists wanted to defund the police or at least change funding away from officers/patrolling/etc. Thats a fact whether you like it or not.
You are talking to people who don't even believe what they type. They just read it and know it looks bad so they defend it.
If you shoot someone for ringing the doorbell, you will be.
Never said that nor implied it. But again i know comprehension, reason and logic isn't something you all care about.
Yeah. This ******* has been screaming about "abolishing the police for about 2 years now....
hey some ******* has hacked your account then.
and this too
You think that if someone was arrested or pled guilting to stealing something 2 years ago, that should play a role in a totally unrelated instance where they were shot to death while standing on a porch? That is a dicey situation that is definitely a mixed bag of results depending on state, time period within history, judge, etc.
Anyways, I really decided to respond because your post reminded me of this...
It isnt an 'internet feelings group', it is actual historical examples in courts across the country. Some states have a law that you cant include priors from more than 10 years ago. Some states have examples of priors being considered and also being excluded(so circumstance dependent or judge dependent).
If the shooter knew of a prior assault, pretty sure that goes into the reasonableness question on their fear and is admissible. If the shooter isn't aware of prior violence, the strict legalistic approach is that it shouldn't matter. I tend to think there is a lot of information conveyed and received by people receive basically subconsciously. If a person has been violent in the past, I think it's much more likely the shooter picked up on information that would be difficult to quantify beyond "they looked threatening." Yea, maybe they were guessing and got "lucky" the person they shot had a prior history of violence, but seems pretty unjustifiable to punish them without knowing. And in general, if you're second guessing, and one person has a clean record and one doesn't, I think it's pretty reasonable to give the benefit of the doubt to the person with the clean record. That will have bad results at times, but on net seems like it would get it right more likely than not and properly acknowledge that wrongfully putting somebody in jail is a greater harm than having a guilty person go free.
I haven't really watched a lot of south park but I had seen that bit and thought it was great.Anyways, I really decided to respond because your post reminded me of this...
As usual, I show facts and data to refute your point and all you can come back with is some version of "Nuh unh, I'm right even though I can't back up what I'm saying with any kind of supporting data."
I don't think kids are all innocent and mean no harm.
TBH, you haven’t seemed like the biggest police fan. You’ve started 3 anti police threads in the last month. What did Sting ever do to you?
Good point. I do recall all the little Einsteins that i ran around with doing the same in my day...
The message of "pull traffic enforcement and mental health response out of police duties" did get lost. Gleefully for many, like you. Ironically, by people like Pain, who now wonders why the cops in his area are focusing on traffic.
This is the key. Imagine if we didn't have paramedics or firemen. Cops did that too. They all ran around with fire extinguishers and defibrillators, cause there was no one else to call. Fire trucks and ambulances are too specialized, so you get thrown in the back of the cop car if you need a trip to the hospital. That would be as dumb as Paindonthurt.....yet it's basically what we do for traffic enforcement, mental health crises, homelessness, administrative work, etc.
My short take is:
Have you considered if kids like this are "not supposed to be in that neighborhood"?***
Unless it's been debunked, I think there is pretty good data showing that more policemen, particularly patrolling policemen, actually do reduce crime. Unfortunately increased funding doesn't necessarily have a strong relationship with increased patrols.
is it a "micro aggression"? Maybe he could just be shot with a small gun?
I think you are misstating this. Courts have consistently held that police do not have a duty to protect people or property in the sense of a duty that can give rise to a negligence claim when the duty is breached. That is different from their job description. Under current precedent, they won't be subject to legal claims from crime victims for not doing their job, but they still have a job and in a decently functioning organization will be fired for refusing to do it.
This may be a fair point. The couple of things I’ve read have looked at crime relative to overall budgets and not at how those budgets are allocated with respect to boots on the ground. And there’s been a trend of police forces using funding for things like military surplus equipment that looks cool but that doesn’t actually make communities any safer.
I know it’s right there for you and you still don’t get it.
You’ve made a couple of comments. No idea if it’s about me and this thread or not but I assure you wanting the police to patrol the neighborhood in question isn’t political for me.
