What is this, the land of kirisute gomen?
Screw that.
Posted on 06/01/2015 3:11:31 PM PDT by gwjack
Edited on 06/01/2015 5:56:13 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Once again you have to eat crow. From News9.com :
“Nehemiah attacks a trooper, hits him head on with both hands like he’s an offensive linemen, he hits him, drives him to the ground, gets on top of him and tries to drown him,” said OHP legal counsel Gary James.
James said trooper Michael Taylor was pinned underwater, and both he and trooper Mark Southall shot at Nehemiah, who was armed with a pistol and died.
James said both brothers had been drinking before the incident.
“His brother Brandon has admitted that they were taking shots of Crown Royal up unto the time the vehicle is being flooded,” James said.
It is a sad situation for all involved.
That it is.
We'll need more evidence for the attempted drowning and to see whether he brandished a firearm, but so far the dead man appears to have gone full Trayvon.
I think the answers to your hypothetical questions, based on the limited premise of the facts you present in this case are no, no, and no. The answer to the last question is “they” don’t. But your premise on all has craftily redacted the actions of the decedent. There were factors that could change the answers to all your questions - but only when full facts are developed.
Neat trick, that.
The eighteenth century English would be laughing at the jest that is the implosion of the rebels' "justice system".
It might be beyond that. As someone else posted above, due to the abortion that our "jesters system" has become, it's probable that the authoritays could prosecute the brother for murder.
Even the medieval Japanese couldn't think up that one, and call it "justice".
Aside from the fact that this is once again from a police spokeshole [I. Dunno Nuffin], it's kind of handy to know that in every tactical situation, your opponent is NEVER going to back up or retreat to safety because he thinks he's wearing a magic suit of impenetrable, super-strength armor.
Especially when he's not...
That's a special kind of stupid. LOL! :)
Myself, I would have assessed the situation, and gotten my vehicle between me and the brothers. But then, I'm not known to be a mouth-breathing idiot. :)
The people of OK elected the legislature that wrote these statutes.
The only crown involved in this story is the Crown Royal whiskey this genius admits they were guzzling before they angrily confronted men who were trying to prevent them from drowning.
If you do something violent and stupid, like attack an armed man who has not lifted a finger against you, you should be liable for the results of the chaos you put in motion.
Under what possible interpretation of the law or the facts were either of these drunks entitled to tackle a man who hadn't laid a hand on them? Because they were in a bad mood?
It is not peculiar to Japanese culture, but typical of all human societies, that if someone tackles you to the ground and punches or throttles you, you are allowed to use any level of force you choose to stop them.
This is called "self-defense."
Nehemiah Fischer apparently decided to imitate Trayvon Martin, and achieved a similar result.
Nice job!
The only place George Zimmerman could back up was into the sidewalk.
Officer Ironman had all sorts of options, after he provoked the ensuing trouble.
And, BTW - Zimmerman didn't provoke the fight...
Then go punch or push a cop and see what happens to you.
Brandon Fischer said that they were both making their way through a bottle of Crown Royal.
I think anyone who has experience with alcoholism would say that a person who thinks nothing of downing shots of hard alcohol when he knows he has to drive at night in a storm is what you call a "problem drinker."
Perhaps by "smear" you meant "logical inference."
Further:
The only place George Zimmerman could back up was into the sidewalk.
That's silly.
He could have run away, as so many commentators argued. But he had no obligation to.
The trooper was standing in water and literally could not see the ground in front of him.
Like George Zimmerman, he had absolutely no obligation to retreat.
If Nehemiah Fischer, drunk and belligerent, had attacked a civilian Good Samaritan who was trying to help him avoid drowning in a flood, and that civilian had decided to hold his ground, you would call it a 'good shoot."
You're arguing from unbelievably weak premises, based solely on your animosity toward law enforcement.
Neither did Michael Taylor.
Some would say that Zimmerman did provoke it, by following Martin and by verbally confronting him.
That's nonsense, since Martin could have decided to either respond or ignore Zimmerman - he did not have to assault him. That was his choice.
Likewise, Taylor verbally confronted Fischer.
Like Martin, Fischer could have chosen not to physically attack his interlocutor, but he did.
So then the decision to shoot you or not shoot you is entirely up to my analysis of the situation? No other guidelines other than what I perceive your intent to be?
Correct. The legal standard is, and always has been: 'Did you act out of a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm?"
A grand jury may be asked to opine on the reasonableness of your fear, but that's the standard.
This is why it is a bad idea to randomly tackle armed strangers in the middle of the night - they might not always realize that you were just playing a hilarious joke.
Maybe before this thread, now, not so much.
(you left the hanging curveball over the plate. Your comments forced the swing)
No, the police spokeshole said that Brandon Fischer said that they were both making their way through a bottle of Crown Royal.
There's a difference. See if you can figure it out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.