Posted on 05/28/2011 11:54:51 PM PDT by TigerClaws
It doesn’t matter what was in his hands.
He could have had the biggest and baddest gun in all of the Southeastern United States.
Irrelevant.
The kid was in no position to use it, which is why the state attorney was able to prosecute the pharmacist.
It was the pharmacist who broke the law at that moment.
Why then were you stating that you cannot shoot someone in the back or if they are prone? Why didn't you say this the first time?
Are you going to keep making crap up as you go? Are you going to keep changing your story?
According to your "logic" O.J. is indeed innocent.
Actually, I never said that you couldn’t shoot them in the back.
I said, you couldn’t shoot them prone. Those were the words straight from the state attorney.
Repeatedly calling him "kid" is only making you look stupider.
Then there there's the Rodney King case of March 1991 which also entails a videotaped record of the events. Like Ersland, controversy (and days of riots) arose because of the contention that the LAPD continued to subdue the perp (King) after he was (allegedly) brought under control.
1). Do you see any similarities between the King/LAPD case and that of Parker/Ersland?
2). Do you think the LAPD engaged in excessive force as was charged? And what did you think of the acquittal of the police officers by the Ventura County jury?
Actually liar you did. See post# 23.
To: Oculus III
I’m not saying don’t kill.
I am saying that you cannot kill somebody who is incapacitated and you cannot shoot them in the back either.
The pharmacist should have known better, because he’s had a bit of medical training that a good medical examiner has a pretty good idead when a wound is fatal and when it is not.
23 posted on Sunday, May 29, 2011 2:36:30 AM by Jonty30
Then I humbly withdraw that part of my statement. I had forgotten I had wrote that and I don’t have the ability to look over the entire thread because I’m working off my Blackberry.
And don’t call me a liar, if you don’t know if that is my intent. I don’t have a need to lie and I don’t mind being corrected where I’m factually wrong.
That comment was why I first posted on this thread to let you know that you didn’t know what you were talking about.
Funny that you would forget that.
It was at least 24 hours ago, since I posted it and I don’t have a quick search function on my Blackberry.
If I were to try and read more than a couple of posts ago, I’d be spending my entire day looking for a single post.
Well we haven’t agreed on much but at least we can possibly agree that we have beaten this horse to death.
Goodnight.
Sorry. I disagree with you entirely. Stand on my original statement and sorry apologists for criminals on this thread don’t see it that way. You are welcome to your opinion as I am through with this thread.
He shot 5 mooks and was acquitted of all attempted murder charges except for possession of unregistered firearm. He served a couple of months out of a one year misdemeanor penalty.
Said mooks took him to civil court and were awarded $50 million for grievous bodily injury, severe emotional distress, loss of consortium and livelyhood. No joke, the mooks got $’s because they could ply their trade: being mooks.
Goetz filed for bankruptcy. Subsequently he attempted to have the judgement against him vacated. His motion was dismissed. At this time he’s destitute.
This 2004 interview by Nancy Grace (on CNN) with Bernhard Goetz is of interest. One highlight is this comment by Goetz:
"They could have or probably would have beaten the crap out of me. And I would rather shoot all four of them than even have them get a little -- the people should not take crap from other people."
I agree one hundred 100% with the guy. The prollem as I see it, is the Castle Doctrine is not the universal law of the land.
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.