Suburban security guard stops shooter, gets killed by police

[ronburgundy]

Key: "man with a gun". If you're in a situation where the police are coming you do not want a gun in your hand!

IOW, the argument from NRA types that there would be less violence and murder if there were more "good people with guns" to stop the bad guys is utter bullshit.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Key: "man with a gun". If you're in a situation where the police are coming you do not want a gun in your hand!

IOW, the argument from NRA types that there would be less violence and murder if there were more "good people with guns" to stop the bad guys is utter bullshit.

To be fair to the NRA types, they are talking about white people with guns. I don't think it ever really occurred to them when they were making their arguments that a black man with a gun might be a good guy.

 

[Artemus]

Another good guy with a gun killed by police? This time the guy was active duty army.

More guns don't make us safer.

The story from the police has changed again. They are now "clarifying" that when they said "brandishing" a gun they really didn't mean "brandishing," but that it meant simply that the victim had a gun in his hand.

 

[ZiprHead]

Another good guy with a gun killed by police? This time the guy was active duty army.

More guns don't make us safer.

The story from the police has changed again. They are now "clarifying" that when they said "brandishing" a gun they really didn't mean "brandishing," but that it meant simply that the victim had a gun in his hand.

Cops are really having trouble getting this legal open-carry/concealed-carry thing. Especially if the person carrying is black.

 

[laughing dog]

I disagree. "Shoot first, dissemble later" seems to be working just fine for them.

 

[James Brown]

Shot three times from behind.

Emantic Bradford Jr, the 21-year-old African American man who was killed by a police officer on Thanksgiving at a mall in Alabama, was shot three times from behind, according to an independent autopsy released by a civil rights attorney on Monday...

 

[Derec]

Shot three times from behind.

Emantic Bradford Jr, the 21-year-old African American man who was killed by a police officer on Thanksgiving at a mall in Alabama, was shot three times from behind, according to an independent autopsy released by a civil rights attorney on Monday...

I see that the writers for The Grauniad still have not learned the meaning of the word "independent" (perhaps because it is also the name of a rival newspaper?) If the family lawyer has commissioned it, it is no more independent than the official autopsy.

 

[blastula]

The examiner isn't going to mistake the bullet entries. It would be easy to disprove.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Shot three times from behind.

Emantic Bradford Jr, the 21-year-old African American man who was killed by a police officer on Thanksgiving at a mall in Alabama, was shot three times from behind, according to an independent autopsy released by a civil rights attorney on Monday...

I see that the writers for The Grauniad still have not learned the meaning of the word "independent" (perhaps because it is also the name of a rival newspaper?) If the family lawyer has commissioned it, it is no more independent than the official autopsy.

So when someone runs as an independent, they're not independent because they're a member of a family.

 

[Jarhyn]

The examiner isn't going to mistake the bullet entries. It would be easy to disprove.

No, but they may just like to confirm the police report made by their friends upstairs who they have to work with every day, and who, if they don't defend through their own lying, will make their lives difficult.

 

[laughing dog]

Shot three times from behind.

Emantic Bradford Jr, the 21-year-old African American man who was killed by a police officer on Thanksgiving at a mall in Alabama, was shot three times from behind, according to an independent autopsy released by a civil rights attorney on Monday...

I see that the writers for The Grauniad still have not learned the meaning of the word "independent" (perhaps because it is also the name of a rival newspaper?) If the family lawyer has commissioned it, it is no more independent than the official autopsy.

When you start implying bias on the part of official autopsies, your comment will be taken seriously.

 

[blastula]

The examiner isn't going to mistake the bullet entries. It would be easy to disprove.

No, but they may just like to confirm the police report made by their friends upstairs who they have to work with every day, and who, if they don't defend through their own lying, will make their lives difficult.

We're talking about the victim's family's examiner.

 

[Derec]

So when someone runs as an independent, they're not independent because they're a member of a family.

Basic logic fail. When a person runs as an independent, they are independent of political parties. When an autopsy is independent, it is independent of the parties to the case. The family's private autopsy is no more independent than a Democratic candidate is.

- - - Updated - - -

No, but they may just like to confirm the police report made by their friends upstairs who they have to work with every day, and who, if they don't defend through their own lying, will make their lives difficult.

I would trust the official autopsy more than the private autopsy. Neither is independent, but there are more checks and balances with the county ME's office. In the case of private autopsy, the lone ME the shysters hire are only beholden to them.

 

[Derec]

When you start implying bias on the part of official autopsies, your comment will be taken seriously.

I have never claimed the official autopsy is "independent", so your point is moot.

That anybody could claim a private autopsy commissioned by the lawyers for the family is somehow "independent" as if those lawyers do not have an ax to grind is baffling to me.
And the idiotic defenses of calling the private autopsy "independent" (like comparing them with independent candidates) is even more baffling.

That is not to say a private autopsy is necessarily fraudulent. But it isn't independent.

Now, if the official and private autopsies are in conflict (as they were in the case of Dindu Stephon Clark, remember him?) then at least one of them is wrong, either by mistake or by design. And by falsely calling the private autopsy "independent", you are basically given the private autopsy a greater weight, because of the bogus "independence".

None of you has yet to offer a good reason why the private autopsy should be considered "independent" or in any way less biased than the official one. If anything, the official autopsy would be less biased because there are more checks and balances vs. private autopsy where the ME is only beholden to the lawyer who hired him. Kind of like "Dr. Bison" who always gives opinions that Jackie Chiles wants.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So when someone runs as an independent, they're not independent because they're a member of a family.

Basic logic fail. When a person runs as an independent, they are independent of political parties. When an autopsy is independent, it is independent of the parties to the case. The family's private autopsy is no more independent than a Democratic candidate is.

No, it's your logic fail. In both cases, the independent is in some sort of context as nothing a human is doing is truly independent of everything. In the first case, by CONTEXT we know it is independent of the two parties. There is nothing in the definition of "independent" that tells us that. Likewise, when someone says they are getting an independent autopsy in the CONTEXT of one already done by the govt, then it means independent of the government. The "of the government" is left off because it is implicitly there. In fact, there is ALWAYS something implicitly there unless it is explicitly stated because A is independent of B. There is no such thing as A is independent in real-world human situations. Now that everyone can see this is the second time you've been told how English works, it is up to you to adapt to our country's language. Please do so.

 

[Derec]

No, it's your logic fail.

Still you, I'm afraid.

In both cases, the independent is in some sort of context as nothing a human is doing is truly independent of everything.

And that's a straw man, because I was not talking about that kind of independence, and you know it.

In the first case, by CONTEXT we know it is independent of the two parties. There is nothing in the definition of "independent" that tells us that. Likewise, when someone says they are getting an independent autopsy in the CONTEXT of one already done by the govt, then it means independent of the government.

But the family and their lawyer are not a disinterested third party. They have a vested interest in the outcome of the case. Therefore, whatever they do, including commissioning autopsies, cannot be independent in the context of investigating a shooting.
If a newspaper or some other third party commissioned an autopsy you could call it independent. But not if the
By your logic, you could also call the official autopsy independent because it is independent of the shootee's family. The reasoning is exactly the same.

The "of the government" is left off because it is implicitly there. In fact, there is ALWAYS something implicitly there unless it is explicitly stated because A is independent of B. There is no such thing as A is independent in real-world human situations. Now that everyone can see this is the second time you've been told how English works, it is up to you to adapt to our country's language. Please do so.

Apparently you do not understand how English works. A party with vested interest in the outcome of the case commissioning an autopsy cannot be an "independent autopsy". Calling it that is a veiled way of prejudging the veracity of the two autopsies if there is a conflict (like there was in the Stephon Clark case).
Therefore, the private autopsy should be referred as "private autopsy" or something to that effect (and many news outlets do so, unlike Grunaiad).

 

[laughing dog]

When you start implying bias on the part of official autopsies, your comment will be taken seriously.

I have never claimed the official autopsy is "independent", so your point is moot.

My memory disagrees but I am too lazy to look for the post. I do believe you are mistaken.

That anybody could claim a private autopsy commissioned by the lawyers for the family is somehow "independent" as if those lawyers do not have an ax to grind is baffling to me.
And the idiotic defenses of calling the private autopsy "independent" (like comparing them with independent candidates) is even more baffling.

That is not to say a private autopsy is necessarily fraudulent. But it isn't independent.

It is independent of the state. Duh.

Strictly speaking, nothing is truly independent. So are you advocating eliminating the word completely? If not, it seems like this is just another pointless attempt at spinning away from possible police misbehavior.

As to the rest of your argument, you have not given any reason why the official autopsy should be considered "independent" or in any way less biased than the private one.

In this instance, it is hard to imagine that any forensic's expert would make such mistake about the bullets entering from the back. Is there really any logical reason to think this expert is wrong? If not, your argument is logically invalid and irrelevant. If so, present it.

 

[RavenSky]

So when someone runs as an independent, they're not independent because they're a member of a family.

Basic logic fail. When a person runs as an independent, they are independent of political parties. When an autopsy is independent, it is independent of the parties to the case. The family's private autopsy is no more independent than a Democratic candidate is.

And the municipality's autopsy is no more independent than a Republican candidate is.

 

[Derec]

My memory disagrees but I am too lazy to look for the post. I do believe you are mistaken.

I know you are mistaken.

It is independent of the state. Duh.

And the official autopsy is independent of the family. Duh.
Neither can be called independent just because they are independent of each other, as both are parties with vested interest in the outcome of the case.

Strictly speaking, nothing is truly independent. So are you advocating eliminating the word completely?

No. That's a straw man. I am for using the word intelligently and logically.
Now, it is unlikely we get independent autopsies, unless a disinterested third party commissions one, but that is no reason to use the word inappropriately.

If not, it seems like this is just another pointless attempt at spinning away from possible police misbehavior.

No, it's calling out a newspaper for their poor choice of words.
It could still be the case the police acted inappropriately.

As to the rest of your argument, you have not given any reason why the official autopsy should be considered "independent" or in any way less biased than the private one.

I never claimed that the official autopsy is independent. So that's moot.
As to being less biased, I did offer a reason - more oversight. Let's look at Dindu Stephon Clark's autopsy again.

According to a letter from the county coroner to the police department, Su’s report was reviewed by the county’s chief forensic pathologist, and two county coroner pathologists, in addition to Reiber.

There were several other MEs who reviews the official autopsy. That makes it more likely that inadvertent mistakes, bias or outright fraud will be caught. Contrary to that, the private autopsy had a single ME, overseen by nobody and beholden only to the lawyer paying him.
So, while neither autopsy is independent, I put more stock in the official autopsy.

In this instance, it is hard to imagine that any forensic's expert would make such mistake about the bullets entering from the back. Is there really any logical reason to think this expert is wrong? If not, your argument is logically invalid and irrelevant. If so, present it.

I did not claim it is wrong. I just said it is not independent. Let's see what the official autopsy reveals. If they concur, no problem. If they don't, like was the case with Clark, what then?

- - - Updated - - -

And the municipality's autopsy is no more independent than a Republican candidate is.

Exactly. You are finally starting to get it. Neither autopsy is independent.

 

[RavenSky]

And the municipality's autopsy is no more independent than a Republican candidate is.

Exactly. You are finally starting to get it. Neither autopsy is independent.

But the one referenced in the article is independent of the state, which is all the article said.

The Democratic candidate is independent of the GOP, and the Republican candidate is independent of the DNC.