Closing your garage door is now an executable offense in America

[coloradoatheist]

So in your eyes the jury couldn't think the guy was 99% responsible when he aimed a gun at the cops? In their opinion.

If the guy aimed a gun at an officer, they would have found him 100% responsible.

I disagree. I believe that him pulling a gun in their mind was what gave them the 99% for him. If they didn't believe he had a gun it would be 99% the other way.

 

[laughing dog]

So in your eyes the jury couldn't think the guy was 99% responsible when he aimed a gun at the cops? In their opinion.

What evidence do you have that this man aimed a gun at the police?

I am not the one who needed the evidence, that was the jury.

I will rephrase - what evidence do you have that the jury believed this man aimed a gun at the police and used to determine he was 99% responsible?

 

[marc]

If they didn't believe he had a gun it would be 99% the other way.

The police seem to have a habit of believing someone has a gun when they are unarmed. That the person actually had a gun on them doesn't indicate that it was even in their hand, let alone pointed at anyone. Also, closing the garage door would in my mind be an action of someone trying to run and/or hide, not make an attack.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So in your eyes the jury couldn't think the guy was 99% responsible when he aimed a gun at the cops? In their opinion.

If the guy aimed a gun at an officer, they would have found him 100% responsible.

I disagree. I believe that him pulling a gun in their mind was what gave them the 99% for him.

And why not 100%?

 

[coloradoatheist]

I am not the one who needed the evidence, that was the jury.

I will rephrase - what evidence do you have that the jury believed this man aimed a gun at the police and used to determine he was 99% responsible?

You don't like the answer, the verdict.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This is impossible according to court documents which were already cited in this thread. The reason your weird guess is impossible is that SWAT said the gun was in his pocket. They gassed the place with tear gas so people would not be able to see and then they went in with a robot. There wasn't opportunity for anyone to do this.

My understanding was that there was a considerable siege first.

What? SWAT team? What the fuck? That is not lawenforcement, that is fucking war!

SWAT makes sense. The cops thought they had an armed standoff. SWAT is typically called in in such situations. They have the things like the tear gas and the robots, the average patrol officer does not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I disagree. I believe that him pulling a gun in their mind was what gave them the 99% for him.

And why not 100%?

Because it's pretty clear he had an "oh, shit!" moment and sought to avoid the confrontation once he realized it was the police. The police got assigned 1% for failing to recognize the guy was running rather than a threat.

 

[laughing dog]

I am not the one who needed the evidence, that was the jury.

I will rephrase - what evidence do you have that the jury believed this man aimed a gun at the police and used to determine he was 99% responsible?

You don't like the answer, the verdict.

In other words, you don't have independent evidence on what the jury used to arrive at its verdict.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I disagree. I believe that him pulling a gun in their mind was what gave them the 99% for him.

And why not 100%?

Because it's pretty clear he had an "oh, shit!" moment and sought to avoid the confrontation once he realized it was the police. The police got assigned 1% for failing to recognize the guy was running rather than a threat.

Failing to recognize a closing door wasn't a threat?

 

[coloradoatheist]

You don't like the answer, the verdict.

In other words, you don't have independent evidence on what the jury used to arrive at its verdict.

Yeah, actually they saw green men on Mars so they decided the decision based on that.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This is impossible according to court documents which were already cited in this thread. The reason your weird guess is impossible is that SWAT said the gun was in his pocket. They gassed the place with tear gas so people would not be able to see and then they went in with a robot. There wasn't opportunity for anyone to do this.

My understanding was that there was a considerable siege first.

What? SWAT team? What the fuck? That is not lawenforcement, that is fucking war!

SWAT makes sense. The cops thought they had an armed standoff. SWAT is typically called in in such situations. They have the things like the tear gas and the robots, the average patrol officer does not.

SWAT had a seige for 3 hours against a dead guy. Proof positive they're paranoid = irrational.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My understanding was that there was a considerable siege first.



SWAT makes sense. The cops thought they had an armed standoff. SWAT is typically called in in such situations. They have the things like the tear gas and the robots, the average patrol officer does not.

SWAT had a seige for 3 hours against a dead guy. Proof positive their paranoid = irrational.

Odd, couldn't they have had the siege first, instead of the shooting first?

 

[Derec]

The police seem to have a habit of believing someone has a gun when they are unarmed. That the person actually had a gun on them doesn't indicate that it was even in their hand, let alone pointed at anyone.

That would be quite a coincidence. I think it is much more likely that he had the gun in his hand and put it in the pocket while he closed the door.

Also, closing the garage door would in my mind be an action of someone trying to run and/or hide, not make an attack.

Perhaps. But once the door goes down the police have no visual on the suspect and thus do not know if he put the gun in his pocket or raised it to fire through the door. As they have conclusively demonstrated, that door is not effective cover - if they could shoot him, he could shoot them just as easily.

 

[laughing dog]

You don't like the answer, the verdict.

In other words, you don't have independent evidence on what the jury used to arrive at its verdict.

Yeah, actually they saw green men on Mars so they decided the decision based on that.

We don't know what they based their decision on. For all we know, they heard "drunk" and that was it.

 

[laughing dog]

Perhaps. But once the door goes down the police have no visual on the suspect and thus do not know if he put the gun in his pocket or raised it to fire through the door. As they have conclusively demonstrated, that door is not effective cover - if they could shoot him, he could shoot them just as easily.

You are arguing that the police are justified in shooting someone through a door because they cannot see what he is doing. Do you realize that appears?

 

[Derec]

Also, he was listening to rap music at the time. I read that the music was by Drake-

Yes, Drake. Apparently this is the song that was played.

Drake the type of ni--a to rap about how hard his dick is ...

-the guy that used to be in DeGrassi.

De-who?

I can definitely see myself being at home, having some drinks, maybe a couple of mud slides or beers and listening to some Led Zeppelin. I mean, you feel very safe in your own home--safe enough to have one too many and chill out.

Well if you play it so loud it can be heard blocks away, you might expect police to show up.

Guns and alcohol are generally not a good idea either.

 

[Derec]

You are arguing that the police are justified in shooting someone through a door because they cannot see what he is doing. Do you realize that appears?

If they see him with a gun in his hand, I would say so. What he should have done is drop the gun and not close the door.

 

[laughing dog]

You are arguing that the police are justified in shooting someone through a door because they cannot see what he is doing. Do you realize that appears?

If they see him with a gun in his hand, I would say so.

Wow. Killing someone because you cannot see what he or she is doing is truly fucked up.

 

[Derec]

1. The suspect is armed with a gun in his hand.
2. The suspect has concealed himself which prevents police from seeing what he is doing with said gun.

While in hindsight we know that it wasn't his intention to shoot police, they had no way of knowing it. All they knew is that an armed person took deliberate action to conceal himself from them while still being capable of shooting.

 

[laughing dog]

1. The suspect is armed with a gun in his hand.
2. The suspect has concealed himself which prevents police from seeing what he is doing with said gun.

While in hindsight we know that it wasn't his intention to shoot police, they had no way of knowing it. All they knew is that an armed person took deliberate action to conceal himself from them while still being capable of shooting.

Since he was not indicating by any other means (shouting or screaming that I will kill you), they had no compelling reason to shoot. Since he was not shooting, they were not in imminent danger.
Moreover, what if these police while shooting through a closed door, hit a gas tank or a container of flammable liquid that caused a massive explosion?

This shooting was reckless and unnecessary.