1. #1

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    florida
    Posts
    875

    Default Oh crap "trayvon Martin like"

    http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/fami...t-1406172.html


    By Christian Boone

    The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
    An Atlanta couple whose 17-year-old son was shot in the back and killed last December say they want the security guard alleged to have fired the fatal bullet charged in the teen's death."This is very Trayvon Martin-like," Chestnut, the attorney representing Bernard Arnold and Andrea Robinson, said at a news conference Tuesday in which the family demanded that Atlanta police arrest the security guard.





    "Get yourself a shovel cause your in deep Sh*t"

  2. #2
    zm88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    1,624

    Default

    and so it starts....
    Sergeant Phil Esterhaus: "Hey, let's be careful out there.."

    THE VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS WEBSITE/BLOG ARE MINE ALONE AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF MY EMPLOYER.

  3. #3
    LV_PSO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    64

    Default

    Oy...

    I'm waiting for Due Process to decide the Trayvon Martin thing. Sounds like those Atlanta parents already know all the facts of the case, however. Good for them. They should go get their JDs, as I'm sure they could add great efficiency to our legal system.

    Regardless, it's interesting how this outdated social more about shooting in the back has stuck around since our Wyatt Earp days. Your mileage may vary by state, but it's generally accepted that if deadly force is reasonable in a certain situation, where the bullet lands is irrelevant. The way I see it, if the SO had probable cause to believe the suspect posed the threat of death or great bodily harm to others, he was justified in ending the threat. Now, if the teen wasn't visibly armed and had only committed a misdemeanor in the SO's presence... hmm... excessive force isn't far off. Tenn. vs. Garner has a really interesting discussion of deadly force in situations like that. While I tend to side with dissenting Justice O'Connor in giving the benefit of the doubt to LEOs who have a complex calculus they must weigh in making swift decisions on patrol, I'm not so sure that latitude needs to extend to non-sworn SOs who have no duty to intervene. Anyway, O'Connor was the dissenter (read: losing) opinion in the case =P

    In any case, I'm keeping tabs on this case, for sure. Can't wait for Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to impart their manifold wisdom as well.

  4. #4
    LV_PSO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    64

    Thumbs up

    Just read the article. The previous post was initial thoughts.

    Stopping a gunfight? I don't care what the SO's Facebook or what the family's attorney's PI says about him: he did a good thing, and that's regardless of whether he was on or off the clock.

    Good shoot.

  5. #5
    Maelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    1,144

    Default

    Not being there the incident is difficult to fully understand and eventually the whole story will come to light but obviously points to consider would be...

    • Was the Youth defending himself OR instigating the fire fight (ie. was he a known hood)?
    • What about the general public's safety?
    • Did the SO's intervention prevent additional loss of life?


    The families always proclaim their child's innocence even in the face of obvious guilt... that "discrimination card" seems to get played way too often IMHO.


    Additional coverage (SO's part interview) can be seen HERE
    "We make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give" - Winston Churchill

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register