Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oh crap "trayvon Martin like"

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    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.

    Comment


    • #3
      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      Regardless, it's interesting how this outdated social more about shooting in the back has stuck around since our Wyatt Earp days.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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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

          Comment

          Taboola

          Collapse

          300x250

          Collapse

          Mid 300x250

          Collapse

          Super Leaderboard

          Collapse
          Working...
          X