General Discussion

muriel_volestrangler

(105,864 posts)

70. Based on your verdict of 'not guilty' for the 6 deaths

Sun May 19, 2013, 08:44 PM

May 2013

when the only evidence that the defence gave is that the defendant feared for her life. No threat to her was mentioned. The door was being broken down. The existence of a search warrant is not reasonable evidence that there was a threat to her life. Nor is the breaking down of the door (we know someone refused entry, but there was a warrant; the defence has not attempted to say why entry was refused).

If you had voted 'other', I could see your point. But, as it is, your disregard for the lives of the officers is appalling. Even if we did know it was the wrong address, that would not give reason to believe her safety was in immediate danger that justifies killing them.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

116 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Poll question -- You're serving as a juror... [View all] Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 OP

I say give her the death penalty... at an Olive Garden... carried out by Pit Bulls. Bucky May 2013 #1

And what medicine would you prescribe for the officers ... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #3

I think you already said that all the cops were killed. Bucky May 2013 #6

You win Bucky -- Uncle already! Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #13

stabbed in the head with a stick arely staircase May 2013 #47

Nah, killed with head shots dr.strangelove May 2013 #109

Traditionally, Judge Bean serves whiskey in his saloon/courtroom. n/t backscatter712 May 2013 #49

lol. make mine straight. nt clarice May 2013 #101

After shopping at Wallmart ismnotwasm May 2013 #5

paid for.... Bucky May 2013 #7

You know it ismnotwasm May 2013 #15

Corn flake chicken for the last meal. pintobean May 2013 #21

Cooked by a circumcised chef. Who owns a pit bull. That's neither spayed nor neutered. 11 Bravo May 2013 #106

guilty Swamp Lover May 2013 #2

And in the case of an out of control K9... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #8

+1 Dawson Leery May 2013 #11

That would be a different poll. nt oldhippie May 2013 #19

It would be foolish H2O Man May 2013 #4

Take a chance, be a fool H20 Man... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #9

You go ahead. H2O Man May 2013 #12

So this is not a valid question? Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #14

As I stated H2O Man May 2013 #16

Ok, but don't come crying to me years from now when this thread has long since been archived... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #22

Gosh. H2O Man May 2013 #24

Not too late to change your mind -- c'mon, you can do it... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #31

Far too late H2O Man May 2013 #39

Not if you apply the presumption of innocence. rug May 2013 #23

Not true. H2O Man May 2013 #27

Assuming there was no trial order of dismissal for lack of a prima facie case, rug May 2013 #30

Nope. H2O Man May 2013 #35

Listen H20 Man... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #45

In the name of justice, H2O Man May 2013 #51

PS: H2O Man May 2013 #61

Now you're talkin' Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #73

Soon I'll be H2O Man May 2013 #75

I'll have to do a bit of homework, we'll see. Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #91

Yup. rug May 2013 #58

It's a weak OP, H2O Man May 2013 #59

evidence presented (for the pros) giftedgirl77 May 2013 #90

You assume the warrant was being properly executed. rug May 2013 #93

But they did have a search warrant muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #48

Is it a no knock warrant? Were they serving it at the wrong address (not that that ever happens)? rug May 2013 #55

Six head shots to bypass body armor. Six murders. Period. DevonRex May 2013 #60

There's nothing in there about body armor or anything about refusing entry. rug May 2013 #62

"after being refused entry" - it's in the OP muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #65

Yes, I saw that below. rug May 2013 #67

I can tell you DevonRex May 2013 #71

What you can tell me is not evidence rug May 2013 #72

The OP also specifies they were refused entry muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #64

I missed that. rug May 2013 #66

Based on your verdict of 'not guilty' for the 6 deaths muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #70

First of all, a verdict says nothing about a juror's "value of life". rug May 2013 #74

Your disregard for the officers' lives is shown by considering their deaths a reasonable response muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #96

Is your regard for human life dependent on the color of the shooter's uniform? rug May 2013 #100

We know the police officers did not enter before she shot them muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #104

So, was Diallo's shooting justified. rug May 2013 #105

In the USA, a reasonable person can interpret such a movement in that situation muriel_volestrangler May 2013 #107

So one can. But how do you come down on it? rug May 2013 #115

What do you do? Shoot the hostage in the knee; take 'em out of the equation. Bucky May 2013 #10

Of course... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #34

There are times when shouts of "Help! Police!" are a cry of warning. . . Journeyman May 2013 #17

sorry, but that police state defines the laws. nt Deep13 May 2013 #18

Ahhh, heavily loaded hypothetical polls. (nt) Posteritatis May 2013 #20

Heavily loaded? Isn't that what Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #26

It depends. Does she use corn flakes when she fries chicken? Autumn May 2013 #25

I wish I'd thought about that... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #28

Occasional corn flakes are a gateway to hell. Autumn May 2013 #29

I said occasionallly but I meant almost never... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #32

Almost never means she has done it at some time or another. Autumn May 2013 #33

Fair enough... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #37

I suppose if she had accidentally used corn flakes only once Autumn May 2013 #42

You're tough but fair Autumn... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #50

Don;t expect protection from the law Progressive dog May 2013 #36

And "protection from the law" is the operative phrase here too... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #38

Don't reword what I said, protection of all of us Progressive dog May 2013 #46

The fear for your life has to be reasonable treestar May 2013 #40

Really? Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #41

That's not in your hypothetical here treestar May 2013 #43

Don't make me hit the alert button Treestar. Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #52

Go ahead and hit the alert if you think making a factually geek tragedy May 2013 #112

LOL, so for the DU, criminals dressed as police have free rein! I LOVE IT! Logical May 2013 #44

And to think you call yourself Logical? Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #54

Explain how you know the people at the door are real cops? What stops any intruder from.... Logical May 2013 #56

There is no requirement for police to "knock and announce"... Gravitycollapse May 2013 #68

I have never understood why shooting a cop who enters with a no-knock warrant would be a crime..... Logical May 2013 #76

It's a crime because you are knowingly shooting a peace officer. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #79

I agree, if you knew it should be a crime. But a person woken up might not think clearly. n-t Logical May 2013 #83

Someone not thinking clearly shouldn't be handling a firearm. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #85

Here is an interesting story.....Two actually...... Logical May 2013 #86

What you're suggesting is profiling. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #89

What stops any intruder from kicking in your front door and yelling "police"? Nothing. snooper2 May 2013 #102

In that we don't support the right to murder cops, sure. geek tragedy May 2013 #111

Mrs. Youngblood's case is entirely different from the one you gave as an example. pacalo May 2013 #53

I would not shoot at them, ZombieHorde May 2013 #57

Guilty. She identified them as police before shooting. HooptieWagon May 2013 #63

No, she didn't. The OP referred to them as police officers, She didn't. rug May 2013 #80

The OP quotes her testimony.... HooptieWagon May 2013 #84

That's true but it doesn't say when she knew they were police, before or after the fact. rug May 2013 #95

"Police or gang members" Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #81

That wasn't the subject of the poll. HooptieWagon May 2013 #88

The defendant would have to demonstrate a good reason for her fear. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #69

Are cops not required to demostrate good reason for their fear... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #77

I would not be afraid of uniformed officers entering my residents. Gravitycollapse May 2013 #82

Not Guilty BlueJazz May 2013 #78

Given the ineptitude of police Savannahmann May 2013 #87

The fucking cops gopiscrap May 2013 #92

The question lacks sufficient information to make a proper determination of guilt of innocence Nimajneb Nilknarf May 2013 #94

Thanks for your input Nimajneb... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #97

Anyone who Needs an AR-15 assault rifle loses points up front. onehandle May 2013 #98

Not guilt in Florida! Sancho May 2013 #99

I might have voted Not Guilty, but for this: Buzz Clik May 2013 #103

Ah yes... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #108

Your martyrdom is noted and given all due consideration. LanternWaste May 2013 #113

Legally, the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of geek tragedy May 2013 #110

At present 24 of your... Mr_Jefferson_24 May 2013 #114

If police have a search warrant, you're legally required to let them in. geek tragedy May 2013 #116