General Discussion

muriel_volestrangler

(105,920 posts)

96. Your disregard for the officers' lives is shown by considering their deaths a reasonable response

Mon May 20, 2013, 04:54 AM

May 2013

to them breaking down a door after entry, with a search warrant, was refused. The act of breaking down the door did not put the woman in danger - she was upstairs.

A jury considers what a reasonable person would do (as long as a defence of mental incapacity hasn't been used, which it hasn't in this case - there's no claim of paranoia distorting her response). Is shooting 6 officers, from a place of safety, in the head (so she knew there is a good chance it would kill them) a reasonable response to breaking down a door after the refusal to obey a search warrant? No.

Given your argument, have you had any thoughts on the Zimmerman case? Your line of argument here - that if a defendant says "I feared for my life" then it's going to have to be accepted as true - seems to show you think he should be found not guilty.

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