Tape Shows Clerk Shooting Alleged Robber (Columbus, Ohio)

[T Town Jake]

The tape showed a man identified as Desmond Thompson leaning over the counter and demanding money. His hand was hidden in his coat.

Police said that Thompson, 26, implied that he had a gun.

The clerk, Karen Smith, then gave Thompson some cash from the register. When Thompson backed off, Smith, 52, pulled out a real gun and fired.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/3975095/detail.html

[MrSandman]

1. Desmond chose a high risk occupation...nt

[T Town Jake]

2. Agreed. And paid the price when his bluff was called...

...he's lucky to be alive. Perhaps this incident will motivate him to go into another line of work after he serves his time.

[slackmaster]

4. Could this incident be a victory of sorts for gun control?

Maybe gun laws made it too much of a hassle for the robber to get a gun. Bluffing seems like a really dumb (or desperate) idea.

I personally know someone who is in prison for several robberies he committed with a plastic toy gun tucked into his waist. He was already a convicted felon and ineligible to legally get a real gun when he did the robberies. He could have faced additional time for degree issues for simulating a weapon, but I believe that was plea-bargained away. As it stands he won't be out until around 2018, at which time he'll be roughly 70 years old.

[T Town Jake]

5. Well, slack, it could certainly be seen as a small victory...

...for sensible gun regulation, of the kind we both support: keeping firearms out of the hands of would-be armed robbers. But not for "gun control" of the Brady Center sort we constantly see cheer-leaded for down here from the gun control crowd: they want no strictly defensive firearms like a handgun in any private hands for any reason, as you well know. They simply want them all taken away. If he had a prior felony or drug conviction, he couldn't have gotten his hands on a gun legally, that's for sure, so I see what you're getting at.

I honestly hadn't thought about it until you mentioned it - I posted the article more in the context of the law-abiding citizen who refused to be victimized. Like you, I hope he recovers fully and takes a serious look at getting on a new career path.

[Columbia]

6. For every one criminal it hassles from owning a gun

I wonder how many law-abiding citizens were hassled from it as well...

[T Town Jake]

7. Good point, and well stated.

(n/t)

[slackmaster]

3. Mr. Thompson is lucky to be alive

Let's hope he recovers completely from his wound, learns from his mistakes, and becomes a decent citizen.

[aikoaiko]

8. You guys are too nice...

...I hope the guys suffers a little more for scaring that poor cashier.

She had ever right to think that her life was in peril -- not fun at all.

[slackmaster]

14. You're new here so it's understandable you don't get it

Gun control advocates on this board rarely respond to reasonable or positive statements by RKBA advocates.

If I had posted something like "Too bad she didn't double-tap the @#$%^& and save us all the cost of his trial and medical expenses", they'd be all over me like flies on shit: "See, you guys are just itching to KILL someone!" and so on.

But seriously, I think it's important that we express at every opportunity how we really feel about the responsibilities that come with the use of deadly force. It's about life, and it's not a game. The little Dr. Evil dance that we may feel tempted to do when someone has successfully used a gun or other deadly weapon in self-defense looks really bad on the video tape.

[T Town Jake]

17. She was certainly within her rights to defend herself...

...but my hopes for the would-be robber are that he fully recovers, does his time in prison, and emerges with a new, productive outlook on life. Whether this will actually occur is, of course, an open question. At the very least it will give him pause the next time he gets an urge to stick up a convenience store; at the most, who knows? He could very well emerge from this encounter as a reformed, law-abiding citizen.

[skippythwndrdog]

9. Nice job by the clerk.

Too bad that she hadn't practiced. COM

[mosin]

10. video tape makes it national news

I saw the story on more than one cable news network last night. My first thought was that a story like that would never have made the national news without the video tape.

[alwynsw]

11. OOhhh! A verifiable defensive use of a firearm!

On video tape and picked up by the national news services no less. A middle-aged female protects herself and her employer's property with a handgun without shooting any innocent bystanders.

Where have all the anti's gone? I'd like to see then try to spin this one away as a penis replacement.

[MrSandman]

12. Envy...nt

[iverglas]

15. ah, if only

I looked at the video pix, and while of course it's hard to tell what was going on because of the several seconds between frames, it sure looks to me like the shooting victim was moving AWAY from the person who shot him, and presenting NO danger to the life/limb of the person who shot him.

So hmm, "defensive use"? By whose definition might it be that?

A middle-aged female ...

... what? Cat? gerbil? humpty-backed camel?

A middle-aged female human being perhaps?

Many people find it so much easier to say "woman".

And most people find it so much ... nicer ... to call women "women" than to call women "females".

The face of patriarchy is just so ... yucky.

[aikoaiko]

16. moving away, or not, if she felt like her life was in danger...

... then she's got my support.

I suppose you think she should have called 911 while the guy had a "gun" on her.

[alwynsw]

18. You can do better than that.

Women, womyn, wimmen, gals, girls, ladies, chicks, babes, etc. are all references to human females. I prefer to be somewhat neutral with gender labels. Even then you seem to feel the need to come down from on high with your opinions that have nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Have a nice day.

[iverglas]

19. and yet I just never have to bother

The tell-tale heart speaks for itself so very often with no help from me at all.

[alwynsw]

20. It certainly does.

If only you were listening...

[slackmaster]

26. Moving away does not qualify as not being a threat

They guy still had his right hand in his coat pocket. It looked to me like he was raising it, as if preparing to fire a concealed gun. Walking backwards away from a person does not preclude shooting. If she'd shot him in the back it would be a different matter.

In any case, neither your assessment nor mine of the threat he posed makes any difference. Until I have reason to think otherwise I will trust the judgement of the Columbus police and prosecutors to decide what charges need to be filed against whom.

[iverglas]

30. omniscience indeed

They guy still had his right hand in his coat pocket. It looked to me like he was raising it, as if preparing to fire a concealed gun.

Given the absence of motion in the photos we were given, and the disconnection between each in the series, I'd just have to wonder what mental somersaults one would have to perform in order to achieve the state of looking-to-you that you have apparently achieved. There is absolutely nothing in the photo in question from which it can be inferred that the individual was either raising or lowering his hand, let alone whether, if he was raising it, he was preparing to pick his nose or fire a gun ... that he did not have. Oops. Omniscience isn't actually an arrow in your quiver, I guess.

The news report says that the clerk reported that the individual "implied" that he had a gun. That's what thrusting one's hand foreward in one's pocket does, I guess. But I'm at a loss as to why the clerk might have imagined that her life was in immediate danger (if she did nothing) after he had taken money and when he was "backing off". And if she didn't believe that her life was in danger (and have no alternative, etc. etc.), I'm at a loss to know why she would be regarded as having been justified in shooting.

Walking backwards away from a person does not preclude shooting. If she'd shot him in the back it would be a different matter.

The news report said:

When Thompson backed off, Smith, 52, pulled out a real gun and fired.

Since the photo we saw showed him turned away from the camera, sideways to the clerk (in what I would interpret as mid-turn away from the clerk, but that's just me), "backed off" appears to be used in the correctly figurative sense: as Oxford says (emphasis added), "draw back, retreat". (Telling someone to "back off" really is not an instruction to walk away backwards.) I have no idea what you base your "walking backwards" characterization.

He was shot in the shoulder. We apparently don't know whether he was shot in the *front* of the shoulder or the *back* of the shoulder. That seems to me to be rather an important bit of information. As I recall, he was lying face-down in the photo following the shooting. I know what I might possibly infer from that.

Until I have reason to think otherwise I will trust the judgement of the Columbus police and prosecutors to decide what charges need to be filed against whom.

Prosecutors don't decide what charges "need" to be filed against anyone. They decide what charges *will be* filed, and they base their decisions on a variety of considerations, as you of course know.

And we all know that one of those considerations is whether a conviction is likely to be obtained. It is quite common for police and prosecutors to have no doubt in their minds that an individual was criminally responsible for the commission of an offence, but to know that they would be unable to secure a conviction.

I offer the cokehead who wandered into my living room and took my purse while I was upstairs. Months later, the police contacted me to inform me that they had someone in custody for similar thefts during the same period in my neighbourhood, and that they had reasons (which they did not elaborate) for being satisfied that he was the thief of my purse. He matched the description that my 12-year-old neighbour had given me (unfortunately, not until later that day) of the man she had seen leaving my house -- his characteristics being unusual for that neighbourhood. But my neighbour's mother refused to allow her to talk to the police, let alone view a photo array. So despite the obvious fact that this individual was the person who had stolen my purse, he was never charged with the theft. Amazing, eh?

I would surmise, myself, that even if the prosecutors were of the view that the shooting was unjustified (and I have no opinion on this myself, unlike many here, since I have insufficient information), they regarded it as unlikely either that (a) they could rebut the clerk's evidence of justification or that (b) they could persuade a jury to convict even if the clerk's evidence obviously did not demonstrate justification. One might also surmise that the minor nature of the injury to the shooting victim was a factor in their decision.

But whatever. Me, I just don't claim to be omniscient when it comes to either the facts or the basis of any decision regarding those facts.

[slackmaster]

33. It cuts both ways iverglas

I just don't claim to be omniscient when it comes to either the facts or the basis of any decision regarding those facts.

Neither do I.

Given the absence of motion in the photos we were given, and the disconnection between each in the series, I'd just have to wonder what mental somersaults one would have to perform in order to achieve the state of looking-to-you that you have apparently achieved.

I could make the same remark concerning your assertion that the guy was not a threat when the clerk shot him, but I think anyone reading this thread would see the parallel.

The lack of audio also limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the video.

[iverglas]

38. yeah, but the damned thing is

I could make the same remark concerning your assertion that the guy was not a threat when the clerk shot him

I didn't make any such "assertion". Where *do* you people buy your reading glasses?

... it sure looks to me like the shooting victim was moving AWAY from the person who shot him, and presenting NO danger to the life/limb of the person who shot him.

Oh well.

[slackmaster]

43. OK, so you said "It sure looks to me"

Just as I said "It looked to me".

Maybe I'm reading too much into the tone of your posts iverglas, but I get the impression you believe your opinion of the risk that the clerk perceived, or ought to have perceived, is somehow more worthy than mine.

Maybe my use of the verb to assert was inappropriate, perhaps I should have used to opine or to suggest, but this is a casual conversation and I think you knew very well what I meant. Your reaction looks to me like something a hypothetical grammar Nazi might do, if such a type of person existed.

:D

[T Town Jake]

36. "his characteristics being unusual for that neighbourhood"

...?

[iverglas]

40. ??

Did you have a particular "?" in mind?

Let me read it.

You wanted to know what I meant by "his characteristics being unusual for that neighbourhood".

My neighbourhood is populated largely by particular ethnic groups, mainly the (different) ones to which I and the neighbours in question belong. The individual my neighbour saw fell outside those parameters. This was one factor that made him noticeable to my neighbour as someone she thought unusual to be coming out my front door.

I'm middle-sized and of European descent. The neighbours in question are ethnically northern Chinese. Most other neighbours are in one of those two groups, or other ethnic Chinese groups, or Indochinese, or South Asian, with the odd Latin American and Somali. Our little block happens to be ethnically European and Chinese. The individual described by my neighbour was young, tall, thin and black.

And she of course did not recognize him as anyone who had ever been at my house, where she had spent hundreds of hours, and my porch being about 30 feet away from and directly facing hers. She is used to seeing various people coming out my front door, including people from Colombia, Haiti, Cameroun and Japan. While she would have seen a black man there fairly frequently during the period in question, the black man in question is definintely not young, not particularly tall and not at all thin.

The odds were therefore quite excellent, particularly given the other information evidently in the police's possession, that they had the right person: it would have been a major coincidence if the person she had seen leaving my house were not the person they had in custody. But without her statement, they did not have a reasonable expectation of a conviction.

[T Town Jake]

47. Fine by me. Thanks for clearing that up...I think.

(n/t)

[MrSandman]

41. Or maybe it isn't any of these things...

I would surmise, myself, that even if the prosecutors were of the view that the shooting was unjustified (and I have no opinion on this myself, unlike many here, since I have insufficient information), they regarded it as unlikely either that (a) they could rebut the clerk's evidence of justification

Of what a jury will consider as beyond a reasonable doubt.

IIRC, prosecutors don't have a "view" of charges to be filed outside of what a jury will convict.

...unlikely ... that (b) they could persuade a jury to convict even if the clerk's evidence obviously did not demonstrate justification.

This is open to the inference prosecutor's incompetence.


One might also surmise that the minor nature of the injury to the shooting victim was a factor in their decision.

So if I only get a minor gunshot wound, it is alright?

[iverglas]

46. what??

IIRC, prosecutors don't have a "view" of charges to be filed outside of what a jury will convict.

How exactly can you "recall", correctly or otherwise, whether someone else has a view of anything?

I didn't SAY that prosecutors have a view of "charges to be filed". I said (and for pity's sake, you copied and pasted it; did you not READ it?):

even if the prosecutors were of the view that the shooting was unjustified

Prosecutors are not programmable robots; they form views, or opinions, about the existence and nature of facts, based on what they, human beings, know. Their opinion as to whether "X" happened is quite a different thing from their opinion as to whether they can prove that "X" happened.

It is my opinion that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, but I wouldn't want to have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt if I were prosecuting him for the act.

What's with you people? Do you seriously think that REALITY is what a court says it is?? What do you think EVIDENCE is all about?

Courts DO NOT say what reality is. They do not even PURPORT to say what reality is.

Courts state WHAT HAS BEEN PROVED TO THE REQUISITE STANDARD, in the opinion of the trier of fact.

If I sneak downstairs in the middle of the night and eat the last cookie, and if I am successful in making sure that no one sees me and that I leave no footprints on the linoleum and no fingerprints on the fridge, does this mean that I did not eat the cookie?

I would surmise that ... they regarded it as unlikely either that (a) they could rebut the clerk's evidence of justification
Of what a jury will consider as beyond a reasonable doubt.

What are you saying? I can't even parse that.

What is this prepositional phrase modifying? WHAT is "of what a jury will consider as beyond a reasonable doubt"?

Hmm. What follows is how things work where I'm at. I gather that the results where you're at may be different.

Where both of us are at, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence charged -- proving all the elements of the offence.

Where I'm at, an accused who claims self-defence as justification for his/her act has the onus of proving the justification, and has to prove it on a balance of probabilities. The defence does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was committed in self-defence.

The jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence, and on a balance of probabilities that s/he committed it in self-defence. The accused's onus is lighter than the prosecution's, and this might be one factor in the prosecution's decision that a conviction is unlikely to be secured.

I now gather that where you're at, the prosecution does have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence was *not* committed in self-defence (in the legal sense, i.e. by someone who had a reasonable belief that s/he had no alternative way of avoiding death or serious injury). That strikes me as onerous indeed. No wonder these charges don't seem to get laid too often.

So I gather that you are referring to a prosecutor's "view" of whether s/he can prove to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that an act was not committed in self-defence. I, on the other hand, was referring to the prosecutor's "view" of what actually happened. See the difference? Maybe grasp that this was my actual point?

...unlikely ... that (b) they could persuade a jury to convict even if the clerk's evidence obviously did not demonstrate justification.
This is open to the inference <of the?> prosecutor's incompetence.

Uh, sure. If it occurred, it might also be reasonable to infer that the jury didn't like the idea of somebody just like them going to prison for shooting a very bad man.

One might also surmise that the minor nature of the injury to the shooting victim was a factor in their decision.
So if I only get a minor gunshot wound, it is alright?

I give up; why are you asking ME?

I was surmising about why A PROSECUTOR, in the US in this case, might not lay charges in a case of this nature. Do I look like a prosecutor in the US to you?

Cripes. One of you guys alleges that I want the individual who did the shooting behind bars, and now you imply that I think that people who only inflict minor injuries by gunshot should not be charged.

Make up yer minds, will you? And as always, be sure to present the evidence that supports any conclusion stated.

[MrSandman]

51. I imply nothing...

None of the prosecutor's I have dealt with have been wont to fail to seek an indictment if, in their view, there is evidence of a crime. To suggest otherwise is, well, ridiculous.

It would not be reasonable to infer anything about the jury...there wasn't one.

I was asking a rhetorical question. ADW is ADW whether any injury occurs. Or at least I thought. I just read about the law and stuff...don't get much practice.

[skippythwndrdog]

34. I must be taking crazy pills, I'm shocked that anybody could write that.

Iverglas wrote, "I looked at the video pix, and while of course it's hard to tell what was going on because of the several seconds between frames, it sure looks to me like the shooting victim was moving AWAY from the person who shot him, and presenting NO danger to the life/limb of the person who shot him.

So hmm, "defensive use"? By whose definition might it be that?"


Are you serious? I don't think you could be. Are you taking the criminal's side? It is obvious to any rational individual viewing the tape that when the female shot the male, it was 100% justified. The female's only mis-step was not hitting the male Center of Mass.

[demogun]

22. Something that is only occasionally mentioned

This is something that is occasionally mentioned by the pro-rights groups and never accepted by the anti-rights groups. You don't actually have to fire a gun, or even touch the trigger, or even pick it up to use it defensively. I was faced with someone agressively approaching my car at a gas station, and I could tell that he was up to no good. I have a 9 mm glock model 26 tucked under my front seat. I didn't even touch the gun, but I acted like I was reaching for it while making eye contact with the man. He stopped, and walked back away facing me the whole time. Now, did I use the gun in self defense? The anti-rights groups would say that I didn't actually use the gun. I contend that I most certainly used the gun.

[Jason Locke]

13. I thought that she fired only after

He demanded that she come out from behind the counter after she gave him the money. She did good.

Jason

[demogun]

21. I have a problem with this story

Every time I saw this story reported on the news, be it local or national, I was irritated by the last line in every report. "Ms. Smith will not be facing charges." I am not annoyed that she is not facing charges, but that they actually had to say that. LIKE IT WAS SOME SORT OF SURPRISE! She defended her life, and the property of her employers, and they have to insert in the report that she is not facing charges. WELL DUH. This whole mentality in the news and in this country that it is somehow surprising that someone is actually allowed to defend their life and limb without being charged is just ridiculous.

Thanks for letting me vent. This topic is the reason I wanted to register on this site. I find much of what is posted on the democrat underground to be a little too far left, but this forum is great.

[cattleman22]

23. I thought the same thing as well. n/t

[aikoaiko]

24. I agree with you on the "no charges" line in reports in principle....

... but I think there are a lot of people (iverglas perhaps) that think she should be arrested. Telling people that she won't be charged is educational for those types of folks.

[demogun]

25. But the people that it educates talk about "common sense"

This whole "common sense" talk is another pet peeve. If people truly had common sense, they would not think someone should be arrested or charged for defending his or her life and property with deadly force.

[slackmaster]

27. "Common sense" is a pet peeve of mine as well

If it really worked we wouldn't need science or education or books because everyone would just know everything automatically.

A claim of common sense (or reasonableness) in a debate or discussion is really a couched way of saying that anyone who disagrees with you is not a sensible or reasonable person.

:nuke:

[cattleman22]

28. It depends upon the subject of the discussion.

For many problems, potentially there could be multiple reasonable solutions or paths to that solution. For example, take driving directions. One set of directions may be a few miles shorter, but go through more congestion. For a person who hates congestion, taking the longer route is reasonable. For a person who does not mind congestion, taking the shorter route is reasonable. Because of this type of possibility, I do not automatically think that a person claiming that they believe they are supporting a reasonable solution implies that the other person is being unreasonable.

[demogun]

29. Very well put

[iverglas]

32. but thank goodness

But the people that it educates talk about "common sense"

I don't know who these people are; do you just run a few up out of whole cloth when the need arises? Got any on offer today?

But allow me anyhow.

If people truly had common sense, they would not think someone should be arrested or charged for defending his or her life and property with deadly force.

Whoever they are, thank goodness that they recognize that the law, and the long history of human civilization on which it is based, prevails over their "common sense", if that were indeed what it told them.

The law in moderately civilized societies does indeed provide that individuals who use deadly force to "defend" their property should be arrested and charged, and tried and, if convicted, punished.

I guess I'd have to agree that this does reflect a form of common sense ... the form that has led our human societies to come up with notions like, oh, "the right to life". That notion is indeed "common" to most such societies.

(I mean, you do know what "common sense" means, right?

The term common sense designates (1) a special faculty, the sensus communis of the Aristotelean and Scholastic philosophy; (2) the sum of original principles found in all normal minds; (3) the ability to judge and reason in accordance with those principles (recta ratio, good sense).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04167a.htm

Kant first defines common sense as that "subjective principle. . . which determines what pleases or displeases, by means of feeling only and not through concepts, but yet with universal validity."
http://www.mun.ca/phil/codgito/vol1/v1doc3.html

Sensus communis, y'know.)

So oddly enough (at least to you, it seems), in such a situation, these people's common sense coincides with the values adopted and promoted by their societies, and does not in any way lead to what you assert that such people would "think".

No one with common sense would assert that an individual is entitled to "defend" his/her property (except perhaps in the most extraordinary circumstances, where loss of one's property could be expected to lead to one's death) by killing another human being.

[T Town Jake]

45. I guess you're unfamiliar with the various "Castle Doctrines"...

...that are codified into law throughout several jurisdictions in these here United States. Here's an informative story about one I really like, for your perusal (and from a relatively "civilized" publication, no less! Not one of those icky US American press outfits...Didn't I do good?):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/10/31/nburg231.xml

Favorite quote straight from the article:

"It has been an unqualified success. Since the Make My Day Law came into force, burglary has declined by almost half in Oklahoma. In 1987, there were 58,333 cases; in 2000, just 31,661"

How about them apples?

[iverglas]

48. hahahaha

Here's an informative story about one I really like, for your perusal (and from a relatively "civilized" publication, no less! Not one of those icky US American press outfits...Didn't I do good?)

Uh, no. Allow me to help you. The Telegraph was until recently owned by the former Conrad Black (now Lord Black of Crossharbour), a former Canadian citizen and now a citizen of the UK and member of the House of Lords, and about as full of right-wing cupidity as they come -- and also, on the recent evidence, pretty full of stupidity. Think "Rupert Murdoch", if you need a local frame of reference. And ask google for Hollinger fraud SEC if you need more.

So you'll perhaps forgive me if I don't concur in the conclusion cited by you; let's all note that it is a conclusion allegedly based on facts, going like this:

Make My Day supporters point to a second statistic in Oklahoma they say proves the impact of the new law ...

They say. Hmm. Hardly proof, eh?

That apart, we might want to consider what excellent results might be had, to address the rest of those still-rising theft statistics in Oklahoma, if Oklahoma were to institute the death penalty for theft. Or perhaps just start severing hands.

In any event, I was already quite familiar with those "castle doctrine" laws of your'n, which pertain, as I understand it, in a minority of states. The states in question being kinda the usual suspects. The ones that don't spring to the forefront of one's mind when one thinks "civilized society", y'know.

I know a little more about the "castle doctrine" that I've shared here before, after it was drawn to my attention by a fellow poster some time ago.

Y'know why Spiro Agnew became Vice-President of the United States?

Here ya go.

http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps12426/www.senate.gov/learning/stat_vp39.html

... in 1966, when nominated as the Republican candidate for governor of Maryland, Agnew positioned himself to the left of his Democratic challenger, George Mahoney. An arch segregationist, Mahoney adopted the campaign slogan, "Your Home Is Your Castle—Protect It," which only drove liberal Democrats into Agnew's camp. Charging Mahoney with racial bigotry, Agnew captured the liberal suburbs around Washington and was elected governor.

One more indication of what a "big tent" that Democratic Party is, I guess.

http://www.goodbyemag.com/sep/agnew.htm

<Agnew> ran as a liberal Republican, opposing a white supremacist and Democrat George Mahoney. Mahoney’s slogan was “My Home is My Castle.” (Gary Wills characterized this slogan as “Up with the castle drawbridge, let the horde of advancing niggers silt up the moat.”)

Certainly one more indication of the racist roots of the "gun rights" movement.

http://www.johnjemerson.com/zizka.guns.htm

... the 1966 Maryland gubenatorial race: that year, the Democratic primary was won by a Dixiecrat, George P. Mahoney, when the liberal vote was split between two different candidates. Mahoney ran on an unmistakably racist, pro-gun, anti-open-housing (pro-racial-discrimination) platform: "your home is your castle, protect it!" Sen. Tydings of Maryland was at that time an important gun-control advocate, ...

So hey, thanks for opening that door!

[iverglas]

31. ya think, eh?

but I think there are a lot of people (iverglas perhaps) that think she should be arrested.

Just a wild guess, was it?

I guess it was.

Telling people that she won't be charged is educational for those types of folks.

Hmm. I wonder what the type of folks of which I am hypothetized to be one might have learned from hearing that no charges will be laid, but not being given any reasons for the non-laying of charges?

That prosecutorial discretion was exercised arbitrarily, perhaps?

Who can tell? Me, I wouldn't have an opinion about whether prosecutorial discretion was exercised arbitrarily or appropriately, since I don't have those reasons.

I'm so confused. Without being in possession of any of the relevant facts, "iverglas perhaps" would have thought that the clerk should have been arrested. And then somehow, still without me (perhaps?) being in possession of any of the relevant facts, it would be educational for me to be told that no charges are being laid, without being told the reasons why.

I'm trying to figure out what I've allegedly been educated about here, and I'm just not coming up with anything.

The funny thing is, I just don't find it at all unusual for the police to state, and the media to report, that an individual who injured another individual with a firearm is not being charged with a criminal offence.

Heck, just think of all the folks hereabouts who might have lain awake nights fretting about whether this hero of the ongoing armed resistance against bad men was sitting in the county gaol awaiting trial on charges laid by some élitist liberal prosecutor ...

[aikoaiko]

35. No wild guess needed

Iverglas, in your post #15, you wrote, "I looked at the video pix, and while of course it's hard to tell what was going on because of the several seconds between frames, it sure looks to me like the shooting victim was moving AWAY from the person who shot him, and presenting NO danger to the life/limb of the person who shot him.

So hmm, "defensive use"? By whose definition might it be that?"

Shooting victim?
Presented no danger to the life/limb of the person who shot him?

Sounds to me like you thought you had enough information to make some judgments. If it wasn't self-defense, then what was it and would you think the shooter should be arrested?

[iverglas]

37. lend me your specs

You know, the ones that show the nice solid line leading from the remarks of mine that you quoted to your conclusion that I think that the woman who fired the gun should be arrested.

I guess they'll be the ones that the phrase "it sure looks to me" travels through and comes out looking like "what happened is".

'Cause, y'know, I just don't "think" things that I don't have grounds for thinking. And, me being a rational person and a person concerned that public officials not act irrationally or otherwise improperly, "it sure looks to me" just isn't grounds, in my mind, for thinking that someone should be arrested.

If it wasn't self-defense, then what was it and would you think the shooter should be arrested?

If I knew the answer to the first part of the question, I think you'd be needing to call me "god". Since you seem to think I know the answer, you go right ahead. I will also be expecting burnt offerings, and money.

"Would" I think an arrest should be made? That verb's in the conditional. Would I think an arrest should be made if ... what? If the shooting was not in self-defence? Um ... yes? And would you not agree?

Do I think an arrest should be made? Not having any grounds for a reasonable conclusion as to whether the shooting was in self-defence? Um ... no? Is there some reason you thought I would?

But anyhow ... you seem to have, uh, forgotten what my post was talking about. That was this:

OOhhh! A verifiable defensive use of a firearm!

I just didn't have to prove the opposite of the claim in order to request proof of the claim, which is what I'm still waiting for.

[aikoaiko]

39. Iverglas has no opinion

I apologize, I realize now you have no opinion on whether the shooter should be arrested even though you said the thief posed no danger to her and that he was a shooting victim.

I stand corected.

And, for what its worth, I regret posting (iverglas perhaps) in my post.

[iverglas]

42. no apology accepted

you said the thief posed no danger to her

But you can go ahead and offer one for this false statement, if you like.

I "said he was a shooting victim"? Yes ... and ...??

Gosh, I guess that if someone died of AIDS after contracting HIV from a dirty needle that s/he voluntarily used with full knowledge of the potential consequences, or after engaging in unprotected sex with multiple partners at a gigantic orgy, you would object to me calling him/her an "AIDS victim".

Oxford says:

victim 1. a person injured or killed as a result of an event or circumstances

Now I guess I'm needing a copy of your special dictionary, along with the specs and hearing aid.

And, for what its worth, I regret posting (iverglas perhaps) in my post.

I'll bet you do indeed. Of course, being sorry that one did something isn't the same as being sorry for doing it.

[Columbia]

44. Possibly what aiko is referring to

The use of the term "victim" in the context of the trial, Ruckriegle said, "could improperly suggest that a crime had been committed such that the presumption of innocence might be jeopardized.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/bryant/060104_victim_ap.html

[iverglas]

49. context, context, context

The use of the term "victim" in the context of the trial, Ruckriegle said, "could improperly suggest that a crime had been committed such that the presumption of innocence might be jeopardized.

Huh. I just hadn't thought that anyone was on trial here, and so hadn't perceived any need to avoid the use of ordinary English words in their ordinary sense.

Cripes again. I speak Latin, I'm naughty. I speak English, I'm naughty. Nobody seems to have objected to my speaking French a little earlier, so maybe I'll stick to that.

The presumption of innocence, by the way and lest we forget, has nothing to do with reality. It has to do with liability to punishment, the only issue before a court. A court is not concerned with what happened; it is concerned with the evidence of what happened, and whether that evidence is sufficient to support a finding of what happened. A finding of what happened is not necessarily what happened.

Time-honoured though the phrase is, it is a misnomer. No court ever finds anyone "innocent" of anything. Courts are not concerned with innocence; they are concerned with guilt. A finding that an individual is "not guilty" does not mean that s/he has been found innocent.

We, here, are of course not bound by the rules of evidence or the requirements for making judicial findings. That would be why people here can say things like, oh, "OOhhh! A verifiable defensive use of a firearm!" and not have someone the presiding authority chide them as the judge you cite did in the Kobe Bryant case.

[Columbia]

50. connotation, connotation, connotation