re: What would the OB do - Street Violence Edition

quote:

---

"I was in fear for my life officer"

---

Thats what Zimmerman said.

Two things are going to happen at the end of this Zimmerman is going to jail and is financially ruined, Or he walks and is still financially ruined. Im pleading with you guys, for the most part you are all decent fellows, just stay the frick away from places where people with nothing to lose frequent. The last thing you want is for the president to come out and say" if I had an uncle pookie who was cracked out and liked to beat on cars with a conviently placed crowbar while doing an interview in front of a camera, he would look like that guy" and then directing the Justice department to ruin your life.

You pay the insurance company hundreds of dollars a month let them handle it.

quote:

---

While I agree with you 100%, if it were me I would probably sweat a little bit wondering if it would be brought to a grand jury in one of those states, but ultimately you'd never be charged IMO.

---

I'm sometimes shocked by the way some people view seemingly open and shut cases, and even more shocked at how many people hold their views. Never overestimate your "peers."

quote:

---

financially ruined

---

No, he is going to sue all the news stations that lied and slandered him...

quote:

---

I'm sometimes shocked by the way some people view seemingly open and shut cases, and even more shocked at how many people hold their views. Never overestimate your "peers."

---

True, but I don't think you can use the GZ trial as an example, I know you aren't but its been brought up a couple times in this thread. The media jumped all over it from a racial standpoint b/c there was nothing significant going on at the time so they wanted a race controversy. Then your fearless leader practically starts a race war saying "if I had a son..."

In this situation, there's a myriad of witnesses right there in traffic with you, and theres no way (unless they outright lie) would draw up a story that would contradict you "fearing for your life."

quote:

---

True, but I don't think you can use the GZ trial as an example

---

I'm not. Almost 50 years of living around my "peers" which includes several instances of jury duty. Most of us live in a bubble and think most feel like we do or the people we associate with do, but if you look at the general direction of the country, it isn't like that.


"We" are being outvoted and our way of thinking is becoming the minority.

quote:

---

"We" are being outvoted and our way of thinking is becoming the minority.

---

True.

quote:

---

with nothing to lose frequent. The last thing you want is for the president to come out and say" if I had an uncle pookie who was cracked out and liked to beat on cars with a conviently placed crowbar while doing an interview in front of a camera, he would look like that guy"

---

I step out the car, shoot him in both of his knees twice and drive off.

That'll fix that problem

On duty or off duty (by myself), he follows my clear verbal instructions or gets shot. Period. Lady in the smashed car is witness #1, and the closest person to my rear is #2. Person to my rear b/c they would see things closest to my perspective.

quote:

---

Yea save for the fact that in most states you cant shoot unless he is actually trying to get in the car.

---

Luckily in LA you can.

Per LSP.org:

quote:

---

LRS 14:19 §19. Use of force or violence in defense

A. The use of force or violence upon the person of another is justifiable when committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense, and that this Section shall not apply where the force or violence results in a homicide.

B. For the purposes of this Section, there shall be a presumption that a person lawfully inside a dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle held a reasonable belief that the use of force or violence was necessary to prevent unlawful entry thereto, or to compel an unlawful intruder to leave the premises or motor vehicle, if both of the following occur: (1) The person against whom the force or violence was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering or had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle. (2) The person who used force or violence knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring or had occurred

C. A person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and who is in a place where he or she has a right to be shall have no duty to retreat before using force or violence as provided for in this Section and may stand his or her ground and meet force with force.

D. No finder of fact shall be permitted to consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not the person who used force or violence in defense of his person or property had a reasonable belief that force or violence was reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent a forcible offense or to prevent the unlawful entry.

---