kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:Which is why you have Juries of 12 people, to determine what is reasonable if there are questions. However, the police and DA's office can filter out those cases where it's obviously self-defense. Which they should have done in this case, except for politics.

. . .

So yes, a jury trial can be necessary, but do we need to bankrupt everyone for them to prove themselves innocent?



Sorry. Two more things and I'll shut up for a while. The first part of this is where you and I completely disagree. I think that this far from an obviously justifiable use of deadly force.

The second is a completely different issue. We can't not prosecute because it's going to cost the person a lot of money to defend him/herself. Come on.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
kylemittskus wrote:However, I want to address the above. This is basically your argument:

"So why did you shoot him?"

"I had to. I feared for my life."

"Why? Did he have a gun or a knife?"

"Not that I saw. But he could have been a black belt in karate."

". . . . . ."



Once someone has broken down your door after being remarkably aggressive with you a moment before, I think it is probably safest (in the literal, life-preservation sense) to assume that the intruder represents a risk to your life.


On a side note, what I find very disturbing is that it seems we expect *less* justification from police who are involved in shootings than we do private citizens. Police officers have shot a significant number of unarmed people (off the top of my head, just in California in the last few years two newspaper delivery women in a truck, a guy sitting on his porch with a hose, a guy riding a BART train, etc) with little, if any, legal punishments to the officers who did the shooting. And yet we also see cases where a private individual - who presumably has less training in these situations, and therefore should be more likely to overestimate the risk to his life and/or be less able to diffuse a situation calmly - shoots someone who is attacking him, and is then brought up on charges. Deplorable, really.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
kylemittskus wrote:Sorry. Two more things and I'll shut up for a while. The first part of this is where you and I completely disagree. I think that this far from an obviously justifiable use of deadly force.

The second is a completely different issue. We can't not prosecute because it's going to cost the person a lot of money to defend him/herself. Come on.



So far as I can tell, Mark's not making a 'don't prosecute because it's expensive' argument. He is making an argument in favor of prosecutorial discretion (pretty clear to me, given that he leads with 'obvious cases of self defense'), and additionally notes that when that discretion is abandoned, there are significant costs (which exist not just for the defendant, mind you, but for the state as well).

chipgreen


quality posts: 188 Private Messages chipgreen
klezman wrote:And Joel ftw


+1

chipgreen


quality posts: 188 Private Messages chipgreen
jawlz wrote:On a side note, what I find very disturbing is that it seems we expect *less* justification from police who are involved in shootings than we do private citizens. Police officers have shot a significant number of unarmed people (off the top of my head, just in California in the last few years two newspaper delivery women in a truck, a guy sitting on his porch with a hose, a guy riding a BART train, etc) with little, if any, legal punishments to the officers who did the shooting. And yet we also see cases where a private individual - who presumably has less training in these situations, and therefore should be more likely to overestimate the risk to his life and/or be less able to diffuse a situation calmly - shoots someone who is attacking him, and is then brought up on charges. Deplorable, really.


Yes, the cops always seem to skate when they shoot unarmed civilians. Here in Cleveland last year, a car backfired as it drove past the Justice Center downtown. Someone mistook it for a gunshot and police began pursuit of the vehicle. The chase ended about a half hour later when the vehicle finally stopped and the cops jumped out of the couple dozen cruisers they were using in the chase and fired over 130 bullets into the stopped vehicle, killing the driver and his female passenger, both of whom were unarmed.

Then there was the case in New York last year where the cops took aim at a suspected criminal in a public area, successfully shooting him.... along with seven innocent bystanders.

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin

Should I be offended there is no Roman Cross that seems to be under attack?
At least here in SD.


Nope, not offended in the least.

CT

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
rjquillin wrote:Should I be offended there is no Roman Cross that seems to be under attack?
At least here in SD.
Nope, not offended in the least.



You having a stroke or something? (In other words: huh?)

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:"I want you to hide, call 911, and wait instead of shooting someone" does not equate to "we need to disarm this country." I see the issues as separate. That's not to say that people on both sides won't conflate the two, but I don't see a need to help them along.



Actually that is the very argument that Gun Control proponents make. That we don't need guns because we have the police. That we can call 911 and "Poof", the police will instantly be there. Only they seem to forget that little thing called response time.

The fact that the politicians making that argument all have armed bodyguards is beside the point.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:
Not sure why we're being so vague. This was me. You're that pissed because I misread a single word? Get over it. By the way, I didn't misread it. I made an assumption that you were talking about a single party based on a)the fact that only one of the two parties seem to want gun control and b) about 500 previous posts by you. But because you got so worked up, you missed my entire point. My point was that this doesn't need to be a political issue at all. Making a singular case and stretching it over a HUGE issue is ludicrous. That was my point. This issue is incredibly interesting, IMO, to discuss. I don't think conflating it with gun control is justified. You and mother obviously disagree. And so we have this lovely thread that we all participate in.



1) Not every post is about you. I really didn't remember who had posted it, and I thought there was more than one post agreeing with it. And you missed my point in that it's happened before, and not just to me. You just proved my point, in trying to justify your assertion. I was in no way trying to make it that political.

And yes, it made a HUGE difference to me, but not how you think. The initial point was about how our schools are trying to take Critical Thinking away from our kids. To make everything about getting help from authority, rather than defending yourself.

And you can't discuss the authorities (police, DA/AG) insisting that 911 should have been called first, without injecting why they feel that it is needed. Your reading more into my post than what was there was missing my point entirely. That not only our kids, but we ourselves need to think and question authority, instead of blindly following.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
rjquillin wrote:Should I be offended there is no Roman Cross that seems to be under attack?
At least here in SD.

Nope, not offended in the least.



Yes! The liberals in SD have taken Christ out of Christmas. Or something.

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
mother wrote:You having a stroke or something? (In other words: huh?)

I just found it humorous there was a Menorah in the pic for a Chrismukkapalooza Marathon! and cycled back to the church-state thing.

Here in SD we've had a cross associated with a war memorial that's been up since early 1900's; '13 iirc. Just had a judge rule this week it has to come down. This has been going on for years now.

I find myself making disassociated-associations frequently and needed a diversion from the gun topic.

CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
jawlz wrote:Once someone has broken down your door after being remarkably aggressive with you a moment before, I think it is probably safest (in the literal, life-preservation sense) to assume that the intruder represents a risk to your life.


On a side note, what I find very disturbing is that it seems we expect *less* justification from police who are involved in shootings than we do private citizens. Police officers have shot a significant number of unarmed people (off the top of my head, just in California in the last few years two newspaper delivery women in a truck, a guy sitting on his porch with a hose, a guy riding a BART train, etc) with little, if any, legal punishments to the officers who did the shooting. And yet we also see cases where a private individual - who presumably has less training in these situations, and therefore should be more likely to overestimate the risk to his life and/or be less able to diffuse a situation calmly - shoots someone who is attacking him, and is then brought up on charges. Deplorable, really.



Thank you!

I think the main problem is that without the facts from the 2nd link, some made assumptions, and I didn't help with some of my "explanations". So here is what I know from reading several reports, but most corroborates the information in the 2nd link.

1) Mr. Green was a friend of Mrs. Pinkerton's brother. Her brother had been helping her with her two sons while Mr. Pinkerton was deployed. Babysitting them in all likelihood.

2) When Mrs. Pinkerton's brother had a major medical emergency, some of his friends, including Mr. Green helped. According to Mrs. P, Mr. Green wanted to move out of his mom's house, and she allowed him to move in to their basement, since she already had a single mom (with her 2 kids) staying as well. According to Mrs. P, there was no affair, but Mr. Green wanted it to be more.

3) When Mr. P was coming home from deployment, Mr. Green was informed he had to move out. He got so angry at this, he punched 15 holes in the wall. (Sorry bowtie, I rather liked your golf analogy!)

4) After Mr. P closed the door on him at 2 AM, Mr. G broke the front door down and charged at Mr. P. Mr. G was wearing a hoodie, and made a move towards his belt area.

5) Mr. P then shot him once in the main body area. Mr. G then got up and charged again, whereupon Mr. P fired one more shot. Mrs. P and two witnesses both corroborated Mr. P's statements.


Ignoring my "black belt" comments, if someone had previously punched 15 holes in my wall, come to my door at 2 AM and yelled at me, and then broke down my door, I'd shoot him too. And if he got up and charged me again, I'd shoot him again. Because I would be in fear for my life and my wife's.


When was there time to call 911?

Before answering the door? No probable cause to suspect a problem.

After closing the door? He was heading away from the door, and no reason at that time to suspect he needed to call 911.

After Mr. G broke the door down? Again, there was no time to call. It wasn't like Mr. G stood there for 5 minutes yelling.


And as Jawlz pointed out, you don't even have to make a move towards your belt for trained police officers to shoot you.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
MarkDaSpark wrote:Actually that is the very argument that Gun Control proponents make. That we don't need guns because we have the police. That we can call 911 and "Poof", the police will instantly be there. Only they seem to forget that little thing called response time.

The fact that the politicians making that argument all have armed bodyguards is beside the point.

Ever tried to get a CC in CA? At least in a larger city, if you're not a pol?
Not gonna happen.

CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
jawlz wrote:So far as I can tell, Mark's not making a 'don't prosecute because it's expensive' argument. He is making an argument in favor of prosecutorial discretion (pretty clear to me, given that he leads with 'obvious cases of self defense'), and additionally notes that when that discretion is abandoned, there are significant costs (which exist not just for the defendant, mind you, but for the state as well).



Again, Thank You!

It was a long enough post, and I was rushing to get somewhere.

The other point I was trying to make was that the AG didn't need to rush to arrest Mr. P, but that there was still time to investigate further. And if the police uncovered vital evidence or testimony, that they could then prosecute.

In some cases, the police & DA/AG need to make a quick arrest where the suspect is a flight risk. In this case, that doesn't seem to be the case (8 years in the same house, 2 kids, Air Force Sargent).


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
rjquillin wrote:Ever tried to get a CC in CA? At least in a larger city, if you're not a pol?
Not gonna happen.



Why would I need a Credit Card?

Or a concealed carry? double


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

chipgreen


quality posts: 188 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:Thank you!

I think the main problem is that without the facts from the 2nd link, some made assumptions, and I didn't help with some of my "explanations". So here is what I know from reading several reports, but most corroborates the information in the 2nd link.



Like chem, I did not recognize that the second link was to an article with additional details about the shooting as it appeared to be a link that would simply confirm the claim that the wife was not sleeping with the intruder. Also like chem, I took that claim at face value and didn't feel the need to click the link for verification.

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
rjquillin wrote:I just found it humorous there was a Menorah in the pic for a Chrismukkapalooza Marathon! and cycled back to the church-state thing.

Here in SD we've had a cross associated with a war memorial that's been up since early 1900's; '13 iirc. Just had a judge rule this week it has to come down. This has been going on for years now.

I find myself making disassociated-associations frequently and needed a diversion from the gun topic.



Not sure what the marathon is, but they're going to get really sick if they drink that egg-nog after leaving it unrefrigerated...

chipgreen


quality posts: 188 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:Why would I need a Credit Card?

Or a concealed carry? double


Closed Captioning for the hearing impaired.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus

Thanks for the listed details, Sparky. I understand what you're saying now. I didn't see the second link at all so I obviously didn't click it.

Also, this is why I value this board. I come here not just to bloviate, but to listen to everyone else do the same. : wink: I learn a lot from this thread. When we all calm down and explain things, things tend to make a lot of sense. I am now, at least based on Sparky's list, swayed a little. Maybe a bit more than a little. I'm still not super excited about people shooting each other, but I think the circumstances warranted some response.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
chipgreen wrote:Closed Captioning for the hearing impaired.

You'll be hearing impaired if you bust down my door. Concealed Carry discharge will see to that.
Wait, don't need that for home defense, phew.
It really is pretty irritating the laws aren't applied equally for the masses as they are for the the elite, but that could be a ~very~ long thread to prime.

CT

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
rjquillin wrote:Should I be offended there is no Roman Cross that seems to be under attack?
At least here in SD.


Nope, not offended in the least.



I saw a white Santa though, close enough.

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
bhodilee wrote:I saw a white Santa though, close enough.

Speaking of, PM me your address; I'm white.
Don't ask, just do it.

CT

klezman


quality posts: 122 Private Messages klezman
bhodilee wrote:I thought 18 holes justified a self defense killing. I was willing to call it the "golf defense" and was excited to refer to the fact he shot him twice as "the back nine." Now that I know there was only 15 holes, I hope he rots in jail for ruining my fun.



I approve of this post

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 122 Private Messages klezman
MarkDaSpark wrote:Actually that is the very argument that Gun Control proponents make. That we don't need guns because we have the police. That we can call 911 and "Poof", the police will instantly be there. Only they seem to forget that little thing called response time.

The fact that the politicians making that argument all have armed bodyguards is beside the point.



Hm...while I would fall closer to the "gun control proponent" than many here, I certainly have never thought of that argument nor do I think it holds any water. I simply think the benefits of private citizens arming themselves to the teeth can cause more harm than good. That's not to say I think all guns ought to be banned or anything like that, but some semblance of gun control is a-ok with me.

Yes...saying "you don't get to have a gun because the cops have them and will take care of it" is inane.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

edthebedhead


quality posts: 4 Private Messages edthebedhead
rjquillin wrote:Should I be offended there is no Roman Cross that seems to be under attack?
At least here in SD.


Nope, not offended in the least.



Maybe you'd be by the damnation beer? (its good The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978)).

On a fun note:
I think I spy a shot glass on top of a bottle of wine.

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
edthebedhead wrote:Maybe you'd be by the damnation beer? (its good The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978)).

On a fun note:
I think I spy a shot glass on top of a bottle of wine.

..but what are the little cubie thingies also on top of bottles?

CT

klezman


quality posts: 122 Private Messages klezman
rjquillin wrote:..but what are the little cubie thingies also on top of bottles?



You mean the dreidls?
Me thinks the lastbottle folks may be m.o.t.

2014: 28 bottles. Last wine.woot: Scott Harvey Red Re-Mix
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

rjquillin


quality posts: 174 Private Messages rjquillin
klezman wrote:You mean the dreidls?
Me thinks the lastbottle folks may be m.o.t.

I have an excuse, I attended a public school. You guys need to do a better job of post-secondary education at the gatherings.

CT

chipgreen


quality posts: 188 Private Messages chipgreen
klezman wrote:You mean the dreidls?
Me thinks the lastbottle folks may be m.o.t.


I recognized the cube shaped dreidl but didn't realize that the yellow and blue items were also dreidls. I see now that they do have little handles on them but they look flat - will they spin? I had to turn to the Urban Dictionary to learn what m.o.t. meant, though.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chipgreen wrote:I recognized the cube shaped dreidl but didn't realize that the yellow and blue items were also dreidls. I see now that they do have little handles on them but they look flat - will they spin? I had to turn to the Urban Dictionary to learn what m.o.t. meant, though.



It's a brand that utilizes apples

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
chipgreen wrote:I recognized the cube shaped dreidl but didn't realize that the yellow and blue items were also dreidls. I see now that they do have little handles on them but they look flat - will they spin? I had to turn to the Urban Dictionary to learn what m.o.t. meant, though.



You'll particularly appreciate this Chip:

I prefer the euphemism "He plays for Cleveland".

chipgreen


quality posts: 188 Private Messages chipgreen
mother wrote:You'll particularly appreciate this Chip:

I prefer the euphemism "He plays for Cleveland".


Go Tribe!

joelsisk


quality posts: 9 Private Messages joelsisk

on the Last Bottle note... not sure if I should be scared or not...


I have no clue what you actually get for the $555.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:Thanks for the listed details, Sparky. I understand what you're saying now. I didn't see the second link at all so I obviously didn't click it.

Also, this is why I value this board. I come here not just to bloviate, but to listen to everyone else do the same. : wink: I learn a lot from this thread. When we all calm down and explain things, things tend to make a lot of sense. I am now, at least based on Sparky's list, swayed a little. Maybe a bit more than a little. I'm still not super excited about people shooting each other, but I think the circumstances warranted some response.



I wasn't saying there shouldn't be a response, but there should have been more investigation first. From the speed to charge him and the small portion of actual info on the shooting, it was obvious that this was about something more. Whether it was politics or the lack of him calling 911 (remember his wife called 911 after the door was broken down), something was off.

I also left off that the Judge dropped his bail from around $1.6 million to $250K, because of the facts.


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:Hm...while I would fall closer to the "gun control proponent" than many here, I certainly have never thought of that argument nor do I think it holds any water. I simply think the benefits of private citizens arming themselves to the teeth can cause more harm than good. That's not to say I think all guns ought to be banned or anything like that, but some semblance of gun control is a-ok with me.

Yes...saying "you don't get to have a gun because the cops have them and will take care of it" is inane.



Hmm, Gun deaths down each year since 1993. Gun sales up each year


Actually, I think this is a good start for discussion: Can the U.S. find consensus in better mental health access to curb gun violence. It's not so much adding mental health checks to background checks as much as it is improving facilities and treatment.

"But the other elements of the iceberg are the 40 percent of the homeless who are mentally ill, the 30 percent of prison inmates who have mental illness and have been laundered through the criminal justice system."


When there's a bombing, we blame the Bomber; when there's a Drunk Driving accident, we blame the Driver; Why, when there's a shooting do we blame the Gun?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
MarkDaSpark wrote:Hmm, Gun deaths down each year since 1993. Gun sales up each year


Actually, I think this is a good start for discussion: Can the U.S. find consensus in better mental health access to curb gun violence. It's not so much adding mental health checks to background checks as much as it is improving facilities and treatment.

"But the other elements of the iceberg are the 40 percent of the homeless who are mentally ill, the 30 percent of prison inmates who have mental illness and have been laundered through the criminal justice system."


When there's a bombing, we blame the Bomber; when there's a Drunk Driving accident, we blame the Driver; Why, when there's a shooting do we blame the Gun?



At least as far as DUIs go, there's a combination of blame that goes around and hits on both the driver AND the alcohol (I have no doubt that MADD, for instance, would openly advocate prohibition if they didn't already know it was a losing argument).

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
bhodilee wrote:I saw a white Santa though, close enough.



I don't see the Santa, but I do see a Snowman. Where's the Santa?


And the dreidls are flat on the sides, but slightly rounded/pointy on the bottom so they spin. Although the wooden one is sitting weird.


I had to look up MOT a while back, when PS used it one time. I like the Cleveland reference!


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 181 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
jawlz wrote:At least as far as DUIs go, there's a combination of blame that goes around and hits on both the driver AND the alcohol (I have no doubt that MADD, for instance, would openly advocate prohibition if they didn't already know it was a losing argument).



Yes, but does anyone blame the car?


Someone has to put WD's kids thru college, but why does it have to be me!
*This post is for purposes of enabling only, and does not constitute any promise of helping pay for said enabling. It does indicate willingness to assist in drinking said wine.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:I don't see the Santa, but I do see a Snowman. Where's the Santa?


And the dreidls are flat on the sides, but slightly rounded/pointy on the bottom so they spin. Although the wooden one is sitting weird.


I had to look up MOT a while back, when PS used it one time. I like the Cleveland reference!



On the eggnog carton

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 230 Private Messages kylemittskus
jawlz wrote:At least as far as DUIs go, there's a combination of blame that goes around and hits on both the driver AND the alcohol (I have no doubt that MADD, for instance, would openly advocate prohibition if they didn't already know it was a losing argument).



Don't get me started on MADD.

"If drinking is bitter, change yourself to wine." -Rainer Maria Rilke

"Champagne is a very kind and friendly thing on a rainy night." -Isak Dinesen