chipgreen


quality posts: 202 Private Messages chipgreen
chemvictim wrote:What's not to like?


I know that wasn't directed at me but far-right Republicans still have a bug up their behinds because Christie got chummy with Obama when he visited NJ in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Not saying that jawls is in that camp, just that some people's views are so... focused, that some have sworn off Christie over it just like they have sworn off Rubio because he was promoting immigration reform.

Other than that, I recall something about questionable use of state funds by Christie to haul his family around via airplane and/or helicopter on a number of occasions and maybe some other questionable expenditures? IIRC he made restitution and it was pretty much forgotten although you can bet it will be brought up again if he runs for President.

Perhaps jawls can provide more insight?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:MD Man charged with 2nd degree murder asked "Why didn't you call police?"



Weren't we just discussing media obfuscation?

"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

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chemvictim wrote:First off, I do agree with you in general. I'm not sure if the specific Pinkerton case is so simple. The article makes it sound like the guy was a burglar or something and Pinkerton simply defended himself. From what I have read they knew each other, the guy was having an affair with Mrs. Pinkerton, and they were fighting about it. That's not to say Pinkerton didn't have the right to defend himself, just that the article leaves out some details which might have been relevant to his being charged.

The school kids, yeah it sucks. I saw this video (I wish I could find it now but alas), a little kid was picking on a bigger kid and the big kid took it for awhile but finally he had enough. He got in trouble because his response to the bully was supposedly too harsh (the bully fell and hit his head or something).



Allegedly an affair, which the wife denied and stated that the two were friends, but Mr. Green wanted it to be more.

There was also a single mom with kids staying the same time as Green, so you wouldn't think she'd be lying about an affair, if someone could testify.

Also, here's the thinking by the state: "Assistant State’s Attorney Glen Neubauer maintains that Pinkerton should not have shot Green but rather called the police instead, adding the fact that Pinkerton grabbing his gun before answering the door at 2 a.m. was “bizarre behavior in itself.”"

Someone pounds on your door at 2 AM and it's bizarre to grab a gun? Stupidity in politics.


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: 202 Private Messages chipgreen

Did Mr. Green have a weapon?

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus

I have no stance on the issue yet, but I'm not sure my first thought is to grab a gun when someone knocks at 2am. If I were afraid for my life, I'd likely not answer the door and call 911. Not saying he did anything wrong. However, I'm not sure that what he did is "normal behavior."

As far as the bullying stuff, that's a very complicated issue. I don't think that telling a kid to take it and trust the school to handle it is anything resembling a good idea. I'm not sure what a good idea is, though.

"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

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chipgreen wrote:I'm not sure you can call it lurking when you've posted within the past 24 hrs.

As for the case in question there are almost no details provided so it's hard to say if deadly force was justified. Determining if it was justified or if the charges against the shooter are justified clearly are not on the author's agenda anyway. He advantageously uses the skeletal outline of a story to make the claim that a man was charged with murder not because he shot someone to death but because he didn't call 911.

After we are sufficiently outraged, he has us in the proper frame of mind for his somewhat related rant about authority. Not saying that I don't agree with a lot of what he wrote in this opinion piece but I'm not a big fan of the way he framed the article.



True, true. I keep trying to leave, but you all keep pulling me back in!


And actually, see my previous post, the DA actually stated that he should have called 911 to let the police handle it. That it was "bizarre" to grab a gun at 2 AM when someone is pounding on your door.

The point was that certain parties are pushing us to meekly surrender our constitutional right to protect ourselves and our families when the police (state & local) have no responsibility to protect us.


It also shows it's better to have an attorney present, anytime you have to talk to police in certain areas.


chipgreen wrote:Did Mr. Green have a weapon?



"he was acting aggressively and as if he had a weapon in his waistband, although Pinkerton admitted that he never actually saw a weapon."

But it doesn't matter, you have the right to defend yourself and family against intruders. Deadly force is warranted when you are in fear of your life (or family's).

Green was advancing, got shot, and continued to advance, and was shot a 2nd time. Grounds to me.


And there were two other witnesses besides his wife.


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
chipgreen wrote:I know that wasn't directed at me but far-right Republicans still have a bug up their behinds because Christie got chummy with Obama when he visited NJ in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. Not saying that jawls is in that camp, just that some people's views are so... focused, that some have sworn off Christie over it just like they have sworn off Rubio because he was promoting immigration reform.

Other than that, I recall something about questionable use of state funds by Christie to haul his family around via airplane and/or helicopter on a number of occasions and maybe some other questionable expenditures? IIRC he made restitution and it was pretty much forgotten although you can bet it will be brought up again if he runs for President.

Perhaps jawls can provide more insight?



I will admit that I am not too keen at Christie's urging of what amounted to pork-barrel spending after Sandy, but that is entirely unrelated to him 'chumming around with Obama' (for what it is worth, I don't like Obama at all, but I also respect him a great deal more than I do Christie). I also find his use of some of the relief money to pay for national ads in which he partly advertises himself very distasteful - I won't go as far as Rand Paul did on this, but if Christie were most other politicians, this would have been *very* heavily scrutinized, especially given a media that is increasingly skeptical (on the surface level, at any rate) of big money in politics.

There are also issues with the state helicopter and generally high amounts of graft in his administration (political patronage to appoint unqualified people, use of position's authorities to either benefit himself or harm others, etc).

So there is all that, plus (and this is quite subjective, and the majority of New Jerseyans clearly disagree with me) I get a bad feeling from him; I've worked pretty closely with a number of politicians for the better part of the last decade, and it's usually pretty easy to spot those who are in it for their communities and those they represent, and those who are in it for themselves. Christie strikes me very strongly as the latter. But as I said before, take that with several grains of salt. I could well be wrong, and my views quite clearly don't represent even anything close to a tiny fraction of the majority of the views out there in any case.

chipgreen


quality posts: 202 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:"he was acting aggressively and as if he had a weapon in his waistband, although Pinkerton admitted that he never actually saw a weapon."

But it doesn't matter, you have the right to defend yourself and family against intruders. Deadly force is warranted when you are in fear of your life (or family's).

Green was advancing, got shot, and continued to advance, and was shot a 2nd time. Grounds to me.


And there were two other witnesses besides his wife.


Seems like a manslaughter offense to me but still not enough details to say for sure. Murder 2 definitely seems too steep.

As to the bullying in schools I totally agree that school authorities do not do enough to control/prevent it until it's too late and instead use zero tolerance policies for some of the most ridiculous decisions ever like suspending a kid because he chewed his sandwich into the shape of a gun.

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:And actually, see my previous post, the DA actually stated that he should have called 911 to let the police handle it. That it was "bizarre" to grab a gun at 2 AM when someone is pounding on your door.



Just to play devil's advocate a little, grabbing a gun would not be the first thought for many people. For many it would, but it's not a given. Grabbing a gun and charging outside to confront the intruder is a step further.

If I'm afraid, the LAST thing I'm going to do is open the door for the scary person. I might grab my hypothetical gun and be ready in case the grumpy elf broke in, but I'm not going to open the door because I would prefer not to have a confrontation.

Here's a story about an injured person who was shot by a homeowner who did not call 911 .

Here's a story about an injured person who was shot by the cops after the homeowner did call 911

rpm


quality posts: 177 Private Messages rpm
MarkDaSpark wrote::Suspend Lurking: Again.

MD Man charged with 2nd degree murder asked "Why didn't you call police?"

Interesting article/opinion on an apparently stupid DA in MD and a tie-in to current school "Zero Tolerence for Violence" policies, with a call to Question Authority. Well, and to raise our kids to think on their own.


In essence, someone broke in, owner shot him, and Police wondered why he didn't call 911. (Like he had time!) DA wondered same and charged the owner with 2nd Degree Murder.

The author then wonders where this attitude of calling and waiting for authority to help us comes from, and ties it in to current school policies. Good examples are in the article/opinion.

Just about each one of them involves a child being bullied, school authorities told (or knowing) about the bullying, yet doing nothing to stop it. Yet when the child defends themselves, are punished under the "Zero Tolerance" policies.


The sad part is it seems that a reliance on authority is being taught to our kids, yet said authority is under no obligation to protect us. See Supreme Court Cases such as Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) where police were called for help and ignored the calls (over 14 hours), and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) where despite calls to warn that an estranged husband (with a restraining order) was on his way (and eventually abducted and killed his kids), police were absolved of any responsibility for not enforcing the order.


So it appears, as the author puts it: "Basically it is the government saying, we don’t have to protect you, but if you protect yourself you are going to jail."


Now, where did I put those '60s Question Authority bumper stickers?


:resume lurking:



: suspend lurking

Self defense has long been recognized as legitimate in English law, at least as far back as the reign of Canute in the 11th century. Indeed, individuals were expected to join in with others to stop criminals - failure to respond the the 'hue and cry' was punishable by fine in the 11th century.

The right keep arms for self defense was enshrined in the English Bill of Rights of 1688 after the Glorious Revolution.

The notion that one must be passive and let the authorities stop criminals was certainly unknown at Common Law. The authorities were only reactive, dealing with the miscreants brought to court.

Self-help and self-defense are basic rights that no government may take away

: resume lurking

Wine-tasting in 8 words:
Pull lots of corks!
Remember what you taste!

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim

Here is another article about the second story I posted

The homeowner called 911 because she was afraid, and she didn't know where her gun was. The cops came, and they shot the guy who was at her door. A very sad story.

I remember watching the news and reading about this, and people were angry at the homeowner for calling 911. They felt that she overreacted because the guy was black.

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus

I've thought about the situation Sparky posted for a bit now. I have not read any story about it at all. I'm also ignoring any info outside of the info that Sparky has given. My basis is that Sparky feels the DA is wrong and the guy was justified. Ergo, Sparky will either give both sides, as he did with the gun question, or be biased towards his side.

Self-defense, and the right to self-defend, is important. If you are threatening my daughter's or SWMBO's life, I would put a bullet in your head and two in your chest. And then sleep soundly. However, the right to self-defend isn't unlimited. Like freedom of speech, there are limits and boundaries. You can't booby trap your property, for example.

In this situation, Pink didn't have knowledge that bad guy had a gun. Pink claims that he felt his life was threatened and responded in kind. However, his actions don't seem to me to be fear-based. Again, if someone knocks on my door and I'm afraid, I'd call 911 and not open the door. I'd take my gun, take my family, and protect wherever we hid. I'm not saying that my course of action needs to be universal. However, I am ok with this guy's story, his claims of fear, etc. be put to the test. I'm not ok with some guy shooting an unarmed man, saying I was scared for my life, and everyone going, "Works for me."

The lack of a 911 call is odd, IMO. And pulling out a couple, extreme cases out of the millions of 911 responses and saying that's why it was ok doesn't work for me. YMMV. Now, had he called 911 and 5 or 10 minutes later, the guy has breached the door and the police aren't there, that would be a different situation, although it still may not make Pink's actions justifiable.

RPM's post is interesting, but I don't see how its germane other than to establish that self-defense laws aren't new. The law enforcement of today is so unbelievably different from yesteryear.

Not that this is vigilanteism, but he certainly made his own decisions, without direct justification (the guy wasn't pointing a gun at him or someone else), and made no attempt to get any help. Because of that, someone is dead. Whether that person "deserves" to be dead is a question and I'm ok with it being argued and tested.

I also don't see this as anti-gun or anti-self-defense. And in no way do I think "certain parties are pushing us to meekly surrender our constitutional right to protect ourselves and our families." I don't see this as a party issue at all. And of course certain parties want us to call 911 if we're in fear of our lives. I want everyone to call 911, too.

And to preempt any accusations, I am pro-guns (at least the kind that was used in this case) and want desperately to vote Republican.

"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

chipgreen


quality posts: 202 Private Messages chipgreen

Not to make light of the intruder's death but I get a kick out of the homeowner's claim that the intruder was "reaching for his waistband". Why not? It works for the cops every time.

jawlz


quality posts: 12 Private Messages jawlz
chipgreen wrote:Not to make light of the intruder's death but I get a kick out of the homeowner's claim that the intruder was "reaching for his waistband". Why not? It works for the cops every time.



Of course, I've always heard that the best course of action is to take a knife from the kitchen and put it into the (now dead) intruder's hand, and *then* call 911. Though I suppose that it might not be that easy to through all that in such a situation.

coynedj


quality posts: 7 Private Messages coynedj

Non-lawyer spouting off here (but we're not all lawyers, are we?):

Let's not forget that "why didn't you call the police?" was a question asked by the police when they arrived at the scene. It sounds like a reasonable question to ask, when investigating a shooting. By asking that question (and I admit that I didn't read the entire article - maybe there's more to it than I caught), the police did not say "you should have done nothing, called the police, and sat there waiting patiently for them to arrive no matter what the intruder did". They just asked why he didn't call the police. Sparky's assertion that the DA said he should have let the police handle it wasn't in the column, that I saw. If he did say that, please see below.

As for being charged with 2nd degree murder, it is the job of a district attorney to prosecute. The charge may well be dropped or bargained down as further details come to light, but charges don't generally get bargained up. Being charged with something doesn't necessarily mean going to trial with that charge. Our adversarial legal system requires adversaries, and saying "you should have just called the police" could well have more to it than meets the eye. Not defending that statement - if it was me he said that to, I'd have a few choice words for him. But judgements based on partial information can go astray.

As for the case at hand, I'd want to know more before making a decision on whether it was a justifiable case of self-defense. Given the information given in the column, it looks like it might be, but a newspaper column does not have to adhere to the same standards for telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth that apply in a court of law.

Re "zero-tolerance" school policies, I have long held that they are ridonkulous. Take that, woot filters! But connecting this situation to school zero-tolerance policies is a migggghty big stretch.

I started out on Burgundy but soon hit the harder stuff. Bob Dylan, Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

How on earth did I get 7 QPs?

rjquillin


quality posts: 183 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:
I also don't see this as anti-gun or anti-self-defense. And in no way do I think "certain parties are pushing us to meekly surrender our constitutional right to protect ourselves and our families." I don't see this as a party issue at all. And of course certain parties want us to call 911 if we're in fear of our lives. I want everyone to call 911, too.

Earlier this year I heard an interview with SDPD chief William Lansdowne reagarding gun control and "assault weapons" on a local AM talker where the chief recommended against use of force and to just "call the magic numbers 9-1-1" and let them do the work, in ~10 minutes or so. The link above isn't the actual interview, still looking for a transcript, but an accurate summary by the AM talker Mike Slater who conducted the interview.

Below are some additional position quotes from law makers and enforcers here in CA.

California Senator Diane Feinstein made her position abundantly clear over the years, including her statement in 1995 “if I could have banned them all-‘Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns’- I would have”. Most disturbingly, San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne is actively supporting the proposed gun control legislation stating “it may take a generation, but guns will eventually be taken off the streets through new laws.”

So while I think I generally agree position wise, I think I disagree there is not an agenda to surrender our rights and guns.

CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus

To be clear, Ron, I'm not saying that there aren't politicians, groups, etc. who want to remove our guns. I'm disagreeing with the connection made by Sparky that this incident is an example of that. I quoted it directly above, but categorically blaming an entire party is stupid and connecting this incident with the anti-gun movement is a significant piggyback, IMO. The issue isn't that Pink had a gun. The issue is that he killed someone and arguably used an unreasonable amount of force compared to what the situation called for. It just so happens that his force can as a gun, but all other things being the same, I don't see a different outcome if he had stabbed this guy with a kitchen knife.

Also: Feinstein is horrible.

"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

mother


quality posts: 15 Private Messages mother
kylemittskus wrote:To be clear, Ron, I'm not saying that there aren't politicians, groups, etc. who want to remove our guns. I'm disagreeing with the connection made by Sparky that this incident is an example of that. I quoted it directly above, but categorically blaming an entire party is stupid and connecting this incident with the anti-gun movement is a significant piggyback, IMO. The issue isn't that Pink had a gun. The issue is that he killed someone and arguably used an unreasonable amount of force compared to what the situation called for. It just so happens that his force can as a gun, but all other things being the same, I don't see a different outcome if he had stabbed this guy with a kitchen knife.

Also: Feinstein is horrible.


Feinstein *is* horrible, but the push for people to be reliant upon the authorities for everything is part of the same movement to disarm the populace... Can't really separate the two of them.

(I haven't read the link at all, so I can't really comment on this case)

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus
mother wrote:Feinstein *is* horrible, but the push for people to be reliant upon the authorities for everything is part of the same movement to disarm the populace... Can't really separate the two of them.

(I haven't read the link at all, so I can't really comment on this case)



"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.

"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

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
mother wrote:If only you were 25 or 30 years younger...



I'd be 13 or 8.

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

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
mother wrote:If only you were 25 or 30 years younger...



Duh, well played.

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

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
chemvictim wrote:First off, I do agree with you in general. I'm not sure if the specific Pinkerton case is so simple. The article makes it sound like the guy was a burglar or something and Pinkerton simply defended himself. From what I have read they knew each other, the guy was having an affair with Mrs. Pinkerton, and they were fighting about it. That's not to say Pinkerton didn't have the right to defend himself, just that the article leaves out some details which might have been relevant to his being charged.

The school kids, yeah it sucks. I saw this video (I wish I could find it now but alas), a little kid was picking on a bigger kid and the big kid took it for awhile but finally he had enough. He got in trouble because his response to the bully was supposedly too harsh (the bully fell and hit his head or something).



HE POWERBOMBED THAT LITTLE DUCK AN IT WAS AWESOME!!!

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

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:"he was acting aggressively and as if he had a weapon in his waistband, although Pinkerton admitted that he never actually saw a weapon."

But it doesn't matter, you have the right to defend yourself and family against intruders. Deadly force is warranted when you are in fear of your life (or family's).

Green was advancing, got shot, and continued to advance, and was shot a 2nd time. Grounds to me.


And there were two other witnesses besides his wife.



So not true. If your state has castle doctrine maybe. My state does not and even if they have a gun, in your home, you still can't shoot unless they do. Which is beyond stupid, someone comes in my house they'd die if I had a gun. I don't though so I'd just be all take whatever you want.

"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: 183 Private Messages rjquillin
kylemittskus wrote:To be clear, Ron, I'm not saying that there aren't politicians, groups, etc. who want to remove our guns. I'm disagreeing with the connection made by Sparky that this incident is an example of that. I quoted it directly above, but categorically blaming an entire party is stupid and connecting this incident with the anti-gun movement is a significant piggyback, IMO. The issue isn't that Pink had a gun. The issue is that he killed someone and arguably used an unreasonable amount of force compared to what the situation called for. It just so happens that his force can as a gun, but all other things being the same, I don't see a different outcome if he had stabbed this guy with a kitchen knife.

Also: Feinstein is horrible.

Understand, and I hadn't read the entire thing either, need to do that.
It just seemed to fit in with the ass-back attitude of the SDPD here that was voiced to be 'don't do anything, call us, we'll take care of it' which when presented with an imminent threat is just flat out, imo, not only stupid but dangerous.
Basically go hide and wait; BS.
In the interview Lansdowne was/is just flat out arrogant, and openly hostile to gun ownership.
The rant just seemed to somehow fit in here. Law enforcement need to work ~with~ residents in protection of life and property, not ~against~ which is the attitude here.

Boxer too...

CT

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
kylemittskus wrote:I've thought about the situation Sparky posted for a bit now. I have not read any story about it at all. I'm also ignoring any info outside of the info that Sparky has given. My basis is that Sparky feels the DA is wrong and the guy was justified. Ergo, Sparky will either give both sides, as he did with the gun question, or be biased towards his side.

Self-defense, and the right to self-defend, is important. If you are threatening my daughter's or SWMBO's life, I would put a bullet in your head and two in your chest. And then sleep soundly. However, the right to self-defend isn't unlimited. Like freedom of speech, there are limits and boundaries. You can't booby trap your property, for example.

In this situation, Pink didn't have knowledge that bad guy had a gun. Pink claims that he felt his life was threatened and responded in kind. However, his actions don't seem to me to be fear-based. Again, if someone knocks on my door and I'm afraid, I'd call 911 and not open the door. I'd take my gun, take my family, and protect wherever we hid. I'm not saying that my course of action needs to be universal. However, I am ok with this guy's story, his claims of fear, etc. be put to the test. I'm not ok with some guy shooting an unarmed man, saying I was scared for my life, and everyone going, "Works for me."

The lack of a 911 call is odd, IMO. And pulling out a couple, extreme cases out of the millions of 911 responses and saying that's why it was ok doesn't work for me. YMMV. Now, had he called 911 and 5 or 10 minutes later, the guy has breached the door and the police aren't there, that would be a different situation, although it still may not make Pink's actions justifiable.

RPM's post is interesting, but I don't see how its germane other than to establish that self-defense laws aren't new. The law enforcement of today is so unbelievably different from yesteryear.

Not that this is vigilanteism, but he certainly made his own decisions, without direct justification (the guy wasn't pointing a gun at him or someone else), and made no attempt to get any help. Because of that, someone is dead. Whether that person "deserves" to be dead is a question and I'm ok with it being argued and tested.

I also don't see this as anti-gun or anti-self-defense. And in no way do I think "certain parties are pushing us to meekly surrender our constitutional right to protect ourselves and our families." I don't see this as a party issue at all. And of course certain parties want us to call 911 if we're in fear of our lives. I want everyone to call 911, too.

And to preempt any accusations, I am pro-guns (at least the kind that was used in this case) and want desperately to vote Republican.



First, you don't need knowledge of what weapon they have. Hands & Feet are considered weapons (see Assault & Battery), so the "weapon" isn't at issue. If you fear for your life, appropriate force is acceptable. Now, neither link stated how big or small Mr. Green was, but that isn't a real issue. Black belts come in all sizes, and you don't need to be big. You also ignored that he didn't stay down once shot, but got up and charged again.

Second, while he didn't call 911, it was noted in the 2nd link that his wife was on the phone to 911. So while someone called 911, it was more the Police asking why HE didn't call 911. Um, he's a SARGENT in the Air Force. He expected he could handle the situation.

Third, while he opened the door initially, he did close it in an attempt to defuse the situation. He did not "charge" out. Rather, Mr. Green broke down the door, and charged IN. As I already said, that's enough justification.

Fourth, I specifically used "parties" to not indicate any one party. Merely that there are groups out there that want control. While it is mostly Democrats that seem to want to take our 2nd Amendment rights away, it is not limited to them, which is what I was trying to get across. NOT BLAMING ONLY ONE PARTY.

Which is another annoyance, that certain people here do not fully read and/or COMPREHEND posts or the links. Skimming isn't enough.

Fifth, while every effort should be made to call 911, it is not possible in every instance to do so, nor should it be a requirement. Not all instances have a slow buildup to violence. Sometimes you have no time to call (home invasion, anyone?) until after the fact.

And again, the police have NO RESPONSIBILITY to protect us. If you call the police, and they get there after your family has been murdered, you can't sue them if they stopped for donuts and coffee on the way (not that they would, but see the 2 Supreme Court cases).

Almost all (if not all) of the parties wanting to disarm us, have armed bodyguards. Do you think they are going to give up those armed bodyguards?


By the way, according to American Police Beat, the average response time for an emergency call is 10 minutes.

The Department of Justice reports that the best response time is 4 minutes and the worst over 1 hour.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics ((the United States' primary source for criminal justice statistics is a department of the Office of Justice Programs in the U.S. Department of Justice), in 2008 (latest report), 28% of Violent Crimes had less than 5 minutes response whereas Property Crimes had around a 13 minute response time; 30% had a 6 to 10 minute response for VC (20% for PC); 33.5% had 11 minutes to an hour response for VC (48% for PC); with around 2.5% over an hour.

Supposedly, most criminal encounters take 90 seconds, so you have a minimum of 2.5 minutes to wait before the police arrive if you're in the lucky 28%.

Or it could be that you are in the majority, and have to wait longer.


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.

klezman


quality posts: 130 Private Messages klezman
kylemittskus wrote:Good stuff...

And to preempt any accusations, I am pro-guns (at least the kind that was used in this case) and want desperately to vote Republican.



Couldn't have said it better myself. Really. Don't have enough time to compose such a nicely constructed argument these days. I'll even caveat that I'm not particularly pro-gun, at least to the extent some/many are, and I can't vote in this country.

2014: 42 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2012 Iron Horse Estate Chardonnay
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

chemvictim


quality posts: 3 Private Messages chemvictim
MarkDaSpark wrote:snipped



Please give us poor folks a break if we misunderstand something in a post. It happens!

When a thing seems too bizarre to be believed, my first instinct is to ask what's missing. We've been through this on facebook, I want to try to find some reason behind seemingly ridiculous actions, even if it's a stupid reason!

klezman


quality posts: 130 Private Messages klezman
chemvictim wrote:Please give us poor folks a break if we misunderstand something in a post. It happens!



Seriously. This.
Also, it's sometimes just due to having a different perspective and interpreting words differently. For me, it's always perfectly clear *to me* what *I* mean, but when others read it who knows what they get from it? More to the specific point, though, Sparky, I do often take different meaning from what you write compared to what you seem to intend. Communication is a two-way street, so I'm not placing blame.

2014: 42 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2012 Iron Horse Estate Chardonnay
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

klezman


quality posts: 130 Private Messages klezman
MarkDaSpark wrote:First, you don't need knowledge of what weapon they have. Hands & Feet are considered weapons (see Assault & Battery), so the "weapon" isn't at issue. If you fear for your life, appropriate force is acceptable.



I want to address this. First off, I agree that one can (and should) take reasonable steps to defend themselves/family. You can't really say, though, that without prior knowledge of the attacker that you'd fear a fist the same as a gun. It's way harder (I presume) to beat somebody to death with your fists than to shoot or stab them dead. So if my defense for murder or manslaughter rests on "reasonable fear of death" then the specific weapon used should most certainly be taken into account.

My personal line is that the only circumstance in which it's permissible to kill another is if it's you (or your family) or him.

2014: 42 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2012 Iron Horse Estate Chardonnay
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

chipgreen


quality posts: 202 Private Messages chipgreen

The amount of force that is justifiable by a homeowner who confronts an intruder is certainly a worthy topic of discussion as is the debate over whether the homeowner has a responsibility to alert authorities before taking action on his or her own.

That said, I don't think this case is a good example to use for the basis of said discussion because the homeowner and intruder were acquaintances. That is very unusual in the case of break-ins. The relationship between the men needs to be examined in this case to get a better idea of whether or not the homeowner had just cause to fear for his life.

But let's be honest here, Mr. Pinkerton probably shot Mr. Green primarily because Mr. Green was trying to sex up Mr. Pinkerton's wife. I am inclined to think that the shooter killed Mr. Green because he didn't like him and was pissed off and already had a gun in his hand, not because he feared for his life. However, Mr. Green set himself up for something bad to happen by forcing his way into the home.

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
klezman wrote:Seriously. This.
Also, it's sometimes just due to having a different perspective and interpreting words differently. For me, it's always perfectly clear *to me* what *I* mean, but when others read it who knows what they get from it? More to the specific point, though, Sparky, I do often take different meaning from what you write compared to what you seem to intend. Communication is a two-way street, so I'm not placing blame.



True, true, but then you're Canadian!

The problem seems to arise more when someone (and I include myself) tries to read between the lines.

For a recent example, a simple word: "parties", somehow became singular and capitalized, "Party", to some people. I did not intend for "parties" to be only about Democrats, but meant it to include everyone who feels that only authorities should have guns. As I'm sure that there aren't just Democrats in that group.

Yet somehow, it became singular, and interpreted to mean Democrats only. That's not a Communication issue, but a Comprehension issue.



My personal line is that the only circumstance in which it's permissible to kill another is if it's you (or your family) or him.



And therein lies the crux of the issue, because I think most of us agree with it. The sticking point seems to be the point at which deadly force is warranted.

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.

It wasn't like there was a flight risk. They've been in that house 8 years, and he's a Sargent in the US Air Force. So there was no need to rush to charge him.

Sometimes there's disagreement between the two (Zimmerman) where the police feel there's no reason to charge, but due to politics the DA does. And sometimes there's agreement between the two due to those same politics.

In this case, and I'm sorry that this wasn't clear, it's more political than evidence based. The Probable Cause statement given by the DA was only two pages, and only two sentences were about the shooting. The main reason he was charged was that he didn't call 911 first. Even the judge was surprised at the short length of the statement.

The AG didn't bring it to a Grand Jury, because he knew he wouldn't get an indictment from them.

It's also an election year, and new gun laws just went into effect in October.


And what everyone seems to forget, is that the state has deep pockets, while anyone charged has to go deep into debt to defend themselves. DA's also charge defendants with higher(?) counts to get them to settle for a lesser count. So while they charge with 2nd Degree and Manslaughter, they'll "accept" the Manslaughter plea. Especially since not everyone has the money to defend themselves properly.

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


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: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chipgreen wrote:The amount of force that is justifiable by a homeowner who confronts an intruder is certainly a worthy topic of discussion as is the debate over whether the homeowner has a responsibility to alert authorities before taking action on his or her own.

That said, I don't think this case is a good example to use for the basis of said discussion because the homeowner and intruder were acquaintances. That is very unusual in the case of break-ins. The relationship between the men needs to be examined in this case to get a better idea of whether or not the homeowner had just cause to fear for his life.

But let's be honest here, Mr. Pinkerton probably shot Mr. Green primarily because Mr. Green was trying to sex up Mr. Pinkerton's wife. I am inclined to think that the shooter killed Mr. Green because he didn't like him and was pissed off and already had a gun in his hand, not because he feared for his life. However, Mr. Green set himself up for something bad to happen by forcing his way into the home.



Bullship.

There was no relationship between them. His wife had rented a room to Mr. Green while her brother had a medical emergency. She also rented a room to a single mother with kids.

Mr. Green punched 18 holes in the walls when asked to leave (Mr. Pinkerton was coming home from deployment). Mr. Green was mad at Mr. Pinkerton for taking away his make believe life.

He had been parked outside the house for a while before going up. He was wearing a hoodie, and made a move towards his belt. While you don't see a weapon, you can make an assumption (which Police do ALL the time when you do the same thing).

If someone was that delusional, I would be in fear for my life when they broke down the door. Only an Krampus wouldn't be.


Edit: Correction, it was only 15 holes, not 18 he punched in the wall.


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: 202 Private Messages chipgreen
MarkDaSpark wrote:Bullship.

There was no relationship between them. His wife had rented a room to Mr. Green while her brother had a medical emergency. She also rented a room to a single mother with kids.

Mr. Green punched 18 holes in the walls when asked to leave (Mr. Pinkerton was coming home from deployment). Mr. Green was mad at Mr. Pinkerton for taking away his make believe life.

He had been parked outside the house for a while before going up. He was wearing a hoodie, and made a move towards his belt. While you don't see a weapon, you can make an assumption (which Police do ALL the time when you do the same thing).

If someone was that delusional, I would be in fear for my life when they broke down the door. Only an Krampus wouldn't be.


Mr. Green set himself up for it by forcefully breaking in so I don't feel sorry for the guy and I'll quit speculating as to the rest since new facts are continuing to come to light.

joelsisk


quality posts: 10 Private Messages joelsisk
chipgreen wrote:Mr. Green set himself up for it by forcefully breaking in so I don't feel sorry for the guy and I'll quit speculating as to the rest since new facts are presented each time I do, which changes the narrative.



I'd just like to chime in that reading through all the postings on this case, all I can think is this: Sergeant Pink' did it with the Revolver in the Foyer... (and while Mr. Green was the victim, did Sergeant Pinkinerton report up through Colonel Mustard?)

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
joelsisk wrote:I'd just like to chime in that reading through all the postings on this case, all I can think is this: Sergeant Pink' did it with the Revolver in the Foyer... (and while Mr. Green was the victim, did Sergeant Pinkinerton report up through Colonel Mustard?)



so.much.brilliance

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

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)

klezman


quality posts: 130 Private Messages klezman

And Joel ftw

2014: 42 bottles. Last wine.woot: 2012 Iron Horse Estate Chardonnay
2013: 66 bottles, 2012: 91 bottles, 2011: 92 bottles, 2010: 74 bottles, 2009: 30 bottles, 2008: 3 bottles My CT

kylemittskus


quality posts: 232 Private Messages kylemittskus
MarkDaSpark wrote:First, you don't need knowledge of what weapon they have. Hands & Feet are considered weapons (see Assault & Battery), so the "weapon" isn't at issue. If you fear for your life, appropriate force is acceptable. Now, neither link stated how big or small Mr. Green was, but that isn't a real issue. Black belts come in all sizes, and you don't need to be big. You also ignored that he didn't stay down once shot, but got up and charged again.



I had quite a few issues with your post, but they were addressed by others.

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."

". . . . . ."

Also, I didn't read any of the news stories, as I explained in my text wall (sorry about that everyone). But I still don't see how "he got up and charged again" (still without a weapon, I assume) justifies a second shot.

MarkDaSpark wrote:For a recent example, a simple word: "parties", somehow became singular and capitalized, "Party", to some people. I did not intend for "parties" to be only about Democrats, but meant it to include everyone who feels that only authorities should have guns. As I'm sure that there aren't just Democrats in that group.



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.

Lastly, your huge response to me didn't really address any of the points I made so my mind remains completely unchanged. Taking into account the fact that there may have been (none of us know yet for sure) a previous relationship of some kind between the two, I stand behind my text wall more so. This needs to be assessed in the proper arena. And the media isn't that arena. The court is. This is in no way a "cut and dry" self-defense case no matter how many times you say the police have no legal obligation to protect us.

"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

MarkDaSpark


quality posts: 187 Private Messages MarkDaSpark
chipgreen wrote:Mr. Green set himself up for it by forcefully breaking in so I don't feel sorry for the guy and I'll quit speculating as to the rest since new facts are continuing to come to light.



They (the "new facts") were available in the 2nd link I posted, IIRC. I suppose I should make sure of that. Silly me, thinking people would click and read it.


The initial link I posted only touched on the circumstances, and focused on the not calling 911 aspect first. When people questioned that, I thought the 2nd link further went into details.



But yes, Joel ftw!!!


Edit: Yes, the "new facts" were all there in the 2nd link. And it was only 15 holes in the wall, not 18.


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
MarkDaSpark wrote:They (the "new facts") were available in the 2nd link I posted, IIRC. I suppose I should make sure of that. Silly me, thinking people would click and read it.



I didn't. The link was embedded in your statement that the wife denied any affair. I just took your word for that and didn't check your references.

bhodilee


quality posts: 32 Private Messages bhodilee
MarkDaSpark wrote:
Edit: Yes, the "new facts" were all there in the 2nd link. And it was only 15 holes in the wall, not 18.



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.

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

– George Bernard Shaw, author (1856-1950)