Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
FergusonThis playbook is familiar.....
Not a loose end per se. He testified.Tying up loose ends?
S Lee Merritt is saying Brown got shot in his chest and his mouth...at close range...its a saturday night so it wont get a lot of coverage..![]()
In Tennessee, my home state, where I grew up, shooting someone in the leg is charged as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.You're saying if you shot a gun at someone, it only hit their leg, a jury will treat you differently because you didn't intend to kill them?
That's the different state law?
I'd think any state would consider a deadly weapon pointed at a human being, you have a deadly intent. No?
How can one say where the bullet will end up.
Not sure if you understood what we were discussing.
You can't explain to a judge, jury, "oh I fired my gun at him, but I only intended to pepper him up, not kill him."
You're no expert at shooting guns, or marksmanship. You can't pinpoint where a bullet will end up. In the eyes of the jury, a lawyer will tear that up.
A lawyer will say you shouldn't fire unless you had intentions to kill who you pointed the gun at.
We're discussing two slightly different subjects in a sense.In Tennessee, my home state, where I grew up, shooting someone in the leg is charged as aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
It is not an automatic attempted murder charge.
This is a comment from the brother of the lady that was punched by the asian guy in Tulsa.
We are talking about the same thing.We're discussing two slightly different subjects in a sense.
That's what I think you didn't get.
To a jury, in court, you can't say I meant to shoot a person in a leg.
If you point a gun at someone, you have to intend to kill them, only because your life 'was' in danger.
After the fact is a whole nother story, if you only shot the person in the leg.
What experiences or how much, if any, do you have with handguns?We're discussing two slightly different subjects in a sense.
That's what I think you didn't get.
To a jury, in court, you can't say I meant to shoot a person in a leg.
If you point a gun at someone, you have to intend to kill them, only because your life 'was' in danger.
After the fact is a whole nother story, if you only shot the person in the leg.
Alright. But the case is over. Unless they threatened him Before and she wasn’t suppose to get no time.Not a loose end per se. He testified.
Have had my concealed permit in Texas for a few years. Here you have to take an all day class and pass proficiency in shooting on the range. You take quizzes on laws and by the end of the day take a test concerning ins and outs of the law. Also test on loading and shooting. I also took a separate course on self defense later on, which my instructor teaches to military and law enforcement.What experiences or how much, if any, do you have with handguns?
Two observations:Have had my concealed permit in Texas for a few years. Here you have to take an all day class and pass proficiency in shooting on the range. You take quizzes on laws and by the end of the day take a test concerning ins and outs of the law. Also test on loading and shooting. I also took a separate course on self defense later on, which my instructor teaches to military and law enforcement.
I am by no means an expert, but certain things about laws I paid attn to just in case I found myself in a situation.
I know for certain things like pointing a gun at another human being, you better have the intent to use deadly force. And an attorney will tear you a new asshole saying "you" aren't an expert marksman or whatever, as "no one" is, to a jury or lawyer, to determine exactly the path that a bullet will take. A lawyer would rip apart that statement.
And as a cop, Guyger, if she still had a job, her duty as a police officer, can't say that she intended to only hit him in the leg. Then you should not be shooting in his direction. You have to aim always for center mass, the torso and your intentions must be to kill if you raise your weapon and point it at another human being. Period. This is not television.
The way we were taught in class, was if you shoot at someone, you have to keep shooting til there is no longer a threat. You have to only fire your weapon if your life was in imminent danger. Guyger was also wrong shooting at him and not seeing a weapon of any kind, even if he was an intruder in her house. He had to be coming at her, rushing her with a weapon, then that's another story. But to a jury, he better of had a weapon as well, after a shooting. Of course her being a white cop, female, crying helped her whole situation.
If someone says another state feels otherwise, then hey I don't know what those laws in those other states are, but what I learned in Texas is just that.