I don't think this shooting was justified...

[harmonica]

she's thinking ''danger, danger Will Robinson''
as usual the ''criminal'' initiates the problem
these are HUMANS in a dangerous situation---you have to have definite proof to convict the woman/cops for murder

At least manslaughter.

what if he's reaching for the gun?

You can see in the video that he is not reaching for the gun, and she has a clear and unobstructed space for the shooting.

if a thug/jackass is 5 or even 10 feet away and takes a .2 inch [ point 2 ] step toward you--he is fair game!! he is dangerous..he is a threat---as we see clearly in the video of the 2 women

You keep referencing the two women video, that’s not what is being discussed. It’s plainly obvious that her son didn’t feel threatened and was gob smacked when his mother shot her client. He walked into the room voluntarily and obviously was surprised by her attempt to handcuff him. He was never placed under arrest and if such action was contemplated, should have been accomplished by a uniformed officer. I think she was motivated by money, the money she would lose if he failed to appear or jumped bail. He was nowhere near her when she produced the weapon and shot him in the back. It was an execution, and on tape to boot. Any jury seeing that video would have to convict. Either the video wasn’t presented or the jurors were retarded, her relatives, or paid to acquit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

it's totally relevant to the topic
...the thug grabbed a woman because they let him get too close--yes--that is an example of why you would want to shoot an unarmed person=you don't want them to grab you or your weapon

!!! you don't wait till they grab your weapon!!!!!!!!!!!! if they grab your weapon or you--it's too late...you shoot BEFORE they grab it/you--per the 2 women screwing up
..big point here--you have a wide/broad range of self defense...just a tiny movement toward you and it's justifiable to shoot

...please prove a bail bondsperson does not have the right to detain/arrest their client

 

[harmonica]

Normally you are armed with a firearm, and a taser, and a baton, and pepper spray, and handcuffs or zip ties.

Normally there are at least two male officers if not more if an arrest is warranted.

These two -- mom and junior -- are a dubious pair.

But Ronnie Redneck did get them to post bail for him and he did jump bail apparently so momma and son were planning to turn the perp into the LEO's to get their bail money back.

IS THE SHOOTING JUSTIFIED?

Probably not.

Normally you would start with something else first rather than the firearm.

I would not be too surprised if this lady lost her state license.

My thoughts exactly. I'm a pretty good sized fella, and I've had my fair share of scrapping in my day...but I wouldn't have taken on that guy with only junior, a camera and a firearm in a desk drawer.

She had no plan, no backup...it doesn't take a genius to figure out an accused criminal may refuse to cooperate in a bail revocation. The need for a less lethal means of incapacitation should have been an absolutely forseeable circumstance...as should some backup other than Junior, who looked like a stiff wind would blow him away.

good points......

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I believe that criminals have no rights; legal or otherwise. The instant you refuse to cooperate and obey a law enforcement authority (which bail bondsmen are), you deserve to be shot. Fatally.

Then you should go soak your fucking head. Everyone has rights, especially the CHARGED. You are not a "criminal" until convicted, and thank god you will never be on the other side of that gun enforcing laws if you think that just being an LEO gives you total and absolute authority to take a person'e life for any reason or whim at all at any time. It is that kind of totalitarian power to "obey the state at all costs and risks to yourself" where a state can do anything against a helpless populace with no rights or representation that our Founders broke away from England to form the USA for in the first place for, Fool!

In YOUR sick, fucked up world, all you need to do is charge a person with a crime, then you are free to prosecute, convict, sentence and execute! It was people LIKE YOU who took blacks in the south because they didn't like them, tied them to bumpers for being black, then dragged them to their death because they "resisted."

Always Follow the Money in Civil "Rights" Cases

Innocent men weren't lynched. It also saved the Black Community itself from its worst elements, which is why they turned over their worst to the Whites.

Low-IQ race traitors are too stupid to ask why, since the judges and juries were "racist," the White citizens didn't just go through proper channels to give the predators the death penalty? A logical answer is that the judges were bribed by landowners to get live convicts for cheap chain-gang labor.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Then you should go soak your fucking head. Everyone has rights, especially the CHARGED. You are not a "criminal" until convicted,...

I disagree. Nobody has a Right to act in an immoral or improper manner. Ever.

...and thank god you will never be on the other side of that gun enforcing laws if you think that just being an LEO gives you total and absolute authority to take a person'e life for any reason or whim at all at any time.

The eason I didn't go into law enforcement is because the system is utterly broken and Legality now supercedes Justice as a goal in Our Society.

It is that kind of totalitarian power to "obey the state at all costs and risks to yourself" where a state can do anything against a helpless populace with no rights or representation that our Founders broke away from England to form the USA for in the first place for, Fool!

Our Founders were naive. They believed People could be trusted to act properly without restraints.

In YOUR sick, fucked up world, all you need to do is charge a person with a crime, then you are free to prosecute, convict, sentence and execute!

No. They get a chance to prove their innocence, unless the legal authority witnessed the infraction personally.

...as stated before--it is the CRIMINAL that initiates the problem...initiates the whole sequence of events--and they are not ''natural''/everyday events to everybody--they are ''unnatural''--dynamic.....so ''unnatural'' actions will occur
...the police 99.99999999999% of the time don't just think--hey --'''look at that guy--let's shoot him for fun''''
this lady didn't just pick out some random person and shoot them

Try Walking a Mile in a Punk's Shoes and You'll Soon Find Out They Were Stolen

Not only are gungrabbers influenced by the silly weaklings in Hollywood, but they also have their minds drenched in sports scenarios, where the law-abiding team and the criminal team play by the same rules.

 

[harmonica]

Then you should go soak your fucking head. Everyone has rights, especially the CHARGED. You are not a "criminal" until convicted,...

I disagree. Nobody has a Right to act in an immoral or improper manner. Ever.

...and thank god you will never be on the other side of that gun enforcing laws if you think that just being an LEO gives you total and absolute authority to take a person'e life for any reason or whim at all at any time.

The eason I didn't go into law enforcement is because the system is utterly broken and Legality now supercedes Justice as a goal in Our Society.

It is that kind of totalitarian power to "obey the state at all costs and risks to yourself" where a state can do anything against a helpless populace with no rights or representation that our Founders broke away from England to form the USA for in the first place for, Fool!

Our Founders were naive. They believed People could be trusted to act properly without restraints.

In YOUR sick, fucked up world, all you need to do is charge a person with a crime, then you are free to prosecute, convict, sentence and execute!

No. They get a chance to prove their innocence, unless the legal authority witnessed the infraction personally.

...as stated before--it is the CRIMINAL that initiates the problem...initiates the whole sequence of events--and they are not ''natural''/everyday events to everybody--they are ''unnatural''--dynamic.....so ''unnatural'' actions will occur
...the police 99.99999999999% of the time don't just think--hey --'''look at that guy--let's shoot him for fun''''
this lady didn't just pick out some random person and shoot them

Try Walking a Mile in a Punk's Shoes and You'll Soon Find Out They Were Stolen

Not only are gungrabbers influenced by the silly weaklings in Hollywood, but they also have their minds drenched in sports scenarios, where the law-abiding team and the criminal team play by the same rules.

good point here as I have been catching up on reading SD laws....a lot of them say you ''should'' use equal force
...when it comes down to community/home safety, an escaping, unarmed burglar will probably break into another home--maybe rape and kill--....better for everyone that he is shot and killed even if he is escaping
....is this what we want?? no--but the criminal shares most of the responsibility if he is shot--even unarmed and escaping

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I' an admitted Authoritarian (Right Wing not Ckmmunist). Where have I ever claimed to believe in Freedom or Liberty. I believe Immorality and Impropriety ARE criminality.

Try again.

So YOU freely admit YOU define what is immoral and improper by your own arbitrary standards then sentence others to death by YOUR personal decree? And suspicion of crime is as good as convicted and those convicted are immediately sentenced to death? You are not Right Wing, you are a piece of dirt. You are fascist scum. You give conservatives a bad name. You should go move to central America or Bolivia and go work for someone like Che Guevara, you might get along. You are a pig and a coward. You are no better than those you disagree with and you will die by your own hands someday when you meet another person JUST LIKE YOU who disagrees with and kills you in execution for YOUR criminality. For if you don't believe in any freedom or liberty for others then you claim NONE FOR YOURSELF EITHER, pig. Good luck with that.

Lizardtarians

You have a selfish anti-social contempt for a stable and peaceful society. But your vanishing sympathy for your fellow Americans is still strong enough to make you defensively rant and rave in defense subhuman "rugged individualist" punks.

 

[harmonica]

here is an example of shooting an unarmed, possibly escaping burglar or would-be rapist would be ok with me:
Michael J. Devlin - Wikipedia
they are unarmed...so un-threatening!! so defenseless
when caught they are so pitiful/shameful/wouldn't hurt a flea!

 

[Yarddog]

if he's ''close'' and not complying/reaching/''going for''/the gun/etc in the slightest manner--I would shoot also..it would be justified
you can't let him grab the pistol
you can't let a jackass grab your pistol
could be like the Mike Brown deal--he's coming after the cop--you can't let them get close

he was shot in the back, she pulled the gun out of the drawer so quickly, he probably never even knew she had a gun. Dont know how you could compare this with the video of the two women in the liquor store robbery.

 

[harmonica]

if he's ''close'' and not complying/reaching/''going for''/the gun/etc in the slightest manner--I would shoot also..it would be justified
you can't let him grab the pistol
you can't let a jackass grab your pistol
could be like the Mike Brown deal--he's coming after the cop--you can't let them get close

he was shot in the back, she pulled the gun out of the drawer so quickly, he probably never even knew she had a gun. Dont know how you could compare this with the video of the two women in the liquor store robbery.

please read carefully!--I said the 2 women video is a great example of why you don't want a criminal to get close--why you would shoot BEFORE they grab the weapon or you

this is what happens when you let a thug get close..these ladies almost lost their lives for it

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I' an admitted Authoritarian (Right Wing not Ckmmunist). Where have I ever claimed to believe in Freedom or Liberty. I believe Immorality and Impropriety ARE criminality.

Try again.

So YOU freely admit YOU define what is immoral and improper by your own arbitrary standards then sentence others to death by YOUR personal decree? And suspicion of crime is as good as convicted and those convicted are immediately sentenced to death? You are not Right Wing, you are a piece of dirt. You are fascist scum. You give conservatives a bad name. You should go move to central America or Bolivia and go work for someone like Che Guevara, you might get along. You are a pig and a coward. You are no better than those you disagree with and you will die by your own hands someday when you meet another person JUST LIKE YOU who disagrees with and kills you in execution for YOUR criminality. For if you don't believe in any freedom or liberty for others then you claim NONE FOR YOURSELF EITHER, pig. Good luck with that.

That's the difference between a TRUE conservative and the so called "alt right" ( nazi really)

 

[BulletProof]

If she weren't a bondsman, with absolute certainty she would be spending the rest of her life in prison for exactly what happened.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I believe that criminals have no rights; legal or otherwise. The instant you refuse to cooperate and obey a law enforcement authority (which bail bondsmen are), you deserve to be shot. Fatally.

Then you should go soak your fucking head. Everyone has rights, especially the CHARGED. You are not a "criminal" until convicted, and thank god you will never be on the other side of that gun enforcing laws if you think that just being an LEO gives you total and absolute authority to take a person'e life for any reason or whim at all at any time. It is that kind of totalitarian power to "obey the state at all costs and risks to yourself" where a state can do anything against a helpless populace with no rights or representation that our Founders broke away from England to form the USA for in the first place for, Fool!

In YOUR sick, fucked up world, all you need to do is charge a person with a crime, then you are free to prosecute, convict, sentence and execute! It was people LIKE YOU who took blacks in the south because they didn't like them, tied them to bumpers for being black, then dragged them to their death because they "resisted."

Always Follow the Money in Civil "Rights" Cases

Innocent men weren't lynched. It also saved the Black Community itself from its worst elements, which is why they turned over their worst to the Whites.

Low-IQ race traitors are too stupid to ask why, since the judges and juries were "racist," the White citizens didn't just go through proper channels to give the predators the death penalty? A logical answer is that the judges were bribed by landowners to get live convicts for cheap chain-gang labor.

Are you on LSD?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Then you should go soak your fucking head. Everyone has rights, especially the CHARGED. You are not a "criminal" until convicted,...

I disagree. Nobody has a Right to act in an immoral or improper manner. Ever.

...and thank god you will never be on the other side of that gun enforcing laws if you think that just being an LEO gives you total and absolute authority to take a person'e life for any reason or whim at all at any time.

The eason I didn't go into law enforcement is because the system is utterly broken and Legality now supercedes Justice as a goal in Our Society.

It is that kind of totalitarian power to "obey the state at all costs and risks to yourself" where a state can do anything against a helpless populace with no rights or representation that our Founders broke away from England to form the USA for in the first place for, Fool!

Our Founders were naive. They believed People could be trusted to act properly without restraints.

In YOUR sick, fucked up world, all you need to do is charge a person with a crime, then you are free to prosecute, convict, sentence and execute!

No. They get a chance to prove their innocence, unless the legal authority witnessed the infraction personally.

...as stated before--it is the CRIMINAL that initiates the problem...initiates the whole sequence of events--and they are not ''natural''/everyday events to everybody--they are ''unnatural''--dynamic.....so ''unnatural'' actions will occur
...the police 99.99999999999% of the time don't just think--hey --'''look at that guy--let's shoot him for fun''''
this lady didn't just pick out some random person and shoot them

Try Walking a Mile in a Punk's Shoes and You'll Soon Find Out They Were Stolen

Not only are gungrabbers influenced by the silly weaklings in Hollywood, but they also have their minds drenched in sports scenarios, where the law-abiding team and the criminal team play by the same rules.

good point here as I have been catching up on reading SD laws....a lot of them say you ''should'' use equal force
...when it comes down to community/home safety, an escaping, unarmed burglar will probably break into another home--maybe rape and kill--....better for everyone that he is shot and killed even if he is escaping
....is this what we want?? no--but the criminal shares most of the responsibility if he is shot--even unarmed and escaping

We Don't Need Prisons, We Need Morgues

For thousands of years, people have been misled by the hidden pacifism of "An Eye for an Eye, a Tooth for a Tooth." Subhumans who go around knocking people's teeth out should be killed off. The one who does an action first has no rights; his victim has a duty to society to get rid of him, but the legislating thughuggers call that "selfish revenge."

 

[toobfreak]

For thousands of years, people have been misled by the hidden pacifism of "An Eye for an Eye, a Tooth for a Tooth." Subhumans who go around knocking people's teeth out should be killed off. The one who does an action first has no rights; his victim has a duty to society to get rid of him, but the legislating thughuggers call that "selfish revenge."

Let me translate that by saying that only the person wronged can truly say when justice has been served. In other words, when agreeable reparation has been made for the offense or loss suffered by the victim. Unfortunately for us, one of the downsides of "Common Law" established by Henry II back in the 1100s is that now a uniform code (as per Justinian) is applied by a third party (the "Court") for us to decide "justice," based on an adversarial system where rather than seek to get at the truth, lawyers win by whomever gives the best presentation. As such, the lawyers ALWAYS WIN and come out ahead, so does the court. A lot of times the accused does as well. The last person to ever see justice is the one person most deserving of it----

---- the VICTIM.