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

[harmonica]

better video posted on post # 19

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

 

[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?

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

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.

 

[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.

no--you can't see him at all...if he is 5 feet away, he is still a danger--exactly like Mike Brown was--exactly like we see in the video of the 2 women

 

[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

 

[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.

you can barely see the pistol!!! he could easily be reaching for it

 

[LuckyDuck]

If you haven't read my other posts, assure yourself that I'm all about giving LEOs and self defenders the benefit of the doubt...but this shooting looks to me like it was not justified. She introduces the gun from a desk drawer and he is just trying to escape the room. The coroner testified he was shot in the back at a trajectory consistent with him leaning out the window.

She is a bail bondswoman and he skipped bond.

She was found not guilty.

News link to follow.

Oklahoma DA’s office releases video of bail officer fatally shooting client

He had skipped bond and was attempting to flee to avoid incarceration and prosecution. Bail bonds personnel are allowed to use force, up to and including lethal force to stop a fleeing felon. It's unfortunate that he's deceased, but had he cooperated, he'd be in jail, but alive.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

you can barely see the pistol!!! he could easily be reaching for it

no--you can't see him at all...if he is 5 feet away, he is still a danger--exactly like Mike Brown was--exactly like we see in the video of the 2 women

You can't see him, but you can hear him yelling well in the background when he is hit by the shot.

She created the danger by pulling out the gun.

 

[BulletProof]

Even the son knew the shooting was unjustified.

But, here's the deal, if the woman believed her life was in danger, she gets acquitted. She apparently had a right to handcuff him and he resisted. It doesn't matter so much what we see as her saying she felt in danger. She's incompetent and hopefully she loses a civil suit and never gets to be bail agent again.

This is what BLM nggers don't understand, killing someone, even when it may be unnecessary, doesn't make it murder. The woman is just guilty of an accident because of an error in judgement. We don't put people in jail for accidents.

Sorry, I don't mean to give BLM nggers more respect than they deserve. They don't care if a killing is justified, or necessary, or not. They just care about serving black racism. BLM is a fan of whites being murdered.

That said, if I were on the jury, I would have voted guilty.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

If he was shot in the back, consistent with someone leaning out of a window, as indicated by the article, I don't see how he could have been reaching for the gun. It appears to be less than 2 seconds from the time the woman first puts her hand into the drawer to get the gun to the time she fires. That does not seem to be enough time for the man to be reaching for the gun, then turn around and start to climb out of the window, especially considering he doesn't seem to be reaching for the gun as the woman is pulling it from the drawer.
Also, the way the son is reacting doesn't seem to indicate the man is reaching for the gun. He doesn't seem particularly concerned until after the woman fires.

As I said earlier, I'm very curious what evidence the jury saw to create a reasonable doubt.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

She should have just let him go. She was probably worried about getting her bond back.

 

[Montrovant]

Even the son knew the shooting was unjustified.

But, here's the deal, if the woman believed her life was in danger, she gets acquitted. She apparently had a right to handcuff him and he resisted. It doesn't matter so much what we see as her saying she felt in danger. She's incompetent and hopefully she loses a civil suit and never gets to be bail agent again.

This is what BLM nggers don't understand, killing someone, even when it may be unnecessary, doesn't make it murder. The woman is just guilty of an accident because of an error in judgement. We don't put people in jail for accidents.

Sorry, I don't mean to give BLM nggers more respect than they deserve. They don't care if a killing is justified, or necessary, or not. They just care about serving black racism. BLM is a fan of whites being murdered.

That said, if I were on the jury, I would have voted guilty.

An accident?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

This soulless bitches life was not threatened. Executing this man meant no more to her than swatting a fly. She got away with murder.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

If you haven't read my other posts, assure yourself that I'm all about giving LEOs and self defenders the benefit of the doubt...but this shooting looks to me like it was not justified. She introduces the gun from a desk drawer and he is just trying to escape the room. The coroner testified he was shot in the back at a trajectory consistent with him leaning out the window.

She is a bail bondswoman and he skipped bond.

She was found not guilty.

News link to follow.

Oklahoma DA’s office releases video of bail officer fatally shooting client

Shooting someone in the back while fleeing seem wrong but in the middle of a crime it has been done.

In Texas som years back two robbers were killed by a neighbor and he shot them in the back and was acquitted, so yeah it can happen...

 

[BulletProof]

An accident?

The shooting was deliberate, but the accident is her judgement that her life was in danger.

 

[protectionist]

If he was shot in the back, consistent with someone leaning out of a window, as indicated by the article, I don't see how he could have been reaching for the gun. It appears to be less than 2 seconds from the time the woman first puts her hand into the drawer to get the gun to the time she fires. That does not seem to be enough time for the man to be reaching for the gun, then turn around and start to climb out of the window, especially considering he doesn't seem to be reaching for the gun as the woman is pulling it from the drawer.
Also, the way the son is reacting doesn't seem to indicate the man is reaching for the gun. He doesn't seem particularly concerned until after the woman fires.

As I said earlier, I'm very curious what evidence the jury saw to create a reasonable doubt.

How can you say what the guy seems to be doing, when you can't see him ? He's not even in the picture. This looks bad for the woman, but you can't judge without seeing the guy who got shot.

He could have been about to throw something at her, or trying to flee the scene. Both of those would give justification to shoot, especially when he's well within the 21 foot zone.

She might have been cleared based on insufficient evidence.

 

[miketx]

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?

If he was shot in the back, consistent with someone leaning out of a window, as indicated by the article, I don't see how he could have been reaching for the gun. It appears to be less than 2 seconds from the time the woman first puts her hand into the drawer to get the gun to the time she fires. That does not seem to be enough time for the man to be reaching for the gun, then turn around and start to climb out of the window, especially considering he doesn't seem to be reaching for the gun as the woman is pulling it from the drawer.
Also, the way the son is reacting doesn't seem to indicate the man is reaching for the gun. He doesn't seem particularly concerned until after the woman fires.

As I said earlier, I'm very curious what evidence the jury saw to create a reasonable doubt.

Leaning out a window? You trying to avoid detainment by escaping out a window?

 

[Montrovant]

If you haven't read my other posts, assure yourself that I'm all about giving LEOs and self defenders the benefit of the doubt...but this shooting looks to me like it was not justified. She introduces the gun from a desk drawer and he is just trying to escape the room. The coroner testified he was shot in the back at a trajectory consistent with him leaning out the window.

She is a bail bondswoman and he skipped bond.

She was found not guilty.

News link to follow.

Oklahoma DA’s office releases video of bail officer fatally shooting client

He had skipped bond and was attempting to flee to avoid incarceration and prosecution. Bail bonds personnel are allowed to use force, up to and including lethal force to stop a fleeing felon. It's unfortunate that he's deceased, but had he cooperated, he'd be in jail, but alive.

I believe you are wrong about this, at least as a blanket statement. I don't know what the state laws regarding bail bondsmen are in Oklahoma, but the USSC ruled in Tennessee v Garner that using lethal force against an "unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect" is unconstitutional "unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

Perhaps the jury believed there was probable cause to believe the suspect posed a threat, I'm just not sure what would have caused that belief based on the video.

 

[Montrovant]

An accident?

The shooting was deliberate, but the accident is her judgement that her life was in danger.

Ah, OK. I think accident is a bad term in this instance, but I get what you are saying now.