Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;655021]I hear you, but in reality, a person is either a positive or a negative in this world. Last time I checked, the subtraction of a negative resulted in a net gain. If you honestly expect the police to get as worked up over a drug dealer getting killed as an innocent person, I think you're dreaming. I don't have any issue at all with the way the police and DA referred to the parties involved. They're just calling them what they are. Drug dealing criminals are pieces of shit. You can't break the law your whole life and then try to hide behind it when your lifestyle catches up to you. We're all where we are because of the choices we've made, and this guy's got him killed. The only part of that story that is "outrageous" is the baby being harmed. Obviously the parents were high quality individuals since they took off not worrying about the infant in the back seat.[/quote]

You're right - a person is either a positive or negative influence in the world. and you know what, the last time i checked, murder is a pretty bad thing. worse than drug dealing, even. so the murder needs to be caught, tried, and punished according to the law, thereby removing the negative person (a murderer) from society.

you can argue all you want that killing a drug dealer isnt as "bad" as killing an "innocent" person. but murder is still murder. its universally recognized as immoral. every nation - civilizied or otherwise, has laws against it and punishments for those who commit it. right now, a murderer is free, running around in society. instead of supporting this individual, perhaps you should hope they are brought to justice. who knows, maybe next time this person decides to kill a drug dealer, a person you deem "innocent" will be hurt or killed in the process.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;655024]You're right - a person is either a positive or negative influence in the world. and you know what, the last time i checked, murder is a pretty bad thing. worse than drug dealing, even. so the murder needs to be caught, tried, and punished according to the law, thereby removing the negative person (a murderer) from society.

you can argue all you want that killing a drug dealer isnt as "bad" as killing an "innocent" person. but murder is still murder. its universally recognized as immoral. every nation - civilizied or otherwise, has laws against it and punishments for those who commit it. right now, a murderer is free, running around in society. instead of supporting this individual, perhaps you should hope they are brought to justice. who knows, maybe next time this person decides to kill a drug dealer, a person you deem "innocent" will be hurt or killed in the process.[/quote]

To me, it's more in line with self defense than murder, because the way I read it, this clown is trying to take a gun into the club, then when he's told he's not welcome threatens to bust the place and Marvin up. This is an armed person threatening him. Call it a preemptive strike. If he was just walking around shooting people, yeah, i hear you. But this guy was a threat. I'm not trying to be the Marvin Harrison apologist here, but I truly believe that if some of us were placed in the same situation, some of us here wouldn't have acted all that differently. If I were on a jury, his ass would walk in this case. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion...

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;655025]To me, it's more in line with self defense than murder, because the way I read it, this clown is trying to take a gun into the club, then when he's told he's not welcome threatens to bust the place and Marvin up. This is an armed person threatening him. Call it a preemptive strike. If he was just walking around shooting people, yeah, i hear you. But this guy was a threat. I'm not trying to be the Marvin Harrison apologist here, but I truly believe that if some of us were placed in the same situation, some of us here wouldn't have acted all that differently. If I were on a jury, his ass would walk in this case. But everyone's entitled to their own opinion...[/quote]

I would like you to introduce you to the concept that's been around for several thousand years. its called law enforcement. in this country, we have these things called police. if you feel someone is a threat to you or your family, you don't need to unload a clip of bullets into them while they are sitting in their car, talking on their cell phone. you can just call the police. its really easy. you just have to press three numbers: 9-1-1 and you can get in touch with them.

the vast majority of "us" would NOT act in the same way harrison did. most of us are what you would call civilized human beings. maybe one day you can join us. harrison is a thug, just like the guy he (had) murdered. he's a thug who has injured innocent bystanders when he engaged in his thuggery. harrison is just as much - if not more - of a mennace to society as the man he (had) murdered. i hope there are no good, honest people living anywhere near you. you are undoubtably a danger to them as any of them could be killed as innocent bystanders if you chose to carry out your personal form of justice. as to your comments about being on a jury, if you're ever a jury candidate, please share your thoughts on the matter. you will undoubtably be disqualified from jury service and thereby be rendered unable to (further) pervert the justice system.

i apologize if you interpret any of my comments as an attack - i simply feel that they are deplorable and should be treated as such. there is no place for vigilante justice in society and i'm certain none of the owners/operators of this site would condone it. you have a right to express your opinions, but condoning cold-blooded murder is unacceptable. i truly hope you reconsider your views.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;655024]You're right - a person is either a positive or negative influence in the world. and you know what, the last time i checked, murder is a pretty bad thing. worse than drug dealing, even. so the murder needs to be caught, tried, and punished according to the law, thereby removing the negative person (a murderer) from society.

you can argue all you want that killing a drug dealer isnt as "bad" as killing an "innocent" person. but murder is still murder. its universally recognized as immoral. every nation - civilizied or otherwise, has laws against it and punishments for those who commit it. right now, a murderer is free, running around in society. instead of supporting this individual, perhaps you should hope they are brought to justice. who knows, maybe next time this person decides to kill a drug dealer, a person you deem "innocent" will be hurt or killed in the process.[/quote]

Sorry, murder is not murder. It's not black and white, although it would be nice if it were. Cops and soldiers kill people all the time and it's not murder.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;655068]Sorry, murder is not murder. It's not black and white, although it would be nice if it were. Cops and soldiers kill people all the time and it's not murder.[/quote]

Your analogy to cops and soldiers doesn't even apply here. Harrison is neither. He's a thug who illegally fired a weapon, injuring both a drug dealer and an innocent bystander. He also lied to the authorities, also a criminal offense. He then either directly or indirectly was responsible for committing murder.

you might have your own personal interpretation of what is right and wrong, but society as a whole and the law are in direct opposition to your point of view.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;655070]Your analogy to cops and soldiers doesn't even apply here. Harrison is neither. He's a thug who illegally fired a weapon, injuring both a drug dealer and an innocent bystander. He also lied to the authorities, also a criminal offense. He then either directly or indirectly was responsible for committing murder.

you might have your own personal interpretation of what is right and wrong, but society as a whole and the law are in direct opposition to your point of view.[/quote]

You said "murder is murder" implying that killing anyone, for any reason, is murder -- which it is not.

Now you'll probably come back with something about how cops and soldiers need to do that sometimes, but that doesn't change a thing. Also remember that cops and soldiers *unnecessarily* kill people sometimes, and it's still not murder. You should read Immanuel Kant, and after that read John Rawls (B'more represent!).

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;655089]You said "murder is murder" implying that killing anyone, for any reason, is murder -- which it is not.

Now you'll probably come back with something about how cops and soldiers need to do that sometimes, but that doesn't change a thing. Also remember that cops and soldiers *unnecessarily* kill people sometimes, and it's still not murder. You should read Immanuel Kant, and after that read John Rawls (B'more represent!).[/quote]

Actually, i wasn't trying broadening the scope of the discussion to warfare at all. harrison was a private citicizen. he had no legal authority to kill another human being. his actions were not in self-defense. it was a cold-blooded murder. a private citizen acting in the manner which harrison acted is murder. it doesnt matter if the person was a drug dealer, child molester, cross-dresser, or cowboys fan. he had no legal (let alone moral) right or authority to take a life. there are laws in place designed to prevent the exact actions that harrison took. harrison is a criminal. just the man he (had) killed was. that mans lifestyle ultimately caught up with him. so will harrison's.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;655093]Actually, i wasn't trying broadening the scope of the discussion to warfare at all. harrison was a private citicizen. he had no legal authority to kill another human being. his actions were not in self-defense. it was a cold-blooded murder. a private citizen acting in the manner which harrison acted is murder. it doesnt matter if the person was a drug dealer, child molester, cross-dresser, or cowboys fan. he had no legal (let alone moral) right or authority to take a life. there are laws in place designed to prevent the exact actions that harrison took. harrison is a criminal. just the man he (had) killed was. that mans lifestyle ultimately caught up with him. so will harrison's.[/quote]

I agree. I'm not defending Harrison at all, but I do have to agree with BB to an extent. My point was that nothing, even murder, is cut and dry. There is no good without bad, and no bad without good -- there are no absolutes, there just IS. Think Yin-Yang.

In any case, although the evidence seems overwhelming, let's continue to presume innocence before people stand trial.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;655068]Sorry, murder is not murder. It's not black and white, although it would be nice if it were. Cops and soldiers kill people all the time and it's not murder.[/quote]

Murder is the intentional killing of another or the killing of another during a felony. Self-defense is a defense to the charge of murder.

Killings by cops and soldiers done in the line of duty are not murder, never have been, never will be. Cops and soldiers "kill people" because it is sanctioned by govt. Society recognizes that in the enforcement of its law and for the protection of the public, police must sometimes use deadly force. Likewise, society recognizes that there is a need for "national self-defense" and, thus, soldiers are not committing "murder" when they kill in the line of duty.

Marvin Harrison's spraying a street with bullets and the intentional murder of an individual who, at the time, was not threatening the person who murdered him are not acts that are defensible in any way.

Sure, in many cases, there are mitigating factors that societies have long recognized as defenses to murder. None of these time tested excuses existed in this case. Under the facts of this case - this was cold blooded; this was indefensible; this was murder. This [I]was[/I] black and white.

The DA was the real POS for not prosecuting this case - cowardly and wrong.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;655098]I agree. I'm not defending Harrison at all, but I do have to agree with BB to an extent. My point was that nothing, even murder, is cut and dry. [B]There is no good without bad, and no bad without good -- there are no absolutes[/B], there just IS. Think Yin-Yang.

In any case, although the evidence seems overwhelming, let's continue to presume innocence before people stand trial.[/quote]

Now that's a whole other discussion. Good and evil are not dependent upon each other for their existence. Although utopian, good can exist absent evil. Likewise, and evil can exist without good.

Regardless. Murder [I]is[/I] murder. It is a defined term, it has meaning and value derived from centuries of cultural and societal wisdom. Is it "cut and dried", immovable and applied like a cookie cutter? Sometimes. There are matters where it is so on point that it is not debatable that the actions performed constitute murder.

Here, the killing of Pop was murder. Cut and Dried. Book it. All the philosophical ramblings and deep thoughts in the world won't change the conclusion that, in this case, based on the facts known - The man who shot and killed Pop committed murder as that term is defined and applied in our society. Further, as the term is defined, if the facts show that Harrison instructed or otherwise colluded to have Pop killed, he to is guilty of murder. Cut and Dried.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

Also, while a somewhat apples to oranges comparison, if Plax can get 3(?) years for accidentally shooting himself - shouldn't ol' Marvin get a couple of years for [I]intentionally[/I] firing off a pistol in a crowded street? Jus' axin'

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;655029]I would like you to introduce you to the concept that's been around for several thousand years. its called law enforcement. in this country, we have these things called police. if you feel someone is a threat to you or your family, you don't need to unload a clip of bullets into them while they are sitting in their car, talking on their cell phone. you can just call the police. its really easy. you just have to press three numbers: 9-1-1 and you can get in touch with them.

the vast majority of "us" would NOT act in the same way harrison did. most of us are what you would call civilized human beings. maybe one day you can join us. harrison is a thug, just like the guy he (had) murdered. he's a thug who has injured innocent bystanders when he engaged in his thuggery. harrison is just as much - if not more - of a mennace to society as the man he (had) murdered. i hope there are no good, honest people living anywhere near you. you are undoubtably a danger to them as any of them could be killed as innocent bystanders if you chose to carry out your personal form of justice. as to your comments about being on a jury, if you're ever a jury candidate, please share your thoughts on the matter. you will undoubtably be disqualified from jury service and thereby be rendered unable to (further) pervert the justice system.

i apologize if you interpret any of my comments as an attack - i simply feel that they are deplorable and should be treated as such. there is no place for vigilante justice in society and i'm certain none of the owners/operators of this site would condone it. you have a right to express your opinions, but condoning cold-blooded murder is unacceptable. i truly hope you reconsider your views.[/quote]

So i guess there's no reason to own a firearm for personal protection? No, of course there is because when you perceive a lethal threat to yourself, you are entitled to defend yourself. This dipshit wasn't making a call, the perception from that article, at least as I read it, was that he was calling in back up to go after Harrison. Hence my previous comment on pre-emptive strike. And you're right, no one has ever been harmed or had anyone in their family harmed after calling the police about a potential danger.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;655102]Murder is the intentional killing of another or the killing of another during a felony. Self-defense is a defense to the charge of murder.

Killings by cops and soldiers done in the line of duty are not murder, never have been, never will be. Cops and soldiers "kill people" because it is sanctioned by govt. Society recognizes that in the enforcement of its law and for the protection of the public, police must sometimes use deadly force. Likewise, society recognizes that there is a need for "national self-defense" and, thus, soldiers are not committing "murder" when they kill in the line of duty.

Marvin Harrison's spraying a street with bullets and the intentional murder of an individual who, at the time, was not threatening the person who murdered him are not acts that are defensible in any way.

Sure, in many cases, there are mitigating factors that societies have long recognized as defenses to murder. None of these time tested excuses existed in this case. Under the facts of this case - this was cold blooded; this was indefensible; this was murder. This [I]was[/I] black and white.

The DA was the real POS for not prosecuting this case - cowardly and wrong.[/quote]

I was using cops and soldiers as an example of how killing people is not always murder. I'm not sure why you provide that as an argument against me, because it falls right in line with what I was saying.

I wasn't saying Harrison is, or is not, a murderer, and I don't think you have enough evidence to say so either. You're the lawyer, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

In any case, I'll have to respectfully disagree about the black and white comment, because I don't believe anything is black and white.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;655112]Also, while a somewhat apples to oranges comparison, if Plax can get 3(?) years for accidentally shooting himself - shouldn't ol' Marvin get a couple of years for [I]intentionally[/I] firing off a pistol in a crowded street? Jus' axin'[/quote]

My whole point is based upon the supposition that MH felt his life was in danger at the time when he fired upon Pop with a licensed handgun. Who committed the actual attack that killed him, who knows. Remember, they did find shell casings in the cab of the pickup, those weren't tossed in by MH. So there is at least the potential for a self defense case in that shooting. It's not as cut & dry as Marvin's a thug.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;655113]So i guess there's no reason to own a firearm for personal protection? No, of course there is because when you perceive a lethal threat to yourself, you are entitled to defend yourself. This dipshit wasn't making a call, the perception from that article, at least as I read it, was that he was calling in back up to go after Harrison. Hence my previous comment on pre-emptive strike. And you're right, no one has ever been harmed or had anyone in their family harmed after calling the police about a potential danger.[/quote]

you've got your facts pretty mixed up. Harrison, and Harrison alone claimed that during the initial confrontation, when innocent bystanders were injured, that the man was calling in backup to go after harrison. Given that Harrison was caught red-handed lying to the police, i dont think we can just beleive Harrison's testimony there. But even if it was true, why not retreat from the location? why not call the police? how is pulling out a gun and shooting someone and innocent bystanders an acceptable response? its not like there werent other legal options. oh, and lets not forget how that whole confrontation started - harrison and his friend mercilessly beat this man and continued to do so, even when he was lying on the ground, his face covered in blood... was THAT self-defense? if you think so, then do you think that those cops who beat rodney king were all acting in self defense too?

during the second incident where the man was killed, there was no indication or report that the man was calling in backup or anything like that. he was just in his car talking on the phone, when a man (either harrison himself or one of his goonies) shot him multiple times, walked around the car, and shot him again.

a gun owner might be justified firing one or two shots to defend himself or his family from imminent danger. but unloading a clip and injuring bystanders and then unloading another clip and murdering someone who was posing no threat at all are two different things entirely.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;655118]My whole point is based upon the supposition that MH felt his life was in danger at the time when he fired upon Pop with a licensed handgun. Who committed the actual attack that killed him, who knows. Remember, they did find shell casings in the cab of the pickup, those weren't tossed in by MH. So there is at least the potential for a self defense case in that shooting. It's not as cut & dry as Marvin's a thug.[/quote]

IF MH felt he was in danger and thats why he fired the gun, then why lie to the police about it? why not admit to firing the gun in self defense?

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;655121]you've got your facts pretty mixed up. Harrison, and Harrison alone claimed that during the initial confrontation, when innocent bystanders were injured, that the man was calling in backup to go after harrison. Given that Harrison was caught red-handed lying to the police, i dont think we can just beleive Harrison's testimony there. But even if it was true, why not retreat from the location? why not call the police? how is pulling out a gun and shooting someone and innocent bystanders an acceptable response? its not like there werent other legal options. [B] 1) [/B][COLOR="DarkRed"]oh, and lets not forget how that whole confrontation started - harrison and his friend mercilessly beat this man and continued to do so, even when he was lying on the ground, his face covered in blood.[/COLOR]

[B]2)[/B] [COLOR="DarkRed"]during the second incident where the man was killed, there was no indication or report that the man was calling in backup or anything like that.[/COLOR] he was just in his car talking on the phone, when a man (either harrison himself or one of his goonies) shot him multiple times, walked around the car, and shot him again.

[B]3)[/B] [COLOR="DarkRed"]a gun owner might be justified firing one or two shots to defend himself or his family from imminent danger.[/COLOR] but unloading a clip and injuring bystanders and then unloading another clip and murdering someone who was posing no threat at all are two different things entirely.[/quote]

1) Actually, based on simple reading comprehension, the incident started when Pops decided to take a concealed loaded weapon into a bar and then threaten the owner after he was frisked and denied entry.

2) Wasn't aware there was any evidence linking harrison to that crime. Oh yeah, there's not.

3) That's hilarious. Seriously, you or your family is being threatened by someone that has a loaded weapon and you're making sure you don't shoot more than one or two rounds? Really? Hope you made all of those life insurance payments. Personally, I'm emptying the loaded clip and every subsequent one that i can find until i am no longer in danger. Call me crazy, but I don't like to argue semantics in life and death situations.

Look, i'm not the lawyer and truly I could give a shit, but for all of you claiming Harrison is guilty of murder and had no business shooting this POS, there are mitigating circumstances. That's all I'm saying. And at the end of the day, what ACTUALLY happened that we KNOW of? A drug dealer died. The world turns.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;655124]IF MH felt he was in danger and thats why he fired the gun, then why lie to the police about it? why not admit to firing the gun in self defense?[/quote]

Valid question. I don't know. First decent counter you've had today. :argue:

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;655117]I was using cops and soldiers as an example of how killing people is not always murder. I'm not sure why you provide that as an argument against me, because it falls right in line with what I was saying.

I wasn't saying Harrison is, or is not, a murderer, and I don't think you have enough evidence to say so either. You're the lawyer, what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

In any case, I'll have to respectfully disagree about the black and white comment, because I don't believe anything is black and white.[/quote]

My point was two-fold: Killing is not necessarily murder. Never has been, never will be. So, yes, I agree with you to that extent. My point, however, was that murder [I]is[/I] a defined term and [I]certain types of killings will always be considered murder[/I].

Walking up to someone sitting in a car, pulling a pistol and shooting them when there is no evidence that the individual was acting in self defense constitutes murder. Absolutely. 100%.

Finally, I qualified all my conclusion on "based on the facts known". If different facts arise, perhaps not. Also, I did not say Harrison was guilty of murder - I said "[B][I]if[/I][/B] the facts show that Harrison instructed or otherwise colluded to have Pop killed, he to is guilty of murder." I should have added a "then" prior to the final phrase.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;655117]In any case, I'll have to respectfully disagree about the black and white comment, because I don't believe anything is black and white.[/quote]

What color is the text of my response?

What color is the untyped area of my response?

;)

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;655126]1) Actually, based on simple reading comprehension, the incident started when Pops decided to take a concealed loaded weapon into a bar and then threaten the owner after he was frisked and denied entry.

2) Wasn't aware there was any evidence linking harrison to that crime. Oh yeah, there's not.

3) That's hilarious. Seriously, you or your family is being threatened by someone that has a loaded weapon and you're making sure you don't shoot more than one or two rounds? Really? Hope you made all of those life insurance payments. Personally, I'm emptying the loaded clip and every subsequent one that i can find until i am no longer in danger. Call me crazy, but I don't like to argue semantics in life and death situations.

Look, i'm not the lawyer and truly I could give a shit, but for all of you claiming Harrison is guilty of murder and had no business shooting this POS, there are mitigating circumstances. That's all I'm saying. And at the end of the day, what ACTUALLY happened that we KNOW of? A drug dealer died. The world turns.[/quote]

1) denying him entry and throwing the guy out is one thing, beating him to a pulp and kicking him while he's still on the ground is another. again, harrison is the one who claims this side of the story and i think anything he says should be highly suspect.

2) your reading comprehension is apparently in question. if you had read the article, you would know harrison claimed the gun never left his custody. yet that gun was used in the shooting. either harrison lied about the gun leaving his custody or he lied about not shooting the man. in either case, harrison lied to the police about his involvement. considering the bystander who was shot claimed harrison was the shooter, the evidence tends to support that harrison was the one firing the gun.

3) harrison's life would not have been in danger had he merely left the scene. or gone inside and called the police. if the fat man got out of his car and approached the door and entered the building with a gun, then, legally, could defend himself. uloading his clip on the mans car, with innocent bystanders all around is recklass behavior and wreaks of his being a thug. so does, you know, killing a man in cold blood and then destroying the evidence linking him (or one of his cronies) to the crime.

you can try to justify things and spin them however you want, however there's a principle here that is true for a lot of things in life - if you have to lie about something or try to cover it up, its because whatever you were doing was wrong and you know it. harrison lied. harrison covered up. whatever he was doing, it was wrong and he knows it.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;655132]What color is the text of my response?

What color is the untyped area of my response?

;)[/quote]

Without light, there is no color. ;)

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;655134]1) denying him entry and throwing the guy out is one thing, beating him to a pulp and kicking him while he's still on the ground is another. again, harrison is the one who claims this side of the story and i think anything he says should be highly suspect.

[B]2) your reading comprehension is apparently in question. if you had read the article, you would know harrison claimed the gun never left his custody. yet that gun was used in the shooting. either harrison lied about the gun leaving his custody or he lied about not shooting the man. in either case, harrison lied to the police about his involvement. considering the bystander who was shot claimed harrison was the shooter, the evidence tends to support that harrison was the one firing the gun.[/B]

3) harrison's life would not have been in danger had he merely left the scene. or gone inside and called the police. if the fat man got out of his car and approached the door and entered the building with a gun, then, legally, could defend himself. uloading his clip on the mans car, with innocent bystanders all around is recklass behavior and wreaks of his being a thug. so does, you know, killing a man in cold blood and then destroying the evidence linking him (or one of his cronies) to the crime.

you can try to justify things and spin them however you want, however there's a principle here that is true for a lot of things in life - if you have to lie about something or try to cover it up, its because whatever you were doing was wrong and you know it. harrison lied. harrison covered up. whatever he was doing, it was wrong and he knows it.[/quote]

good lord man, Pops wasn't killed during the shooting on the street where MH allegedly was firing out in the open. He was killed by someone wearing a hoodie and using a gun that has never been found let alone linked to MH. Everything else is supposition. Two different shootings. No one has claimed to see MH KILL anyone.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;655134]3) harrison's life would not have been in danger had he merely left the scene. or gone inside and called the police. if the fat man got out of his car and approached the door and entered the building with a gun, then, legally, could defend himself. uloading his clip on the mans car, with innocent bystanders all around is recklass behavior and wreaks of his being a thug. so does, you know, killing a man in cold blood and then destroying the evidence linking him (or one of his cronies) to the crime.[/quote]

Let's not forget that when Harrison was "unloading his clip" on the man's car, the drug dealer was shooting back. This incident is very complicated -- the incident where the drug dealer was actually killed is not: there is video evidence of a man approaching the car and shooting Pop. Who is that man? What was his motive? We don't know, and we probably never will. Drug dealers get killed a lot, and they have all sorts of people after them for all sorts of reasons.

Let's try to understand that these were separate incidents, and the one we know Harrison was involved in has all sorts of circumstances that make it very gray.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

i thought the video was from MH's business called "playmakers" (i assume its a club/bar); yet the tape inexplicably is blank for a few minutes right when the 2nd shooting happened where pop was killed.

i wish i was the atty representing pop's estate in the civil matter for the shooting and then the alleged killing. MH is going to pay out the ear hole.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=over the mountain;655142]i thought the video was from MH's business called "playmakers" (i assume its a club/bar); yet the tape inexplicably is blank for a few minutes right when the 2nd shooting happened where pop was killed.

i wish i was the atty representing pop's estate in the civil matter for the shooting and then the alleged killing. MH is going to pay out the ear hole.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure MH's attorney will destroy Pop's rep in court to the point that they can say some other drug dealer could very well have taken him out. Not exactly the safest profession, drug dealing...





[SIZE="1"](why do I keep replying to this thread...)[/SIZE]

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;655143]I'm pretty sure MH's attorney will destroy Pop's rep in court to the point that they can say some other drug dealer could very well have taken him out. Not exactly the safest profession, drug dealing...

[SIZE="1"](why do I keep replying to this thread...)[/SIZE][/quote]

and this drug dealer would have had access to playmaker's security camera tapes to delete the appropriate frames from the recording? you continue to neglect this point.... just like you neglect to offer an explaination as to why harrison lied to the police about the 1st incident.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

It seems to me like Pops is being portrayed here as a random guy who showed up and dealt drugs. But, if I read correctly, seems like Pops and Harrison were at least acquaintances as children and basically grew up together. And I got the impression that Pops, who it seems had stopped actually dealing drugs, was belligerent toward Harrison in large part because he was jealous/frustrated/hurt that Harrison had treated him like a nobody when the two of them grew up together

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=SmootSmack;655150]It seems to me like Pops is being portrayed here as a random guy who showed up and dealt drugs. But, if I read correctly, seems like Pops and Harrison were at least acquaintances as children and basically grew up together. And I got the impression that Pops, who it seems had stopped actually dealing drugs, was belligerent toward Harrison in large part because he was jealous/frustrated/hurt that Harrison had treated him like a nobody when the two of them grew up together[/quote]

they werent just former acquaintences. wasnt pops a key witness in a civil trail against harrison? perhaps ghettodog and bleed consider murdering a witness to prevent you from losing millions of dollars in a civil suit for shooting innocent bystanders justifiable "self-defense."

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;655148]and this drug dealer would have had access to playmaker's security camera tapes to delete the appropriate frames from the recording? you continue to neglect this point.... just like you neglect to offer an explaination as to why harrison lied to the police about the 1st incident.[/quote]

It's possible that Harrison wasn't involved in the second shooting, but erased that part of the tape because he didn't want the guy to be caught. I'm not trying to make excuses for him -- just pointing out a possibility. It's pretty unlikely, but still possible. In any case, that could still be illegal -- I don't know.

It's also possible that somebody who worked for Harrison erased that part of the tape, without Harrison's knowledge, for reason's of his own. There are probably still several other legitimate possibilities. There is still reasonable doubt regarding the second shooting, in my opinion, but I'm not a lawyer (though I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night).

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;655143]I'm pretty sure MH's attorney will destroy Pop's rep in court to the point that they can say some other drug dealer could very well have taken him out. Not exactly the safest profession, drug dealing...





[SIZE=1](why do I keep replying to this thread...)[/SIZE][/quote]

i dont think MH wants his dirty laundry aired out in public. given what we know or atleast has been reported, there exists more than a preponderance of evidence to win (and win big) in a civil trial.

think OJ simpson. burden in a civil trial is not beyond a reasonable doubt but by a preponderance of evidecne i.e. "more likley than not".

unless pop's drug dealing has relevance to the facts of this case, that information will not come in. im sure MH's atty will argue that information re. pop as a drug dealer and that pop is known to carry a gun should come in b/c it shows MH's mindstate of being reasonably fearful for his life and safety.

should be an interesting case to follow.

bleed i like ya buddy, but im scratching my head at how you 100% accept as true that pop was a current drug dealer bad guy who had it coming without seeing any recent arrest reports or evidence outside speculation and street level hearsay but are highly suspicious of anything inculpatory on MH's part.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;655118]My whole point is based upon the supposition that MH felt his life was in danger at the time when he fired upon Pop with a licensed handgun. Who committed the actual attack that killed him, who knows. Remember, they did find shell casings in the cab of the pickup, those weren't tossed in by MH. So there is at least the potential for a self defense case in that shooting. It's not as cut & dry as Marvin's a thug.[/quote]

As to the murder (yes. murder.) of Pop, there is, to my knowledge, no evidence linking Harrison to the murder except the circumstantial and speculative kind.

Are there mitigating actions as to Harrison's actions in opening fire on Pop? Again, [I]based on the information known[/I], NO.

If Pop initiated the gunfire by opening fire in a crowded street, the appropriate response is not to create a warzone by returning fire and placing other innocent people at an increased risk. If, on the other hand, Pop did not initiate the gun fire, then Marvin initiated the gun battle. Self-defense does not play any part in the gun battle participated in by Marvin and [I]possibly[/I] Pop.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;655152]they werent just former acquaintences. wasnt pops a key witness in a civil trail against harrison? perhaps ghettodog and bleed consider murdering a witness to prevent you from losing millions of dollars in a civil suit for shooting innocent bystanders justifiable "self-defense."[/quote]

Lemme kick a lil' rap 'bout my steez son, 'cause murderin' ain't shit to me -- especially snitches fool!

Hey! You! Get off my thread!
You don't know me, and you should be in bed!
Who be gettin' dogged when I come through the fog?
Here I am, the GhettoDog, the GhettoDog.

(rap courtesty of SmootSmack)

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;655140]Let's not forget that when Harrison was "unloading his clip" on the man's car, the drug dealer was shooting back. This incident is very complicated -- the incident where the drug dealer was actually killed is not: there is video evidence of a man approaching the car and shooting Pop. Who is that man? What was his motive? We don't know, and we probably never will. Drug dealers get killed a lot, and they have all sorts of people after them for all sorts of reasons.

[B]Let's try to understand that these were separate incidents, and the one we know Harrison was involved in has all sorts of circumstances that make it very gray[/B].[/quote]

Nope. Not grey at all. One of two things happened: 1) Drug dealer opened fire on Marvin in a public area where Marvin had a clear path of retreat and, instead of retreating, Marvin returned fire in the public area with a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives of innocents; or 2) Marvin initiated the gun battle.

In either case, Marvin acted illegally and put lives innocent live at risk.

Also, the text is black as it contains all colors - this is true whether the lights in the room are on or not. But you're right - nothing is absolute if you can unilaterally change the facts at will.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;655171]Nope. Not grey at all. One of two things happened: 1) Drug dealer opened fire on Marvin in a public area where Marvin had a clear path of retreat and, instead of retreating, Marvin returned fire in the public area with a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives of innocents; or 2) Marvin initiated the gun battle.

In either case, Marvin acted illegally and put lives innocent live at risk.

Also, the text is black as it contains all colors - this is true whether the lights in the room are on or not. But you're right - nothing is absolute if you can unilaterally change the facts at will.[/quote]

You make it seem like people always think clearly when their lives are on the line. You also make it seem that, without doubt, Harrison would have been able to save his own life by retreating. Yet, you present two different possibilities, and therein lies the doubt.

And, sorry ... white actually contains all colors -- not black. Black is the absence of color. But I get what you're saying, and you're right. Hence the winking smiley after my post.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;655171]Nope. Not grey at all. One of two things happened: [B]1) Drug dealer opened fire on Marvin in a public area where Marvin had a clear path of retreat and, instead of retreating, Marvin returned fire in the public area with a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives of innocents;[/B] or 2) Marvin initiated the gun battle.

In either case, Marvin acted illegally and put lives innocent live at risk.

Also, the text is black as it contains all colors - this is true whether the lights in the room are on or not. But you're right - nothing is absolute if you can unilaterally change the facts at will.[/quote]

You're the lawyer, so I have to trust that you know what you are talking about, but... clear path of retreat from bullets? He's not outrunning a 9 millimeter, not with his knees. To be clear, you are saying that if someone starts shooting at you, and you have a legal means to defend yourself (licensed and permitted firearm) you are not allowed to employ it? Seriously, I'm curious because that isn't what I would think would be the case.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

From the Pennsylvania code:
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is [B]immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself[/B] against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

...

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; [B]nor is it justifiable if[/B]:

(i) [B]the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter[/B]; or

(ii) [B]the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating[/B] or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be[.]

...

Taking the facts in the best light for Marvin: He was standing in the driveway of his business when he was fired upon by Pop, had no place to run (i.e - the garage was locked, no cars to take cover behind, etc.) and,for his own protection, it was necessary to immediately use deadly force. To be clear: [B]Anything other than this is the illegal, unjustified use of deadly force[/B].

The duty to retreat means that, if you aren't cornered, you are required to retreat - if you have a [I]place[/I] to run to, then you must go. In this case, Marvin was standing in the open and could have retreated inside of his garage (if pursued inside his place of business, different story but NOT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE). It would be different if Pop was standing holding a gun two feet away from his chest, but, again, - even in the best light - NOT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.

I keep coming back to this - UNDER THE FACTS KNOWN, Marvin's actions were illegal and, more broadly, simply wrong.

No BB, in a society subject to the rule of law, you are not entitled to engage in a gun battle in a public street even if your weapon is licensed. I don't want to live anywhere near you if you believe that it is your right to return fire with disregard for the safety of others - thank you very much.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;655176]You make it seem like people always think clearly when their lives are on the line. You also make it seem that, without doubt, Harrison would have been able to save his own life by retreating. Yet, [B]you present two different possibilities, and therein lies the doubt.[/B]
And, sorry ... white actually contains all colors -- not black. Black is the absence of color. But I get what you're saying, and you're right. Hence the winking smiley after my post.[/quote]

There is no doubt because in either situation, Marvin's actions were illegal, unjustified and just plain wrong.

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

The dude made a bad move not taking a pay cut from Indy might have still been playing

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

another one bites the dust