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

Re: The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison
 

Investigation still going on, especially since there's a new prosecutor this year

[url=http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/041910-philly-cops-still-investigating-harrison]Philly Cops Still Investigating Harrison[/url]