The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

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.

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.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

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...

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

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...

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.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

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.

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.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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. 1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

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.

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.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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.

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.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

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!).

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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!).

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.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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.

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 is 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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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.

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 was black and white.

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

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 was black and white.

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

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.