The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison

[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.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

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.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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.

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.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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.