The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison

[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

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.

[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]

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 intentionally firing off a pistol in a crowded street? Jus' axin'

[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.

[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.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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 intentionally firing off a pistol in a crowded street? Jus' axin'

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.

[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.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

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.

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?

[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.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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?

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

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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.

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 is a defined term and certain types of killings will always be considered murder.

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 "if 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.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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.

What color is the text of my response?

What color is the untyped area of my response?