The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison

[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 JoeRedskin

What color is the text of my response?

What color is the untyped area of my response?

Without light, there is no color.

[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.

[over the mountain]

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.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by over the mountain

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.

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...





(why do I keep replying to this thread...)

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

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...

(why do I keep replying to this thread...)

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.

[SmootSmack]

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

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

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

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."

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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.

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).

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

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...





(why do I keep replying to this thread...)

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.

[JoeRedskin]

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.

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, based on the information known, 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 possibly Pop.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

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."

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)

[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.