The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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]

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 immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself 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; nor is it justifiable if:

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating 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: Anything other than this is the illegal, unjustified use of deadly force.

The duty to retreat means that, if you aren't cornered, you are required to retreat - if you have a place 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.

[Redskin301]

The dude made a bad move not taking a pay cut from Indy might have still been playing

[tootergray34]

another one bites the dust

[tryfuhl]

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

Philly Cops Still Investigating Harrison