Suburban security guard stops shooter, gets killed by police

[Derec]

But the one referenced in the article is independent of the state, which is all the article said.

No, the article called it "independent autopsy". Which is grossly misleading, implying that the autopsy is somehow made by an disinterested party, which is not the case.

The Democratic candidate is independent of the GOP, and the Republican candidate is independent of the DNC.

Which does not make them "independent candidates".

 

[RavenSky]

But the one referenced in the article is independent of the state, which is all the article said.

No, the article called it "independent autopsy". Which is grossly misleading, implying that the autopsy is somehow made by an disinterested party, which is not the case.

That is how YOU chose to interpret it (and we all know why).

An "independent autopsy" is an autopsy performed independent of the M.E. or municipality.

The Democratic candidate is independent of the GOP, and the Republican candidate is independent of the DNC.

Which does not make them "independent candidates".

Yes it does. Note the small "i"

 

[Derec]

That is how YOU chose to interpret it (and we all know why).

That's what it says.

Yes it does. Note the small "i"

That interpretation makes the term meaningless.

Aside from semantics of "independent", let's look at the findings of the private autopsy, shall we?
First, the drawing.


The claim by Grauniad is that Brandford was shot from behind. Even though the entrance wounds are on the dorsal side, t given the right-to-left bullet trajectories, it looks like he was shot from the side. As in, a police officer sees an armed man running past him. The question is: did the officer say "freeze" "drop the gun" or anything else before he shot Bradford? If he did, I do not see how the shooting is not justified. If he didn't, it's probably manslaughter.

 

[Jarhyn]

That is how YOU chose to interpret it (and we all know why).

That's what it says.

Yes it does. Note the small "i"

That interpretation makes the term meaningless.

Aside from semantics of "independent", let's look at the findings of the private autopsy, shall we?
First, the drawing.
View attachment 19193

The claim by Grauniad is that Brandford was shot from behind. Even though the entrance wounds are on the dorsal side, t given the right-to-left bullet trajectories, it looks like he was shot from the side. As in, a police officer sees an armed man running past him. The question is: did the officer say "freeze" "drop the gun" or anything else before he shot Bradford? If he did, I do not see how the shooting is not justified. If he didn't, it's probably manslaughter.

The shooting is not justified in any situation where the corpse on the ground didn't actually put bullets in anyone else.

 

[Derec]

The shooting is not justified in any situation where the corpse on the ground didn't actually put bullets in anyone else.

So you think police must wait until a perp actually shoots somebody before being allowed to use deadly force? That is a completely ridiculous standard and one no jurisdiction in the US follows.

 

[laughing dog]

No. That's a straw man. I am for using the word intelligently and logically.
Now, it is unlikely we get independent autopsies, unless a disinterested third party commissions one, but that is no reason to use the word inappropriately.

But that autopsy would not be independent of the 3rd party interests (whatever those are). You are literally contradicting yourself.


[

 

[Derec]

But that autopsy would not be independent of the 3rd party interests (whatever those are). You are literally contradicting yourself.

No I am not. I offered sensible reasons why the private, family autopsy is not "independent" and you are engaging in your trademark nitpicking.

 

[laughing dog]

But that autopsy would not be independent of the 3rd party interests (whatever those are). You are literally contradicting yourself.

No I am not.

Yes you are. You are under the false assumption that any autopsy can be completely "independent". Anyone familiar with the English language understands that the proper use of independent in this situation includes the word from as in "independent from".

[
I offered sensible reasons why the private, family autopsy is not "independent" and you are engaging in your trademark nitpicking.

Says the nitpicker over the proper use of the term "independent". You really are only fooling yourself.

 

[Derec]

Yes you are. You are under the false assumption that any autopsy can be completely "independent".

And that's a straw man. The issue is that the autopsy commissioned by a party to the case is not independent in the sense relevant here. Calling an autopsy "independent" implies it is disinterested as to the outcome of the case. That is certainly not given when lawyer for the family commissions it.
It would be like a newspaper calling an expert witness paid for by a plaintiff in a lawsuit "an independent expert". It's not an appropriate use of the term.

Anyone familiar with the English language understands that the proper use of independent in this situation includes the word from as in "independent from".

Anybody familiar with the English language understands that using the word "independent" for an autopsy commissioned by a party with a vested interest in the outcome of the case is highly misleading, and therefore inappropriate. By the way, "independent from" can mean anything. So by your "logic" we could call any autopsy "independent" as they are all independent from something or other. That renders the term meaningless.

Says the nitpicker over the proper use of the term "independent". You really are only fooling yourself.

That's not nitpicking, it's about proper and meaningful use of the term that does not seek to mislead.
You are the one trying to fool yourself and people in this thread. As usual.

 

[Jarhyn]

The shooting is not justified in any situation where the corpse on the ground didn't actually put bullets in anyone else.

So you think police must wait until a perp actually shoots somebody before being allowed to use deadly force? That is a completely ridiculous standard and one no jurisdiction in the US follows.

Yes. I do think that. You have made the statement and should be expected to defend why it is ridiculous. You have merely asserted it as fact. You have begged the question by assuming the premise in your argument.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The shooting is not justified in any situation where the corpse on the ground didn't actually put bullets in anyone else.

So the police can't shoot a hostage taker?!

The normal standards in the civilian world don't require you to actually be injured before you can defend yourself, why should the police be held to a higher standard?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The shooting is not justified in any situation where the corpse on the ground didn't actually put bullets in anyone else.

So the police can't shoot a hostage taker?!

The normal standards in the civilian world don't require you to actually be injured before you can defend yourself, why should the police be held to a higher standard?

The normal standard of the civilian world requires an actual threat.

If a shooting like this is allowed, the law should be changed to eliminate legal carry laws.

 

[blastula]

In this instance, it is hard to imagine that any forensic's expert would make such mistake about the bullets entering from the back. Is there really any logical reason to think this expert is wrong? If not, your argument is logically invalid and irrelevant. If so, present it.

I did not claim it is wrong. I just said it is not independent. Let's see what the official autopsy reveals. If they concur, no problem. If they don't, like was the case with Clark, what then?

How much you wanna bet the coroner will agree on the bullet entry and exit locations? I'll give you odds.

 

[laughing dog]

And that's a straw man.

No, it is not. For someone who is a proper stickler for word use, you should practice what you preach.

The issue is that the autopsy commissioned by a party to the case is not independent in the sense relevant here. Calling an autopsy "independent" implies it is disinterested as to the outcome of the case.

You are confusing your poor inference with implication.

Anybody familiar with the English language understands that using the word "independent" for an autopsy commissioned by a party with a vested interest in the outcome of the case is highly misleading, and therefore inappropriate.

Then pretty clearly, you are not familiar with the English language.

By the way, "independent from" can mean anything. So by your "logic" we could call any autopsy "independent" as they are all independent from something or other. That renders the term meaningless.

No, it does not. Once the from is understood, it makes it clear.

That's not nitpicking,...

Nitpicking over nitpicking. LOL.