Olympia Wash. cop shoots 2 unarmed men in chest for shoplifting beer at safeway

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Hopefully they were white.

We don't need anymore riots over criminals.

originally posted by: MoreBeer
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Hopefully they were white.

We don't need anymore riots over criminals.

Dont really know how to take that lol... But they were black

a reply to: alienjuggalo

I'd avoid the local CVS.

a reply to: alienjuggalo

Has there been any black cops shooting white ppl in america recently? In England the only way we find out about this stuff is through websites like this

a reply to: rossacus

I'm sure there has been.

We in the US don't hear about those shootings either.

a reply to: Shamrock6
You do realise by the definition you just provided that someone robbing a bank with skateboard would not count as armed robbery, as it is not designed nor used. Rocket science indeed. And you question me for clarity

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: rossacus

Yeah, here in America (at least most states I've lived in and in the military), once you use ANY object offensively to cause harm to someone else or something, you are considered armed--the object doesn't matter, nor does it matter when you acquired the object.

I totally agree here. I was once selected for jury duty. The case put forth was assault and battery with a deadly weapon. The weapon in that case was, and I kid you not, a shot-put. Yes, the defendant was built like Conan the Barbarian, so there was no question he could have used the shot-put as a weapon to assault the victim. That is an actual case of an item of sporting equipment that if you were walking around carrying it, you would not be considered armed. However, once he aggressively used it to assault the victim, it became a weapon, and immediate escalation of the charges. The fact it was a piece of sporting equipment was irrelevant in the case. His actions alone pushed it into the category of being a deadly weapon.

a reply to: Answer
The policeman went to arrest him for shoplifting. He was assaulted when they resisted arrest. Not completely misleading at all, just indirectly related.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Cheers

a reply to: rossacus

Completely false. If you walk into a bank with a skateboard and threaten somebody with it while robbing the bank, it is absolutely armed robbery.

Sorry you're so confused by it.

www.youtube.com...

news video about a beating with a skateboard they make decent mele weapons and decent shields if your not getting shot at.

www.dailymail.co.uk... -kill.html pretty much anything in the right hands can be deadly ,some obiously more so then others. least it seems that both people shot are gonna make it so this should all be hashed out in court.

a reply to: rossacus

I fear you misunderstood. It was armed assault. Period. the fact that the item was not considered a weapon prior to the encounter is irrelevant in this story (from the OP). Once the item was used to assault a victim, it was a weapon, perhaps deadly. In that case, anyone is justified in using deadly force to stop the assault, if they truly fear their life is threatened. Being assaulted with a skateboard is not different. I could easily crack your skull open with one if I tried....therefore, if I tried, it is assault with a deadly weapon.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I know it's armed robbery. It's just the definition you used for being armed. Please highlight where I went wrong based on your "rocket science" definition...designed or used to afflict bodily harm?

a reply to: rossacus
I'm not being personal but you can see why I'm confused when your own definition changes post to post

a reply to: rossacus

You went wrong by thinking that armed robbery means you have to use a weapon.

You don't.

All you have to do is threaten to use it.

"Empty your drawer in a bag or I will use this skateboard to bash your face in." Congrats, there's your armed robbery charge. That's "charge" and not "conviction" since any lawyer will argue about that point all day long.

Are you intentionally trying to derail the thread? Why are you so stuck on the definition of terms? It is what it is. Whether you agree with it or not is immaterial, unless you happen to be a legislator or a SCOTUS Justice. Why are you now trying to go off about armed robbery?

Please highlight where your continued derailment about armed robbery pertains to the OP. Or start your own thread about legal definitions.

The thread title is misleading. Since when the officer fatally shot the men, it was after the use of the skateboards in an assault, as a weapon. After that point, they were in fact armed and demonstrated that they were willing to use them a weapons (they assaulted with them earlier). When he shot them, they were still threatening and "armed" with the skateboards. THe officer did not "shoot 2 unarmed men".

a reply to: rossacus

"My" definition hasn't changed once. You're talking about two different things. Whether a skateboard is a weapon, and armed robbery.

As my first post clearly stated, riding a skateboard doesn't mean you're riding a weapon. Using the skateboard as a weapon makes it a weapon.

Armed robbery has its own definition, and own requirements to meet the standard of both "armed" and "robbery." None of the definitions are "mine," because I didn't write them and I'm not changing anything. They are what they are.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I apologise for derailing the thread. I stopped than reacted to your post. I will stop now. Enjoy your day