Ohio Clerk Who Stops Armed Robbery Indicted For Manslaughter - Page 2

Double Naught Spy · March 9, 2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

And, after the court explains to the jury what "reasonable doubt" means, it is STILL up to the jurors to decide whether or not they think there is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge gives the jury the definition of reasonable doubt, he/she doesn't tell the jurors how to decide the facts of the case before them.

Absolutely right, but it was stated by a poster that he could not reach a decision beyond any reasonable doubt, but he can't know that without first being told what constituted by reasonable doubt in Ohio courts.

Quote:

FWIW, not being snarky but as a rule, I like Rush Linbaugh. Thanks!

Quote:

Opposition...again, ...who's the opposition???

Sorry, as a Rush fan, I thought you would have been up on his news. Rush Limbaugh made comments on air about Sandra Fluke being a slut and prostitute because she gave testimony for the need of birth control. This caused all sorts of outrage and so RL went on the air with a prolonged retraction saying that he should not have said those things because it made him like the liberals (the left, where he stated several insults about them and that "I became like them." http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...o_sandra_fluke

You did something contextually similar...

Quote:

And we need to be very careful to not be the jury with so little evidence.

Otherwise, we are guilty of doing the same as most anti-2nd Amend. people.

...in saying that we don't want to be doing something that we were already doing and have been doing because it would make us like the anti 2A people who are our opposition. Neither your comment or Rush's seemed particularly oriented toward worrying about what is right or wrong as much as not wanting to be like the opposition. So you stated them as anti 2A people which is rather interesting because you interjected a political jab at anti-2A people in a discussion that isn't about politics or about the 2nd Amendment.

shortwave · March 9, 2012, 10:11 PM

DNS,

Whomever posted on this thread insinuating the clerk is guilty of any wrongdoing at this point is guilty of pure speculation , assumption and IMO, should cease from doing so until there's further evidence one way or the other.

The anti's and those that feel LE are the only people whom should be armed, many of which are politicians in that area, will assume enough for both sides as they did just recently when backing Harless in Canton, Ohio. Too, in the Harless case, there was even dashcam videos of Harless's repeatedly committing crimes/wrongdoing while on duty and he was/is backed by many in that area. Including a few people in power positions.
Toledo and Canton are not far apart with many having the same mindset.

If there was video of the clerk coming in and shooting the downed perp again with no just cause, or witness's stating to that effect, or even a statement to that effect from the clerk, we might be able to pass judgement. But from the info. here on this thread, we have nothing more then the GJ feels they have sufficient evidence to indict the clerk. Nothing more.

Again, I'm just saying we need to refrain from saying the clerk is innocent or guilty till more substantial evidence is known.

That being said, I'm not re-tracking, apologizing or waffling(as you stated, Rush Limbaughing

) on what I'm saying.

**Tom Servo** · March 9, 2012, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Sorry, as a Rush fan, I thought you would have been up on his news.

I'm a huge Rush fan. Those guys totally rock, even if I didn't quite get the synth-pop thing they were doing in the 1980's.

Oh, you meant the radio commentator? I don't see what he (or his conduct) has to do with the matter at hand. While the thought of waffles seems appetizing, we need to cut out the bickering and stay on topic. Last warning.

**44 AMP** · March 11, 2012, 12:09 PM

OK, just curious, if the heart stops, and there is no bleeding, are you dead? And, if you are dead already, when shot (again) how can that be construed as manslaughter?

The information given was that the first shot was considered ok (justified, etc), so, at that point, all is good. Now the downed bad guy is shot again, and forensic evidence indicates (not prooves, indicates) little/no bleeding, so they figure heart stopped, blood pressure near 0, etc.

Based on that, they try to bring manslaughter charges? I just don't understand the reasoning on that one...

March 9, 2012, 10:11 PM	#27
shortwave Senior Member Join Date: December 17, 2007 Location: SOUTHEAST, OHIO Posts: 5,970	DNS, Whomever posted on this thread insinuating the clerk is guilty of any wrongdoing at this point is guilty of pure speculation , assumption and IMO, should cease from doing so until there's further evidence one way or the other. The anti's and those that feel LE are the only people whom should be armed, many of which are politicians in that area, will assume enough for both sides as they did just recently when backing Harless in Canton, Ohio. Too, in the Harless case, there was even dashcam videos of Harless's repeatedly committing crimes/wrongdoing while on duty and he was/is backed by many in that area. Including a few people in power positions. Toledo and Canton are not far apart with many having the same mindset. If there was video of the clerk coming in and shooting the downed perp again with no just cause, or witness's stating to that effect, or even a statement to that effect from the clerk, we might be able to pass judgement. But from the info. here on this thread, we have nothing more then the GJ feels they have sufficient evidence to indict the clerk. Nothing more. Again, I'm just saying we need to refrain from saying the clerk is innocent or guilty till more substantial evidence is known. That being said, I'm not re-tracking, apologizing or waffling(as you stated, Rush Limbaughing) on what I'm saying. Last edited by shortwave; March 9, 2012 at 10:20 PM.

March 11, 2012, 12:09 PM	#29
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,820	OK, just curious, if the heart stops, and there is no bleeding, are you dead? And, if you are dead already, when shot (again) how can that be construed as manslaughter? The information given was that the first shot was considered ok (justified, etc), so, at that point, all is good. Now the downed bad guy is shot again, and forensic evidence indicates (not prooves, indicates) little/no bleeding, so they figure heart stopped, blood pressure near 0, etc. Based on that, they try to bring manslaughter charges? I just don't understand the reasoning on that one... __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.