- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
I'm wondering how the Clock Boy can claim he was harmed when he got invited to the White House and got the stamp of approval for his project from the President of the United States.
The process of detention while being arrested.I'm wondering how the Clock Boy can claim he was harmed when he got invited to the White House and got the stamp of approval for his project from the President of the United States.
I'm wondering how the Clock Boy can claim he was harmed when he got invited to the White House and got the stamp of approval for his project from the President of the United States.
This is what we all need to do, I think....I'll wait for more facts to be released before I speculate further.
I also just watched the dashcam video of the Laquan McDonald shooting and it definitely looks bad for the Officer.
Anyway, I can see how the initial shots of the Officer could be justified, without having any sound on the video it seems the McDonald makes a sudden movement right before he is shot, and at the range he was to the Officers he could've easily done a lot of damage. However when he was on the ground I saw nothing from the angle of that dashcam (which is very important to note, cameras are always helpful but they do not always tell the whole story) that made McDonald seem like a threat.
I'm wondering how the Clock Boy can claim he was harmed when he got invited to the White House and got the stamp of approval for his project from the President of the United States.
Not true. The Mayor is legally obliged to keep the interview with school administration and clock boy secret. With the lawsuit, it's evidence.
Hardly, the interview I'm referring to was on television.
The briefcase usage is just simply the media sensationalized what it actually is. Then again, if the actual footage of the SRO interview was released, then obviously we can judge the interview on its own merit.There are some points in the submission worth considering; the authorities continued to allow the case to be called "a briefcase" which at 8 inches was a little optimistic, they apparently forgot his legal rights during the arrests and interview, they led him cuffed from the school and failed to release him at an appropriate time. Those are all points that should be considered for accuracy and legality before a judge.
source required. Outside the Glenn Beck TV show, no local outlet made time to put half the information that you are just throwing out there.What should also be considered are the after effects; the Clock Boy Hallowe'en costume, the Glenn Beck TV show mentioned above, the tweeting of the families home address, comments made about him in 'explanation' on the school intercom system. All those effects and others stem directly from the full-on public handling of the case.
I did read that letter before first posting it. Half of that, in my opinion, is fueling the same nonsense that the father is spewing out.I think $15 million is a lot to ask but I do think there should be some recompense and a review of the events in law. The letter makes interesting reading, at least for me
Federal law doesn't require the parents to be present in a School Resource Officer interview. (source) All that TX law requires is that a student is asked if they want their parents present at the interview, which, according to the mayor, the SRO did ask repeatedly.
The briefcase usage is just simply the media sensationalized what it actually is. Then again, if the actual footage of the SRO interview was released, then obviously we can judge the interview on its own merit.
source required. Outside the Glenn Beck TV show, no local outlet made time to put half the information that you are just throwing out there.
I did read that letter
Also consider this, if the father really wanted the truth to come out, then why did he refuse to have the SRO tape released?
Is there anything illegal here? Everyone has a right to join a union in North America.Wal-Mart hired Lockheed Martin to spy on employees and contacted an FBI terrorism task force...just because they wanted better working conditions and the right to join a union. (Bloomberg)
It's going to be very interesting to see how this case turns out. With the limited information available at this point, it seems they could be guilty of conspiracy while at the same time not guilty of the actual shootings because they were beaten and then chased by a mob.
The shooters also filmed a video prior to the attack (NSFW LANGUAGE WARNING):
"Let's save unborn babies lives by killing people".Another mass shooting, this time at an abortion clinic:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-28/gunman-opens-fire-at-us-abortion-clinic/6982958
"Let's save unborn babies lives by killing people".
Yeah that makes sense.
The US should close its borders, to prevent more potential Christian terrorists entering the country.Another mass shooting, this time at an abortion clinic:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-28/gunman-opens-fire-at-us-abortion-clinic/6982958
Let's be real here, Christians, more so Caucasian Christians won't be labeled terrorists, they have mental issues........The US should close its borders, to prevent more potential Christian terrorists entering the country.
Also, Christians should finally need to wear a visible marking, so normal people can avoid direct contact.
Is there any evidence at this point to suggest that the shooting is connected to the activities at the clinic?"Let's save unborn babies lives by killing people".
Yeah that makes sense.
Exactly. That's why I said they might be guilty of conspiracy because they are obviously going there with intent. But once there, according to eye witnesses, they were assaulted and then chased by a mob, at which point they are acting in self defense and have a right to defend themselves. I'm sure more details will come out soon enough so it should be interesting to see how it turns out.
Is there any evidence at this point to suggest that the shooting is connected to the activities at the clinic?
I guess it will likely come down to whether they could have safely gotten away or if they were cornered and had to shoot to defend themselves.Minnesota's self-defense law contains a "duty to retreat" provision. A person facing a threat has a duty to retreat where practical, before responding with "reasonable force."
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.06
If this happened in Florida, they wouldn't not be charged for unlawful use of force because of differences in their self-defense laws.
I didn't find anything that looked like a "duty to retreat" anywhere in the cited statute. Could you point it out for us?Minnesota's self-defense law contains a "duty to retreat" provision. A person facing a threat has a duty to retreat where practical, before responding with "reasonable force."
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.06
If this happened in Florida, they wouldn't not be charged for unlawful use of force because of differences in their self-defense laws.
Minnesota 609.06(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil