Deputy US Mashal kills defendant in open court

[BainsBane]

Last edited Tue Apr 22, 2014, 07:12 AM - Edit history (2)

Raylan Givens style.

Edit: This is not intended as a fucking gun thread. If people insist on turning it into one, that is not my doing.

SALT LAKE CITY — With stunned jurors looking on, a defendant in a long-running gang prosecution was shot and killed by a deputy United States marshal in the federal courthouse here on Monday morning after he lunged to attack a witness testifying in his trial, federal authorities said.

It was a shocking scene inside the silvery new federal courthouse in the center of Utah’s capital: Multiple gunshots cut through the staid air of a judge’s courtroom. Marshals stood with their weapons drawn. Spectators dived under benches. The courthouse was locked down for hours, cordoned off by yellow police tape and armed guards. . . .

Jurors had taken their seats in the courtroom of Judge Tena Campbell, and a cooperating witness was testifying for prosecutors when chaos erupted about 9:25 a.m. Mr. Angilau apparently grabbed a pen or pencil, charged toward the witness and was met by gunfire, said Melodie Rydalch, a spokeswoman for the United States attorney’s office. . . .

Judge Campbell, who declared a mistrial before Mr. Angilau’s death was reported, said federal marshals had held Mr. Angilau at gunpoint after the shooting as the jurors and court employees looked on. The judge spoke with the jurors afterward and said they were “visibly shaken and upset.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/22/us/defendant-killed-by-court-officer-at-utah-trial.html?WT.mc_id=D-E-OTB-AD-RSS-NYTNOW-HP-OS-0414&WT.mc_ev=click&WT.mc_c=__CAMP_UID__&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1396310400000&bicmet=1401408000000&_r=0

[Duckhunter935]

1. or more accurate

A gang member was killed Monday morning after he lunged to attack a witness testifying in his trial saving that mans life.

[BainsBane]

2. Yeah, set the NY Times straight

on how to write the news from the NRA perspective. Your headline would be perfect for a RW tabloid or Fox News.
Who cares about facts or evidence? You don't know if anyone's life was actually in danger because the article provides no information on that fact. It says he "lunged." There will have to be some sort of finding of fact to determine if the shooting was justified. The facts of the case, however, don't seem to interest you nearly as much as justify the taking of a human life. I find it fascinating that you gun types feel compelled to defend the taking of every human life with a gun, all while pretending guns have absolutely nothing to do with homicide.

It did not even occur to me that posting this story would attract the pro-gun crowd. It struck we as a kind of wild west, Justified scenario, absurd more than anything.

[Duckhunter935]

3. or the fact that

a pen can be used as a deadly weapon.

[BainsBane]

8. If the Marshal had killed the defendant with a pen

You would have zero interest in this story. All you care about is justifying the use of a gun.
I really am not interested in having the same discussions 100O times. I understand that some people see homicide as a good thing, as long as a gun is used. Everyone knows where one another stands on these issues. We occupy separate political and moral universes, and we always will.

As far as this case is concerned, the story doesn't give enough information to know if the shooting was justified or avoidable.

[hobbit709]

4. A pen can be a lethal weapon if one knows how.

I can think of at least 3 places on a human where it can kill.

[elias49]

5. Reaching. nt

[hobbit709]

7. stating a fact is reaching? you're the one reaching.

I learned way too much about how to kill 45 years ago.

[elias49]

13. A person can kill with his bare hands, too

Just strikes me as a little over the top that marshals open fire in court because a man has a pen (or pencil) in his hands. That's part of why so many people across the country are being gunned down over the past few years. There are too many law enforcement folks taking testosterone replacement meds and shooting kids holding squirt guns, homeless men with psych problems...you know what I'm talking about.

[Progressive dog]

129. I wonder how many murders by pen there have been.

It probably started with those sharpened feathers, doesn't seem like they could have used pieces of charcoal or chalk.

[mattclearing]

11. I guess you never saw Casino. n/t

[TorchTheWitch]

6. considering he took the pen before attacking

tells me he was going to do something lethal with it. I'm not sure why any believes there was some other action that should have been taken by deputies in this case other than shooting the guy. Personally, I'm a lot happier he was shot before he was able to gravely hurt or kill anyone. His own actions caused his demise, and I doubt that he wasn't aware of what was likely to happen to him in attempting to harm a witness.

[BainsBane]

10. I don't know

Maybe with a court room full of marshals and court security, they could have restrained him? I don't know how you can claim to know the shooting was justified based on the article.

[TorchTheWitch]

33. well, I certainly don't know that it wasn't justified

Generally speaking, I trust LE to do its job correctly and make these split second hard decisions. No one is claiming it wasn't justified (accept apparently, you) and no one yet knows the exact circumstances of whether or not he could have been stopped some other way that wouldn't be too risky of harm to anyone in the vicinity, the witness or the deputies. So far I'm not seeing any kind of restraining action that wouldn't be too slow or too risky or both, and I image that's why he was shot.

It's the victims of this guy's actions I'm far more concerned about, and I have no doubt that he would have known what was going to happen when he made the decision to try to attack the witness. As far as I see at this point what he did was "suicide by cop". I'm certainly not going to mourn this dangerous criminal that was so crazy as to try to kill a witness in court.

[BainsBane]

36. Where did I claim it wasn't justified?

My point was that we have limited information and that no legal determination has yet been made. What I find distasteful is the celebration of the loss of human life simply because a gun was used.

[pintobean]

37. Where is this celebration that you speak of?

[TorchTheWitch]

49. you asked why he couldn't have been restrained rather than shot

And no one I've seen is celebrating his death.

Come on, you've been combative with everyone and called some gun lovers or some other equivalent throughout the thread simply because those people thought it was justified.

Done.

[BainsBane]

93. Well, you may not know some members posting history

but I do. That comment was not directed at you but at the post that began this subthread. That is the post I objected to, and to which you in turn responded.

[pintobean]

101. She knows yours.

Most people do.

[99Forever]

17. Alrighty.

Precisely how many people were killed last year in the USA by pens and pencils.

Feel free to include both deliberate and intentional deaths.

[pintobean]

24. Do the numbers matter?

The fact is, a pen can be a deadly weapon. A defendant charged at a witness against him with an object that has been used to kill before. Should the deputy have waited to see if a pen was a deadly weapon in this case?

Jailed Man Kills Self With 2 Ballpoint Pens

Police: Man confessed to killing mother with pen before his death

Hallandale Beach identify man stabbed with pen

Boy Killed by Pen

[Scootaloo]

78. So can hands

Hands can also be used to restrain a person, and they're much more effective at that than a gun is.

Maybe the marshal should have given it a try.

[pintobean]

87. But, our attacker decided to arm himself.

He's the one who chose to make it a deadly situation.

[Scootaloo]

94. Just by having arms, he "made it a deadly situation"

If he didn't, i suppose we'd be making a case for teeth being deadly weapons.

But this isn't the point - could the marshal have not used subdual force before lethal? Or is it just impossible to NOT use a gun when you have a gun? I didn't think they could control people's brains like that.

[pintobean]

95. I don't have a gun, so I have no problem

not using one. If I had been the witness, I'd be glad that the deputy had a gun, and I'd thank him for using it. I'd be glad he didn't get all hopey with my life in the balance.

[Scootaloo]

96. I will ask a third and final time

Do you believe that it is possible that the marshal could have attempted nonlethal measures BEFORE shooting the defendant?

It's not a hard question to answer, but you're working so hard to not answer it.

[pintobean]

98. You can make all the demands you want.

I answered your question. Don't like my answer? Too bad.

[Scootaloo]

105. So your answer is evading the question

[pintobean]

109. No it isn't.

You want a yes or no answer. I don't see this like that. I don't owe you any answers at all. I gave you my best answer, but that doesn't fit into the frame you've made. Like I said, too bad.

[Jenoch]

103. Maybe the marshal should have had a Taser.

They are not always effictive however. If he did not have a Taser, his gun was the only other alternative. It is not reasonable to assume he could have 'tackled' the defendant in order to stop the attack. As I wrote in another post, if a perp is armed with a sharp object and is within 21 feet of a LEO, the perp can travel that distance and penetrate the LEO with the sharp weapon before the LEO can draw his duty gun and fire.

[meanit]

128. It's unbelievable

that someone is actually posting statistics on pen assaults to defend the shooting death in a courtroom of a man who lunged at someone with a Bic.

Just unbelievable....

[hobbit709]

28. That has absolutely nothing to do with this situation and you know it.

[99Forever]

29. It has EVERYTHING to do with it.

Nothing than gun loving yahoos yammering about how deadly pencils and pens are, then when asked for FACTS to back up their nonsense, you've got nothing.

And you know that.

[blueridge3210]

32. Nope.

Number of attacks do not matter. The only thing that matters in this instance is if the assailant, armed with a piercing weapon, presented a legitimate threat of death or serious bodily harm to the witness. If so, the shooting is justified in order to prevent a forcible felony (agg. assault or homicide).

[99Forever]

69. So, in other words...

... you came up blank. Considering that there so many pens and pencils in this nation, in fact, probably many hundreds of thousands of times as many as there are guns, you would think that you could come up with at least ONE example of the claim you made. But you've got ZERO.

The gunner mentality, in all of it's infinite wisdom, in a nutshell.

[blueridge3210]

73. No

There was no call for research of frequency of use. The question implied in the OP was whether the use of deadly force was justified. The facts as presented were that the assailant grabbed, or appeared to grab, a piercing object of some kind and lunged toward the witness. At that point no self-defense law of which I am aware requires the person being threatened or a third party to attempt to evaluate the frequency with which the offensive weapon in question is used in an offensive manner. The ONLY question is whether the assailant's perceived actions would be viewed by a reasonable person as presenting a threat of death or serious bodily harm. BTW, I made no claim regarding the frequency, or lack thereof, of attacks made using pens or pencils.

Yours in an example of the anti self-defense mentality, in all of it's finite wisdom, in a nutshell.

[99Forever]

74. Cool...

... you doubled down on having nothing.

Nice.

More gunner mentality on display.

[meanit]

130. Maybe

if he had grabbed an eraser instead of a pencil they would have only shot him in the leg?

[hobbit709]

35. I'm not a gun loving yahoo, that's proof that you know nothing about me.

I may be a lot of things but that is not it. But evidently in your made up mind anyone that doesn't jump in and follow you is a gun loving yahoo.

[99Forever]

64. Oh my.

A mind reader.

[hobbit709]

66. ---

[okaawhatever]

113. I'm a middle-aged woman who has never even been in a fight and I know how to do serious

damage with a pen. In fact, I also know there is a company in Germany that makes really good ones that are made from a strong metal and work well for self-defense. You can take a jugular out in seconds. If I were trapped in a car with an attacker a pen would be one of the first things I'd look for. Sharp stick in the interior elbow and right for the neck.

But that's not the point. Law enforcement officers, especially federal who aren't patrolling the streets are taught to react to certain threats. There wasn't enough time to think. He was trained to recognize certain situations and to react in a certain way. The time it would have taken him to identify any weapon and make a judgement call would be enough time for the witness to die. The agents job was to protect the witness, period. Would you be okay telling the witness' mother he was dead and that you're sorry but the agent wanted to make sure that the gang-banger charged with shooting two marshals intended to kill the witness and not just hurt him?

It's not like it would be the first time a defendant killed someone in the courthouse.

Nichols was on trial for rape when he escaped from custody and murdered the judge presiding over his trial, a court reporter, a sheriff's deputy and later a federal agent.

Manley was shot to death the day after Father’s Day, by two Seattle police officers inside the secure foyer of the federal courthouse. In one hand, he clutched a defused fragmentation grenade.

Judge Brian McCabe was at the far end of the room when authorities said Eaton ran in waving the weapons. At that point, deputies began shooting, killing Eaton. It is not known exactly why Eaton stormed the courthouse

But when Hoskins was handed a 50-to-100-year prison term, the handcuffed man threw the podium toward the bench of Kent County Circuit Court Judge James Robert Redford and lumbered forward until court deputies dragged him from the courtroom

Someone else listed several murders with pens and/or pencils.

[pintobean]

9. Maybe he was going to

write a friendly note on the witness's hand.

[mattclearing]

12. Guess we'll never know.

[Hip_Flask]

30. I'm OK with that...

Play stupid games win stupid prizes.

[penultimate]

68. He shouldnt have been shot until after he stabbed the witness...

[840high]

106. LOL

[Boom Sound 416]

91. ...

[Logical]

58. LOL, you are making quite a impression here. nt

[Earth_First]

14. Yikes!

Discharging a firearm indoors, in an occupied courtroom.

Seems that some protocol needs to be rewritten after this event...

[ManiacJoe]

62. Change the protocols in what way?

Current ones were followed. The outcome was as good as can be expected.

[Earth_First]

67. Perhaps a less than lethal device could be deployed.

I won't pretend to know all the answers or solutions, however live fire in an open courtroom seems excessively dangerous.

To add: I am certainly not giving the benefit of the doubt to the suspect involved, I'm concerned for those who couod have potentially been injured (or worse...)

[MohRokTah]

15. Sounds like a justified action on the part of the US Marshall.

This sort o thing happens so rarely in federal court that it's shocking when it does happen, but the Marshall did his job in this case.

[JJChambers]

16. Only on DU

Will people actually suggest that a violent gang member committing a violent crime in the midst of court should get the benefit of the doubt, over the US Marshall who had to put him down to save a life. There is no doubt that our country has a problem with gun violence, but when the knee-jerk response to ANY shooting is condemnation or suspicion of the shooter, the progressive movement is being unreasonable and is actually driving the wedge deeper between our current gun control situation and reformed laws.

Applaud the Marshall for a job well done.

[Kilgore]

20. Well Done!

[exboyfil]

27. Agree totally

If he had seriously injured or even killed the witness, it would have a chilling effect on all future potential witnesses to violent gang activity. The witness was probably the most important person in that courtroom at that moment. The Marshall should be commended on doing his duty in stopping a potentially life threatening situation. The only concern would be others who could have been shot, but then that begs the question of why ever give a Marshall a gun then (or a cop or a Secret Service agent).

[Jenoch]

43. Thank you for your wise and common sense approach to this case.

[Jesus Malverde]

53. "put him down"

Are you talking about a dog?

This was a man, defendants get riled up in court all the time. I guess execution is on the table then.

Stop whining about DU...

[Jenoch]

54. When a defendant attempts to attack a witness

the attack must be stopped. Defendants do not attempt to attack witnesses "all the time".

[Jenoch]

56. Huh? Please show me exactly where I described the defendant as an 'animal'.

If you cannot show me this I will accept your apology.

[Jenoch]

61. You would be terrible in a court of law.

You play loose with the facts.

[Jesus Malverde]

63. Actually I'm surprised anyone other than the dog catcher would have replied to my comment.

You obviously did not say that and I will delete it.

Heads up, an endorsement like that is routinely used in conspiracy trials.

[Jenoch]

72. I was not really endorsing the animal comment.

However, if we had the complete background of the gangbanger on trial I would guess that calling him an animal would not be out of line.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

102. That's what defense attorneys do

I'm sure the dead guy on trial was simply a "loving family man, wrongly accused, would never hurt a fly" according to his attorney.

[Scootaloo]

79. Gunning him down is the first option?

[Jenoch]

82. In that situation, it's the fastest way to ensure that nobody is injured by the perp.

There is not really enough time to do anything else. If a perp rushes a cop and is closer than 21 feet, the cop can get a knife (or another sharp object such as a pencil) to the gut before he can draw his weapon and shoot.

[Scootaloo]

100. I'm sorry, you seem confused

I'm not asking you what the "fastest" way to deal with a situation is - since a bullet is supersonic, obviously it's going to be the fastest solution to a large number of life's challenges.



No, I'm asking you about ethical application of lethal force. Whether it is appropriate to just shoot first against someone who is armed with a ball-point pen. Yes, plowing a bullet through is body is a quick solution, but is it the right one to use as a first option.

I get the feeling that ethical thought is a foreign concept to a lot of posters here.

[Jenoch]

108. Read my post #103.

[pintobean]

112. Trial and error seems like a foolish approach.

The first error could result in the loss of life of someone who he's suppose to protect. The ethical thing to do is to stop the threat as quickly as possible. That's what he did.

[JJChambers]

85. "Ruled up.."

Way to minimize attempted murder. Apologizing for this man's behavior simply encourages others to repeat it.

[Jesus Malverde]

117. Was anyone actually injured besides the man that was murdered?..nt

[JJChambers]

119. Thanks to the Marshall, no (nt)

[Jesus Malverde]

120. So attempted murder hyperbole is just that...nt

[JJChambers]

121. Ridiculous

An attempted murder is absolute justification for deadly force.

[Jesus Malverde]

126. So a defendant who gets out of his chair and approaches the bench is now attempted murder..

I think your moral compass has gone awry.

[meanit]

132. Look, why waste the bandwidth

the defendant was a punk who grabbed a pen, (which the gunners will imply was actually a sword by the end of this thread), approached the witness, which then gave someone the legal excuse to blast a person to smithereens with a gun, again, but it really wasn't the gun after all, it was the pen, and 2A and freedom and stuff.

Why bother

[pintobean]

133. "approached the witness"

is how you characterize "he just ran up and jumped over the witness stand to attack him"

Your honor, may I approach the witness?


1A and freedom and stuff.

[meanit]

135. Well, he did "approach" the guy

but I'll put it in NRA speak:

"He lunged at the wide eyed innocent with malice on his contorted face and the deadly BicStik ball point pen in his trembling hand! But thanks to the razor sharp reactions of a freedom-loving lawman and his trusty six-shooter, he was able to stop this madman before he was able to exact his writing tool wrath!"

Hi-yo, Silver, away!!

Better?

[pintobean]

136. That's in the class

of a rejected Penthouse Forum letter.

[meanit]

137. Um, okay

?????

[flying rabbit]

88. I agree

and the real cause of death was the stupidity of the gang member.

[LittleBlue]

90. Agreed. This thread is like a right-wing parody

I'm glad the deputy shot him before he killed the witness by jamming a pen in his eye or neck.

To all those who thought he shouldn't have been shot, I wonder if you'd feel the same way if you were testifying and were seconds away from getting a pen in the brain.

[steve2470]

97. I agree

I'm all for reasonable and logical gun control, but god god almighty, 1) the defendant knew the deputy was armed (hint: they always are in courtrooms, except perhaps juvenile courtrooms); 2) the defendant used a possibly deadly instrument, so 3) the deputy used his deadly instrument to stop him. If the defendant had managed to stab the witness and possibly maim and/or kill him, there would have been a huge lawsuit against the deputy and the state. Bank on it.

Sometimes law enforcement messes up but not this time.

[840high]

107. I do applaud the Marshall.

[seveneyes]

18. Suicide by cop

And why on Earth was this violent prisoner not shackled while in the courtroom?

[JJChambers]

21. Defendants have a right to a fair trial

The courts have found that juries could be prejudiced by the sight of a defendant in shackles or restraints, in prison garb, or even by visible tattoos. That's why we allow them to be unrestrained during trial and why we pay for new clothing and tattoo concealment for defendants.

[el_bryanto]

23. According to the Salt Lake Tribune article

Defendants are usually not restrained during jury trials, on the presumption that seeing a defendant in shackles would prejudice the jury.

Which makes sense i guess.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57844841-78/courthouse-police-lake-salt.html.csp

Bryant

[Nye Bevan]

19. Better that the gang member is killed than the witness killed or injured.

Seems like an entirely justified, and necessary, shooting.

[bearssoapbox]

22. Maybe all he wanted was an autograph?

"The authorities said the group, composed mainly of Tongan men, had committed a yearslong string of robberies, assaults and carjackings around Utah, including the shooting of two deputy United States marshals in 2007.

Mr. Angilau was one of more than a dozen accused members of the gang who had been indicted in 2010 on a wide range of federal charges. His trial was the last of the lot, the authorities said."

Yeah. The nice man wanted an autograph from the witness and maybe even the judge.

[alcibiades_mystery]

25. I have more contempt for gun nut shitheads than average, I'd wager, but this action seems

legitimate.

There's no doubt that gun nut shitheads have weirdo little orgasms over events like this, largely because they're pathological assholes, but I think this was a legitimate action to save the witness from at the very least serious injury. Debates over whether you can kill with a pen are beside the point. He obviously meant the witness grave injury. It's also not clear to me that this man could have been easily restrained before he did grave injury to somebody.

As much as I puke in my mouth to ever side with gunner fuckwits on anything, in this case, the action seems legitimate.

[el_bryanto]

26. Does believing that US Marshals should have firearms make one pro-gun? nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

31. There are moments in life when it behooves one to not make sudden movements...

...when walking under a tree that contains a jaguar.
...when you're at level 30 in Jenga and it's your turn.
...when you're in a courtroom on trial for violent crimes, and you don't like something the witness said/did.

[madinmaryland]

92. LOL...

"...when you're at level 30 in Jenga and it's your turn. "

[steve2470]

99. I had to look up Jenga, good post lol nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

34. I'm anti-gun, but this sounded justified to me.

Maybe 6 shits were too many, but if a defendant in a criminal trial attempts bodily harm of a witness, his life is subject to forfeit.

[warrant46]

76. I agree !!! anyone who attempts bodily harm

Should die --- preferably shot at least 6 times

And especially anyone who attacks a policeman

[DisgustipatedinCA]

81. Your words, not mine.

I made the statement at just the level I wanted to. I don't like guns. Lots of police have abused their authority with guns, and otherwise. This is one time that the use of a gun looks perfectly justified to me.

[madville]

38. Likely saved the taxpayers

A few million by not having to incarcerate him for decades.

Could have been suicide by cop and the deceased's intention to begin with.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

47. "Likely saved the taxpayers A few million by not having to incarcerate him for decades."

Yes, imagine what we could save if most crimes were elevated to capital offenses. All it would cost us would be our freedom and our souls.

[Nye Bevan]

50. Actually no. The multiple appeals in capital cases cost much more than life imprisonment.

In this case, however, there was indeed a cost saving as there is no incarceration and no death penalty appeals. Of course I am not advocating this kind of thing as public policy, just pointing out that it is indeed correct that there is a cost saving.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. "there is no incarceration and no death penalty appeals."

It seems that is where the poster was driving at. I'll grant their post was probably ill-considered but that would be VERY ill-considered.

[Ed Suspicious]

111. Lovely. Oscar Wilde might find the spirit of your post evidence of your brutalized condition.

“As one reads history, not in the expurgated editions written for schoolboys and passmen, but in the original authorities of each time, one is absolutely sickened, not by the crimes that the wicked have committed, but by the punishments that the good have inflicted; and a community is infinitely more brutalized by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime.”

[Bonx]

39. He should have shot the pen out of his hand

[pinboy3niner]

41. That gives me an inkling of where you're coming from

[pintobean]

42. I wonder if it was a state pen.

[pinboy3niner]

44. That's where the guy who stabbed a nurse with a pencil Sunday will be heading

Guy attacked a nurse at UCLA-Harbor View Med. Ctr., stabbed her in the ear with a pencil (fortunately no serious injury acording to initial reports). Suspect was arrested.

[B2G]

40. He should have just asked him politely to

put down the sharp pointy object and sit down.

That would have fixed everything.

[Jenoch]

45. I have an older brother who recently retired from being a city police officer.

He has a new job as an armed guard in a federal courthouse. I certainly hope he never has to take the action that this U.S. Marshal did.

Until all of the facts come out, I am going to give the benefit of any doubt about the need to use deadly force in this situation to the marshal.

[maddezmom]

46. And if the marshal didn't react with force we would hear people up in arms

That they didn't do his job and let someone be attacked with a pen.

[steve2470]

104. exactly, and then the marshal and the state would be getting sued nt

[exboyfil]

114. More than that

If you are a potential witness to violent gang activity, would you be willing to testify if the last guy lost an eye or his life in open court while on the witness stand? It is an assault on the entire judicial process.

[steve2470]

115. yes you're right nt

[Jenoch]

48. What is also interesting is that the federal judge declared a mistrial.

I suppose they have to follow procedures, but the defendant is not alive to be retried.

[exboyfil]

116. The mistrial was declared before the assailant died

Which begs the question would a mistrial been declared if he had only been wounded, tackled before he reached the witness, or subdued after maiming or killing the witness. In many ways a mistrial is a win for the defense. Can you force a mistrial with your own actions? If you display this behavior once in court are your rights violated if the chains stay on in future court proceedings?

[TorchTheWitch]

52. you didn't intend for this to become a gun thread

But you're the one in your post #2 to bring up the NRA, accuse someone of being a gun lover, blame the poster for believing the shooting was justified when the article reported no detailed information, etc.

"Yeah, set the NY Times straight on how to write the news from the NRA perspective. Your headline would be perfect for a RW tabloid or Fox News. Who cares about facts or evidence? You don't know if anyone's life was actually in danger because the article provides no information on that fact. It says he "lunged." There will have to be some sort of finding of fact to determine if the shooting was justified. The facts of the case, however, don't seem to interest you nearly as much as justify the taking of a human life. I find it fascinating that you gun types feel compelled to defend the taking of every human life with a gun, all while pretending guns have absolutely nothing to do with homicide.

It did not even occur to me that posting this story would attract the pro-gun crowd. It struck we as a kind of wild west, Justified scenario, absurd more than anything."


You're the one that tried to make this into a gun thread as well as suggest that the shooting wasn't a justified action and more than once. Whining about this becoming a gun thread (which it hasn't despite your efforts) after the fact is pretty disingenuous.

[FBaggins]

127. My first thought as well

Not sure how it would be a "gun thread" apart from the OP's own energy around the issue.

The debate over gun control laws and/or self defense rights (etc) rarely (if ever) has anything to do with whether or not US Marshalls should be armed.

Whether the deputy acted properly or not is irrelevant to gun-control debates.

[BainsBane]

139. I would have thought so too

except for the fact the gungeon turned up to justify the killing and rewrite the headline from an NRA perspective. You clearly aren't familiar with the regulars or their linguistic tropes for minimizing human life.

[BainsBane]

138. Wrong

You clearly don't understand what you are reading, or who you are responding to. I've participated in many gun threads, and I know who the die hard pro-gun posters are. You obviously don't know the characters or the language they use to justify gun proliferation, particularly when used against people of color.


"Tried to make it a gun thread by suggesting the shooting wasn't a justified action." What I objected to was immediately declaring the killing justified, as well as the racial language intended to minimize his life. You may think the default position is that the taking of a human life is justified. No law enforcement agency takes that position. They all conduct inquiries to establish if the shooting was necessary. You want to assume the default position based on an absence of evidence is that taking a human life is justified. My default position is we need more information. I do not think killing is something to be taken lightly, or that the default position is to assume killing--any killing--is acceptable.

What is particularly astounding is that you think the mere fact someone doesn't assume a killing is justified makes this a gun thread or renders the thread or me somehow illegitimate. Would that apply to the killing of someone in your family, or just a lowly "gangabanger," who had not actually been convicted?

So yeah, you can put me firmly in the opposition to killing camp, and by all means, if you find that objectionable, that really is your problem.

[oneshooter]

140. What would you have done in the same situation? n/t

[BainsBane]

141. I don't know enough about the situation to say

That is the point. The article is sparse on details. Clearly I would not have shot the person, since I am not an armed Deputy US Marshal. Even those private citizens who do own guns cannot lawfully carry them into a courthouse.

Are you asking what I would do if I were a gun totting vigilante who violated the law by smuggling a weapon into a court house in order to look for opportunities to shoot "gangbangers"?

[oneshooter]

142. What would you do if YOU were that Marshal.

Remember you have less than 5 seconds to act.

[BainsBane]

144. How can I possibly say that?

I don't have his training, nor do I know the circumstances in that courtroom. I don't know if the defendant was shackled (the article wasn't entirely clear on that), how close he was to the witness, or how close innocent bystanders were to the defendant. Nor is there enough information in this article to get a sense of that. I do know that killing should be a last resort rather than a first. Anyone who treats it in any other way is a murderer and unfit to be in law enforcement. As much as I like Justified as a TV show, if Raylan were a real Marshal, he'd belong in prison. In general, I think it highly unlikely that my immediate response would be to kill a man with a pen, but then I would never work in law enforcement.

I know where this conversation is going, and I'm not participating further. I've seen it all a million times before.

[dilby]

57. Didn't read about any witnesses saying it was not justified.

And there were a lot of witnesses.

[quadrature]

60. was the defendant in custody? ...nt

[LadyHawkAZ]

65. That's what happens when you build a Borg Cube

and park a courthouse in it.

[Owl]

75. Wow, ugly building.

[LadyHawkAZ]

89. A friend suggested that it would benefit the building and the entire city

if we climbed up with some paint and made it into a Rubik's Cube.

They tore down an old, popular bar/social club to build the Borg Cube. We're still pissed.

[Aerows]

134. What an eyesore

Who thought that was an attractive design???

[agbdf]

70. The taxpayers were saved of some of there money

and society might have been done a favor for such a brazen criminal who would even attack someone in court. It's hard to feel sympathy for this person.

[Vashta Nerada]

71. The marshall opened gunfire on a guy in a packed courtroom?

He/she needs to lose his/her job and serve prison time for endangering the public!

[ManiacJoe]

77. You forgot the sarcasm tag, right?

[Vashta Nerada]

83. Absolutely not.

[JJChambers]

124. The Marshall should have stood by and let the suspect stab the witness to death

Wouldn't want to endanger the public by shooting the bad guy; why, someone could get hurt!

[Vashta Nerada]

125. Yeah, that's what I said.

[MannyGoldstein]

80. While this death is nothing to celebrate

It's not clear to me that the deputy had a better alternative.

[nomorenomore08]

118. +1

[Niceguy1]

84. after readng better articles than this one

I think it was entirely justified.

[treestar]

86. Awful but that's why they have guns

In case something violent happens.

I remember being in Family Court and hearing rumbling from the room upstairs. It was scary. Family Court is the scariest court.

[uppityperson]

110. Headline lured me in, story makes me roll my eyes.

[magical thyme]

122. Justified, imo, but I agree with Earth First that they need better protocols

People can, and do, kill with their bare hands. Pen, pencil can be lethal, but just hands around the neck or a "lucky" punch can kill somebody.

A known killer with a history of violence lunges aggressively toward a person who is at that moment giving testimony that could put him away for life.

Yeah, I don't think that waiting to see if he was asking for an autograph would have been appropriate in any way.

But shooting in a courtroom filled with observers. Yikes, indeed.

[mmonk]

123. They must not have any tasers.

[oneofthe99]

143. lol

Edit: This is not intended as a fucking gun thread. If people insist on turning it into one, that is not my doing