Wrong! It is a false and adopted narrative. Nothing more than that.nope its a fact, plain and simple, sorry this fact bothers you, its the country prosecutor and it has nothign to do with the family.
please support your following lie
the country prosecutor is biased
the country prosecutor is basing the investigation fact from the family and not evidence.
we would love to see the proof of these posted lies
1.)J, this post just displays why I don't generally try to discuss anything with you...
2.) I made the distinction of "polite knock" and "open handed banging" to show in words that the two are completely different in the way they sound inside a house to people....
3.) Now, the homeowner says 'banging', and the prosecutor tries
4.) as probably 10 out of 10 prosecutors would to insert 'knocking' in order to downplay the possible state of mind of the homeowner.
5.) But I guarantee you that at trial any lawyer representing the homeowner will make a big deal out of the difference between a 'knock' at the door at 4:30am and 'banging' at the door at 4:30am...
6.).If you can't see that, then I guess you continue and have a nice day,
7.) because we are done.
I also get the feeling that is is just time to push him and his absurdity to the wayside.J, this post just displays why I don't generally try to discuss anything with you...I made the distinction of "polite knock" and "open handed banging" to show in words that the two are completely different in the way they sound inside a house to people....Now, the homeowner says 'banging', and the prosecutor tries, as probably 10 out of 10 prosecutors would to insert 'knocking' in order to downplay the possible state of mind of the homeowner. But I guarantee you that at trial any lawyer representing the homeowner will make a big deal out of the difference between a 'knock' at the door at 4:30am and 'banging' at the door at 4:30am....If you can't see that, then I guess you continue and have a nice day, because we are done.
1.)Wow. Your thoughts are so convoluted. And so perplexing that you think you are right when you are actually wrong.
2.) It really is sad, as you are only fooling yourself if you actually believe what you say.
3.) You are wrong and are just trying to maintain an illusion in your head that you are right.
4.) Banging is not the same as knocking, legal or otherwise.
5.) And any competent attorney will demonstrate the difference in the Court to emphasize what the jury already knows... that banging is not the same as knocking.
6.) They will also point out that at oh-dark-thirty in the morning, banging can and does sound like someone could be breaking-in.
Are statements made by the suspect and not corroborated by anyone else evidence?Wow!
You are simply over the top wrong!
The evidence that has been reported is ...
He said it was banging. Period.
He said he believed someone was trying to break in. Period.
1.)Wrong! It is a false and adopted narrative. Nothing more than that.
2.) It was what the family was saying
3.) (which is contrary to the evidence)
4.) when they had no clue before the Prosecutor decided to press charges.
5.) The Prosecutor adopted i
6.) t, and it flies directly in the face of the evidence which is she was banging. Not knocking.
I also get the feeling that is is just time to push him and his absurdity to the wayside.
Are statements made by the suspect and not corroborated by anyone else evidence?
1.) not being able to back up claims is not my issue but please continue to deflect
2.) so whats a closed hand pounding? is that a knock or a banging? by itself legal and factually what does it change? nothign
while both words are accurate one is suggestive that there was something wrong being done
3.) yes thats his claim
4.) the country prosecutor
5.) now its not a down play, since theres no evidence of forcible entry its accurate and since they are educated on law and what not they use accurate veribage
would you like proof?
legal, based on the action and name alone
what is the difference between knock and banging?
5.) of course they will try to play a dishonest dramatic word game and try to paint a picture has the driver was doing something wrong when the action alone is no different legally, i agree 100%
6.) nope i see reality
ill repeat the story i just told in the other thread
banging is subjective and suggest wrong doing and emotion and i agree it will cause a reaction that will be different to everybody.
again my daughter did it (banging) one night about 3 in the morning on time, she didnt have her key, was at the neighbors house sleeping over but they wanted to leave to go to the hospital and she wanted to come home. phones didnt wake us so she knocked on the door, it was a louder knock, banging, you know since it was 3am and we were probably sleeping. It did the trick it woke me up and at no time did i think break in. WHy because thats stupid and banging on a door alone is not equal to breaking in
when she did it in the middle of the day i was frustrated and told her not to do that, theres no need but again, she did nothing wrong and i never thought break in.
the bottom line is its dramatic language and you know it
LEGALLY by itself its MEANINGLESS unless theres MORE
banging on a door and evidence of forced entry, THAT matters, banging on a door alone NOPE
heck stereo typically how do most police "knock" on a door? people say they bang on it lol
7.) you concession and inability to defend your post is noted and if thats what you choose to do that fine by me
nothing you said changes the facts list or has any legal impact at all, feel free to disagree with those to fact if you like though
and if you dont want to concede by all means simply provide proof why the two terms by themselves legally and factually matter
Are statements made by the suspect and not corroborated by anyone else evidence?
1.) Here you go, maybe you'll understand this:
2.) I don't care what you have to say
3.) I don't care what you have to say
4.) I don't care what you have to say
5.) Writing in listed points is so annoying that I am considering blocking you from my view
6.) What your reaction to your daughter was, is irrelevant, and I don't care what you have to say
7.) I don't care what you have to say....
8.)Get it? See a pattern there?
Moderator's Warning: |
That's what she said?Of course they can.
What do you think the following means?
"If you do say anything, what you say can be used against you in a court of law."
The defense can do the same with what they have said.
The defendant is a witness to what he is being charged.
There is an accused version of events, is there not? And that they are allowed to present that to the jury, are they not?
And, it is in the 911 call. It is part of the record.
And you can ignore him, as everybody knows there is a difference between knocking and banging.
I understand that.That's what she said?
Sorry...:mrgreen:
But I understand your point. Thing is, if we're talking a trial here, the lawyer would still have to convince the jury that his client was telling the truth when he described the situation.
If he takes a plea, OTOH....well, we shall see...
That's what she said?
Sorry...:mrgreen:
But I understand your point. Thing is, if we're talking a trial here, the lawyer would still have to convince the jury that his client was telling the truth when he described the situation.
If he takes a plea, OTOH....well, we shall see...
Well of course.I understand that.
I was just emphasizing that what a defendant says can be evidence.
But he really doesn't have to convince.
He can and will present it in the best light, but the prosecution is the one who has to prove their case.
Not the other way around.
Even in cases off an affirmative defense, the Prosecution still has to prove it's case.
Contrary from what you may have been told by another, the banging establishes and gives credence to his thoughts that someone was trying to break in.That's what she said?
Sorry...:mrgreen:
But I understand your point. Thing is, if we're talking a trial here, the lawyer would still have to convince the jury that his client was telling the truth when he described the situation.
If he takes a plea, OTOH....well, we shall see...
Not saying they can't, but they would have to prove he was by the evidence.Well of course.
But, obviously, the prosecution will try to say he is lying. Or it seems likely
1.)Contrary from what you may have been told by another, the banging establishes and gives credence to his thoughts that someone was trying to break in.
But in all reality, with what we know and if he was actually pointing or aiming, it doesn't matter as he has already established it as Manslaughter by saying the discharge was accidental.
An again folks, don't let the other poster confuse you.
The banging establishes and gives credence to his thoughts that someone was trying to break in.
Michigan law states:
PA 311 provides a “rebuttable presumption” in a civil or criminal case that a person who defends himself believes that criminal attack is threatened if (1) he is in a dwelling or business, or (2) the criminal is attempting to remove someone from a dwelling, business, or vehicle. This does not apply if the alleged criminal has a legal right to be in the dwelling or business, or if the person defending himself is committing a crime, or if the person entering is a law enforcement officer in the course of his duties.
Read more: Michigan's Castle Doctrine & No-Retreat Legislation Review
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook
Ok, so here is where under MI law the homeowner has the right to defend himself, and the standard he has to overcome is, 1. he is in a dwelling, and 2. if he believes he is threatened.
This is where the difference between "knock" and "bang" comes in. IMHO, and that of the people I asked last night among our group of friends down at the sport bar for MNF.....The consensus was that a "knock" is different from a "bang" however, neither constitute "forced entry", but under MI law, they don't have to. Under the scenario given, 4:30 am, dark, neighborhood involved, as well as state of mind of the girl, and appearance, this scenario is not out of the question considering an armed household.
Now functionally, as a matter of legal terminology, I am not a lawyer, so I don't know, but it would seem that the prosecutor in this case has a job to get an indictment, if the state feels they can bring a case. In order to do that the words used to describe the events of the time in question will definitely be questioned at any trial in front of a jury, with a demonstration as to the difference between a "knock", and "banging"... As one person last night put it with no prompting, "A knock would mean someone was at the door, banging means they want in.." I thought that was pretty good at establishing what the average person perceives as a knock v. bang...
Further, it is a relatively small point in the overall charge v. conviction on the charges...So I am not going to spend page after page arguing that infantesable point, but rather move on to can "Murder 2" be won, or is this the typical prosecutor overcharge in hopes that lessor charges stick? I tell ya, the more I read of the story, and knowing now MI law that I posted above, I don't even know if Manslaughter can stick if this guy has good representation, and events went down like he says they did....Keep in mind, the hurdle is what was in his mind at the time of the event, and only he knows this....So, carry on all....
Manslaughter seems like a lock with all the facts we currently know.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?