shooting two blocks from where i was working man claimed self defense

[BluesStringer]

Defensive deadly force? First time I have heard that term. So you say he was blinded by pepper spray and his breathing was impaired, it sure didn't look that way in the video when he was running full speed, weapon out while shooting.

You saw him "running full speed, weapon out while shooting" at the end of the video, which was not time-accurate as several splices can be seen before that point in the video. We have no idea how much time has passed between being sprayed initially and coming out from behind the shelves two aisles over from where they both disappeared from camera-view. And actually, you didn't see Benn shooting at all. The reporter said they stopped the tape before Benn shot Colorado. Benn says he was already shot at that time, which is supported by the counter-help seen ducking for cover behind the counter before Benn even exits the aisle.

So what your saying is if a guy splashes shampoo in my eyes while standing in line than I can use defensive deadly force because I was blinded?

Uh....yeah.....that's the extent of what happened, right? Colorado approached Benn from behind, sprayed him once, Benn moved away, Colorado advanced, sprayed him twice more, Benn tried to separate himself from Colorado by putting an aisle between them, Colorado pursued down the next aisle threatening him saying "I got more for you, where you at bro?" (or something very close to that), and when they both exited out of the aisle two rows over from the last position we saw Benn in, the cashier or pharmacist was already hugging the Earth, Benn says he was already shot, and only in that split second does the camera show him raising his weapon.

So if all that happened after someone splashed shampoo in your eyes while standing in (or out) of line, you're damn skippy, Skippy, you can then use defensive deadly force in any state in the Union where the cops and prosecutors don't try to railroad someone for trying to save their own life with a gun, or for being black, or just for sh!ts and giggles, I don't know, there is no tellin' what motivates cops and prosecutors these days.

I need you as my lawyer.

Hey, I haven't called you or anyone else names. Why are you calling me a stinkin' lawyer? Even if I were one, I'd never take an ex-cop for a client. Colorado clearly shows what kind of human debris they can be. I do have standards.

And surprise surprise. Here you are looking for an excuse to find the cops and prosecutors free from any wrong-doing after they tried to railroad a guy who fired his weapon in justifiable self defense, and say they're going to re-try him even now that the video is made public. I guess they're counting on the jury pool being just like you and ignoring most of the evidence the tape shows, and then boiling it down to some kind of "accidental" blinding and then BOOM! Benn shoots the guy that "splashed" pepper spray on him.....three times.....then pursued him while threatening him....then shot him. Hopefully, the second jury won't be that freakin' stupid.

Blues

 

[walknotinfear]

Bluesstringer,

Bottom line is both of these idiots were in the wrong. And I am sorry, I don't agree with you, you said the video doesn't show him firing, we'll I can clearly see the skinny guy running away and the other guy running after him. So that portion of the tape clearly shows the dark colored fellow chasing the now dead guy. I just don't see how that is justifiable use of force. If the threat is running away from you than the threat is either running away or no longer immediate. So this dumb as- runs after the guy and this some how is supposed to deescalate the encounter? Clearly if you think you are in the right by using deadly force but than you charge full speed at another guy, this guy is running away, it would seem to me that the guy doing the chasing is now the aggressor. I am sorry, I think this guy needs to be in jail for being a complete idiot, but to bad there is no crime for being an idiot. I hope and pray that the state retry's the case.

 

[BluesStringer]

Bluesstringer,

Bottom line is both of these idiots were in the wrong. And I am sorry, I don't agree with you, you said the video doesn't show him firing, we'll I can clearly see the skinny guy running away and the other guy running after him. So that portion of the tape clearly shows the dark colored fellow chasing the now dead guy.

What the??? You can "clearly see" what? The video doesn't show Benn firing. If you don't believe me then take it up with the news station whose reporter said they stopped the tape before Benn fired. You should be sorry for challenging me on that score, because I actually listened to the report and you quite obviously didn't!

I just don't see how that is justifiable use of force. If the threat is running away from you than the threat is either running away or no longer immediate. So this dumb as- runs after the guy and this some how is supposed to deescalate the encounter?

First, cite the law that says it's up to the person who's already been shot to deescalate the situation.

Second, for all we know, Benn may have thought he was running away. His vision was impaired and he'd been shot. Is it so far-fetched to believe that he wasn't disoriented or unaware of actually being behind Colorado at that point in light of those two facts? Regardless, even if "second" doesn't apply, "first" does. You can criticize his tactics for running towards the threat, but you can't say he didn't have a legal justification for firing after he'd already been shot. Well, I suppose an ex-cop who just sees a "dark colored fellow" preparing to shoot at a now-dead ex-cop might say that, but it has no credibility as a legal analysis.

Clearly if you think you are in the right by using deadly force but than you charge full speed at another guy, this guy is running away, it would seem to me that the guy doing the chasing is now the aggressor.

As he's being shot, before he has fired a shot himself, Benn is the aggressor. Got it.

I am sorry, I think this guy needs to be in jail for being a complete idiot, but to bad there is no crime for being an idiot. I hope and pray that the state retry's the case.

This is some amazing stuff right here. You say Benn "needs" to be in jail for violating no law, which you acknowledge, and then hope and pray the state retries him without citing the law that says that a man who just got shot has any legal obligation whatsoever to deescalate the situation.

If I trusted you to evaluate the situation honestly, I'd ask how you'd feel about Benn being dead and the whack-job ex-cop Colorado only being wounded after assaulting Benn three times with pepper spray, pursuing him through the store while spewing threats and opening fire first with a fatal shot rather than the shoulder wound Benn actually received, but I don't trust you to suss that out honestly, so nevermind. All you see is a "dark colored fellow" shoot an ex-cop. End of story. He just "splashed" a little pepper spray in the guy's eyes and the guy shot him, right? Pffft. And based on that dishonest and incomplete evaluation of the scenario, you now "hope and pray" that the state continues to railroad the "dark colored fellow." I hear ya man. Loud and clear.

Blues

 

[walknotinfear]

Let's make this real simple for you. I truly don't give a cr-p about either one of them. If they were both killed or both lived, I don't care. The problem I have with these situations is most of them are avoidable. One guy gets mad over a spot in line and opens his big mouth, one guy gets mad and for no reason pepper sprays someone for no reason other than he is a hot head, all avoidable. How hard is it for one guy to say, "I am sorry sir, I didn't know you were in line" Than the other guy says "It's ok, I wasn't really paying attention, you can cut in line" Now how hard was that? I am so sick of tired of all the hot heads like the both of those who were involved in the shooting. I am not going to get into a legal argument with you over who was in the right or not because I don't care. I just am glad no one else was hurt in the store. But I will close with this, if you cut me in line Bluesstringer, I will keep my mouth shut and just pretend like I have no care in the world. My life is precious and I am not going to fight a person over a spot in line. I didn't spend years in the military, Iraq, law
enforcement and than lose my life over a stupid spot in line. So it's simple for you and everyone else who is reading this, stay calm, keep a level head and all will be well.

 

[BluesStringer]

I am not going to get into a legal argument with you over who was in the right or not because I don't care.

That's what we're discussing though, are the legal points! Are you new to actually discussing stuff on-topic? The video supports Benn's story. Benn's story describes a legally justifiable use of deadly force. You want him in jail. It is quite obvious you don't care about the legal arguments! So what the Hell are you doing here in the "Deadly Force and The Law" sub-forum?

 

[Firefighterchen]

Let's make this real simple...

...I think this guy needs to be in jail for being a complete idiot...

...I am not going to get into a legal argument with you over who was in the right or not because I don't care....

...Spend years in...law
enforcement...

Pretty much the poster boy for police now days. Sickening.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[walknotinfear]

That's what we're discussing though, are the legal points! Are you new to actually discussing stuff on-topic? The video supports Benn's story. Benn's story describes a legally justifiable use of deadly force. You want him in jail. It is quite obvious you don't care about the legal arguments! So what the Hell are you doing here in the "Deadly Force and The Law" sub-forum?

The video only shows some of the altercation and should I note there was no audio. How do you know the defendant didn't say, " I am going to pull out my 9 and bust a cap, you f_cking honkey!" So maybe the ex cop felt his life was in danger and since he didn't see a weapon at that point so he decided to use pepper spray. Also the problem with the defendants story is he is the only one alive to speak. That legal tactic also worked great for Zimmerman. And if this was a clear case of justifiable use of force, Counsel, than the defendant would of never been charged. There was more than enough evidence and/or probable cause to charge the defendant.

 

[walknotinfear]

Ok, here we go.

Opinions, we all have them. The video clearly shows the later seconds of the altercation and none of us knows what happens when they are off camera to include the actions of the defendant. No one knows who drew their weapon first or who fired the first round so you can drop that argument because there is no video of that nor is there even a scintilla of evidence of exactly what transpired due to the lack of video of the incident.

Without audio none of us can come to a conclusion of who began the altercation but it is clear in the video that the ex cop may of been the aggressor by using pepper spray but once again none of us can prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was being said with the lack of audio. A good legal argument if I was legal counsel for the state would be that the defendant made verbal threats, that he stated he had a weapon and was going to kill him. But once again with no audio I could spin this any way I wanted to due to the fact no one knows what was said between the two involved. So with no audio who is to say exactly what was said. Maybe the defendant stated "If you don't get out of line I will pull out my 9 and bust a cap!" But no audio so this argument can go either way.

The portion of the video that I see that was an issue for me and I am sure the state used it, was the portion of the video when the ex cop was running away from a threat and the defendant was pursuing him while pointing a handgun at him (I did not say shooting). This portion of the video looks like the defendant is the aggressor and was upset because of the earlier pepper spray. But this is all up to the interpretation of each jury member. This portion of the video shows clearly a manslaughter charge (involuntary or voluntary) or assault with a deadly weapon but this is just my opinion and I am not the state prosecutor.
The state legal counsel has the burden of proof and it is there responsibility to present the case in a way that will prove to the jury that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt and it seems the state failed. But not a single attorney (ESQ) likes to lose a case and I am sure they will retry the case. Just because there was a hung jury means nothing. So the defendant will more than likely be charged again and have to go through another trial.

So the question that was thrown to me was what was my legal arguments of the limited evidence produced to me by the press. I do not have access to any of the legal briefs, any of the evidence to include the entire video, whiteness statements, etc. and it would be hard for me to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder charge or conviction was warranted. But I do feel the state had probable cause to arrest the defendant and charge him with manslaughter.

The video supports Benn's story. Benn's story describes a legally justifiable use of deadly force. The Law" sub-forum?

And you believe a defendants story, that he is telling the truth, Really? Any one in the defendants place would say anything to get out of a murder charge. You said it correct, Benn's story, it was a story alright.

The video is not entirely full nor was there audio. BlueStringer once again states that this was a clear case of justifiable use of deadly force. But there was more than enough evidence and probable cause to charge the defendant, period. Bluestringer is incorrect once again with his legal argument by stating that the limited video shows that the use of deadly force was authorized. Well I am glad you are not a lawyer because any moron can clearly see that more than half of the altercation occurred off video and the lack of audio can not show any of us what transpired that day. We only can see a portion of the altercation and no way shape or form does this video show a 100% clear case of the use of deadly force. So try again Bluesstringer, can you explain to the court how this partial video with no audio clearly shows that the use of deadly force was warranted, and keep in mind that there is not even a scintilla of evidance on the partial video or any audio evidence on who produced a weapon first or who fired first. Your up sir Bluesstringer.




"Never stop training"

http://youtu.be/5bBeihH1mZc

 

[BluesStringer]

<snipped>

Man, I've never seen as big a wall of drivel and conjecture in my life!

While you have to look pretty hard for it, there is a lot more real information available on the event, including the unedited video up to the same point that the edited version stops at. You're just flat out wrong that "more than half of the altercation occurred off video." I'd post it in reply to this wall of drivel, but the wall proves that you have no interest in the truth.

One might wonder why the white woman who had her back turned to the argument and subsequent pepper spraying for at least 90% of the initial confrontation was the only witness who testified at trial, but the black lady behind the counter, who was facing the two men the whole time, didn't testify.

There is clear and irrefutable proof that the cops lied to the press about the sequence of events to make Benn appear as the aggressor, absent the video of course.

Those are just a couple of facts one could find if they looked.

Pay no attention to the man behind the wall of conjecture. He doesn't care about the truth, doesn't care if a man using justifiable deadly force gets sent to prison, doesn't care if the law is followed or not, just throw that "dark colored fellow" in prison and fuggettaboudit. Imbelievable!

Blues

 

[BluesStringer]

I'm sorry, I can't let this Freudian slip go without comment:

I do not have access to any of the legal briefs, any of the evidence to include the entire video, whiteness statements, etc.

Believe me, all we've heard from you is whiteness statements!

 

[walknotinfear]

Those are just a couple of facts one could find if they looked.

While you have to look pretty hard for it, there is a lot more real information available on the event, including the unedited video up to the same point that the edited version stops at. You're just flat out wrong that "more than half of the altercation occurred off video." I'd post it in reply to this wall of drivel, but the wall proves that you have no interest in the truth.

Pay no attention to the man behind the wall of conjecture. He doesn't care about the truth, doesn't care if a man using justifiable deadly force gets sent to prison, doesn't care if the law is followed or not, just throw that "dark colored fellow" in prison and fuggettaboudit. Imbelievable!

There is clear and irrefutable proof that the cops lied to the press about the sequence of events to make Benn appear as the aggressor, absent the video of course.

Blues

OK counselor (Bluesstringer); I am supposed to spend hours looking for evidence on the internet that may or may not exist and if it did wouldn't hold water because it would be considered hear say in this court room (forum) today. My opinions were based on the video that was posted on this open forum and that is all the evidence I have viewed.

Counselor, what whiteness statements are you referring to? If you have the so called whiteness statements (Bluesstringer) counselor could you kindly produce them as exhibits to the court (forum) here today so I could review them? Also it seems you have the entire unedited video in your possession or somehow you have viewed it . This is notice that I ask for this video as part of discovery for this forum arguments and present it as evidence so as I can view it(I doubt you have it).

Counselor, you stated that you have clear and irrefutable proof that the law enforcement committed perjury. Well if that was true than why were the police officers or detectives not charged and arrested for perjury? So now you are leading this court (forum) to believe that you have in your possession the entire unedited video or have viewed it in its entirety, that you heard or read the transcript of the court hearing of the one whiteness, that you have clear and irrefutable proof that law enforcement officers lied and committed perjury in court and then you still stand by your conclusion that this incident was 100 % a clear case of the use of deadly force. Counselor you have not provided any evidence to prove your arguments and we are all waiting.

My last post I did not make any judgments or conclusions with the little evidence that I saw on the video that was posted on this forum. I stated what my opinions were and I only spoke about the little portions of the video that I saw on this forum. But you counselor (Bluesstringer), you fabricate evidence, make us believe that you have viewed the unedited video, read the entire court transcripts, have evidence that law enforcement officers committed perjury and lied on reports and then you try to lead us all think your argument stands up. Now I question your candor counselor and I charge you with perjury. Please try again.


All I want from you at this point is for you to go on the record and state that this case, from the evidence that we have all seen on this forum, that the use of deadly force was not clear or 100%. I can honestly say that the evidence that was seen by us all on this forum does not prove 100% either way and I am man enough to say that. Now it is your turn Mr. Bluesstringer I ask you this, "With the evidence that was presented on this open forum, do you still believe that this was an occasion that the defendant was clearly legally permitted to use deadly force and if you do can you please provide your reasons as why you came to this conclusion and base this with evidence, real evidence."

If you do have the web site that has the full video, please give it to all of us, I would love to see it in its entirety.


Did you even read my last post in its entirety Bluesstringer? Do you have an actual intellectual interpretation or feed back on my opinions or are you just going to continue to spill 'poop' from your mouth. Here it is again and try reading it this time.

Ok, here we go.

Opinions, we all have them. The video clearly shows the later seconds of the altercation and none of us knows what happens when they are off camera to include the actions of the defendant. No one knows who drew their weapon first or who fired the first round so you can drop that argument because there is no video of that nor is there even a scintilla of evidence of exactly what transpired due to the lack of video of the incident.

Without audio none of us can come to a conclusion of who began the altercation but it is clear in the video that the ex cop may of been the aggressor by using pepper spray but once again none of us can prove beyond a reasonable doubt what was being said with the lack of audio. A good legal argument if I was legal counsel for the state would be that the defendant made verbal threats, that he stated he had a weapon and was going to kill him. But once again with no audio I could spin this any way I wanted to due to the fact no one knows what was said between the two involved. So with no audio who is to say exactly what was said. Maybe the defendant stated "If you don't get out of line I will pull out my 9 and bust a cap!" But no audio so this argument can go either way.

The portion of the video that I see that was an issue for me and I am sure the state used it, was the portion of the video when the ex cop was running away from a threat and the defendant was pursuing him while pointing a handgun at him (I did not say shooting). This portion of the video looks like the defendant is the aggressor and was upset because of the earlier pepper spray. But this is all up to the interpretation of each jury member. This portion of the video shows clearly a manslaughter charge (involuntary or voluntary) or assault with a deadly weapon but this is just my opinion and I am not the state prosecutor.
The state legal counsel has the burden of proof and it is there responsibility to present the case in a way that will prove to the jury that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt and it seems the state failed. But not a single attorney (ESQ) likes to lose a case and I am sure they will retry the case. Just because there was a hung jury means nothing. So the defendant will more than likely be charged again and have to go through another trial.

So the question that was thrown to me was what was my legal arguments of the limited evidence produced to me by the press. I do not have access to any of the legal briefs, any of the evidence to include the entire video, whiteness statements, etc. and it would be hard for me to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder charge or conviction was warranted. But I do feel the state had probable cause to arrest the defendant and charge him with manslaughter.







And you believe a defendants story, that he is telling the truth, Really? Any one in the defendants place would say anything to get out of a murder charge. You said it correct, Benn's story, it was a story alright.

The video is not entirely full nor was there audio. BlueStringer once again states that this was a clear case of justifiable use of deadly force. But there was more than enough evidence and probable cause to charge the defendant, period. Bluestringer is incorrect once again with his legal argument by stating that the limited video shows that the use of deadly force was authorized. Well I am glad you are not a lawyer because any moron can clearly see that more than half of the altercation occurred off video and the lack of audio can not show any of us what transpired that day. We only can see a portion of the altercation and no way shape or form does this video show a 100% clear case of the use of deadly force. So try again Bluesstringer, can you explain to the court how this partial video with no audio clearly shows that the use of deadly force was warranted, and keep in mind that there is not even a scintilla of evidance on the partial video or any audio evidence on who produced a weapon first or who fired first. Your up sir Bluesstringer.




"Never stop training"

http://youtu.be/5bBeihH1mZc

 

[walknotinfear]

I'm sorry, I can't let this Freudian slip go without comment:



Believe me, all we've heard from you is whiteness statements!

And all I have read from your replies are lies or your so called assumptions based only on your opinions and than you base all your opinions on facts that you either make up in your head or you fabricate them to make your self feel better. Than you base your conclusions on what you have seen on the news or read on the internet, really? You truly need to take your time before you make a comment like this. I never stated untruths about this subject and what is the above statement actually supposed to mean? If I had to interpret the above statement; you are calling me out again? Please explain any further idiotic comments with your reason before you shot from your mouth because I sure would appreciate it.

 

[recithree]

update:
Charges dropped against man accused in fatal Norfolk Rite-Aid shooting | WTKR.com

Norfolk, Va. – Charges against Bernell Benn, the man accused of killing another man inside a Norfolk Rite-Aid in 2012, were dropped in court on Wednesday.

Benn was originally charged with second-degree murder, but that charge was reduced to voluntary manslaughter in 2013. He was also charged with discharging a firearm in a public building.

The Norfolk Commonwealth’s Attorney’s statement said they decided to drop the charges after two jury trials held in the case ended in mistrials.

In each trial, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Both juries indicated that the majority of jurors wanted to convict, but a unanimous decision is required.

The Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office decided that a third trial would likely not produce a different outcome.

 

[BluesStringer]

update:
Charges dropped against man accused in fatal Norfolk Rite-Aid shooting | WTKR.com

Norfolk, Va. – Charges against Bernell Benn, the man accused of killing another man inside a Norfolk Rite-Aid in 2012, were dropped in court on Wednesday.

Benn was originally charged with second-degree murder, but that charge was reduced to voluntary manslaughter in 2013. He was also charged with discharging a firearm in a public building.

The Norfolk Commonwealth’s Attorney’s statement said they decided to drop the charges after two jury trials held in the case ended in mistrials.

In each trial, the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Both juries indicated that the majority of jurors wanted to convict, but a unanimous decision is required.

The Commonwealth’s Attorney’s office decided that a third trial would likely not produce a different outcome.

Well, that's good, but the guy should've never gone through one trial, much less two. It's scary to think that two juries had a majority voting him guilty of something. The full video totally exonerated him as far as I'm concerned. Wonder how much his defense cost him? He's probably ruined for life now anyway, just not put away for life like they wanted to railroad him into.

Thanks for the update. Not exactly what I'd call "justice," but at least Mr. Benn may be getting close to some semblance of closure.

Blues

 

[ZackAttack071309]

Gezz, people are killing each other over spots in line and it isn't even black friday