Utah makes me laugh

[StrobeNGH]

I've been watching the Sapp brothers case, and saw Roger get sentenced to 15 years to life this week.

Roger was painted as a homeless person who was stealing a pack of gum, and shot the security guard while he was escorting him out of the store.
Not true.

Roger was being a pill b/c the line he was in closed. He dropped the gum and went to get his bike and leave. As he was getting his bike and HEADING TO THE DOOR, the security guard came after him, grabbed him from behind and slammed him into the ground, bouncing Roger's head off the ground.
Roger then said that he saw the guard reach for his belt, which is when he shot him.

The security video clearly shows that Roger was on his way out the door, un-escorted, when the guard attacked him from behind.

For shooting the guard, Roger got 15 to life.

In Roger's testimony he said that he was trying to brandish the weapon and scare the guard off, and the gun accidentally went off . . . I don't think he's guilty of 1st degree murder because there was absolutely NO premeditation, but I think that 2nd degree manslaughter (imperfect self defense) would have been appropriate after Roger's testimony.


Contrast that with what happened earlier this year at Mama's Southern Plantation restaurant:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=3722062
Off-duty security guard shot a man who was acting weird when the man allegedly lifted his shirt and reached inside.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,700247649,00.html

The DA's office cleared the shooter, saying that although the victim was not armed, and made no direct threats towards anyone, his movements were suspicious enough to justify the shooter's actions, and fear of danger.


I think it is just fantastic that we convict a person of 1st degree murder who was leaving ON HIS OWN and got attacked by the security guard FROM BEHIND, and ended up shooting his attacker (again, the video is clear about these facts), yet we refuse to even bring charges against a person who shoots a supposedly crazy person who lifts his shirt, and is unarmed.

I'm not saying that Roger shouldn't have been charged, nor am I saying that the shooter at Mama's Southern Plantation should have been charged . . .
What I am saying is that there is a serious double standard in our community.

In the Sapp brothers case, you had a "crazy" "homeless" person (he was neither of those) shoot a security guard (the closest you can get to being a cop) who had attacked him.
In the Mama's Southern Plantation case, a security guard shot a "crazy" "homeless" person (he was neither of those) who was unarmed and didn't appear to make any overt threats . . . he only lifted his shirt.

The moral of the story, I guess, is that if you are "crazy" and "homeless" do not act crazy, and if someone attacks you, take your beating!
But if you are a security guard, go nuts, we've got your back.

 

[cannoncrawler]

It goes with out saying that the law, and whats right, well those two parted ways long ago!

 

[Cody]

it's amazine how much differently they painted that scenerio in the media.

People like to pile on without knowing the facts. I call it the George W. Bush effect lol.

 

[StrobeNGH]

it's amazine how much differently they painted that scenerio in the media.

People like to pile on without knowing the facts. I call it the George W. Bush effect lol.

At Roger's sentencing, Ninevah Dumba** from channel 13 said that Roger had stolen a pack of gum, was being escorted out by the guard, when Roger shot the guard, "totally unprovoked."

FANTASTIC "accurate" news coverage. You can tell she really did her homework on that one.


And it's not the George W. Bush effect, it's the "politician" effect. That is why I hate politics. Both sides pull this crap. McCain takes Obama out of context, and Obama takes McCain out of context.

The public is just too stupid and lazy to sort out the truth, remember it, and call the BS that politicians throw out there.

The media has picked up on this, and taken the politician's approach as their own. Why do a thorough, well researched, and accurate story when NO ONE will call you on your wild inaccuracies?

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...In the Mama's Southern Plantation case, a security guard shot a "crazy" "homeless" person (he was neither of those) who was unarmed and didn't appear to make any overt threats . . . he only lifted his shirt...

You on the payroll for the homeless defense fund I honestly can't beleive you are comparing the two situations, the proverbial apples and oranges comes to mind but seriously, what do they have in common?

The Mama's Plantation gentleman was screaming "I'm going to kill you" not only affirmed by the shooter and his party, but non-affiliated neighbors too. When a stranger approaches your group, begins making threats and then appears to reach for something under his shirt... its on. Shoot or be shot. If you have time to see a weapon in his hands, its too late, he's killing spree could already have begun. Don't liberalize the situation

Sapp Brothers: Glad he's being charged as such. He is a trespasser, was asked to leave and refused. He shouldn't have had a gun and being apprehended doesn't warrant death. Your saying every crook that is being chased by an officer or security guard has some implicit right to defend themselves from apprehension? Blasphemy. Your thinking is exactly what has lead to the moral decay of our society. He was being escorted out of the store and he felt it was worth a mans life. You don't brandish a gun to scare someone, he knew what he was doing when he pulled the weapon. Glad his testimony was polished up a bit by his defense (you help write it ), because at the scene of the crime he was heard saying things like "He deserved it," and "So what?".

Here is a bright idea, don't want to get shot or feel forced to criminally shoot someone. DON'T THREATEN TO KILL PEOPLE LIKE A MADMAN IN FRONT OF A PUBLIC DINER or WHEN ASKED TO LEAVE A PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT, DO JUST THAT.

Now I know I am over rationalizing both situations, but someone had to be the polar opposite of your account

 

[cruiseroutfit]

it's amazine how much differently they painted that scenerio in the media...

So do tell, where did you get your facts if not from one form of the media? Seems the accounts were pretty consistent to me. Early reports did detail it as a stolen pack of gum, and thats because patrons in the store beleive that to be the case.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...The public is just too stupid and lazy to sort out the truth, remember it, and call the BS that politicians throw out there...

Sorry but the irony of anyone in the legal profession making this statement is worth a laugh Truth, there is alot of that in your field of work LOL. If its not one side full of ****, its the other. I trust your on the good side

 

[StrobeNGH]

You on the payroll for the homeless defense fund
Let's see, I work for the legal defenders office, so yes
I honestly can't beleive you are comparing the two situations, the proverbial apples and oranges comes to mind but seriously, what do they have in common?
What do they have in common?
One person was actually assaulted, responded with deadly force, and is serving 15 to life.
The other person was apparently threatened, accompanied with a threatening display, responded with deadly force, and was cleared.

The Mama's Plantation gentleman was screaming "I'm going to kill you" not only affirmed by the shooter and his party, but non-affiliated neighbors too. When a stranger approaches your group, begins making threats and then appears to reach for something under his shirt... its on. Shoot or be shot. If you have time to see a weapon in his hands, its too late, he's killing spree could already have begun. Don't liberalize the situation
ABSOLUTELY correct! So why then is it not okay for someone to respond with deadly force when they were just assaulted, and claim to have seen the other person "reaching for something on his gun belt"?

Sapp Brothers: Glad he's being charged as such. He is a trespasser, 100% incorrect, he was a regular customer who had just bought breakfast and wanted a pack of gum before work
was asked to leave and refused
again, 100% incorrect. He WAS asked to leave, and HE WAS LEAVING when the guard attacked him.
. He shouldn't have had a gun and being apprehended doesn't warrant death. Your saying every crook that is being chased by an officer or security guard has some implicit right to defend themselves from apprehension? Blasphemy.
No I am not, but he wasn't being chased either. He was leaving, un-escorted, when he was attacked from behind, with no warning or provocation.
Your thinking is exactly what has lead to the moral decay of our society. So is your face. But seriously, moral decay? Come on man.
He was being escorted out of the store and he felt it was worth a mans life. You don't brandish a gun to scare someone, he knew what he was doing when he pulled the weapon.
That part is true. He shouldn't have brandished the gun, which is why I said that I would have understood 2nd degree murder. And no, there was no "polishing" of his testimony. Believe me, a good attorney who was coaching testimony could have come up with a better story than that. What he said was simply the truth, for better or worse.
Glad his testimony was polished up a bit by his defense (you help write it ), because at the scene of the crime he was heard saying things like "He deserved it," and "So what?".
True, but he had a concussion, and had just had his ass kicked by the cops. Forgive him for being curt.

Here is a bright idea, don't want to get shot or feel forced to criminally shoot someone. DON'T THREATEN TO KILL PEOPLE LIKE A MADMAN IN FRONT OF A PUBLIC DINER or WHEN ASKED TO LEAVE A PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT, DO JUST THAT.

Now I know I am over rationalizing both situations, but someone had to be the polar opposite of your account

Where did you get the info from on the Southern Plantation shooting? If it's accurate, it would certainly justify the DA's decision.
But like I said, I wasn't trying to say he should have been charged, just that it's an interesting comparison.

As for the SAPP brothers case:
He was NOT being escorted from the store. Period.
The video is very clear about that. Roger was walking towards the exit, while the guard was behind the counter (the gum was also on the counter).

Next, you see Roger getting his bike and walking out the door, when the guard appears in the frame, grabs Roger, and body slams him to the ground, bouncing Roger's head off the pavement.


So, you're leaving a store, when someone grabs you and bounces your head off the concrete floor. Do you wait to see who was grabbing you, why he was grabbing you, and if he was armed, or do you respond?

I quote from a great man on this one:
"When a stranger approaches your group, begins making threats and then appears to reach for something under his shirt... its on. Shoot or be shot. If you have time to see a weapon in his hands, its too late, he's killing spree could already have begun. Don't liberalize the situation "

And Roger was not a restricted person. He didn't have a permit, but he was okay to own and possess firearms.

I see your point about the restaurant shooting, and really agree that he shouldn't have been charged.
But I think the Sapp brothers case was BS, especially when there is a video of Roger being assaulted BEFORE he shot the guy.

The point of the post is the irony that one case is so vigorously prosecuted as 1st degree murder when there was NO premeditation, and the guy was clearly attacked, while the other is dismissed out of hand.

And why do you have to be the polar opposite of my account?
It hurts my feelings.

 

[StrobeNGH]

So do tell, where did you get your facts if not from one form of the media? Seems the accounts were pretty consistent to me. Early reports did detail it as a stolen pack of gum, and thats because patrons in the store beleive that to be the case.

The only people who alleged that a pack of gum was stolen was the media.

No witness ever testified that Roger stole a pack of gum.

 

[Bart]

Here is a bright idea, don't want to get shot or feel forced to criminally shoot someone. DON'T THREATEN TO KILL PEOPLE LIKE A MADMAN IN FRONT OF A PUBLIC DINER or WHEN ASKED TO LEAVE A PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENT, DO JUST THAT.

Now I know I am over rationalizing both situations, but someone had to be the polar opposite of your account

Thanks Kurt, I was thinking I was the only one feeling this way.

 

[StrobeNGH]

Sorry but the irony of anyone in the legal profession making this statement is worth a laugh Truth, there is alot of that in your field of work LOL. If its not one side full of ****, its the other. I trust your on the good side

So is what I said true or not?

There is a lot of clouding of issues in my line of work, because we are well aware of how fickle and narrow-minded the public is.

I spend my day protecting people's constitutional rights. I too trust that I'm on the good side.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

...So, you're leaving a store, when someone grabs you and bounces your head off the concrete floor. Do you wait to see who was grabbing you, why he was grabbing you, and if he was armed, or do you respond?...

Don't confuse the situation. Roger had not only been into the store many times before (often being rude and belligerent according to witnesses and patrons), but HE HAD JUST BEEN ASKED TO LEAVE by the security guard inside of the store, affirmed by himself and the cashier. Granted it wasn't a textbook "escort" and should have warranted investigation, but it did not warrant the killing of a man. After re-reading your OP I guess you though the same?

...I quote from a great man on this one:
"When a stranger approaches your group, begins making threats and then appears to reach for something under his shirt... its on. Shoot or be shot. If you have time to see a weapon in his hands, its too late, he's killing spree could already have begun. Don't liberalize the situation "

Ah the lawyer in you working the irony card. Roger knew the security guard, he was well marked and UNARMED, he was asked to leave the store by the security guard and chose to kill him somewhere thereafter.

...And Roger was not a restricted person. He didn't have a permit, but he was okay to own and possess firearms...

Oh, so I guess that makes carrying a concealed weapon with out proper training and a permit OK then LOL.

I didn't say he was a restricted person, I said "He shouldn't have had a gun" and I think will both agree that by carrying a concealed weapong he was breaking the law. What am I missing here?

...And why do you have to be the polar opposite of my account?
It hurts my feelings.

Nothing personal, you rightfully knew you were posting a thread on a subject likely to inspire debate and contention. I was caught, hook, line, sinker. Its absolutely nothing personal, just good old debate

 

[cruiseroutfit]

The only people who alleged that a pack of gum was stolen was the media.

No witness ever testified that Roger stole a pack of gum.

I didn't say they testified to the fact, I said early reports indicated he might have been stealing a pack of gum and that is exactly what happened. If Ninevah was still relishing on this false account long after the situation unfolded, her bad.

Quote from Des News immediately following the incident "One rumor circulating in the crowd was that the confrontation began when the suspect tried to steal a pack of gum."

 

[Cody]

So do tell, where did you get your facts if not from one form of the media? Seems the accounts were pretty consistent to me. Early reports did detail it as a stolen pack of gum, and thats because patrons in the store beleive that to be the case.

I never said I had any facts. I only said that the media tends to distort things and the story the media painted and the story that was just told are very different. My guess is that the reality is somewhere in the middle.

The guy deserves jail, because he took a life that wasn't necessary to take, and he was carrying a weapon he shouldn't have been carrying. it's not my job to decide the severity of the punishment and I have at least some faith in the judicial process and still hold the belief that the judges are not only better trained, but in a better position to hear the story and decide on the level of punishment..

 

[Amy]

This thread makes me want to watch Minority Report.

 

[cruiseroutfit]

This thread makes me want to watch Minority Report.

Agreed, a very good show.

 

[offroaddave]

you on the payroll for the homeless defense fund I honestly can't beleive you are comparing the two situations, the proverbial apples and oranges comes to mind but seriously, what do they have in common?

The mama's plantation gentleman was screaming "i'm going to kill you" not only affirmed by the shooter and his party, but non-affiliated neighbors too. When a stranger approaches your group, begins making threats and then appears to reach for something under his shirt... Its on. Shoot or be shot. If you have time to see a weapon in his hands, its too late, he's killing spree could already have begun. Don't liberalize the situation

sapp brothers: Glad he's being charged as such. He is a trespasser, was asked to leave and refused. He shouldn't have had a gun and being apprehended doesn't warrant death. your saying every crook that is being chased by an officer or security guard has some implicit right to defend themselves from apprehension? Blasphemy. your thinking is exactly what has lead to the moral decay of our society. He was being escorted out of the store and he felt it was worth a mans life. You don't brandish a gun to scare someone, he knew what he was doing when he pulled the weapon. Glad his testimony was polished up a bit by his defense (you help write it ), because at the scene of the crime he was heard saying things like "he deserved it," and "so what?".

Here is a bright idea, don't want to get shot or feel forced to criminally shoot someone. Don't threaten to kill people like a madman in front of a public diner or when asked to leave a private establishment, do just that.

Now i know i am over rationalizing both situations, but someone had to be the polar opposite of your account

amen!