From Shatner's questions to Limbaugh and what's his face, it seems he's fairly liberal, though not overly so.

He's worse than a liberal.

He's a Canadian.

Reposted because I deserve better:

Snapper:

Also the gang members in this case tied his family up, threatened them with knives, and beat him. Not mere burglars.

He should have gotten a medal not an indictment. Once you threaten somebodies life, they have pretty wide latitude to render you no longer a threat.

My addition:

Jesus christ, someone who wouldn't stalk and kill infiltrators who had tied up their wife and kids and threatened them with knives is not a man. Damn the law on the books, there's a greater law at stake there.

1: Let's say the homeowner shot the intruder in the back as he was leaving through a window

2: Let's say the homeowner has the intruder at gunpoint, says "hand up", and the intruder actually drops whatever he has, and puts his hands up, "I surrender"- and then the homeowner shoots him

3: Let's say the homeowner has a clear path to escape and call the police, but chooses instead top confront the intruder and shoots him

Do you see prosecution of the homeowner justified in any of the three scenarios above? Do you see any difference in the three scenarios?

The homeowner deserves to be punished in the second case. The first case is more fact specific - was the burglar carrying away stuff? Did he stop when warned? In the third case, the homeowner deserves a medal.

I was browsing through the responses, and boy what a bunch of fawning sycophants Dave has as readers

There are some real gems in there.

"Does anyone fact check Joe on a regular basis, or is it possible Joe is NOT better than this?"

You stay classy, Jack Z. fanboy.

Jesus christ, someone who wouldn't stalk and kill infiltrators who had tied up their wife and kids and threatened them with knives is not a man. Damn the law on the books, there's a greater law at stake there.

I had the flu a few years ago and was reduced to watching some Gary Busey movie on cable. He was an ex-con or something, and this biker gang wound up murdering his wife. He had promised his wife to stay on the straight and narrow (or something like that), so he resisted the urge to take revenge. But then the biker gang dug up his wife, chained the coffin to the back of a bike, drove it to Busey's place, cut the chain as they sped by, and sent the coffin crashing into his house. THEN IT WAS ON.

of course when someone loses a loved one they are angry and will want vengeance- that's why you don't put family members of the victim in the jury box

Wouldn't this have been the correct answer to Bernie Shaw's obnoxious question?

what a bunch of fawning sycophants Dave has as readers

Maybe you need to update your handle.

I like vengeance.

Also; fashion.

And I'm torn between the two.

I was browsing through the responses, and boy what a bunch of fawning sycophants Dave has as readers

In fact, you could say it's a sycophant-laden forum.

That's one version
there were multiple witnesses, no two had the same version (which is pretty much how all eyewitness testimony works)

this is the version the NY Court of Appeals found the most likely:
It appears from the evidence before the Grand Jury that Canty approached Goetz, possibly with Allen beside him, and stated "Give me five dollars". Neither Canty nor any of the other youths displayed a weapon. Goetz responded by standing up, pulling out his handgun and firing four shots in rapid succession. The first shot hit Canty in the chest; the second struck Allen in the back; the third went through Ramseur's arm and into his left side; the fourth was fired at Cabey, who apparently was then standing in the corner of the car, but missed, deflecting instead off of a wall of the conductor's cab. After Goetz briefly surveyed the scene around him, he fired another shot at Cabey, who then was sitting on the end bench of the car. The bullet entered the rear of Cabey's side and severed his spinal cord.[19]

Note that this is based on grand jury testimony, not testimony at trial. In other words, it's the testimony most favorable to the prosecution.

Sure it is, it's a good outcome but a bad process. Not saying it's right, but a good is still achieved.

Reaching a guilty result through a bad process is a bad outcome. Perhaps not in the individual sense, but in the sense of the damage it does to the system. (IMO, of course.)

If OJ did kill his wife, and the cops did add to the evidence, I want a system that tries to achieve 2 goods: 1) punish OJ b/c he did it 2) punish the cops for their bad behavior, severely, to deter future "framing".

I want goal #3 as well: demonstrate to the public that we simply won't trust evidence when it is not obtained properly, to reinforce the idea that we're more focused on individual rights than on punishment.

Believe me, seeing three of their buddies getting fired and losing their pension will deter cops a lot more than a mere acquittal.

I think a good deal of the public impact is lost. The cops may care, but the end result tells people that sometimes our police cheat, and the system is okay with the results of that cheating.

Our current policy shows the public that we have a standard of evidence that is inviolate; the state doesn't get to benefit from the fruit of its own bad actors.

Once you threaten somebodies life, they have pretty wide latitude to render you no longer a threat.

What threat does someone pose when they are running away from you?

The threat to get away with your property?