The first shots were justified. Those last few are probably gonna get him in
trouble. Unless the autopsy proves the attacker was already dead, then I
suppose the shooter was just firing into a dead body.

https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1633601770592296961/vid/320x320/3Tm0PlddOxRcfhKs.mp4?tag=16

On 3/16/23 4:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> The first shots were justified. Those last few are probably gonna get him in
> trouble. Unless the autopsy proves the attacker was already dead, then I
> suppose the shooter was just firing into a dead body.
>
>
> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1633601770592296961/vid/320x320/3Tm0PlddOxRcfhKs.mp4?tag=16
>
>

Another fascinating thing from the Oath Keepers then?

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> The first shots were justified. Those last few are probably gonna get him in
trouble. Unless the autopsy proves the attacker was already dead, then I
suppose the shooter was just firing into a dead body.
>
>
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1633601770592296961/vid/320x320/3Tm0PlddOxRcfhKs.mp4?tag=16
>

Why is he yelling like Beaker on the Muppet show?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 3/16/2023 5:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> The first shots were justified. Those last few are probably gonna get him in
> trouble. Unless the autopsy proves the attacker was already dead, then I
> suppose the shooter was just firing into a dead body.
>
>
> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1633601770592296961/vid/320x320/3Tm0PlddOxRcfhKs.mp4?tag=16

The D.A. may ask: if the shooter knew that, then why was he firing?

On Mar 16, 2023 at 2:50:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 3/16/2023 5:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> The first shots were justified. Those last few are probably gonna get him in
>> trouble. Unless the autopsy proves the attacker was already dead, then I
>> suppose the shooter was just firing into a dead body.
>>
>>
>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1633601770592296961/vid/320x320/3Tm0PlddOxRcfhKs.mp4?tag=16
>
> The D.A. may ask: if the shooter knew that, then why was he firing?

If the shooter didn't know that, then the requisite mens rea is present but
the actus rea is not.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:27:37 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> The first shots were justified. Those last few are probably gonna get him in
>trouble. Unless the autopsy proves the attacker was already dead, then I
>suppose the shooter was just firing into a dead body.

It's hard to say for sure but at least one of those shots to his back
occurred while he was still alive. That's going to be hard to justify
when the man was clearly running away at that point and had already
been shot at least a couple of times.
>>
>https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1633601770592296961/vid/320x320/3Tm0PlddOxRcfhKs.mp4?tag=16
>>
>
>Why is he yelling like Beaker on the Muppet show?

I would guess that was someone else on the street reacting to the
shooting.

On 3/16/2023 5:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 16, 2023 at 2:50:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2023 5:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>> The first shots were justified. Those last few are probably gonna get him in
>>> trouble. Unless the autopsy proves the attacker was already dead, then I
>>> suppose the shooter was just firing into a dead body.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1633601770592296961/vid/320x320/3Tm0PlddOxRcfhKs.mp4?tag=16
>>
>> The D.A. may ask: if the shooter knew that, then why was he firing?
>
> If the shooter didn't know that, then the requisite mens rea is present but
> the actus rea is not.

He shot a deadly weapon. What's *actus rea* if not that?

On Mar 16, 2023 at 3:28:26 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:27:37 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The first shots were justified. Those last few are probably gonna get him in
>> trouble. Unless the autopsy proves the attacker was already dead, then I
>> suppose the shooter was just firing into a dead body.
>
> It's hard to say for sure but at least one of those shots to his back
> occurred while he was still alive. That's going to be hard to justify
> when the man was clearly running away at that point and had already
> been shot at least a couple of times.
>>>
>>
>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1633601770592296961/vid/320x320/3Tm0PlddOxRcfhKs.mp4?tag=16
>>>
>> Why is he yelling like Beaker on the Muppet show?
>
> I would guess that was someone else on the street reacting to the
> shooting.

I like the way the guy in the background watches the whole thing then just
turns around and casually walks away, like "Damn, I forgot the milk."

On Mar 16, 2023 at 3:46:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 3/16/2023 5:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 2:50:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/16/2023 5:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>> The first shots were justified. Those last few are probably gonna get
>>>> him in
>>>> trouble. Unless the autopsy proves the attacker was already dead, then I
>>>> suppose the shooter was just firing into a dead body.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1633601770592296961/vid/320x320/3Tm0PlddOxRcfhKs.mp4?tag=16
>>>
>>> The D.A. may ask: if the shooter knew that, then why was he firing?
>>
>> If the shooter didn't know that, then the requisite mens rea is present but
>> the actus rea is not.
>
> He shot a deadly weapon. What's *actus rea* if not that?

An illegal action. Shooting a deadly weapon is in and of itself not an illegal
action. Neither is shooting one into a dead body.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 14:12:34 -0700, BTR1701 wrote:

> The first shots were justified. Those last few are probably gonna get him in
> trouble. Unless the autopsy proves the attacker was already dead, then I
> suppose the shooter was just firing into a dead body.
>
> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1633601770592296961/vid/320x320/3Tm0PlddOxRcfhKs.mp4?tag=16

It appears not justified by seeing the whole video.

What's not justified is muffling the audio with noise reduction
so we can't hear what is being said. Nor in making judgements
on a video when there's no other information provided.

On 3/16/23 5:46 PM, moviePig wrote:
> On 3/16/2023 5:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 2:50:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/16/2023 5:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>
>>>>   The first shots were justified. Those last few are probably gonna
>>>> get him in
>>>>   trouble. Unless the autopsy proves the attacker was already dead,
>>>> then I
>>>>   suppose the shooter was just firing into a dead body.
>>>>
>>>> https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1633601770592296961/vid/320x320/3Tm0PlddOxRcfhKs.mp4?tag=16
>>>
>>> The D.A. may ask: if the shooter knew that, then why was he firing?
>>
>> If the shooter didn't know that, then the requisite mens rea is
>> present but
>> the actus rea is not.
>
> He shot a deadly weapon.  What's *actus rea* if not that?

I didn't know you spoke French.

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 23:16:50 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>On Mar 16, 2023 at 3:46:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/16/2023 5:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 2:50:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>> He shot a deadly weapon. What's *actus rea* if not that?
>
>An illegal action. Shooting a deadly weapon is in and of itself not an illegal
>action. Neither is shooting one into a dead body.
>
Presumably the act of pulling the trigger is evidence of his intent,
no?

On Mar 17, 2023 at 6:35:44 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 23:16:50 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 3:46:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/16/2023 5:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 2:50:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>> He shot a deadly weapon. What's *actus rea* if not that?
>>
>> An illegal action. Shooting a deadly weapon is in and of itself not an
>> illegal
>> action. Neither is shooting one into a dead body.
>>
> Presumably the act of pulling the trigger is evidence of his intent,
> no?

Yes, which why I earlier said there was mens rea but no actus rea.

> shawn
> > BTR1701
> >
> > The first shots were justified. Those last few are probably gonna get him in
> > trouble. Unless the autopsy proves the attacker was already dead, then I
> > suppose the shooter was just firing into a dead body.
>
> It's hard to say for sure but at least one of those shots to his back
> occurred while he was still alive. That's going to be hard to justify
> when the man was clearly running away at that point and had already
> been shot at least a couple of times.

The initial shots appear to be justified but once the attacker was lying on the ground
bleeding out, (if not already dead) he was no longer an active threat and at that point,
it becomes an execution.

This is what back in 1984 guaranteed that Bernie Goetz would be bankrupt and sent
to prison.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shooting

On 3/17/2023 10:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Mar 17, 2023 at 6:35:44 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 23:16:50 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 3:46:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/16/2023 5:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 2:50:07 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>> He shot a deadly weapon. What's *actus rea* if not that?
>>>
>>> An illegal action. Shooting a deadly weapon is in and of itself not an
>>> illegal
>>> action. Neither is shooting one into a dead body.
>>>
>> Presumably the act of pulling the trigger is evidence of his intent,
>> no?
>
> Yes, which why I earlier said there was mens rea but no actus rea.

So, is he guilty of attempted murder?

In article <GMkRL.1114931$Tcw8.73021@fx10.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 3/17/2023 10:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Mar 17, 2023 at 6:35:44 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 23:16:50 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 3:46:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/16/2023 5:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 2:50:07 PM PDT, "moviePig"
> >>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
> >>>>> wrote:

> >>>> He shot a deadly weapon. What's *actus rea* if not that?
> >>>
> >>> An illegal action. Shooting a deadly weapon is in and of itself not
> >>> an illegal action. Neither is shooting one into a dead body.
> >>>
> >> Presumably the act of pulling the trigger is evidence of his intent,
> >> no?
> >
> > Yes, which why I earlier said there was mens rea but no actus rea.
>
> So, is he guilty of attempted murder?

You tell me. If I shot an old prop puppet of Jabba the Hutt because I
thought it was Trotsky, am I guilty of attempted murder?

On 3/18/2023 1:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <GMkRL.1114931$Tcw8.73021@fx10.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/2023 10:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 6:35:44 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 23:16:50 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 3:46:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/16/2023 5:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 2:50:07 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>> He shot a deadly weapon. What's *actus rea* if not that?
>>>>>
>>>>> An illegal action. Shooting a deadly weapon is in and of itself not
>>>>> an illegal action. Neither is shooting one into a dead body.
>>>>>
>>>> Presumably the act of pulling the trigger is evidence of his intent,
>>>> no?
>>>
>>> Yes, which why I earlier said there was mens rea but no actus rea.
>>
>> So, is he guilty of attempted murder?
>
> You tell me. If I shot an old prop puppet of Jabba the Hutt because I
> thought it was Trotsky, am I guilty of attempted murder?

Morally, I don't see there's any question. But, legally, who knows?
(Fyi, it's apparently 'actus reus'.)

On 3/18/23 12:33 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <GMkRL.1114931$Tcw8.73021@fx10.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/17/2023 10:16 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> On Mar 17, 2023 at 6:35:44 PM PDT, "The Horny Goat" <lcraver@home.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 16 Mar 2023 23:16:50 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 3:46:48 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/16/2023 5:59 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mar 16, 2023 at 2:50:07 PM PDT, "moviePig"
>>>>>>> <pwallace@moviepig.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>>> He shot a deadly weapon. What's *actus rea* if not that?
>>>>>
>>>>> An illegal action. Shooting a deadly weapon is in and of itself not
>>>>> an illegal action. Neither is shooting one into a dead body.
>>>>>
>>>> Presumably the act of pulling the trigger is evidence of his intent,
>>>> no?
>>>
>>> Yes, which why I earlier said there was mens rea but no actus rea.
>>
>> So, is he guilty of attempted murder?
>
> You tell me. If I shot an old prop puppet of Jabba the Hutt because I
> thought it was Trotsky, am I guilty of attempted murder?

It depends, does being a eunuch preclude that?