So in summary....

Libtard proposal: Place a bullet proof glass screen around all defendants to help protect witnesses, jury, judge etc.
Rational voice of America response: We'll ignore this, say screen wasn't there at the time and continue as before. Maybe throw in some inflated cost estimates and say that even if we put screens up there is still a threat en-route from prison van to the glass box.
Libtard proposal: Shakle all defendants.
Rational voice of America response: This will impinge on defendant's human rights. All defendants have the right to be shot multiple times and we should defend their rights to the death.
Libtard proposal: Tazers
Rational voice of America response: No way, 1 person in 84.3billion are unaffected by tazers, and if you're going to shoot someone, there has to be blood or what's the point?
Libtard proposal: Video trials with defendant in his cell.
Rational voice of America response: This is just the thin end of the wedge, if libtards succeed with this communist bullshit which was dreamt up by a baby-panda-fiddling-Muslim it'll end with our guns been taken away and we won't be allowed to shoot anyone.
Libtard proposal: Anything else
Rational voice of America response: No. No matter what the suggestion is it does deserve any consideration.

Hope I've covered everything.

Maniac - So you think the jury seeing the defendant brought into court in shackles won't affect their perception of him? How the fuck did you get your diplomacy ranking with such a lack of perception. The human mind is predispositioned by things it sees. Period.

I agree tazers would be better. But the accused has a right to face his accuser in most cases (that right is forfeit under certain very narrow conditions) as well as having a the possibility of bail so the cell thing would put a potentially innocent person in a jail cell, not allow them to actually see their accusers and deny them bail for the course of the trial. This isn't the UK. We don't lock people up while we decide their guilt or innocence unless the crime carries with it the risk for further offense or a risk of flight. Most non-Americans don't truly understand the value we place on Liberty and that's a shame, but it is also because they've never experienced American Liberty the way we have.

he got his right to face his accuser. he was in the courtroom, wasn't he? he chose his own course of action

semck, ah, I misunderstood you about the pen. But a man armed with nothing but a pen is now dead. It seems very likely that the officer acted inappropriately, as the appropriate outcome would (it seems to me) have resulted in no one getting shot six times while a room full of people watched and were endangered. Maybe this guy is one of those old out of shape fat guys you so often see on police duties that aren't supposed to be physically demanding, and so he was unable to stop the man in any other way. In that case the negligence would be with his superiors who put him in that position, and to a lesser extent on himself for accepting a duty which he could not correctly carry out.

ssoren, I am pretty sure I would have responded poorly, at least as poorly as this officer did. That is why I am not paid to carry a gun in a courtroom. If I was, I would hope I would have the training to navigate such a situation or else recuse myself. This sentence is particularly telling: "He chose what he felt to be the best course of action,right or wrong. " Do you think the police should have no limitations on the authority they use? What if he had kicked the man to death? What if he executed him in cold blood on the floor of the courtroom? The "right or wrong" is the whole point.

I'm also a little confused by this hyper-criminalized world you live in. Are you constantly in fear of being attacked or robbed? Do you imagine society would collapse without the police shooting barely-armed people to death?

I would like to have a video of the event, because it is practically impossible for me to imagine that shooting a man armed only with a pen six times in a room full of people is possibly the best, much less an acceptable, response.

@CK
What if he had kicked the man to death? What if he executed him in cold blood on the floor of the courtroom? The "right or wrong" is the whole point.

this is really your counter point

he is still human,and as i said in previous statements, humans make mistakes--i am not even saying in this case it WAS a mistake--just generally HUMANS MAKE MISTAKES

also, without some sort of authority there would be anarchy

I don't really understand your point. Lots of mistakes can be criminal - various states have various kinds of criminal negligence and negligent homicide laws. This mistake should, at a minimum, disqualify this particular mistake-maker from working in law enforcement.

You say that about "anarchy" as though anarchy is itself an inherently bad thing.

"You say that about "anarchy" as though anarchy is itself an inherently bad thing. "

Fucktard moron...

CK, if you are so disenfranchised about the policies of this country, FUCKING LEAVE

ssoren, I don't understand what you mean by disenfranchised. Maybe disenchanted is the word you want? At any rate, to flee instead of addressing injustice, especially when one can make even a small difference at practically no cost, is the height of cowardice.

Right on right on.

You just don't understand ssorenn...he just wants bigger Government to control all of the stupid people’s lives and “correct all the wrongs” in society….but then he gets his undies in a bunch when the authorities he has begged be put in place exercise their authoritarian power. Just another brainwashed Libtard. Oh…sorry…he’s pretending to be a “Libertarian” today….and yet he doesn’t believe a man should have the opportunity and responsibility to defend himself and his property.

Is your argument that the officer should be fired, reprimanded, or spanked. He was doing his job, maybe with excessive force ,but his job none the less , and he was dealing with an indicted individual with Gang ties, with a life long rap sheet. As krellin said. One less scumbag on the streets.

But that scumbag is entitled to due process , which he was getting until he chose to attack the witness. Now he dead

@ssorenn - You posted like you disagreed with me when you actually were agreeing. I was responding to the idea that we should keep the accused (they aren't criminals until convicted) in a jail cell during the actual trial. That is what would deny them that right to face their accusers. I like the way we have it now. Sure, it comes with risk, but the defendant isn't guilty until the verdict is read and it says he is guilty. Our presumption. Of innocence doesn't exist in many places. So we agree that the current way is the best way.

As far as this particular instance, it just happened. There will likely be a hearing and if the bailiff (make no mistake, they aren't regular cops) is found to have used excessive force then he will receive just punishment. But this guy lunged at a witness with harmful intent. He was stopped from harming an innocent person and paid for it with his life. He had a choice and he had to pay for making that choice.

ssorenn: My argument is that, given what we know about the circumstances, this officer *at best* unnecessarily killed a man while putting several other innocent people in danger of serious injury or death. That should get someone fired at a minimum, whether or not the dead man was a "scumbag" (which is not a crime worthy of death).

krellin, are you talking about me to sorrenn, or to ssorenn about me? At first I thought you were addressing me, but I think you're addressing ssorenn about me. Maybe they have some adult remedial education classes near where you live, to help with your writing and thinking skills. I have some training in the matter but you haven't seemed open to my suggestions so far. If you're autistic or dyslexic or something, I do apologize for pointing it out.

Moral of the story, In court, stay in your sat till called upon. We all learned that in nursery school.

@draug. Yes we are on the same page.

Shit"seat".

"semck, ah, I misunderstood you about the pen. But a man armed with nothing but a pen is now dead. It seems very likely that the officer acted inappropriately, as the appropriate outcome would (it seems to me) have resulted in no one getting shot six times while a room full of people watched and were endangered. "

I guess we just disagree on this. I continue to think it's not at all clear. If you're on trial and you make a lunge for a witness, I think you have to expect to end up dead (even if you don't have a pen). Maybe you'll get lucky and you won't. But you've put yourself in a position where all the blame is on you.

He lunged at the witness. The witness stand is right beside the judge's bench. The bailiff didn't know it was a pen or possibly a knife he had snuck in and didn't know if it was the witness or the judge he was going after. Hindsight is 20/20 but the bailiff acted rapidly on limited information and did the only thing he could do: shoot the assailant before he got to the bench.

I think partly we might be looking at this from different directions. I don't think the guy should be dead for what he did, but I am more concerned with the perspective from the officer.

You don't start shooting someone armed with a pen unless he's, I don't know, holding someone hostage with it held to the eye or some action movie thing like that. You don't start shooting someone in a room full of innocent people. It's not a video game where the bailiff is the only person between this guy and killing the president. Using lethal force is the last option, and I would especially hope in these circumstances that a trained law enforcement officer would err on the side of caution.

@ck
You don't start shooting someone armed with a pen unless he's, I don't know, holding someone hostage with it held to the eye or some action movie thing like that.

this might be the case if you are on the street, but when you have someone already on trial by the witness and the judge, that guy gave up his right to the benefit of the doubt, about his possible intentions

"this might be the case if you are on the street, but when you have someone already on trial by the witness and the judge, that guy gave up his right to the benefit of the doubt, about his possible intentions "

Which law or amendment are you getting that from? Maybe it's in the Bible? I haven't heard of a trial being a time when you lose the benefit of the doubt. It's actually the opposite.

By virtue of the fact that a grand jury has indicted you and you are at trial, your rights *in the courtroom* are curtailed. You do not have the right to approach the witness stand or the bench unless called upon by the presiding judge.

+1 Draug

and...uh....you can't attack someone with a weapon, either...

...and before anyone wants to say a pen isn't a weapon, my *body* can be considered a weapon in a court of law if I am properly trained and such skills are recognized by the court. And it takes essentially zero skill to plunge a vaguely pointy object into someone's neck, eye, face, etc

The penis mightier...

Well mine is...and I know Draug's self-proclaimed "chode" is...and...

Oh...oh my....