John Geer case

[Old Guard]

Originally Posted by Wahoo27

I don't know why you're doing it but you seem to persistently ignore key facts that don't fit in your storyline and you're critical of facts that do contradict you. When someone points out that the 3 cops who were there disputed the cop who shot Geer, you note criticism of eyewitness reports. And you lumped all the witness reports together as if they were all the same. I've been a jury foreman,

OK?

Originally Posted by Wahoo27

and I am married to a criminal defense attorney

So you are a defense attorney by marriage?

Originally Posted by Wahoo27

and I know many other criminal defense attorneys,

OK, now I am getting the sense that someone has accused you of being prejudiced toward defense attorneys?

Originally Posted by Wahoo27

and none of them report having seen cops contradict their colleagues, especially in a case like this.

Have they reported NOT seeing a cops contradict a colleague? BTW, How many reports do they give to you?

Originally Posted by Wahoo27

So that should've given much more weight to their eyewitness reports, but you ignored it.

I am not ignoring it. I actually find that unusual. But it is possible that this officer thought he saw something the others did not. I really know nothing about the police officer though. I just know he did not initiate and armed standoff.

Originally Posted by Wahoo27

You criticize Geer for having a gun in a townhouse (bullets go through walls), but you forget that Virginia laws allow even people in town homes (horrors!) to own guns and have them in their Own Homes.

I have not forgotten that. It is not owning the gun or having the gun that I criticize, it is how he handled the situation. He could have come out unarmed and spoken with the police. EASY.

Originally Posted by Wahoo27

Theres no evidence that he was "playing" with his gun; why make such a deliberately negative, biased comment like that?

Because he felt the need to show police officers that he had a gun and he also put it in an area where he still had control of the gun and access to it if he changed his mind. I really do not like the placement here. I think what he did was thought out.

Originally Posted by Wahoo27

There are other points I could make about your comments but I'd be here all night and Ive got stuff to do. I just think that people weren't fooled by your seeming passively aggressive "neutral" comments.

I am not neutral. I do not think highly of this man at all. He could have complied and let the police check out the call but he did not. Why he did not is up to you. I have my opinion of why he did not.

I grew up with guns and used to love guns but people such as this guy and George Zimmerman have made me rethink my stance on guns and the responsibility that comes with them.

[car54]

Originally Posted by Wahoo27

...I am married to a criminal defense attorney and I know many other criminal defense attorneys, and none of them report having seen cops contradict their colleagues, especially in a case like this...

Good point, Wahoo....the "thin blue line" is not often breached. There has to be a pretty egregious set of circumstances for it to happen. The word "indefensible" comes to mind.

For the record, I am not anti-cop. Quite the contrary, I served a couple of years with a neighboring department way back in the Dark Ages (the Vietnam War was still going on). But that doesn't blind me to the fact that this entire situation was mishandled. Low-life or not, Mr Geer did not deserve what he got.