The Dark Side of Marvin Harrison

I'm pretty sure MH's attorney will destroy Pop's rep in court to the point that they can say some other drug dealer could very well have taken him out. Not exactly the safest profession, drug dealing...





(why do I keep replying to this thread...)

i dont think MH wants his dirty laundry aired out in public. given what we know or atleast has been reported, there exists more than a preponderance of evidence to win (and win big) in a civil trial.

think OJ simpson. burden in a civil trial is not beyond a reasonable doubt but by a preponderance of evidecne i.e. "more likley than not".

unless pop's drug dealing has relevance to the facts of this case, that information will not come in. im sure MH's atty will argue that information re. pop as a drug dealer and that pop is known to carry a gun should come in b/c it shows MH's mindstate of being reasonably fearful for his life and safety.

should be an interesting case to follow.

bleed i like ya buddy, but im scratching my head at how you 100% accept as true that pop was a current drug dealer bad guy who had it coming without seeing any recent arrest reports or evidence outside speculation and street level hearsay but are highly suspicious of anything inculpatory on MH's part.

My whole point is based upon the supposition that MH felt his life was in danger at the time when he fired upon Pop with a licensed handgun. Who committed the actual attack that killed him, who knows. Remember, they did find shell casings in the cab of the pickup, those weren't tossed in by MH. So there is at least the potential for a self defense case in that shooting. It's not as cut & dry as Marvin's a thug.

As to the murder (yes. murder.) of Pop, there is, to my knowledge, no evidence linking Harrison to the murder except the circumstantial and speculative kind.

Are there mitigating actions as to Harrison's actions in opening fire on Pop? Again, based on the information known, NO.

If Pop initiated the gunfire by opening fire in a crowded street, the appropriate response is not to create a warzone by returning fire and placing other innocent people at an increased risk. If, on the other hand, Pop did not initiate the gun fire, then Marvin initiated the gun battle. Self-defense does not play any part in the gun battle participated in by Marvin and possibly Pop.

they werent just former acquaintences. wasnt pops a key witness in a civil trail against harrison? perhaps ghettodog and bleed consider murdering a witness to prevent you from losing millions of dollars in a civil suit for shooting innocent bystanders justifiable "self-defense."

Lemme kick a lil' rap 'bout my steez son, 'cause murderin' ain't shit to me -- especially snitches fool!

Hey! You! Get off my thread!
You don't know me, and you should be in bed!
Who be gettin' dogged when I come through the fog?
Here I am, the GhettoDog, the GhettoDog.

(rap courtesty of SmootSmack)

Let's not forget that when Harrison was "unloading his clip" on the man's car, the drug dealer was shooting back. This incident is very complicated -- the incident where the drug dealer was actually killed is not: there is video evidence of a man approaching the car and shooting Pop. Who is that man? What was his motive? We don't know, and we probably never will. Drug dealers get killed a lot, and they have all sorts of people after them for all sorts of reasons.

Let's try to understand that these were separate incidents, and the one we know Harrison was involved in has all sorts of circumstances that make it very gray.

Nope. Not grey at all. One of two things happened: 1) Drug dealer opened fire on Marvin in a public area where Marvin had a clear path of retreat and, instead of retreating, Marvin returned fire in the public area with a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives of innocents; or 2) Marvin initiated the gun battle.

In either case, Marvin acted illegally and put lives innocent live at risk.

Also, the text is black as it contains all colors - this is true whether the lights in the room are on or not. But you're right - nothing is absolute if you can unilaterally change the facts at will.

Nope. Not grey at all. One of two things happened: 1) Drug dealer opened fire on Marvin in a public area where Marvin had a clear path of retreat and, instead of retreating, Marvin returned fire in the public area with a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives of innocents; or 2) Marvin initiated the gun battle.

In either case, Marvin acted illegally and put lives innocent live at risk.

Also, the text is black as it contains all colors - this is true whether the lights in the room are on or not. But you're right - nothing is absolute if you can unilaterally change the facts at will.

You make it seem like people always think clearly when their lives are on the line. You also make it seem that, without doubt, Harrison would have been able to save his own life by retreating. Yet, you present two different possibilities, and therein lies the doubt.

And, sorry ... white actually contains all colors -- not black. Black is the absence of color. But I get what you're saying, and you're right. Hence the winking smiley after my post.

Nope. Not grey at all. One of two things happened: 1) Drug dealer opened fire on Marvin in a public area where Marvin had a clear path of retreat and, instead of retreating, Marvin returned fire in the public area with a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives of innocents; or 2) Marvin initiated the gun battle.

In either case, Marvin acted illegally and put lives innocent live at risk.

Also, the text is black as it contains all colors - this is true whether the lights in the room are on or not. But you're right - nothing is absolute if you can unilaterally change the facts at will.

You're the lawyer, so I have to trust that you know what you are talking about, but... clear path of retreat from bullets? He's not outrunning a 9 millimeter, not with his knees. To be clear, you are saying that if someone starts shooting at you, and you have a legal means to defend yourself (licensed and permitted firearm) you are not allowed to employ it? Seriously, I'm curious because that isn't what I would think would be the case.

From the Pennsylvania code:
(a) Use of force justifiable for protection of the person.--The use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

...

(2) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if:

(i) the actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

(ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

(A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be[.]

...

Taking the facts in the best light for Marvin: He was standing in the driveway of his business when he was fired upon by Pop, had no place to run (i.e - the garage was locked, no cars to take cover behind, etc.) and,for his own protection, it was necessary to immediately use deadly force. To be clear: Anything other than this is the illegal, unjustified use of deadly force.

The duty to retreat means that, if you aren't cornered, you are required to retreat - if you have a place to run to, then you must go. In this case, Marvin was standing in the open and could have retreated inside of his garage (if pursued inside his place of business, different story but NOT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE). It would be different if Pop was standing holding a gun two feet away from his chest, but, again, - even in the best light - NOT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.

I keep coming back to this - UNDER THE FACTS KNOWN, Marvin's actions were illegal and, more broadly, simply wrong.

No BB, in a society subject to the rule of law, you are not entitled to engage in a gun battle in a public street even if your weapon is licensed. I don't want to live anywhere near you if you believe that it is your right to return fire with disregard for the safety of others - thank you very much.

You make it seem like people always think clearly when their lives are on the line. You also make it seem that, without doubt, Harrison would have been able to save his own life by retreating. Yet, you present two different possibilities, and therein lies the doubt.
And, sorry ... white actually contains all colors -- not black. Black is the absence of color. But I get what you're saying, and you're right. Hence the winking smiley after my post.

There is no doubt because in either situation, Marvin's actions were illegal, unjustified and just plain wrong.

The dude made a bad move not taking a pay cut from Indy might have still been playing

another one bites the dust