If my words are upsetting you, I shall stop. But JD420, I only wish to have a friendly discussion... to disagree with you as a friend.
the facility claimed the parent was trespassing.
I cannot refute your claim. Perhaps the facility did not. However, since the police did confront the victim, I made that assumption. I guessed because I could see no clear reason for the cops to be there confronting him.
Meanwhile, as mentioned, they could not have legally done so while retaining custody of the child. Who can be heard, and seen, in the video during the shooting by the way.
Yes, I understand that the girl in question was there. So, the police confronted the victim. That's a given. Why?
Kidnapping is the unlawful asportation and confinement of a person against his or her will.
...or their custodial parent or guardian's will.
You are correct. But again, custody legality was moot at the time of confrontation. The police determined (correctly or incorrectly) that the victim needed to be confronted and did so. The video is not very clear as to why the police determined this. (I made the logical assumption, correct or incorrect just as they did.) If the victim was the legal guardian, he failed to de-escalate the confrontation (by exiting the building considering that was what the police were insisting on). He could easily have exited the building, demanded a police supervisor, or called his lawyer/public legal aid, etc., or even filed a police complaint himself. All these things, the victim (assuming he was within his rights) failed to do. Instead, he insisted on forcing his way (correctly or incorrectly) which brought about his death. QED.
under the qualifying crime of unlawful child kidnapping
Are you claiming the deceased is a child? Are you trying to put forth the notion that the man sexually identifies as his own twelve year old daughter? Or are you just, you know, resorting to lies (that a 30 year old man is a twelve year old girl with legal custody of himself) because you are pushing a narrative, and know you have no recourse but overt lying?
Your argument is non-sequitur. No, I don't believe the victim was a child, sicut per legem (as per law). I was explaining my point that the victim was not being kidnapped due to the fact that he was technically and legally under arrest. "False arrest" can only be adjudged after the fact.
At that time, the police and victim were approximately 6 to 8 feet from the concrete wall you mentioned.
Anyone can look at the video and see that, not only were they less than two feet from the concrete wall, but that the officer began the bashing of the man's head into the wall before uttering the magic "this will cover attempted murder" words.
In the video (published by YouTube), there is a date and time displayed at the top of the screen. As you watch it, stop it the second the police finish the quote, "You're under arrest". You will find the time code as I reported. How I arrived at the stated distance from the wall as I did is beyond the scope of this debate unless you wish that I explain in detail. Should it suffice that I can document my claim of 6 to 8 feet FROM the wall? It should be noted that for the past 20 years, I have been an amateur forensic videographic/photographic analyst. (I have spent lots of time studying accident physics, etc.)
At the point in time at which you choose just lying outright, there is no reason for you to pretend to be in a discussion. For all the bystanders...
I think you just made my point, JD420. Please note you have stopped the video at the time code I reported. Please note the victim and the cop have not yet impacted with the wall. As I said above, this is the exact second where the end of the cop's "You're under arrest" quote terminates. This is my point. Please note that the image has a moderate horizon angle in addition to some mild foreshortening. However, please also note that, under normal circumstances, a human foot is considered to be approximately 12 inches. (I'll stop here because my forensic analysis tends to continue for quite a bit of text.)
...Gim is claiming this man's back foot is eight feet from that wall. That's just under three meters.
I reported, "... 6 to 8 feet" which is, as you say, just under three meters.
Such a claim is irrelevant, because neither felony murder nor premeditated murder can have any justification, no matter what. But you can decide for yourself if Gim lies out his ass in the red herrings, too.
I thought you were discussing this with me. As for (dragging) any red herrings into the debate, which point would that be?
I have no doubt that Gim will NOT, in fact, take a babysitting job and then trespass the parents so he can keep the kid just to test his "it wuzn't kidnapping" theory in an actual court.
Are you "appealing to emotion" in this debate? Are you "poisoning the well?"
JD420, I enjoy a good debate. In many cases, I have taken on an opposing view in spite of my own personal views. Nonetheless, I will cease to discuss this further if I think you are being angered or upset with me for my expressing opposition. Like I said, I wish only to be your friend.