Originally Posted by Side-Swipe
Why this is wrong:
When a person is released on bail, it means that the state is allowing a person who would otherwise be in jail, to go free under certain conditions, pending his or her trial. The traditional view of American courts is that the state continues to have the same power over an accused prisoner whether or not he or she is released on bail. Indeed, in order to secure his or her release on bail, the accused usually has to sign a contract that gives broad powers to the bail bondsman. And so, if a person jumps bail, the state or its agents -- in this case, the bail bondsmen -- have the same power that they would have, for example, over an escaped convict.
That's nice, but it doesn't change the fact that anyone--even an escaped convict--has the right to meet an unlawful act of aggression reasonably believed to result in death or serious bodily injury with deadly force.
If you'd like to make the argument that what these three clowns did was a lawful
act of aggression because of his status and their being agents of the State, good luck. I've seen no facts to support those conclusions.
Originally Posted by Falcon16
he should be able to sue the tits off these women
Unless you watched a different video than I did, this assumes facts not in evidence.