Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, here in the U.S., in Virginia, if BB reasonably believed that CB was in imminent danger of mortal threat, then he was allowed to shoot to kill the person creating that mortal threat.

That's why VA police have to link BB to knowing about JR coming over and the knife or role playing gig. If BB knows about those things, then it wouldn't be reasonable for him to tjink CB was in imminent mortal danger. Makes you wonder why his phone and AP's phone were destroyed/thrown out/went missing 2 days earlier, doesn't it?.

Is this actually correct, or one of the many things that are being said after a long game of telephone (pun intended) in this thread? My understanding was that the husband and au pair got new phones a few days before the murder. Getting a new phone is not the same as destroying an old phone. People upgrade all the time. Not saying the timing isn't suspicious, but I'm just curious which is the actual truth.

Did they destroy their old phones and get new, blank, starting-from-scratch phones as people keep repeating in this thread? Or did they simply get new phones, which doesn't mean any kind of erasure?

BB gave his new and old phone to the police and unlocked them. Just an FYI

How do you know this, PP?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, here in the U.S., in Virginia, if BB reasonably believed that CB was in imminent danger of mortal threat, then he was allowed to shoot to kill the person creating that mortal threat.

That's why VA police have to link BB to knowing about JR coming over and the knife or role playing gig. If BB knows about those things, then it wouldn't be reasonable for him to tjink CB was in imminent mortal danger. Makes you wonder why his phone and AP's phone were destroyed/thrown out/went missing 2 days earlier, doesn't it?.

Is this actually correct, or one of the many things that are being said after a long game of telephone (pun intended) in this thread? My understanding was that the husband and au pair got new phones a few days before the murder. Getting a new phone is not the same as destroying an old phone. People upgrade all the time. Not saying the timing isn't suspicious, but I'm just curious which is the actual truth.

Did they destroy their old phones and get new, blank, starting-from-scratch phones as people keep repeating in this thread? Or did they simply get new phones, which doesn't mean any kind of erasure?

BB gave his new and old phone to the police and unlocked them. Just an FYI

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did BB upgrade HIS phone and AP's phone as opposed to his phone and Christine's? Hmm

Seriously. I think we all know the answer to this question.

Also worth noting that BB is very competent at tech/phones. He knows what needed to be wiped.

Anonymous wrote:Why did BB upgrade HIS phone and AP's phone as opposed to his phone and Christine's? Hmm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, here in the U.S., in Virginia, if BB reasonably believed that CB was in imminent danger of mortal threat, then he was allowed to shoot to kill the person creating that mortal threat.

That's why VA police have to link BB to knowing about JR coming over and the knife or role playing gig. If BB knows about those things, then it wouldn't be reasonable for him to tjink CB was in imminent mortal danger. Makes you wonder why his phone and AP's phone were destroyed/thrown out/went missing 2 days earlier, doesn't it?.

Is this actually correct, or one of the many things that are being said after a long game of telephone (pun intended) in this thread? My understanding was that the husband and au pair got new phones a few days before the murder. Getting a new phone is not the same as destroying an old phone. People upgrade all the time. Not saying the timing isn't suspicious, but I'm just curious which is the actual truth.

Did they destroy their old phones and get new, blank, starting-from-scratch phones as people keep repeating in this thread? Or did they simply get new phones, which doesn't mean any kind of erasure?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, here in the U.S., in Virginia, if BB reasonably believed that CB was in imminent danger of mortal threat, then he was allowed to shoot to kill the person creating that mortal threat.

That's why VA police have to link BB to knowing about JR coming over and the knife or role playing gig. If BB knows about those things, then it wouldn't be reasonable for him to tjink CB was in imminent mortal danger. Makes you wonder why his phone and AP's phone were destroyed/thrown out/went missing 2 days earlier, doesn't it?.

Is this actually correct, or one of the many things that are being said after a long game of telephone (pun intended) in this thread? My understanding was that the husband and au pair got new phones a few days before the murder. Getting a new phone is not the same as destroying an old phone. People upgrade all the time. Not saying the timing isn't suspicious, but I'm just curious which is the actual truth.

Did they destroy their old phones and get new, blank, starting-from-scratch phones as people keep repeating in this thread? Or did they simply get new phones, which doesn't mean any kind of erasure?

Anonymous wrote:In any case, here in the U.S., in Virginia, if BB reasonably believed that CB was in imminent danger of mortal threat, then he was allowed to shoot to kill the person creating that mortal threat.

That's why VA police have to link BB to knowing about JR coming over and the knife or role playing gig. If BB knows about those things, then it wouldn't be reasonable for him to tjink CB was in imminent mortal danger. Makes you wonder why his phone and AP's phone were destroyed/thrown out/went missing 2 days earlier, doesn't it?.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick question: I know that, in Brazil, even if it was self defense Brendan would be in jail for shooting JR in the head.

Usually self defense is valid when you shoot to “disable” or neutralize the threat, not to kill. Say, shoot the person on the leg or hands, etc.

Isn’t it the same here? Can you actually shoot someone in the head and declare it was self defense?

That’s a good question, especially since BB was trained to neutralize threats for his job.

Once you make the decision that someone is a serious threat to your life, you are allowed to shoot-to-kill in defence of self. The seriousness of the threat and your inability to retreat will be judge by a reasonable person standard. Some states don't require you to retreat before claiming self defense (stand your ground laws).

I have a hard time believing that other countries require the person being attacked to find a way to injure-but-not-kill the attacker...that is putting a big responsibility on someone to know how to just injure a threat just enough to stop them in a high intensity situation with little time to react.

Either the person is a threat to your life or not. If they are, then the law says you can shoot them dead. You had better be right about the attacker actually being a threat.

Well another question is... is it self defense if you knew the man would be there doing knife play?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, here in the U.S., in Virginia, if BB reasonably believed that CB was in imminent danger of mortal threat, then he was allowed to shoot to kill the person creating that mortal threat.

That's why VA police have to link BB to knowing about JR coming over and the knife or role playing gig. If BB knows about those things, then it wouldn't be reasonable for him to tjink CB was in imminent mortal danger. Makes you wonder why his phone and AP's phone were destroyed/thrown out/went missing 2 days earlier, doesn't it?.

Isn’t there some way for investigators to retrieve texts/emails that have been sent? Can they get a search warrant and the phone company would have to provide that information?

Anonymous wrote:In any case, here in the U.S., in Virginia, if BB reasonably believed that CB was in imminent danger of mortal threat, then he was allowed to shoot to kill the person creating that mortal threat.

That's why VA police have to link BB to knowing about JR coming over and the knife or role playing gig. If BB knows about those things, then it wouldn't be reasonable for him to tjink CB was in imminent mortal danger. Makes you wonder why his phone and AP's phone were destroyed/thrown out/went missing 2 days earlier, doesn't it?.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quick question: I know that, in Brazil, even if it was self defense Brendan would be in jail for shooting JR in the head.

Usually self defense is valid when you shoot to “disable” or neutralize the threat, not to kill. Say, shoot the person on the leg or hands, etc.

Isn’t it the same here? Can you actually shoot someone in the head and declare it was self defense?

That’s a good question, especially since BB was trained to neutralize threats for his job.

Once you make the decision that someone is a serious threat to your life, you are allowed to shoot-to-kill in defence of self. The seriousness of the threat and your inability to retreat will be judge by a reasonable person standard. Some states don't require you to retreat before claiming self defense (stand your ground laws).

I have a hard time believing that other countries require the person being attacked to find a way to injure-but-not-kill the attacker...that is putting a big responsibility on someone to know how to just injure a threat just enough to stop them in a high intensity situation with little time to react.

Either the person is a threat to your life or not. If they are, then the law says you can shoot them dead. You had better be right about the attacker actually being a threat.