You can’t tell the difference between “wait until there’s a threat” and "wait until you’ve been shot? That is crystal clear.
You gonna answer any of my questions about what he did wrong, and who he actually threatened, or just keep trolling and lying and disagreeing with me purely because you don’t like my attitude, not because you can actually show I’m wrong.
Someone who has a gun, but is ignoring you, is not a threat. Someone who has a gun, is ignoring police instructions, and is reaching for that gun, is an imminent threat. Can you really not tell the difference? If not, I’d try not to leave the house too often, as the many and varied decisions you’d have to make, say, crossing the road might overtax you.
This “hands near the waistband” bullshit is completely fucking imbecilic. When you’re standing, your hands are near your waistband. That’s why your pants pockets are at the waistband and not the knees, you fucking moron.
Anyone just standing there will have his or her hands “near their waistband.” Just shoot them all!
Perhaps you could try reading my posts, rather than responding to whatever straw man you’ve constructed, because the situation you’ve described is not one that we’ve been talking about, and your suggested response to it has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.
No, you’re fucking imbecilic. You suggest shooting anyone who is legally carrying a gun but not threatening anybody, but are claiming that someone who’s been told to show their hands to the cops but instead is reaching for what they have reason to believe is a gun could never be considered a threat.
You’re not even trying any more, you’ve reached “argument clinic” levels of trolling.
Now go off and do some fucking research yourself before spouting off, you ignorant dickhead. Oh, but you won’t, you’ll just go and giggle like a fucking schoolboy with Hentor about your trolling.
[Quote=Steophan] When you know whether or not someone’s actually going to shoot you, it’s too fucking late.
[/quote]
Bolding added for the deceitful fuckstain.
Your position was that the cop encountering a black man has to shoot before he knows he will be shot.
On the other hand, the people encountering the white guy racking a gun at Wal Mart have to wait until their being shot is imminent.
Well, that depends; has the gun wielder properly accessorized his outfit, or is he wearing a leather miniskirt and plaid blouse, because frankly that would justify opening fire right away.
What “on the other hand”? You have to wait till there’s actually an imminent threat. That’s always been the standard I’ve been supporting. So please, for fucks sake, tell me who this guy was imminently threatening.
The point is, if someone is threatening you, you don’t have to wait and see if they’re bluffing. Not that you can shoot anyone with a gun. That has clearly and consistently been the view I’ve supported, and the one backed by the police, the laws, the courts, the prosecutors, and the grand juries.
So, what is your view? Should this guy have been shot? If so, then you can’t complain about any of the police shootings here. If not, then acknowledge that he did nothing wrong, and people were in no imminent fear. You clearly want it both ways, but that’s not going to happen.,
You’re so dumb that not only can’t you disc3rn discern on your own that I’m not calling for the shotgun guy to be shot, you can’t even understand after explicitly being told.
I’m not the one who wants it two ways. I’m not the one efending stand your ground and quick draw cops. You are. Can you not even grasp the point?
So you don’t think he should have been shot, I don’t think he should have been shot. Then why the fuck are you arguing against my every post, and lying and saying you think he was a threat to everyone there?
I don’t want things both ways. I want the police - or anyone else - to be able to defend themselves and others without having to hesitate and wonder if what they’re doing is acceptable. And I want people who aren’t a threat to be left alone.
Unfortunately, sometimes the police get called when they shouldn’t. But if that leads to someone ignoring police instructions and instead threatening them, I have no problem with the police defending themselves.
You clearly do. You think that someone who, having been told by the police to show their hands instead reaches for a gun, is not a threat to them. You are an absolute idiot, and that alone shows your opinion is worthless.
Nope, not even slightly. I don’t expect telepathy from the cops, which is why I can accept them making understandable mistakes on occasion. It’s others who are saying that they should somehow magically know that what looks like someone reaching for a gun when told to show his hands is just a kid playing with a toy.
It would seem then, that you are saying that people who are confronted with a person wielding a gun have a responsibility to run and hide if they can, before using deadly force.
This would seem to be at odds with what many in the NRA community feel is required. I’ve heard that many people feel that you should be able to defend yourself with deadly force without running away. (See, for instance “stand your ground” laws.)
Why would these employees in Walmart be required to run away and hide from the shotgun wielding threat, rather than simply popping a cap in his ass?
You shouldn’t have to run and hide. If you choose not to, and someone becomes an imminent threat, you should be allowed to shoot them. But you can’t shoot someone who’s a potential future threat, and if you have the time to organise an evacuation and get staff to a panic room, then the threat is not imminent.
If someone’s pointing a gun at you, saying get in the safe room and I won’t hurt you, you can shoot them. If someone is holding a gun minding their own business, you can’t.
Is the concept of “imminent threat” really that difficult to grasp? I fully understand that in the heat of the moment people can be mistaken, but here, with all the time you like to reflect on it, people are still acting like it’s some sort of abstruse concept that no-one could possibly grasp.