If they were dead or not is irrelevant. Either way, the defendant’s actions do not constitute a crime.
Because the article we are discussing states that it was;
If the deceased had been conscious and armed, then attempting to open the door and physically examine them to determine their status would have likely resulted in there being at least one additional casualty.
Do you believe the first 122 times the cops shot at the car were completely fine and dandy, or don’t you?
Yes. He did that because they were dangerous and in his perception he needed a clear shot in order to neutralize that danger.
If a dog starts biting people, you put it down. That doesn’t mean you’re “executing” the dog.
People are not dogs, you sick little turd.
No, the dogs don’t choose to be violent or uncooperative, and yet it’s still ok to shoot them. Hardly less so with people who choose to do so.
So says Smapti, with an awful record on the facts. I don’t believe you. The prosecutors in this case don’t agree, and I trust them on matters of law more than Smapti.
No it doesn’t. Do you know how a car works? “Keys in the ignition” does not equal “engine running”.
That’s not necessarily the only way to determine if they are conscious. Cars have windows. Human eyes can see through car window glass.
I already said I don’t know, because the article discusses the 15 shots that the prosecutors argue were not lawful. I haven’t seen prosecutor’s statements on the other shots fired.
:eek: It’s okay to shoot people for being uncooperative?
If it reaches the point of violently resisting arrest, definitely. And it’s certainly OK for the police to use physical force to enforce cooperation.
So it’s not “violent or uncooperative” (for shootings), then? It’s just “violent”?
If it is your assertion that the driver took time out to turn the engine off while being shot, then please provide evidence for that assertion.
What visual cues can one use to identify the difference between an unconscious person and a person who is feigning unconsciousness so they can shoot and kill you? Keep in mind that if you’re wrong, you die.
The prosecutor’s refusal to seek any charges relating to the other 122 shots speaks for itself.
Yes, I used some hyperbole there.
Point being, if it’s OK to shoot a dog for something it didn’t choose to do, it’s hardly worse to shoot a person who chooses to do it.
Not a violent case, but disturbing nonetheless.
Medical marijuana is not legal in Kansas. Shona Banda is a medical marijuana activist trying to get the Kansas law changed. She has Crohn’s Disease, which she says is treated by marijuana oil.
Banda’s 11-year-old son was regaled in his public school by a police officer pontificating on the evuhls of marihuana, so he stood up in class and pointed out the policeman’s error. The policeman responded by taking the kid to the office and holding him incommunicado without benefit of notifying his mother that he was being held. The police then got a search warrant for Banda’s home, where they found 2 ounces of marijuana and marijuana oil.
Banda’s son has been taken away from her for the crime of possession of 2 ounces of marijuana.
I think that’s a bad point… one should be much more reluctant to shoot a person than a dog. Taking a human life is very, very different than taking an animal’s life, as much as I love dogs.
Depends on the reason. Euthanasia? Fine, shoot the dog not the person. Self defence? No difference, either you’re at risk or you’re not.
Good. Maybe he’ll have a better chance at success now that he’s out of the hands of a woo-believing snake oil peddler.
So you’re a medical practitioner now?
I didn’t assert anything – you did. You said the engine was running. The article doesn’t say that. And it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the driver – the car was shot dozens of times… car engines aren’t bulletproof. I don’t know if the engine was running or not, but the article gives no indication either way.
Talking out your ass.
I won’t keep that in mind, because it’s bullshit. Cops are trained in determining whether people are threats, or are faking, and how to approach someone that might be dangerous. With multiple cops, it would be possible to minimize the risk while checking their status.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps they’re still investigating those shots. The article doesn’t discuss them.
There are different levels of risk, and it can be much more complicated and difficult to evaluate risk with people.
Is there anything about this story that you will actually take a position on?
In Smapti world, Smapti is an expert in law and medicine (and probably many other subjects).
You don’t have to be an MD to know that “medical marijuana”, in all its forms, is and has never been anything other than a line of BS being pushed by snake oil peddlers and by unscrupulous types willing to take advantage of any backdoor they can find to legalize it for recreational use.
(And I have absolutely nothing against legalizing marijuana for recreational use, but pretending that it’s medicine in order to do so is just plain dishonest.)