Okay, make that “very low-grade”.
Regards,
Shodan
Does the temperature of my motherfuckness affect the truth of the statement at all? If I replaced “it” with “him, her, or as otherwise may be deemed appropriate by dint of the subject’s gender identity”, would you find that more acceptable?
Because police officers have the legal authority to detain people. They have the legal authority to use force to do so including grabbing someone’s arm. Or should they be limited to yelling “Stop! Or I’ll yell stop again!”
Wow? Really? Okay let me fisher price this down for you…(this follows everything I’ve been taught and seen taught)
you’re walking down the street with your two kids, 2 and 4. You see a neighbor from several homes down coming angry at you with a bat in one hand and a beer in the other. You and him have never said more than hello to one another but he is super heated, shouting “You fucked my wife, I am going to kill you and your kids!” Lets just add that he is built like the proverbial brick shithouse.
As he approaches, obviously intoxicated, you shout that you have no idea what he is talking about and that he has you confused with someone else (known in pop culture as the Shaggy defense), but he will have none of it; he is either too enraged or intoxicated to be reasoned with.
At this point we begin the “choose your own adventure novel” of options: You could try to run away, but that’s tough with two little ones in tow. You could continue to attempt to reason with an enraged intoxicated man, (or call the cops) but it becomes difficult to talk with a mouth full of baseball bat. You could dodge his attacks hoping he gets tired and passes out. Finally you can use your handgun to defend you and your kids from harm.
Perhaps as you draw your gun he see it, says fuck you, turns and goes home. That’s a win for everyone. Perhaps you draw, shoot him once in the arm because you’re amped up and your aim was a little off, he drops the bat, says fuck you, and heads back home. That is still a decent outcome since everyone gets to live. Maybe your first shot is into his abdomen, he says “fuck you shot me!”, and falls to the ground. He is still alive, likely will still live, but at that moment is no longer a threat - you don’t get to shoot him again. Or perhaps he is dead set to give you a whoopin and ignores the first hit, so you shoot him again and again until he falls to the ground motionless, likely dead.
unless your attacker is holding a gun in his free hand your example from above is not how you use your handgun for self-defense.
Within limits, set by the law, by probable cause, by departmental guidelines etc., and by reason and by personal responsibility. They do *not *have the authority, legal or otherwise, to aggress, as seems to have been the case here. Wilson’s having acted within those limits while *killing *Brown is not a given.
I’m losing my patience with you.
Unless you have absolute knowledge that said neighbor is not carrying a gun somewhere you can’t see it, then it is foolish and irresponsible to use anything less than deadly force once you commit to drawing your weapon. His turning and going home could be a feint so that he can pull his gun sight unseen while you put your gun away and turn around so that he can shoot you and your children in the back. If you shoot him in the arm, he can still draw and shoot with his other arm. While he’s on the ground gut-shot, he can still possess the constitution to draw his piece and shoot you back.
I don’t believe in civilian ownership of handguns in the first place, but in this scenario, you only get one chance to make the right decision, because if you choose wrong, you’re dead. In the absence of omnipotence, shooting to kill is the only guaranteed way to protect your life and the life of your hypothetical children.
No, because the now-accepted (like it or not) gender-nonspecific third person singular accusative pronoun is “them”.
A human is not an “it”.
You’ll note that I never said “human”, I said “living being”.
So you consider the victim in this case to be somewhat less than human? How telling.
I was speaking generically, not about this specific case, and you would have to deliberately ignore a large part of my statement to conclude otherwise.
Original quote:
“robbery does not relate to the initial contact between the officer and Michael Brown”
Your statement:
It’s also been reported, by the FPD itself, that Officer Wilson did not know that Brown had stolen cigars in his possession
Are the two statements above in any way related?
I couldn’t give a fuck less about your patience.
I have seen nothing to show that he was acting outside of the legal bounds of his job during the initial confrontation. Certainly nothing that would excuse an assault on a police officer. But that is only the first part of the story. Whether or not he was acting within the law when the shots were fired has a lot more to do with what happened immediately before the trigger was pulled. That is certainly not clear yet.
Keep dancing.
With a reasonable amount of certainty that if you kill someone after the threat has been eliminated then you will be going to jail. Anyone might have a gun. That’s not good enough.
You could now consider yourself and your children to be in “imminent danger”. How you respond is up to you. If you resort to the Joe Biden defense and fire a shot into the air, you could be charged with endangering the public. You haven’t actually stopped or reduced the threat to you or your children. The brick shithouse may decide to leave the area. One problem solved but you’ve still endangered the public.
The brick shithouse may continue to advance towards you and your children. Do you believe it’s a matter of him or me?
As the SCOTUS has previously noted, detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.
- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (Brown v. United States)
How many options will you weigh before you chose to deal with the imminent danger you are facing? Does the law require you to run away? Does the law allow you to defend yourself if you had an option to carry your children to safety? How long does the law require that you mull over the situation before you can respond with lethal force?
Once you make the choice to escalate a confrontation to that level, that responsibility’s on you. If you’re willing to shoot first, you also need to make absolutely certain that you shoot last.
You have any good reason to drag Joe Biden into this?
At what point do you think it was necessary for him to *kill *the person he observed jaywalking, and how did the situation get to that point? The rest of us are trying to discuss that, it being the central point, you are trying *not *to.
How about an assault *by *a police officer? That’s what appears to have happened, as the dead body evidences.
Yes, by all means let’s shut up and wait for the whitewash commission. :rolleyes:
Come on now.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. Could you and elvis be ANY more ridiculous about this?
Here is what we know happened so far. A very large, aggressive man and his friend commit a violent robbery, after which they choose to walk down the middle of the street, which is an an asshole move at the least. The cop tells them to move, after which there is a scuffle of some sort, and the guy who just committed a felony ends up shot. Now, maybe the cop could have handled it better, we don’t know yet. But drop the whole “poor innocent child brutally murdered by horrible racist cop” narrative. That isn’t what happened.
If what we know now about the situation was known at the beginning of all this no reasonable person would have assumed wrong-doing on the part of the cop.
You seem anxious to let us know what a hard-headed, tough-guy realist you are. You can stop now. We get it.