Ferguson, MO

[ElvisL1ves]

@Renee

Oh, for fuck’s sake. Could you and elvis be ANY more ridiculous about this?

About the victim having been a human? That’s ridiculous?

[Smapti]

@ElvisL1ves

About the victim having been a human? That’s ridiculous?

Has anyone asserted that the victim was not human, or is this strawman just for your own entertainment?

[ElvisL1ves]

@you

it

:dubious:

[Renee]

@ElvisL1ves

About the victim having been a human? That’s ridiculous?

Yes it’s fucking ridiculous. No one has suggested the victim wasn’t human. You’re pulling that out of your ass.

[Smapti]

@ElvisL1ves

:dubious:

[QUOTE=Me, in context]
The only reason to shoot a firearm at a living being is if you intend to kill it. No exceptions, no ifs ands or buts. There’s no “shoot him in the leg to slow him down”, there’s no “warning shot”. That’s not how it works in real life. The time you spend firing a shot to scare your target is the time it takes him to draw the gun you didn’t know he had and shoot you in the face.
[/QUOTE]

It is obvious to anyone acting in good faith that I was speaking about the generic philosophy of firearms use and that “it” refers to “a living being”, not to “Michael Brown, a specific individual who I do not believe to be human”.

Michael Brown is and was human and you are being disingenuous by pretending that I ever claimed otherwise.

[ElvisL1ves]

Renee: Then you’re going to have to specify what we’ve been “ridiculous” about, since you were quoting these words and these words only:

So you consider the victim in this case to be somewhat less than human? How telling.

[Smapti]

@ElvisL1ves

Then you’re going to have to specify what we’ve been “ridiculous” about, since you were quoting these words and these words only:

You are being ridiculous by implying that others do not believe the victim to be human.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Smapti

It is obvious …that “it” refers to “a living being”, not to “Michael Brown, a specific individual who I do not believe to be human”.

I feel a breeze … is somebody wildly waving his hands?

[doorhinge]

@elucidator

You have any good reason to drag Joe Biden into this?

Man claims ‘Joe Biden defense’ after firing shotgun into the air

…“If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barrel shotgun. … I said [to my wife] 'Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house. I promise you whoever’s coming in is not going to…'”
-Joe Biden

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/11/19/man-claims-joe-biden-defense-after-firing-shotgun-into-the-air/

[Terr]

@ElvisL1ves

Keep dancing.

When you are caught in a falsehood, that’s all you got?

[ElvisL1ves]

The Dick Cheney defense works better. It even gets the victim to apologize.

[Sinaptics]

@Renee

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.

Few things:

after which there is a scuffle of some sort

Alleged.
2.

But drop the whole “poor innocent child brutally murdered by horrible racist cop” narrative.

I think the narrative is that police are using lethal force in situations that don’t warrant it. Racial motivation is a part of this.
3.

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.

I consider myself reasonable and so far, I think there is a very good chance that lethal force, in this instance, wasn’t warranted.

[BobLibDem]

@Renee

Yes it’s fucking ridiculous. No one has suggested the victim wasn’t human. You’re pulling that out of your ass.

Post 1175

The only reason to shoot a firearm at a living being is if you intend to kill it. No exceptions, no ifs ands or buts. There’s no “shoot him in the leg to slow him down”, there’s no “warning shot”. That’s not how it works in real life. The time you spend firing a shot to scare your target is the time it takes him to draw the gun you didn’t know he had and shoot you in the face.

Post 1228

You’ll note that I never said “human”, I said “living being”.

connect the dots.

[ElvisL1ves]

@Terr

When you are caught in a falsehood, that’s all you got?

When it happens, I’ll be sure to let you know, okay?

[doorhinge]

@ElvisL1ves

I feel a breeze … is somebody wildly waving his hands?

Are you sitting by yourself or are there other people in the room with you? Is the window open?

[Smapti]

@BobLibDem

Post 1175

Post 1228
connect the dots.

No person operating in good faith could “connect the dots” in the way that you are doing.

If I didn’t believe Michael Brown to be human, I would say so. When in this thread have I ever shied away from expressing my honest opinion?

[ElvisL1ves]

doorhinge, have you ever been diagnosed with an autism-spectrum disorder? If not, it may be time to get that looked into.

[Smapti]

@ElvisL1ves

doorhinge, have you ever been diagnosed with an autism-spectrum disorder? If not, it may be time to get that looked into.

When the best argument you can come up with for your position is that anyone who disagrees with you must be mentally challenged…

[kinoons]

@Loach

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.

Sampti Read the above, perhaps twice, slowly, to ensure comprehension

@doorhinge

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?

I believe we are advocating the same thing – the choose your own adventure was to demonstrate the hilarity of the notion that shooting in self defense is intended solely to kill someone.

[Smapti]

@kinoons

Sampti Read the above, perhaps twice, slowly, to ensure comprehension

I comprehend. The only way you can be sure that the threat is eliminated is if your assailant is dead.