On Dec 9, 2010, at 7:46 AM, richardsan wrote: > On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:20 AM, Brian Lawson <[email protected]> wrote: > The article did not mention diminished mental capacities. When someone is > pointing a gun at me and threatening to pull the trigger and being > belligerent you can bet I'm not going to be concerned about their life when > it comes to defending myself. > > It's easy to criticize from the comfort of your home, you weren't there. > so, their use of force, because they were too far away to see/ use teasers > is sufficient for you? > my gawd.... > that's just crazy talk, brian. if someone is 50 yards away, is =>your visual > acuity "enough" to make a "use of deadly force" judgement? > at best, you could only be guessing, as to the other persons intent[much less > see what might be the threat]. guessing is now a reliable defence for such > actions? > > you haven't addressed wounding, instead of murdering....if those deputies > were using rifles[they were] and are probably rated for their use, why didn't > they wound her? > a 6 shot[at least] volley?...jesus christ...that's homicide. > law enforcement investigating itself...wow that's a no process situation.... > > did you not read the whole article?...deputies initially reported that she > fired at them...retracted. > she was brandishing a gun, as reported...retracted "weapon " was a lighter. > they knew her to be unstable from months long incidences...what, are rubber > bullets more expensive or something? > > would you want to have deadly force applied to someone who hasn't actually > committed a crime; demanding such action? > would you?
In this case, yes I believe their use of force was completely justified. I do not always believe this to be the case when it comes to police shootings but in this one I do. This woman wanted people to believe that she had a gun and was not only willing but was actually going to use it. She had every opportunity to put down what she was holding and she refused to do so. She got exactly what she wanted, that is, people to be afraid that she would kill someone, and the consequences are entirely upon her. What would you have the police do when someone is pointing what they assume (due to the behavior of the person they are confronting) is a gun at them? Walk up to them and ask "May I see if that is a real weapon before I shoot you for not putting it down?" The fact that she was 140 feet away and visual acuity is not sufficient to distinguish a gun from a lighter made to look like a gun, I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference at 10 feet, is entirely the point. The number of people who shot her is irrelevant. She was threatening each and every one of them. Every one of them had the right, even the duty since she was also threatening her neighbors, to pull the trigger once it was determined that her threat to kill someone was imminent. It isn't murder when it is self defense and it is a crime to point a gun at people and threat to kill them, even a toy gun or as in this case a cigarette lighter made to look like a gun. Not everything is a government conspiracy to relieve us of our rights. -- Brian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
