Sent from my iPad
On Dec 9, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Brian Lawson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. Please back this up with something that will defend your assertions that a small calibre[lighter] has deadly accuracy at 50 yards, being wielded by a known mentally unstable person. it was a turkey shoot... > 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. > I guess her mental state acts as no defense? Plays no mitigating role? > 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? I've already said rubber bullets or wounding. If the police are only carrying lethal ammunition, then it's obvious as to their intent/orders. > Walk up to them and ask "May I see if that is a real weapon before I shoot > you for not putting it down?" Fine, be absurd about it. > 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. > Then the training of deputies is at fault. Having them murder people on their assumptions is entirely wrong. > 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. > Gross assumptions > 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. -- 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.
