> 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]
I made no assertions, I stated an opinion and I do not have to back that up for you or anyone else. > has deadly accuracy at 50 yards, being wielded by a known mentally unstable > person. Once again you totally ignore that there was absolutely on way for anyone to know that what she was holding was not a gun. It looked like a gun, she brandished it like a gun, she used it to threaten people as if it were a gun. >> 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? And if it were a gun would her mental state have prevented her from killing some one? >> 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. You didn't answer my question - what would you have had them do to determine the status of what she was holding? >> 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. All the training in the world would not help determine that what she was holding was not a gun from that distance. This is why realistic looking replica toy guns are required to have orange painted around the end of the barrel. These types of lighters should have the same requirement to prevent this type of tragedy from happening again. >> 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 No assumptions here at all, gross or otherwise. She was pointing what looked like a gun at a group of people and threatening them with harm. Everyone has a right to self defense. -- Brian Lawson -- 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.
