Quote for anti-gun people, "Man hit by police Taser: "That's all you got?"

[RetiredGySgt]

Unless the lethal force was justified in the circumstances it would be bad news for the cop who shot him. Unless the suspect put someone in danger of being killed there's no justification for lethal use of force by a police officer.

Agree?

A knife or an assault on on or more officers would allow for the use of deadly force. One only need feel threatened, believe a life is in danger. Lethal force is always allowed to save others. And one can be killed by bare hands alone.

 

[Gunny]

Did you read the whole article?

The ordeal ended virtually without incident yet you think the guy should have been killed? You're such a humanitarian there Shogun.

That isn't what he said, now is it? He merely stated police should have the option, and I agree.

What IF the guy had become violent? Pulled a gun? Pulled a knife even? Not unheard of.

 

[Gunny]

I did read your post, and you said this was clearly an example where lethal force was necessary. Obviously that's not true.

And of course you are also reading A LOT into my post that just isn't there. I fully support a policy that allows police officers to use there best judgement in the line of duty. I've always been very clear about that. I just don't see what any of this has to do with gun control. And while we may be on the same side of the gun control issue, I especially don't like it when ignorant, irrelevent "evidence" is brandished to support my position. I prefer it live or die on its own fundamental merits.

What board are YOU reading?

 

[Gunny]

Unless the lethal force was justified in the circumstances it would be bad news for the cop who shot him. Unless the suspect put someone in danger of being killed there's no justification for lethal use of force by a police officer.

Agree?

Kind of hard to disagree with obvious common sense. Of course use of lethal force must be justified.

By your definition though, is not "someone in danger of being killed" a matter of perspective?

I'm quite sure I am not the only person, nor even the best, who could kill someone with my bare hands in a second. Faster than you could draw a gun and prevent me from doing it.

 

[Diuretic]

A knife or an assault on on or more officers would allow for the use of deadly force. One only need feel threatened, believe a life is in danger. Lethal force is always allowed to save others. And one can be killed by bare hands alone.

It's very difficult to make generalisations on the question of lethal force. Each incident is judged on its own merits. That's what makes it so difficult for cops to work out the response to the attack. But if it was a suspect with bare fists or boots going at it, I can't see a jusifiable use of lethal force. No doubt there's been a case where a suspect was using bare hands where lethal force is necessary but again, on its merits.

 

[Diuretic]

Kind of hard to disagree with obvious common sense. Of course use of lethal force must be justified.

By your definition though, is not "someone in danger of being killed" a matter of perspective?

I'm quite sure I am not the only person, nor even the best, who could kill someone with my bare hands in a second. Faster than you could draw a gun and prevent me from doing it.

As I said in answer to RGS, each case on its merits. Luckily where I am the self defence statue uses subjective reasoning to evaluate whether or not self-defence is justified.

It's why police are put through simulated firearms training with simunition, to exercise the shoot/don't shoot judgement ability. You can learn the law in the classroom, you can learn weapons handling on the range but when it comes to deciding shoot/don't shoot you train on the simulator and you exercise the judgement in the field and hope you get it right if you have to make that decision.

 

[manifold]

That isn't what he said, now is it? He merely stated police should have the option, and I agree.

What IF the guy had become violent? Pulled a gun? Pulled a knife even? Not unheard of.

I agree too. Never said otherwise.

I just don't see what he claims this proves to anti-gun advocates, unless as that artard brian insists, he's only a talking about the most extreme anti-gun nuts that would actually like to disarm the police. As an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I've discussed the matter with many anti-gun folks, and I can't recall a single instance where any of them suggested that law enforcement should be disarmed. So again, what is this supposed to prove to the "typical" anti-gun advocate?

 

[Shogun]

Unless the lethal force was justified in the circumstances it would be bad news for the cop who shot him. Unless the suspect put someone in danger of being killed there's no justification for lethal use of force by a police officer.

Agree?

to a cop who sees a suspect flee into a non-secure location that may very well store a weapon after resisting arrest and becoming physically violent?

this dude is lucky to be alive. A cop making an arrest is not merely a suggestion or a light conversation.

 

[Shogun]

I agree too. Never said otherwise.

I just don't see what he claims this proves to anti-gun advocates, unless as that artard brian insists, he's only a talking about the most extreme anti-gun nuts that would actually like to disarm the police. As an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment, I've discussed the matter with many anti-gun folks, and I can't recall a single instance where any of them suggested that law enforcement should be disarmed. So again, what is this supposed to prove to the "typical" anti-gun advocate?

Are you making sense yet? for an "avid supporter of the second amendment" your cognition really is like pouring molasses onto an ice cube in January at the north pole. This story illustrates to those who are not cinvinced of the necessity of the availability of gun that they too live ina world where criminals pull tasers out of their own skin and attack cops who are not as much of a threat with a TASER than a standard issue handgun.

I won't bother lampooning you further. Looks like thats already taken care of.

 

[bennylava]

Did they not have mace on them?

 

[manifold]

Are you making sense yet? for an "avid supporter of the second amendment" your cognition really is like pouring molasses onto an ice cube in January at the north pole. This story illustrates to those who are not cinvinced of the necessity of the availability of gun that they too live ina world where criminals pull tasers out of their own skin and attack cops who are not as much of a threat with a TASER than a standard issue handgun.

I won't bother lampooning you further. Looks like thats already taken care of.

That works out pretty well then considering you can't lampoon worth a shit, despite how highly you might think of yourself.

While I disagree with anti-gun advocates, at least I take the time to understand their position. You, on the other hand, assume that the most extreme anti-gun nut speaks for the majority. If you actually took the time to understand the typical gun control advocates views, you'd realize that this story you posted in no way whatsoever serves to poke any holes in their logic. But don't mind me, I'm just the guy who keeps an open mind, tries to see things from all points of view, and rarely weds himself to any assumed certainty. Again, you seem fully wedded to a complete set of views and opinions from which you'd sooner die than question. In that regard you're really not much different than the dogma junkies you despise so much.

 

[Shogun]

dude..

you can rationalize your own stupidity with as many words as you think is necessary. You can be purposefully dense and then pretend to be everyman smack dab in the middle of the political spectrum. Hell, you can even make the laughable statement that I haven't routinely handed you your ass when it comes to lampooning posts. I don't care. You are not the first to do so and you are probably just as opaque as anyone else taking such a position after clearly, CLEARLY having a mudhole stomped in your ass during the course of this thread.


say what you want, think what you need to. The rest of the people who posted in this thread can comprehend what statement I made with this article. If you can't? well, it's no skin off of my nuts if you need to sit at the childs table.

 

[Ravi]

thats what im saying. This story could have been VERY tragic for the cops involved if this guy decided to become violent. While, I do agree with non-lethal options there is a clear necessity of lethal options and this is an example of such.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying the cops should have the right to use lethal methods if they feel the need. Is that correct? I can't imagine anyone arguing with that viewpoint.

That said, good for the cops for keeping the situation under control without killing someone for acting like an asshole.

 

[manifold]

dude..

you can rationalize your own stupidity with as many words as you think is necessary. You can be purposefully dense and then pretend to be everyman smack dab in the middle of the political spectrum. Hell, you can even make the laughable statement that I haven't routinely handed you your ass when it comes to lampooning posts. I don't care. You are not the first to do so and you are probably just as opaque as anyone else taking such a position after clearly, CLEARLY having a mudhole stomped in your ass during the course of this thread.


say what you want, think what you need to. The rest of the people who posted in this thread can comprehend what statement I made with this article. If you can't? well, it's no skin off of my nuts if you need to sit at the childs table.

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Playing the "other posters agree with me" card...nice! An absolute indicator that you know you've had your ass handed to you.

I accept your ego-salvaging act of concession!!

 

[M14 Shooter]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying the cops should have the right to use lethal methods if they feel the need. Is that correct? I can't imagine anyone arguing with that viewpoint.

Talk to Taoman.

He believes that a policeman who kills someone in the line of duty should be charged with murder. In every instance. No exceptions.

He says this because "there's always an alternative to killing".

He's a Super Mall Ninja. He knows.

 

[Shogun]

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Playing the "other posters agree with me" card...nice! An absolute indicator that you know you've had your ass handed to you.

I accept your ego-salvaging act of concession!!

If you say so. Clearly, when the majority speaks out in support for an obvious notion it's must mean that a daft minority makes a superior point.




face it.. If I didn't impress you so much you wouldn't be following me around like a little lost puppy.

 

[manifold]

If I didn't impress you so much you wouldn't be following me around like a little lost puppy.

DOIL!



You confuse being amused with being impressed. You both amuse and impress me just about as much as a tone-deaf American Idol auditioner.

 

[Shogun]

clearly.

which is why you keep tuning it, eh?





also.. if you insist on maintaining the denial and making referance of an adam sandler movie... perhaps you can at least put in the effort to get the name right.


it was O'doyle

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112508/

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112508/fullcredits#cast


this probably isn't indicative of the difference between me and you.

 

[manifold]

Sorry Shooter, that's not a reference to Billy Madison. It's an acronym that stands for doubling over in laughter, which is how I often end up upon reading your ignorant yet amusing rants.

 

[Shogun]

*yawn*



whatever you say, homey.