On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:01:21 -0800 (PST), RangersSuck
wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:38*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:41:10 -0800 (PST), RangersSuck
wrote:
On Feb 21, 5:59*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:43:25 -0800 (PST), RangersSuck
wrote:
You and I agree that shooting an unarmed man in the back is a bad
idea. Gunner, on the other hand, appears to think it's OK, as long as
there's a good backstop to keep bystanders safe. Sheesh.
I see your reading comprehension sucks as badly as St..pids does.
Pity
Gunner
"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""
OK, then suppose you take a couple of minutes and explain things to
me. My understanding is that you don't have a problem with shooting at
the guy who, after dropping his gun, tried to run away from the scene
of the crime. Further, you don't think this puts bystanders in danger,
as long as there's a suitable backstop.
That is, at least, what I thought you wrote. Please correct me if I'm
wrong.
First of all...several of the reports claim the perp was STILL holding
the firearm when he was shot at.
Secondly...you havent proven to us that there were 1. Bystanders, 2. An
unsafe backstop. *
In fact...as I mentioned in my original post..you have given us few if
any details of any kind. *Just your opinion.
And thirdly...you have as yet failed to clarify when and when its not
proper to shoot a fleeing felon. *I made mention that its largely a
state issue and depends on various circumstances. *You as yet have
refused to refute that in any meaningful way, attacking me, rather than
that I stated clearly.
So I ask again, are you normally this stupid or do you have to work at
it?
Gunner
"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""
Firstly, the ONLY report I have read of this incident was the one
posted in this group, in which it clearly said that the peroetrator
dropped his gun and ran.
So you admit to making grand pronounciations based on exceptionally
limited data. Im not surprised.
Secondly, I don't need to prove that there were bystanders or an
unsafe backstop in order to ask you whether it's OK with you to shoot
an unarmed man in the back as long as it doesn't present a danger to
bystanders, which appears to be your position.
You dont need me at all. You have your overly inflated opinion to keep
you warm.
Thirdly, for the third time, here is a link to a photo of the
neighborhood. I really don't know what else you expect me to provide
by way of evidence.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&sour...=17&iwloc=addr
Fourthly, what are the laws concerning shooting fleeing felons in the
back in the State of Florida? Please provide cites.
Good question. You mean you dont know..and yet you made further grand
prounociations based on your ignorance of the subject?
Am I normally not this stupid.
Oddly...I figured this was normal for you. Maybe took a hockey puck to
the skull recently?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited to non-lethal force in
most cases by Tennessee v. GarnerTennessee v. Garner
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, was a case in which the Supreme Court
of the United States held that under the Fourth A...
, . The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless
necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to
believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious
physical injury to the officer or others."
Note...this ONLY applies to police officers. However tort law usually
applies the same rules to civilians..the Reasonable Man criteria.
Now perhaps you can put 2+2 together and see that you were wrong, and
why I made the comment about shooting a fleeing arsonist and so forth.
"unless....has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a
significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or
others."
"feels that the felon represents a continuing threat to the community"
Hence arsonists, bombers, serial rapists and so forth can be considered
a Continuing threat.
And of course in Texas and several other states, one may shoot a felon
to recover property, no threat to ones person needed.
When you get your JD...and some street experience both in Case and Tort
Law..get back to me, ok?
Until then..you are simply an ignorant and inflated Opinion half beaten
sensless by a hocky ball.
Gunner
"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""