On Feb 21, 10:51*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:07:45 -0800 (PST), RangersSuck



wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:44*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:37:23 -0800 (PST), RangersSuck

wrote:

I see more blather on your part. *In still waiting for an answer about
shooting an arsonist btw.

Is there some reason you and yours are ignoring 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.""

Q: What the **** does shooting an unarmed, hapless stickup man have to
do with arson?

A: When Gunner backs himself into a corner, he changes the subject.

So you admit to being a liar. * Thats not surprising given your nick..

"

Don't need much data. Conceal carry is for the purpose of self defense
only.
If someone is unarmed and running away, you don't need to defend yourself.

Even the police would have no right to fire on someone under the
circumstances as described.

That is actually a matter of state law. It varies from state to state.

Some allow one to shoot a fleeing felon, others do not.

Are you allowed to shoot a fleeing arsonist? *And why or why not?

Use as much whitespace as necessary.

Ill give you a hint though...
"demonstratably a danger to the public at large"

You can go from there....

Gunner

The above is my original post. *Yet you claim Im changing the subject.

On Feb 21, 11:06*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
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.


Gunner, I responded to the original post in this thread. Not to
anything else. If it turns out that the story as presented here is
inaccurate, that's of no relevance to this discussion. My point was
that, as the story was told, the perpetrator had dropped his gun and
fled the parking lot at the address given, and a shot was fired before
the store people took off in pursuit.

Based on that information and a photograph of the location, it seemed
to me that the shooting was ill-advised. Hardly a "grand
pronunciation."



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.


You still haven't answered the question. Given the circumstances AS
DESCRIBED IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE and the photo I provided of the
location, do you think it was a good idea to shoot? Please explain
your answer.



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...e=&q=3050+N.+A...

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.""

You, apparently the expert in these matters, said that the law varies
from state to state. The only state you mentioned above was Texas.
This incident was in Florida. Do you know what the applicable law is
in the state of Florida?

Again, Gunner, you don't know me. What is it about your life that has
caused you to hate so strongly?

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:36:07 -0800 (PST), RangersSuck
wrote:

On Feb 21, 10:51*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:07:45 -0800 (PST), RangersSuck



wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:44*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:37:23 -0800 (PST), RangersSuck

wrote:

I see more blather on your part. *In still waiting for an answer about
shooting an arsonist btw.

Is there some reason you and yours are ignoring 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.""

Q: What the **** does shooting an unarmed, hapless stickup man have to
do with arson?

A: When Gunner backs himself into a corner, he changes the subject.

So you admit to being a liar. * Thats not surprising given your nick.

"

Don't need much data. Conceal carry is for the purpose of self defense
only.
If someone is unarmed and running away, you don't need to defend yourself.

Even the police would have no right to fire on someone under the
circumstances as described.

That is actually a matter of state law. It varies from state to state.

Some allow one to shoot a fleeing felon, others do not.

Are you allowed to shoot a fleeing arsonist? *And why or why not?

Use as much whitespace as necessary.

Ill give you a hint though...
"demonstratably a danger to the public at large"

You can go from there....

Gunner

The above is my original post. *Yet you claim Im changing the subject.
A proven lie on your part.

So, now what are you going to claim? *That I forceably backed you into a
corner and you are trying to change the subject?

Snicker

Still waiting for the answers to my very reasonable questions above btw.

Gunner

First of all, I do not admit to being a liar.

Of course you dont. Few liars make that admission.

Yes, but you said I did admit it. I guess that makes you a liar,
doesn't it.

No..it makes you a liar for refusing to admit you are a liar.



Second, your question about shooting an arsonist is a non-sequiter

You are now trying to weasel. Pity.

No, it was a complete non-sequiter - has absolutely no place in this
discussion.

Sure it did. I mentioned it in my first post.




Third, your question about shooting an arsonist was directed to Eliot
G. (not me)

You call me on my post..you cant pick and choose after the fact what you
want from the post.


I can do whatever I want. You, sir, don't make the rules.

And you blovate.



Fourth, your question about shooting an arsonist would be better
directed to someone who gives a **** (again, not me).

Another liar perhaps?

Whoever you want, I really don't care at all.

Liars seldom do.




You know nothing about me. If you did, you'd know that RangersSuck is
about the New York hockey team - I have no idea how you think that
makes me prone to telling lies.

As a former Army Ranger...never mind..I can see how "sports" can effect
some peoples..limited peoples lives.

I'm sure th US Army is delighted to have you as its spokesmodel. BTW,
you meant Affect, not Effect. If you're going to spew bull****, at
least spew it with some class.

The irony of a hockey fan talking about class is exquisite.



Which of course is a digression from your buffoonery in your posts.

Hockey...doesnt that involve a ball and a bat? * *Maybe a head injury on
your part....?

No, hockey involves smoking till your heart gives up and then suing
the doctor. Oh wait....

Suing a doctor over my smoking? When? Suing a doctor over a radical
misdiagnosis that nearly killed me, thats still in the works.


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.""

And thus ends yet another conversation with the famous Gunner, master
of the ad hominem gutless name calling attack. I would have thought
that your recent brush with death would have brought you some
humility, and perhaps the possibility that you could disagree with
someone without hatred. I guess I was wrong.

Hatred? This is usenet. I dont hate you. Whatever gave you that idea?

How could I hate the retarded? I pity them.

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.""

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 02:51:01 -0800 (PST), RangersSuck
wrote:

On Feb 21, 11:06*pm, Gunner Asch wrote:
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.


Gunner, I responded to the original post in this thread. Not to
anything else. If it turns out that the story as presented here is
inaccurate, that's of no relevance to this discussion. My point was
that, as the story was told, the perpetrator had dropped his gun and
fled the parking lot at the address given, and a shot was fired before
the store people took off in pursuit.

Based on that information and a photograph of the location, it seemed
to me that the shooting was ill-advised. Hardly a "grand
pronunciation."

So you do admit to blovating on limited data. You really need to work
on that.



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.


You still haven't answered the question. Given the circumstances AS
DESCRIBED IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE and the photo I provided of the
location, do you think it was a good idea to shoot? Please explain
your answer.

I read 5 articles. I dont make judgements on a single usually incorrect
data set (the media nearly never gets it correct). Nor do I blovate
on such limited data. Im rather disappointed you do. Pity.



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...e=&q=3050+N.+A...

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?

I noted you refused to respond to this question.



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.""

You, apparently the expert in these matters, said that the law varies
from state to state. The only state you mentioned above was Texas.
This incident was in Florida. Do you know what the applicable law is
in the state of Florida?

Nope. Sure dont. And apparently you dont either. I on the other hand
stated quite clearly it varies from state to state and circumstances,
while you went all stupid and made provably spurious claims.

Again, Gunner, you don't know me. What is it about your life that has
caused you to hate so strongly?

Hate? I dont hate. Well...with the possible exception of
Liberals....though I hold most of them in contempt. In fact, there is
no one currently alive whom I hate.

On the other hand...when someone goes stupid or acts like an utter
retard, I tend to pull their wings off and point out their stupidity.
Its a community service.

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.""