Bug Collector Handcuffed in Woods

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Are you saying that executing innocent people doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a gun outweighs someone else's right to live?

Are you saying that innocent people drowing doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a backyard pool outweighs someone else's right to live?

Don't be silly. You are comparing a deliberate action (pulling the trigger) with an accident.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you saying that executing innocent people doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a gun outweighs someone else's right to live?

Are you saying that innocent people drowing doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a backyard pool outweighs someone else's right to live?

Thanks, Kev, I would have said the exact same thing.
(thouh I might've used "bathtubs, just because of the thread so far...)

To Kallend: there is a very large difference between executing a person and shooting them in self defense. There's a reason why battered wives can use all force necessary to escape a beating, but why smothering him in his sleep, or poisoning his next meal are not acceptable.

Also, I don't own a gun to "have fun with it." I don't have the money or the time right now. I own it for a very simple reason, and it is about as far from fun as you can get.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you saying that executing innocent people doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a gun outweighs someone else's right to live?

Are you saying that innocent people drowing doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a backyard pool outweighs someone else's right to live?

Don't be silly. You are comparing a deliberate action (pulling the trigger) with an accident.

Really? Well, since my gun will never be used to execute anyone while I'm having fun, you should have no problems with me owning it.

Are we talking about gun accidents or gun crimes? Gun use in self defense or exectuing innocents? Those are each two very different conversations, no matter how much a gun banners wants to connect them.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you saying that executing innocent people doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a gun outweighs someone else's right to live?

Are you saying that innocent people drowing doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a backyard pool outweighs someone else's right to live?

Don't be silly. You are comparing a deliberate action (pulling the trigger) with an accident.

Really? Well, since my gun will never be used to execute anyone while I'm having fun, you should have no problems with me owning it.

Are we talking about gun accidents or gun crimes? Gun use in self defense or exectuing innocents? Those are each two very different conversations, no matter how much a gun banners wants to connect them.

Well, this thread is about abuse of power by the police. I don't see that accidents come into it. Was Amadou Diallo summarily executed by accident?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Well, this thread is about abuse of power by the police.

If it is about police abuse of power, stop talking about my guns and telling me I have to justify them.

Quote

I don't see that accidents come into it. Was Amadou Diallo summarily executed by accident

Diallo wasn't executed, he was shot by officers because he resembled a wanted violent felon, and when confronted, reached for something dark without communicating to the officers.

(When I reach for my wallet, I say "wallet...wallet...wallet...wallet...")

Let's define our terms, maybe that will help.
Execute (in terms of death) means to carry out a death sentence, to put to death in accordance with a judicial order, etc. It implies to danger, no questions left, and being calm (includes criminal executions, simply remove judicial).
Self defense, on the other hand, implies a thousand questions running through your head, imminent danger of death or GBH, and no calm whatsoever.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

but he wasn't doing anything. he happened to have a knife in the woods. I know that when I go in the woods I generally have a knife with me.

Hell, I have a knife on my right now. Please don't call the police.

Just one?? Don't you at least carry a beater so you don't have to mess up the edge on the nice one? I know I do...

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Are you saying that executing innocent people doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a gun outweighs someone else's right to live?

Ohhh, sneaky. Now you're trying to put words into people's posts that weren't there. Now it's "your right to have fun with a gun," huh?

Are you next going to build a nice, fragile strawman and say, "Show me where you have a constitutional 'right' to have fun with a gun"?

My right to FIRE that gun does end at someone else's right to live, except in certain circumstances in which I am justified in taking that person's life (i.e. he attacked me and meant to kill me or cause grievous bodily harm).

You will note that we already have strict laws that govern us regarding the right to just casually shoot at people. These are enough.
We never alleged that that was something we thought we were entitled, or should be entitled, to do.

Besides, going back to the root of this now that we've sidetracked, no one ever said executing the innocent was alright with us.

Kennedy was rightly pointing out that if ONE is too many to allow, the logical conclusion would be to take the guns away from cops since that would be the ONLY way to ensure cops never shoot someone in error, and then he implied (also rightly) that it is ludicrous to adhere to a "one is too many" mindset. It's irrational. To follow it is to have to ban all kinds of things that we surely won't tolerate banning. And if you won't ban them, then that's an admission that you don't truly believe your own "one is too many to accept" credo.

Try to discuss this without disingenuously suggesting things and claiming that others believe them. Kennedy never came anywhere near to asserting that he had some sort of half-assed "right to have fun with a gun" that outweighed innocent lives. It was scummy to attach that suggestion to his post.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you saying that executing innocent people doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a gun outweighs someone else's right to live?

Are you saying that innocent people drowing doesn't bother you? That your right to have fun with a backyard pool outweighs someone else's right to live?

Don't be silly. You are comparing a deliberate action (pulling the trigger) with an accident.

I am willing to bet that someone has, at some point, certainly deliberately drowned someone else in a swimming pool.

Even one is too many.

Are you really so callous that you want to allow this to go on? Is your swimming horseplay really worth someone else's life?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[Zenister 0]

i think all buckets should have holes to prevent children from drowning in them.
what? you mean that makes it worthless as a bucket, perhaps but it saves the lives of the children. wont you think of the children?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Diallo wasn't executed, he was shot by officers because he resembled a wanted violent felon, and when confronted, reached for something dark without communicating to the officers.

(When I reach for my wallet, I say "wallet...wallet...wallet...wallet...")

The Diallo debate is a whole other thread and I would hope that it would not expand here in this debate, but Kallend's point is very valid.

The police said that reaching for his wallet, their lives were in danger. I wonder if they asked him for ID at his door when they knocked - probably why he went for his wallet.

You and others have the right to 'remove the threat' when confronted with one. The officers threat was probably removed after the first couple rounds when he fell down. Shots fired after re-assessing the threat are arguably an 'execution'. 41 rounds, 19 hits, some of them in the bottom of his feet.

You quote the legal definition of the word 'execution' when the context in which Kallend used it is a common use of the word everyday to describe an unnecessary death/murder (i.e a mob hit would be described as an execution, but does not fit your legal description either).

The definition one way or the other does not actually change the arguement or the point that he is making. Murder would have been a better description. Sadly, they were acquitted.

In your 'wallet, walllet, wallet' scenario, you still may very well have been shot, simply because they thought your wallet was something else.

The point is still made and you have helped to make it. It appears that at least some part of society thinks that it is OK to shoot me with a knife, a wallet, a cell phone, or some other unidentified object in my hand, AS LONG AS they feel their life is in danger.

When in fact their/your life is NOT IN FACT in any danger, and the fact that you do not know that at that time, simply makes you ignorant of that fact, but not justified in taking someone's life for it. (in my opinion)

You suggested in the 'other' thread that perhaps we should change the laws - I am all for it - part of what I said time and time again - make people responsible for the action of shooting someone, even in self defense.

If you shoot someone coming at you with a gun/knife, then fine. If you shoot someone coming at you with a cell phone (or reaching for a wallet), then you go to jail.

Sounds pretty fair and accountable to me. I think I will write my congressman today.

But in our current society, we do not see that happening, we mostly call them 'unfortunate accidents'

TK

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

The police said that reaching for his wallet, their lives were in danger. I wonder if they asked him for ID at his door when they knocked - probably why he went for his wallet.

The man was mistaken for a violent felon. If they were "knocking on his door" they would've knon who he was, and never knocked.

In reality they confronted him on a sidewalk at night.

Quote

The officers threat was probably removed after the first couple rounds when he fell down. Shots fired after re-assessing the threat are arguably an 'execution'. 41 rounds, 19 hits, some of them in the bottom of his feet.

And you can prove that he fell dowwn after "the first few shots?"

The shots that hit the bottom of his feet were not at an angle that says he was shot after falling. There were at an angle that suggests the officers had very poor aim and that he may have lifted on leg (a common fear reflex, going partially fetal while standing).

Quote

In your 'wallet, walllet, wallet' scenario, you still may very well have been shot, simply because they thought your wallet was something else.

Not likely, since I would move very, very slowly when a LEO's gun is pointed at me (or very, very quickly).

Quote

The point is still made and you have helped to make it. It appears that at least some part of society thinks that it is OK to shoot me with a knife, a wallet, a cell phone, or some other unidentified object in my hand, AS LONG AS they feel their life is in danger.

I've got a scenario for you. You are a cop, it's midnight, and you pull someone over for speeding. Rather than wait in the car, they get out to come talk to you. As you are talking, without requesting anything from them, they pull a shiny black object from behind their back. It fills their fist and a two inch squared of protrusion is pointing out.

An officer I greatly admire was faced with this situation. He pulled his firearms and shot.

The man did not have a gun. It was his wallet and a comb coming out of his back pocket.

If you have a problem with what you perceive as unnecessary police shootings, you should go through a shoot don't shoot simulation. It's really funny watching activists who proclaim to value human life. They shoot EVERYBODY.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

The man was mistaken for a violent felon. If they were "knocking on his door" they would've known who he was, and never knocked.

In reality they confronted him on a sidewalk at night.

Please check the 'reality' of your story He was shot in the vestibule of his own apartment, not on the street. No such thing is said in any of the stories or court documents published regarding the case.

Quote

And you can prove that he fell dowwn after "the first few shots?"

The shots that hit the bottom of his feet were not at an angle that says he was shot after falling. There were at an angle that suggests the officers had very poor aim and that he may have lifted on leg (a common fear reflex, going partially fetal while standing).

No I cannot prove it. Can you prove that he did not? Can you prove that bullet holes in the bottom of his feet were "defensive shots?" If he was 'fetal' and in fear as you describe, then surely they were out of danger, if only for a moment, so they could reassess the 'threat' to themselves. No, they continued to shoot until the 'threat' as they saw it was removed. Sadly the law allows this.

This only supports the argument of this entire thread - that excessive force is acceptable, as long as I think I am still threatened. And I still may not be held accountable for it.

His family got $3M, the guy picking beetles has just as much right to compensation since we need to remind the police in those situations that there are other outcomes possible.

Quote

I've got a scenario for you. You are a cop, it's midnight, and you pull someone over for speeding. Rather than wait in the car, they get out to come talk to you. As you are talking, without requesting anything from them, they pull a shiny black object from behind their back. It fills their fist and a two inch squared of protrusion is pointing out.

An officer I greatly admire was faced with this situation. He pulled his firearms and shot.

The man did not have a gun. It was his wallet and a comb coming out of his back pocket.

A valid scenario. Would I shoot? If I was a trained cop in today's environment, believing what you appear to believe? - yes, probably

But in a world of MY ideology, in MY perfect world with a culture that shares MY belief structures, I might not think that the guy has a gun, because guns are heavily restricted. and it would be odd for someone to be driving around with a gun in their back pocket.

I might get shot, but I might not.

There are too many possible outcomes other than shooting even in your scenario. Step back and draw; run and take cover and draw; put your gun in his ear before he gets to do anything; all the time issuing verbal commands as you would be trained to do; not really enough information to say one way or the other.

TK

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

force is acceptable, as long as I think I am still threatened

I cut off excessive, because that's your opinion. But I'm curious. What standard do you think there should be for when deadly force to protect yourself is permitted? Personally, I think that legitimately believing you are in imminent danger IS sufficient. What do you think should be the determining factor as to whether you should defend yourself or not?