Oregon Shooting
-
wizardzz wrote:
Honestly, do you really think that these 2 people are innocent victims?
The passenger, certainly not being the driver of the car, yes, is innocent. As far as the driver goes, what was he guilty of? Reckless driving? Attempted manslaughter? Etc.? So, we have an execution instead of a trial by jury, guilty before innocent, and that is the way of the law, eh? The point being, the police are supposed to protect the citizens, even those committing crimes, and the innocent people, and also they are supposed to protect the law. The actions I read about don't seem to reflect this. That's my 2c. Marc
Reverse Engineering Legacy Applications
How To Think Like a Functional Programmer
My Blog
Computational Types in C# and F#Marc Clifton wrote:
Attempted manslaughter?
Eh? Don't know about where you are but where I am when someone tries to drive over someone else with a car then they are charged with murder, not manslaughter. And ramming another car with occupants can certainly count as attempted murder.
-
In similar situations, I have seen charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery of a police officer.
Marc Clifton wrote:
The point being, the police are supposed to protect the citizens, even those committing crimes, and the innocent people, and also they are supposed to protect the law.
And also protect themselves and their partners.
wizardzz wrote:
And also protect themselves and their partners.
To a certain extent yes - but this level of violence seems excessive. But isn't this the crux of the matter? To what degree is a person who is supposed to uphold the law to protect even those that are breaking it at the expense of his/her own safety? Marc
Reverse Engineering Legacy Applications
How To Think Like a Functional Programmer
My Blog
Computational Types in C# and F# -
Mendor81 wrote:
why your country is one of the countries with the most deaths caused by firearms then the rest of the relatively peaceful countries in the EU.
You should probably break that down to a per-capita rate, since the USA is larger than any single country in the EU. It's really hard to say that the absolute numbers mean anything. But at the same time, you should also realize who you're talking to, and that he's very well prepared for the argument. Is it worth it?
Because anti-gunners aren't interested in appropriate statistics unless they can be twisted to meet their agenda.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
BobJanova wrote:
... because GBH is clearly the appropriate response to attempted theft?
I can only suppose and hope that you did not read or perhaps did not understand what "Navy" means in the post that you responded to.
Maybe he's confusing it with that clothing store with the crappy commercials...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Have you seen that footage and been able to comprehend how the fuck they missed? The sad thing is, there is even a shooting range in Manhattan, but not a single one in Chicago.
The entirety of Chicago is a shooting range.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
I understand what your point of view is, but still don't agree. After thinking about it, a lot of massacres were done/supported by civilians having weapons. So when things turn bad, having guns all around may not protect you but may make the mess much worse. Or not. Depends of what is turning bad, who is trying to turn against who. That being said, it looks too much like a flame war that is not worth pursuing. Even the nazis have been brought up already. It is clear from your tone that you won't change your mind, and I can tell you that it won't change mine either. ;)
Elrond wrote:
It is clear from your tone that you won't change your mind,
That's the first thing you've said that I agree with 100%.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
BobJanova wrote:
... because GBH is clearly the appropriate response to attempted theft?
I can only suppose and hope that you did not read or perhaps did not understand what "Navy" means in the post that you responded to.
-
In similar situations, I have seen charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery of a police officer.
Marc Clifton wrote:
The point being, the police are supposed to protect the citizens, even those committing crimes, and the innocent people, and also they are supposed to protect the law.
And also protect themselves and their partners.
-
I was in the military, standing watch with a side arm, and I was expected to use it if necessary. They don't expect personnel to be pussies while guarding a warship, and I was well trained in the use and maintenance of the pistol. I could just as easily have killed the guy outright, but I chose not to. I'm not gun crazy by any stretch of the imagination. I have three sporting 22's (two used for silhouette competition), a shotgun for home defense, and two 1911's and Ar15's, one for me, and one for the wife. Yes, we have a lot of ammo on hand, but that's because we practice quite a bit. Our "stockpile" of SHTF ammo consists of 16 loaded 30-round magazines for the AR15s (8 for each of us), and 14 7-round magazines for the pistols (7 for each of us). Anyone that expects to be able to lug around a few thousand rounds of extra ammo during a zombie apocalypse is deluding themselves. You grab what you can, bury the rest (if you have time), and head for the hills. In all actuality, I doubt the wife would take a rifle, but it's there if she wants it. My goal isn't to own a lot of guns and go around shooting people. My goal is to be able arm myself and my wife to a reasonable level, and in the event it's necessary. We're most certainly not "gun crazy".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
"In similar situations, I have seen charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery of a police officer." Neither of which carries the death penalty ...
First degree murder doesn't carry the death penalty in my state, yet cops will legally shoot to kill in order to save their own or their partner's lives. If someone is attempting to murder you or another, you have the legal right to defend yourself, regardless of the sentence the courts would give them. It's interesting that you have a difficult time with the legal precedent that an officer's life is more valuable to society than a criminal's. Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime? Anyone in your family ever have to defend themselves with deadly force?
-
First degree murder doesn't carry the death penalty in my state, yet cops will legally shoot to kill in order to save their own or their partner's lives. If someone is attempting to murder you or another, you have the legal right to defend yourself, regardless of the sentence the courts would give them. It's interesting that you have a difficult time with the legal precedent that an officer's life is more valuable to society than a criminal's. Have you ever been the victim of a violent crime? Anyone in your family ever have to defend themselves with deadly force?
If it is really 'you or them' then that is one thing. That clearly isn't the case for the passenger, at least, in this case. Policemen all over the world manage to deal with dangerous high speed pursuits and people that are trying to ram them without going movie-crazy with a hail of bullets through the car.
wizardzz wrote:
Anyone in your family ever have to defend themselves with deadly force?
Well, no. I live in a civilised country where that sort of thing doesn't happen.
-
If it is really 'you or them' then that is one thing. That clearly isn't the case for the passenger, at least, in this case. Policemen all over the world manage to deal with dangerous high speed pursuits and people that are trying to ram them without going movie-crazy with a hail of bullets through the car.
wizardzz wrote:
Anyone in your family ever have to defend themselves with deadly force?
Well, no. I live in a civilised country where that sort of thing doesn't happen.
-
Being in the military doesn't give you a right to shoot civilians. That's what the military police is for.
When you're standing watch, on your ship, you are effectively the "military police". They give the petty officer of the watch a sidearm for a reason (mostly to repel illegal borders which is exactly what I was doing). Have you ever served in the US military - or ANY military? And just to help you over your confusion, being in the military and having shot someone doesn't automatically make someone "gun crazy".
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Being in the military doesn't give you a right to shoot civilians. That's what the military police is for.