How far will the excuses to shoot go?

[Nessie]

First, people are not running around killing people just because you spooked them.

If you come at me with a knife, dagger, club, tire iron, or some other deadly weapon, I will draw my weapon and shoot, every time.

If you're walking behind me, and run up and go "BOO!!!" and scare me, I may punch you for being a jerk, but I am not in fear of GBH or death.

The other times I may draw and fire, is if you're committing a forcible felony in my presence. Don't commit a forcible felony in my presence.

So this premise that you seem to think that just being scared is justification for deadly force, is silly, and stupid.

Anecdotal, but I have been a CWP holder for many years now (about 10 or so) and have only drew my weapon once, and didn't fire it.

Now apply all of that to Gil Collar, Andrew De Vries and Yoshihiro Hattori and you would kill all three. That is very scary for me as it means you have announced you are a crime fighter who will use your power and right to shoot and kill without recourse to arrest or a trial. To me that makes you a a vigilante who dispenses summary executions. You are a frightening person who I would have to kill even if you just came up behind me and said BOO!

Yep, I would fire my weapon.



Most likely not, unless he attempted to enter the door, then he's done.



Again, no. He made no threatening gesture, and was outside of my home, and had made no attempt to gain entry into my home.

See what happens when you assume? It makes you look like an ass, now doesn't it.



BZZZTTTTTTT!!! Wrong!



Nope, not a crime fighter sir. I will defend my property, or the life and safety of others, if need be. I wouldn't hesitate. However, I don't go out looking for it, nor does it apply to just any crime.

You're continuing to make an ass of yourself.



Incorrect. Your incorrect opinion is duly noted.



And you'd never even know me from the man on the moon. You'd have no idea if I had any kind of weapon on me, as I don't broadcast it to the world.

You are talking tough and then when challenged with real life cases back down and say that was not what you meant. You and Belz are very good at dealing with fiction but not with fact. I wish you would stick to the actual cases under discussion rather than trying to right them off as strawmen.

So do you agree the shootings of de Vries and Hattori are lame excuses to kill?

 

[Nessie]

......

I'm an American, lived here almost everyday for 48 years and the only person who ever tried to kill me was not an American.

.........


I wish I could say the same.

No one has ever tried to kill me, or at least what I would say was a real attempt to kill. I have had a good few threats to kill as people go to attack me but I didn't see any as actually life threatening.

The pro gun lobby often sites a telephone survey from the 1990s (Kleck and Gertz) which claimed 2.5 million DGUs a year in the US. All they did was ask people, have you used your gun defensively? Other surveys such as by Denton and Fabricius and David Hemenway have then gone on a step further to see if the DGU was really a DGU or not. They have found that many DGUs were unjustifiable and not DGUs at all.

I would be interested in what you believed was an attempt to kill and if, since your perceived threat level of deadly force is low, were they really attempts to kill or not.

 

[Nessie]

That's the thing, we can't except the police to be more perfect at their jobs just because they carry a gun. Having a gun doesn't make them any less perfect than the rest of us. I could kill you by running you over with my bread truck while I was delivering bread for my bread job. I could kill you with a pencil while I was grading papers. Guns have nothing to do with it.

The misperception of threat level yet again. Gun vs truck vs pencil, you do understand that they are different threat levels or do you? For me pencil very low, truck medium to high depending on the driver and location, gun high to very high depending on the accuracy of the shooter.

 

[Belz...]

What context?

Naked, unarmed student walks slowly towards cop and gets shot. What part have I missed?

Well, the first thing I notice is that you've phrased it exactly the way you wanted it: the was absolutely no threat to the policeman. Of course, phrasing it like that (dishonestly, that is), it's obvious that you're right.

I ask you a question and you call me dense? Dodge.

It's not a dodge. I can't be bothered to repeat myself, beyond a certain number of times.

 

[Belz...]

It is about level of threat. Unarmed people pose a lower level of threat that armed people in the vast majority of cases.

Again, this is a case-by-case, current scenario thing. I don't expect the cop to be a statistics expert, nor to start thinking about all that as the situation devellops.

Being under the influence can lower a persons threat level.

Or it can increase it. We can play this game all year, but it's entirely irrelevant, SINCE THE COP DIDN'T KNOW.

Have you see drunks trying to fight? Do you get many pot heads going rage?

And did you see how Steven Seagal takes down former Navy Seals ? Who cares, since this isn't what we're talking about ?

You are another who sees deadly danger in everything

No I am not, and your conclusion doesn't follow from what I've said, since I've been very clear about that. This is also an Ad hominem, and has no bearing on the argument. I'm going to have to continue calling you dishonest.

 

[Nessie]

Again, this is a case-by-case, current scenario thing. I don't expect the cop to be a statistics expert, nor to start thinking about all that as the situation devellops.



Or it can increase it. We can play this game all year, but it's entirely irrelevant, SINCE THE COP DIDN'T KNOW.



And did you see how Steven Seagal takes down former Navy Seals ? Who cares, since this isn't what we're talking about ?



No I am not, and your conclusion doesn't follow from what I've said, since I've been very clear about that. This is also an Ad hominem, and has no bearing on the argument. I'm going to have to continue calling you dishonest.

The cop should know about assessing threat levels, that is what cops should do and they cannot or will not assess threat levels and adjust accordingly they should not be cops.

Your descriptives of thought processes are wholly inaccurate. Thinking about statistics

If it is a hard as you make out to assess threat levels, why don't all US cops draw their guns at everyone and every thing?

Why does the Alabama University have a policy on reasonable force and threat levels?

I believe my conclusion does follow from what you have said. Go on with your ad hominems all you want, it all you have left as you cannot and will not deal with the cases in question.

Did Collar pose a deadly threat? Did de Vreis or Hattori? If not why not? All we get from you is the police officer cannot know about threats, which is wrong.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Well, the first thing I notice is that you've phrased it exactly the way you wanted it: the was absolutely no threat to the policeman. Of course, phrasing it like that (dishonestly, that is), it's obvious that you're right.



It's not a dodge. I can't be bothered to repeat myself, beyond a certain number of times.

How would you word it?

It seems I have to keep repeating myself. *I have never said he was harmless. I have stated several times that it was indeed possible for him to injure or kill the cop.*

Was the threat of that high? Low? Negligible?

No one will answer that.

But feel free to keep completely misrepresenting my posts. You are good at it.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

How would you word it?

It seems I have to keep repeating myself. *I have never said he was harmless. I have stated several times that it was indeed possible for him to injure or kill the cop.*

Was the threat of that high? Low? Negligible?

No one will answer that.

But feel free to keep completely misrepresenting my posts. You are good at it.

Very high. That's why he's dead now.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Very high. That's why he's dead now.

But how was the threat of him killing the cop very high? Either the cop was very poorly trained or people are overestimating the killing power of the student.

It seems a lot of people agree that the cop *could* have used non lethal force but that he wasn't obligated to.

Can someone actually explain how the tiny chance of injury to the cop justifies him not even attempting non lethal?

Or is it that you don't expect cops to take risks?

It honestly doesn't add up to me. Small risk = dont bother

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Either it's :

A) He was incapable of subduing the student, or

B) He was able to and didn't.

I'm not sure which is more worrying.

No one is saying that cops don't make mistakes. But they should be held accountable for them.

 

[000063]

...
It seems I have to keep repeating myself. *I have never said he was harmless. I have stated several times that it was indeed possible for him to injure or kill the cop.*

Was the threat of that high? Low? Negligible?

...

But how was the threat of him killing the cop very high? Either the cop was very poorly trained or people are overestimating the killing power of the student.

Wait a second.

 

[000063]

Either it's :

A) He was incapable of subduing the student, or

B) He was able to and didn't.

I'm not sure which is more worrying.

No one is saying that cops don't make mistakes. But they should be held accountable for them.

You forgot

C)it was impossible to determine whether or not he could reliably disable the student.

Or is what he actually knew at the time irrelevant?

 

[000063]

Look I get the point, do not attribute to people what they have not said. I am sorry, how much more can I say to stop you pursing the point ad nauseum.

You seem to have dodged a question there. Two, in fact.

 

[Nessie]

Very high. That's why he's dead now.

So what about others high on drugs who walk towards the police and act erratically?

Please give examples of a low, medium and high threat.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

You forgot

C)it was impossible to determine whether or not he could reliably disable the student.

Or is what he actually knew at the time irrelevant?

Therefore don't bother trying?

 

[000063]

That attitude, which is shared by many Americans, especially those who are gun fans is what causes so many deaths by firearm in the USA.

Most firearm deaths in the US are from illegally owned weapons, Nessie.

To the rest of the Western world such an attitude is excessive. I am confident in saying that as the only support I can find for the American gun attitude towards self defence is from American gun owners.

I've been supporting it throughout this thread, and I'm not American, as it clearly says, nor do I own or plan to purchase a gun. You have, therefore, found an exception.

On what basis do you conclude people supporting the use of firearms in self-defense are gun owners? Did they say so?

Collar got shot because he met a cop with your attitude. That is all it is, attitude, have gun, look deadly (vaguely deadly will do) and shoot.

You've been contradicted on this several times. It's still wrong.

 

[DreamingNaiad]

Wait a second.

Yeah I have this mad idea that a dead student is worse than an injured, live cop.

It stems from the archaic notion of cops protecting members of the public, even from themselves.

 

[Belz...]

The cop should know about assessing threat levels

The cop DID. It doesn't follow that they can always accurately divine the actual threat level.

If it is a hard as you make out to assess threat levels, why don't all US cops draw their guns at everyone and every thing?

Because, as people have been trying to make you understand for many, many DAYS now, each situation is different. You're being dishonest, again, by ignoring that.

I believe my conclusion does follow from what you have said.

I don't believe you.

Did Collar pose a deadly threat?

Irrelevant.

 

[Belz...]

How would you word it?

It seems I have to keep repeating myself. *I have never said he was harmless. I have stated several times that it was indeed possible for him to injure or kill the cop.*

Then why did you phrase it that way, misrepresenting the event ?

Was the threat of that high? Low? Negligible?

No one will answer that.

Because it's irrelevant. The cop perceived a high threat.

But feel free to keep completely misrepresenting my posts. You are good at it.

Evidence ?

 

[Belz...]

Either it's :

A) He was incapable of subduing the student, or

B) He was able to and didn't.

I'm not sure which is more worrying.

This post shows very well that you think the student wasn't a threat (notice I didn't say harmless, which is a misrepresentation by you, in a post where you accused me of misrepresenting you.) If A) you think it's worrying, presumably because the cop should've been able to go hand-to-hand with the perp and subdue him. No problem !