|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 29, 2012, 10:24 AM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
|
Careful stephen426, that deductive logic you are using there is known as troll talk to some in these parts!
|
January 29, 2012, 10:32 AM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
Quote:
I don't question the common sense in your comments, but they in themselves are also making suppositions about what happened. I have put forward some suppositions: they postulate an alternative to how some have interpreted or justified the events, but ultimately can't be the basis for my point of view. That is why I am doing my best to confine my conclusions based on what I have seen. I see a guy walking, only walking, when he is tazered by a policeman at his 9 or 8 o'clock. If we later find out that he had already assaulted someone in the restaurant, then that would be a relevant point to be taken into account. Until then, though....
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
|
|
January 29, 2012, 11:30 AM | #53 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
It was the suspect that decided to go lethal when he did, not the officers. You seem to repeatedly miss this point. If you are going to argue that the suspect's life is worth more than 40 seconds, then argue with the suspect. He picked the time and place, not the officers. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Tazing a violent suspect who refuses to comply with officer demands is appropriate. Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|||||
January 29, 2012, 11:36 AM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
|
The signature
Quote:
|
|
January 29, 2012, 01:10 PM | #55 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
Quote:
Yes, making a suspect turn violent would be very unwise. Quote:
You are as ignorant as I since, like me, you were not there. I'll happily accept that the police had shouted several commands at him, but.... ...I have not seen any links to other witnesses saying that he made any aggressive moves in the moments prior to being tazed. All I've seen is your news link that says he smashed windows and ignored police commands. Antisocial: yes. Stupid: yes. Immediate threat to the public: No. Since you have all the answers: tell me what he did or what you know he was about to do in the middle of that carpark to make tazing the only option. If you think that he deserved to get shot: good for you. If you think that there was absolutely no advantage in just hanging back from the guy and letting him rant for a bit, gauging his intent; good for you. As trained professionals, yes, I would expect the police where I live to work by procedure, but also use judgment to assess each case by its own merits. Aside from the obvious destruction of property, not obeying the police was his mistake. Approaching the guy here, I think was their mistake. That was the tipping point: and there was no indication that he would otherwise have lunged at anyone. His actions had been up till then directed at property and he was isolated from the public. Difference here being the police had the advantage in training, in space, in numbers, in weaponry. I believe they were premature in using the tazer: it lead to a death that I think could have been avoided. And they injured a member of the public due to stray fire, which is more than the suspect did throughout. Bottom line is: I know what I think on this. I've cited why. I'd be more than happy to review that opinion if new evidence came to light. I've not really seen any specifics to address that point so I'm not particularly bothered if you agree or not. However, I certainly haven't changed my degree of courtesy to you in order to bolster my point. Unfortunately, you seem unable to disagree without opting for condescension. Quote:
I offered a different possible take on what we saw for the purposes of challenging some people's immediate interpretations on the situation. Not some ludicrous reference to RPGs You seem to think bringing military ordinance into the equation is on a par. LOL indeed....
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
|
|||
January 29, 2012, 01:19 PM | #56 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Location: CNY
Posts: 790
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
January 29, 2012, 02:55 PM | #57 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 24, 2005
Location: Steubenville, OH
Posts: 4,446
|
This has become a bit too personal. It's a shame too, because the subject had potential. (Stress on past tense.)
Oh well, hopefully the subject will come up again sometime, without the incivility. The fate of this one, however, is sealed. Closed.
__________________
TFL Members are ambassadors to the world for firearm owners. What kind of ambassador does your post make you? I train in earnest, to do the things that I pray in earnest, I'll never have to do. --Capt. Charlie |
|
|