The US Politics |OT|

[iron_megalith]

Ryuu96 said:

thismeintiel said:

If they are being violent towards others, and will not stop when told to, you're god damned right they have the right to stop with any means necessary.  And if they are destroying property and get violent towards someone trying to stop them, yes, they can be shot.  When you have only a split second that could decide someone dying or not, you don't exactly want cops thinking, "Well, how is this going to look to the media or the Left if I shoot this violent criminal."  Really I have little sympathy for garbage humans destroying the property and livelihood of law-abiding decent citizens, and absolutely none when they get violent towards others.  Used to be that the vast majority of citizens felt the same way.  Sadly, one side of the political spectrum currently thinks it's politically expedient for violent thugs to be deified and decent people to be demonized for defending themselves against those thugs.

So, yes, if you fear for your life, you can shoot in self-defense, or if you fear for another's life.  Your bullet and punch example falls flat when it is a fact that more people die from being hit physically than from being shot every year.  You can survive a bullet depending on where you are hit, just like Jacob Blake survived getting shot several times when he refused to drop a knife.  You can also die, or become severely brain damaged, from a single punch if you are hit hard enough and in the right spot.  Same goes for being stabbed.  So, no, what kind of weapon is used does not change the response.  The law is if you fear for your life, period.  Not if the person is holding a certain weapon or not.  That's just a ridiculous standard, probably brought on by people watching actors "survive" those kinds of things in movies.  Life isn't like the movies.  You can die by getting hit ONCE by anything if its hard enough and in the right spot. 

I'm very glad we actually live in countries which aren't this bloodthirsty, if you want that, there's a certain few countries that are backward enough where they shoot into crowds of protesters, at least you aren't saying they should be shot for destroying property so I suppose that's progress. I also want cops to be able to think under pressure, accurately assess a situation and the danger levels, their first response should not be to whip out the pistol and start blasting, especially not towards a damn fist fight, Lol, might as well just let the army police America with that logic.

Of course more people die from being physically hit than being shot because way more people get physically hit than shot, Lol. That's not what we're talking about though, we're comparing them on an individual basis from a cops view, it is much easier to kill someone with a gun (or knife) than a punch. Cops DO take into account threat levels and "reasonable force" response is a legit thing in law (at least, here it is). What weapon someone is using absolutely does and should change the response, not everything requires a bullet, Lol. I think a lot of your post forgets that we're talking about this from a cops perspective too, not a regular citizen.

"HE'S GOT A SKATEBOARD, FIRE AT WILL LADS!"

I'm picturing the cops in the London riots who had stuff thrown at them being like "that's it lads, they got violent, start blasting!" Insanity. It seems like you think the only role of a cop is to point gun and shoot bad guy, also this is without getting into how stupid shooting a live bullet into a crowd actually is.

Except the skateboard was used to hit a person. In before you make a stupid argument that it's non-leth- Oh. :P

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/25/sports/a-security-worker-confronted-the-skateboarders-he-ended-up-with-brain-damage.html

Kyle had a gun. Huber had a skateboard. Kyle was running away. As rough as it sounds, Huber did something stupid and made his day. That's all there is to it. Hope you come to accept it as time goes by.

Last edited by iron_megalith - on 22 November 2021