11-26-2013, 10:52 PM
I understand, Cars.
If I had a gun and someone was in my house, after making sure it wasn't someone who should be in my house, I'd dial 911 and be prepared to shoot if necessary. I wouldn't hesitate, if necessary.
-That's a whole lot different than a trained cop, with two other trained cops on the scene, shooting a shirtless man with his hands out 12 times - a man who had waited for cops to arrive at the scene for over 10 minutes rather than flee.
-It's also much different than a veteran cop shooting a kid 7 times; a kid (even if he was assumed to be a short man) who wasn't posing a threat or even aware that cops had come up behind him when he was shot to death for carrying a toy.
-Much different, again, than shooting through a locked door - without calling 911 - because someone was banging on it, blowing the face off of an unarmed drunken teen who was on the other side.
-Different, too, than being so pissed off at or scared of your boyfriend that you don't take the time to ask who it is knocking on your door before you shoot your daughter to death, with her 4 month old in her arms.
^ Those are the stories covered in this thread thus far. Shoot first...ask questions later. Depending on the entire set of circumstances, it may be a justified action. In these cases, I'd say it's not, or at least it's highly questionable and can't be decided without further investigation.
I don't think any of the shooters covered in these stories intended to kill innocent unarmed victims. I do think they're legally responsible for the killings by choosing to pull the trigger as a first course of action when they had the opportunity to assess first and were not facing an imminent life threat. That's why the charge of manslaughter exists. Is it self defense if it plays out that they simply didn't take the available time/opportunity before choosing to use lethal force because they were scared? I say, "hell no". The law in some states says, "maybe so".
No objection here to qualified rational people possessing guns (or any other weapons) and using them for valid self defense. Every objection to trigger happy people killing unarmed citizens when it was clearly avoidable, and getting away with it. It would be worrisome to me if people weren't vested and discussing these stories.
Now, I'm gonna have a steak and a glass of red wine. Picking up one of my nieces from the airport at 9 am tomorrow - excited.
If I had a gun and someone was in my house, after making sure it wasn't someone who should be in my house, I'd dial 911 and be prepared to shoot if necessary. I wouldn't hesitate, if necessary.
-That's a whole lot different than a trained cop, with two other trained cops on the scene, shooting a shirtless man with his hands out 12 times - a man who had waited for cops to arrive at the scene for over 10 minutes rather than flee.
-It's also much different than a veteran cop shooting a kid 7 times; a kid (even if he was assumed to be a short man) who wasn't posing a threat or even aware that cops had come up behind him when he was shot to death for carrying a toy.
-Much different, again, than shooting through a locked door - without calling 911 - because someone was banging on it, blowing the face off of an unarmed drunken teen who was on the other side.
-Different, too, than being so pissed off at or scared of your boyfriend that you don't take the time to ask who it is knocking on your door before you shoot your daughter to death, with her 4 month old in her arms.
^ Those are the stories covered in this thread thus far. Shoot first...ask questions later. Depending on the entire set of circumstances, it may be a justified action. In these cases, I'd say it's not, or at least it's highly questionable and can't be decided without further investigation.
I don't think any of the shooters covered in these stories intended to kill innocent unarmed victims. I do think they're legally responsible for the killings by choosing to pull the trigger as a first course of action when they had the opportunity to assess first and were not facing an imminent life threat. That's why the charge of manslaughter exists. Is it self defense if it plays out that they simply didn't take the available time/opportunity before choosing to use lethal force because they were scared? I say, "hell no". The law in some states says, "maybe so".
No objection here to qualified rational people possessing guns (or any other weapons) and using them for valid self defense. Every objection to trigger happy people killing unarmed citizens when it was clearly avoidable, and getting away with it. It would be worrisome to me if people weren't vested and discussing these stories.
Now, I'm gonna have a steak and a glass of red wine. Picking up one of my nieces from the airport at 9 am tomorrow - excited.