OK, let me explain this to you: If you make a reasonable person believe that you represent a credible threat of causing grievous bodily harm, anyone can shoot you.
Jackass was known to use explosive devices when confronted by law enforcement officers. In this situation, anything other than immediate compliance with officer instructions justified use of lethal force against jackass.
We agree.....but the "anyone" in reference is a dwindling free group right now.
You probably mean "law enforcement" but many do not.
I see Eddie's point and Rival's as well. ......Let's say the story changed and the specifics reported were different: "Man, covered in blood, shot by homeowner (an anyone) while hiding in his boat".
In this (fictitious) case, a known terrorist, was shot by an "anyone". The arguments would have raged concerning "what was the "anyone" doing with a gun?, how did they know it was the terrorist, since he was hiding?, why did they shoot so many times knowing law enforcement was EVERYWHERE!?, and on and on.
"Anyone" should have a gun if they follow the laws regarding acquiring one. Unfortunately anyone can get a gun. As for the bias in the media.....it's as dangerous as a loaded gun being utilized by a know felon!
__________________
A nobody telling everybody about Somebody.
OK, let me explain this to you: If you make a reasonable person believe that you represent a credible threat of causing grievous bodily harm, anyone can shoot you.
Jackass was known to use explosive devices when confronted by law enforcement officers. In this situation, anything other than immediate compliance with officer instructions justified use of lethal force against jackass.
No problem with any of your comments, but how did they know it was really jackass in the boat? Citizen only had a quick look and frightened citizen reports are often unreliable. Does the end justify the means, to a hammer everything looks like a nail?
No problem with any of your comments, but how did they know it was really jackass in the boat? Citizen only had a quick look and frightened citizen reports are often unreliable. Does the end justify the means, to a hammer everything looks like a nail?
Depends on whether you're the hammer or the nail!
__________________
A nobody telling everybody about Somebody.
No problem with any of your comments, but how did they know it was really jackass in the boat? Citizen only had a quick look and frightened citizen reports are often unreliable. Does the end justify the means, to a hammer everything looks like a nail?
Are you assuming that they received the call, showed up, and then without saying a word to the occupant of the boat, immediately started firing? That they decided to shoot first and ask questions later?
That's a pretty big assumption. Too big for me to make; I'd need some significant evidence to support it. For instance, If the subject of the manhunt was a large black man, and the suspects in the boat were actually two petite asian ladies, I'd find it much easier to assume that the cops screwed the pooch.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Are you assuming that they received the call, showed up, and then without saying a word to the occupant of the boat, immediately started firing? That they decided to shoot first and ask questions later?
That's a pretty big assumption. Too big for me to make; I'd need some significant evidence to support it. For instance, If the subject of the manhunt was a large black man, and the suspects in the boat were actually two petite asian ladies, I'd find it much easier to assume that the cops screwed the pooch.
You seem to be assuming the cops did the right thing, a pretty big assumption without further evidence. Of course all either of us have comes from an inaccurate media, which called it a shootout. Are you assuming that the perp identified himself before the cops began firing? The media inference was that he was very weak and almost bled out. I would like to hear the rest of the story.
The reports I've seen stated the owner of the house, after the police called off the search, went out to check his property and boat, and followed a blood trail into the inside of his boat, and upon peeking inside, saw the outstanding suspect, and immediately called the cops. Since he wasn't killed in a hail of gunfire tells me the cops did all the right stuff, and caught this terrorist alive.
The reports I've seen stated the owner of the house, after the police called off the search, went out to check his property and boat, and followed a blood trail into the inside of his boat, and upon peeking inside, saw the outstanding suspect, and immediately called the cops. Since he wasn't killed in a hail of gunfire tells me the cops did all the right stuff, and caught this terrorist alive.
Shooting in the blind (as into a boat) is not proper police procedure and depending on a scared citizen to make a solid identification based only upon blood is more than a bit risky, in fact later photos showed no blood in the boat only some on the fender.. The only reason the perp is alive is that the hail of gunfire missed (unless his wound was from the blind shooting). The citizen and the police thought it was the perp in the boat based upon circumstantial evidence, and fortunately for them they were right.
You haven't shown that they were in the blind. Ok? Your basic assumption here is completely unfounded. You've taken "I haven't heard anything about how they identified the suspect before they decided to shoot at him" and turned it into "They never ID'd the suspect before opening fire."
Eddie, I haven't heard anything about how you weren't involved in the kidnapping of those girls in Cleveland. The media's reporting on it was pretty inaccurate, but I seem to recall them saying that there was likely at least a fourth suspect, and possibly a murdered victim. I'd like to hear the rest of the story; do you have time for an interview?
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Linear Mode
