Summations Only

Well that's uncalled for.

Well that depends.Do you agree that a law which allows you to use deadly force solely because you believe that someone will take your microwave (as per Message 122) is a poor law?

The officers may or may not have been reticent to fire the first shot. Firing many more shots in quick succession suggests that they were no longer reticent. So, maybe one round per minute per officer, as a first approximation? That seems like calm, aimed shots against a target that was still standing - and shooting back. That's exactly what we'd expect from well-trained police officers and exactly the opposite of what you're asking us to believe is normal police practice..

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Right, which - again - is the purpose of police training, to remove an officer's reticence to shoot.How are you still not getting this, Ringo? Only assuming every officer fired the same number of rounds at the same rate, which is not at all what happened.Ultimately the perpetrators were taken down when their unarmored legs were so wounded by stray fire that they couldn't move to run away, and at least one of them shot himself. The precise, careful firing was having no effect because precise, careful firing is directed at center mass, where the bulk of their armor was.Again there's not much relevant here except that your notion that police shootouts are like old West gunfights, settled in a single shot, is deluded. In an age of automatic firearms they're largely about controlled bursts of quick firing, meant to put enough rounds downrange to overcome the difficulty of hitting a human target hard enough to stop him with twitching muscles and a surging heart rate. (It's known that Olympic-caliber shooters learn the autonomic ability to delay their own heartbeats as they aim and fire, which should give you some idea of the effect of a beating heart on steady aim.)

I've told you repeatedly what it is saying. I'm asking you to demonstrate that it says what you say it says. Yes, generally people should exercise caution when on someone else's property, and not attempt to commit crimes there.

Have you? Where?Answer this then:Do you agree that a law which allows you to use deadly force solely because you believe that someone will take your microwave (as per Message 122) is a poor law? I say it says that the right to use deadly force solely because it is believed a microwave is being stolen is justified.I disagree with that stance.Do you?Edited by Straggler, : Misattributed quotes to CS rather than Crash.

I'm sure everybody's getting it but you. They overcome their reticence to fire the first shot. Once it's overcome, they don't need it overcome it again and again for every shot. I did a little poking around the local newspapers and there aren't many police shootings around here but the norm seems to be one shot. The order of priorities in shooting is Safety first, Accuracy second and Speed third. The watchword is "make every shot count".It's possible that police training is fundamentally different south of the border but I doubt it. I've never heard anybody but you claim that the hail-of-bullets technique is standard practice.Edited by ringo, : Spellging.

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

In all those posts you can't read, since you don't speak any English. You've not answered my question, though. When faced with a potentially dangerous intruder and a split-second to make a life or death decision, who else's beliefs is someone supposed to rely on?Who else's mind are they supposed to think with? But it doesn't say that. I disagree that people should die for stealing microwaves, yes. I also disagree that people should die for trying to defend their homes, families, and property.

I still don't know what your actual answer is to my question. Despite the fact that you claim to have answered it numerous times in multiple posts. Can you, in the name of clarity, just answer the question explicitly and unambiguously? Question: Do you agree that a law which allows you to use deadly force solely because you believe that someone will take your microwave (as per Message 122) is a poor law? I have answered your question numerous times in multiple posts. If only you could read English huh?But here is my answer again - A judge and a jury will decide whether or not the requirement for "reasonable force" and a "proportional response" has been met on a case by case basis. I personally would hope that they would tend towards a sympathetic view of frightened home owners. But unless "reasonable force" and "proportional response" are stipulated in the law for the jury to consider it gives free reign to Dirty Harry wannabes to kill people solely on the basis of claiming to believe that someone wanted to take their precious microwave. As per the law advocated in Message 122Question: Do you agree that a law which allows you to use deadly force solely because you believe that someone will take your microwave (as per Message 122) is a poor law?Be explicit.

They overcome their reticence to open fire because they've been trained to overcome it. Like I've been saying.I don't understand how I can make it any plainer than that, or provide any more evidence that that is one of the primary doctrines in FBI-style police firearms training, going back to World War II. That's not the claim I'm making. Police officers don't train to "spray and pray." But they do train to fire on assailants until the assailant is unable to return fire.Here's an unfortunate example:

quote:

---

A New York City police officer who had just gotten off duty was fatally shot late Thursday in East Harlem by a fellow officer who mistook him for an armed criminal, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said...

​

Mr. Kelly identified the officer who fired the shots only as a four-year veteran of the department, and said he had fired six rounds from his 9-millimeter Glock. Two bullets struck Officer Edwards.

---

And another: New York Daily News - New York Daily News

quote:

---

The gunman who survived at least 21 bullet wounds in a Harlem shootout with cops probably broke a record, a forensic expert said Sunday.

​

"I would say more than 20 gunshot wounds is a record," said Dr. Vincent DiMaio, 69, a forensic pathologist and author of "Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics, and Forensic Techniques."

​

"Of course, the real issue is where you get shot," he added. "One bullet can kill you, but believe it or not, a body can survive a lot of bullet wounds."

---

About a year ago there was the Ray Martinez shooting, where a street thug opened fire with a Mac 10 nearly point blank at a cop and was gunned down: New York Daily News - New York Daily News

quote:

---

Newsom, who had never fired his service weapon in the line of duty, crossed his left arm over his heart for added protection and squeezed off four rounds from about 7 feet away, cops said.

​

Martinez was hit at least three times, including once in the chest and arm, police said. Despite being gravely wounded, the gunman continued to fight as Newsom moved closer and yelled, "Stop! Stop! Show me your hands!"

---

As you can see, police aren't trained to think it stops with a single bullet, because an assailant can live - and fight - even after 20 gunshot wounds. Police are trained to fire until the return fire stops and the threat is ended. They're trained to put rounds downrange because even at the closest possible range - the Ray Martinez shooting happened over about seven feet - hitting a human-sized target who is shooting back or moving is incredibly difficult, due to the adrenaline that makes fine motor control difficult.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

That would be a poor law, but that is not what the Castle Doctrine says and that's not what I meant in msg 122.Look at the conversation in context:

quote:

---

Oni writes:

​

What the...? If someone is in your house with the intention to steal your microwave, you believe you are justified in shooting them?

CS writes:

​

Yes.

​

That must be one amazing microwave!

---

quote:

---

Not in his state. He would be fucked, maybe go to jail, just for a fucking microwave, which apparently now isn't that awesome.

​

The use of deadly force is justified if the person believes attacker will commit a felony up gaining entry.

​

Breaking into a house and taking a microwave is a felony.

​

I don't think I'd go to jail.

---

We're not talking about simply believing that someone will take your microwave.Oni even seemed to understand the conversations:

quote:

---

The use of deadly force is justified if the person believes attacker will commit a felony up gaining entry.

Yeah I read back on your state laws and saw that. Insane, but you're right about having the right to do so. Message 152

---

Message 122 might have been worded poorly (because it was so concise), but I was paraphrasing the law I had quoted in Message 94:

quote:

---

Illinois
(720 ILCS 5/) Criminal Code of 1961
Section 7. Justifiable use of force. Use of deadly force justified if the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or great physical harm. Use of deadly force justified if the unlawful entry is violent, or the person believes the attacker will commit a felony upon gaining entry.

​

Section 7-2(b). Prevents the aggressor from filing any claim against the defender unless the use of force involved "willful or wanton misconduct".

​

Illinois has no requirement of retreat. (People v. Bush, 111 N.E.2d 326 Ill. 1953).

---

I was explaining why I doubted I would go to jail for this situation:

quote:

---

If someone is in your house with the intention to steal your microwave, you believe you are justified in shooting them?

---

So, you should be able to see that we not talking about solely believing that someone will take your microwave.Now, are you gonna stop being disingenuous? Or are you just gonna keep spinning quote mines into contradictions?

I can't speak to hypothetical laws. Can you quote the precise statute under discussion? But that doesn't answer my question. How is the home defender supposed to consult a judge and jury to get their determination in the split-second he has to determine whether the use of force is justified? I can't comment on hypothetical, unspecified statutes. If you could quote the exact law you're talking about, maybe I can tell you if its a good law or not.A law that allows people to use reasonable force to bring dangerous criminal situations to a quick and safe end, but doesn't allow for vigilantism, strikes me as being a good law, but again I can't comment on hypothetical laws. But I can once again note that in the actual situations we're talking about nobody is being killed "for a microwave", deadly force is being used to bring dangerous situations to an immediate close with harsh consequences for the criminal who chose to break the law. And yes, I think that's a good thing. How much sympathy am I supposed to have for people who put innocents at risk all for a little money?

Does your state law give you the right to use deadly force on the basis of finding someone on your property who you believe is going to steal your microwave?What exactly does your state law say about that situation and do you support that stance?Be specific. And you wonder why I think you should keep taking those pills? In your own quotes in your last post that is exactly what you were talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes you can.Do you agree that a law which allows you to use deadly force solely because you believe that someone will take your microwave is a poor law?What is stopping you answering that question? I can quote CS thinking that his state laws allow him to use deadly force if he believes that someone is going to take his microwave. Personally I hope that he is wrong about those laws. But you tell me.........What exactly do CS's state laws say?

You make my case. In the Amadou Diallo situation, there was no return fire.In contrast, here are a couple of the local incidents that I mentioned: Paramedic testifies about police shootingSask. police shooting

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.