|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Castle Doctrine | |||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well that's uncalled for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
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.
ringo writes:
But you just said that 41 shots "doesn't indicate reticence" either, so which is it? 41 shots doesn't indicate that they "overcame their reticence". crashfrog writes:
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.. ringo writes:
I don't recall how many officers responded. 20? 30? It was a significant shootout, as you can imagine, and had a profound effect on police response doctrine. So, thirty rounds per minute, from how many officers? Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Firing many more shots in quick succession suggests that they were no longer reticent. 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?
So, maybe one round per minute per officer, as a first approximation? 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.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Have a read of Message 122 and tell me what you think that is saying. I've told you repeatedly what it is saying. I'm asking you to demonstrate that it says what you say it says.
But I would still advise caution to anyone visiting CS's house unannounced Yes, generally people should exercise caution when on someone else's property, and not attempt to commit crimes there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Crash writes: I've told you repeatedly what it is saying. 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?
Crash writes: I'm asking you to demonstrate that it says what you say it says. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
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.
ringo writes:
Right, which - again - is the purpose of police training, to remove an officer's reticence to shoot. Firing many more shots in quick succession suggests that they were no longer reticent. How are you still not getting this, Ringo? crashfrog writes:
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". 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Have you? Where? In all those posts you can't read, since you don't speak any English.
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? 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?
I say it says that the right to use deadly force solely because it is believed a microwave is being stolen is justified. But it doesn't say that.
Do you? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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?
Crash writes: 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? 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 122 Crash writes: I disagree that people should die for stealing microwaves, yes. 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? Be explicit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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. 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.
I've never heard anybody but you claim that the hail-of-bullets technique is standard practice. 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: And another:
New York Daily News - New York Daily News quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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? 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: CF writes: No, but it's his, and the law gives him the right to use necessary force to protect his possessions. quote: We're not talking about simply believing that someone will take your microwave. Oni even seemed to understand the conversations:
quote: 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: I was explaining why I doubted I would go to jail for this situation:
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
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 can't speak to hypothetical laws. Can you quote the precise statute under discussion?
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. 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?
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 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
CS writes: 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? Yes. And you wonder why I think you should keep taking those pills?
CS writes: We're not talking about simply believing that someone will take your microwave. In your own quotes in your last post that is exactly what you were talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Crash writes: Straggler writes: 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 can't speak to hypothetical laws. 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?
Crash writes: Can you quote the precise statute under discussion? 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?
CS writes:
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. Message 122
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
crashfrog writes:
You make my case. In the Amadou Diallo situation, there was no return fire. Police are trained to fire until the return fire stops and the threat is ended. In contrast, here are a couple of the local incidents that I mentioned:
Paramedic testifies about police shooting Sask. police shooting Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024