Forums | MacLife

Laura wrote:

Sorry, I just realized that I went OT here. That happened over 13 years ago, can you tell it still pisses me off?

:is frightned for own well being:
:thinks Laura is going to do something potential dangeous to him:

KA-BLAM

:blows Laura to Kingdom Come as opposed to making like a banana and spliting:

Not that I really meant to shoot you, Laura. Your rant just scared the bajeppers outta me!

JakeTheTall wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

How would the Rules of Engagement be worded in this case? 

"If the individual makes a sudden movement, be sure you empty your clip as fast as possible into the individual!"

"if the individual makes a threatening movement, use sufficient force to stop the threat."

When the police tell you to put your hands up its not a pro idea to start fast drawing for your wallet. It has the amazing effect if looking like you are going for a gun.

I wasn't there, I have no idea what the setup was but...they didn't see a gun, nor did they get shot at....it would sound like "sufficient force" to stop the threat would have been a half dozen rounds.

The problem is you can't count the shells because there just isnt the time. 30 or so rounds sounds like a lot after the fact, but in the heat of the moment its nothing.

Last edited by Steyr AUG (2005-04-11 3:53 pm)

JakeTheTall wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I wasn't there, I have no idea what the setup was but...they didn't see a gun, nor did they get shot at....it would sound like "sufficient force" to stop the threat would have been a half dozen rounds.

The problem is you can't count the shells because there just isnt the time. 30 or so rounds sounds like a lot after the fact, but in the heat of the moment its nothing.

I'm normally on the cops side in these situations, but I don't like your logic.

30 rounds?  In "the heat of the moment" ?  Don't cops train?  They can't realize how many times they shoot, but know what they're shooting at?  After 10 rounds, the poor guy is still a "threat" ?  By laying on the ground bleeding?

Its not like they're trying to stop a giant angry wild boar that's charging them, its some poor shlub who put his hands in the wrong place.

I think the reports said he was layin on his bed and reaching for his wallet.

iBubba wrote:

Laura wrote:

'Confused' as to your response. I THOUGHT I was trying to explain why I went OT...but apparently you see something in what I wrote that I don't. And where (if you do) do you get the impression that I would take action instead of leaving? Again, I refer you to the FIRST sentence of my original post.

Um... my response was keeping in step with the topic at hand. It was an (admittidly weak) attempt at a bit 'o tongue in cheek.

You have read all the posts inthis thread, right? You do now understand what I was referring to, correct?

Since MiniThink now does sports, I'd like to point out the fact that Boston beat the Yankees 8 - 1.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

I wasn't there, I have no idea what the setup was but...they didn't see a gun, nor did they get shot at....it would sound like "sufficient force" to stop the threat would have been a half dozen rounds.

The problem is you can't count the shells because there just isnt the time. 30 or so rounds sounds like a lot after the fact, but in the heat of the moment its nothing.

I'm normally on the cops side in these situations, but I don't like your logic.

30 rounds?  In "the heat of the moment" ?  Don't cops train?  They can't realize how many times they shoot, but know what they're shooting at?  After 10 rounds, the poor guy is still a "threat" ?  By laying on the ground bleeding?

Its not like they're trying to stop a giant angry wild boar that's charging them, its some poor shlub who put his hands in the wrong place.

You can train, but you can't fully prepare for the real deal.

Gr@sshopper wrote:

They shot 41 times. I honestly would think "that's a tragedy but smurf happens" if they shot you know, 20 times. If I remember correctly, balistics suggested that he was shot several times when he was on the ground. even the defense said that he was standing for "much" of the time. not all or most. It seems a bit much to me.

Hey, once he went down they had to make sure.  'Cause if he'd gotten back up, you know he'd have been real mad.

charon wrote:

Gr@sshopper wrote:

They shot 41 times. I honestly would think "that's a tragedy but smurf happens" if they shot you know, 20 times. If I remember correctly, balistics suggested that he was shot several times when he was on the ground. even the defense said that he was standing for "much" of the time. not all or most. It seems a bit much to me.

Hey, once he went down they had to make sure.  'Cause if he'd gotten back up, you know he'd have been real mad.

Laura wrote:

iBubba wrote:

Laura wrote:

'Confused' as to your response. I THOUGHT I was trying to explain why I went OT...but apparently you see something in what I wrote that I don't. And where (if you do) do you get the impression that I would take action instead of leaving? Again, I refer you to the FIRST sentence of my original post.

Um... my response was keeping in step with the topic at hand. It was an (admittidly weak) attempt at a bit 'o tongue in cheek.

You have read all the posts inthis thread, right? You do now understand what I was referring to, correct?

Obviously I read all the posts. And I wrote confused...which indicates that I couldn't be sure if I was taking you wrong. Occasionally something (especially sarcasm, etc.) gets lost in the translation while only reading a post...not seeing any expressions. No need to get snippy! Anyway, sorry about that.

[sincerity] I am sorry, too.[/sincerity]

Damn business trip - gone for just a few days and this thing is up to 12 pages. Everything has been hashed over pretty good; I just have one little thing to add.

KingFred wrote:

No one has come up with a sensible reason yet why the "first attempt to flee or avoid confrontation before moving right up to blasting" part needs to be done away with.

In addition to what charon said, I think it comes down to this: If I threaten you, and you shoot me, the present law looks first to blame you for not avoiding the conflict - the new law blames me for threatening you. Proponents are saying "Don't blame the victim, who did not choose to be in the life or death situation. Blame the criminal, who did."

Last edited by Oyaji (2005-04-13 9:13 pm)

Ok, enough of the Yahoo news summary. Here is the actual law.
SB436

The law removes the need to retreat from a threat proir to using deadly force. Be realistic people. Most people will not just pop somebody in the face in an arguement. Any threat does not equate life/death situation in the courts. Those who interpret it in that way will find themselves behind bars for life.

Last edited by locutus_of_borg (2005-04-14 1:52 pm)