quote:

Anyone who shoots another person under the belief that that person won't die is a fool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

Anyone who shoots another person under the belief that that person won't die is a fool.

That's what they teach police here in the UK who are licensed to use guns (of whom my father was one). With a gun you can't think in terms of minimum defence necessary. You can only think in terms of 'ultimate defence': you won't just stop him harming you or others; you'll be stopping him from doing anything else at all, bad or good, ever.

quote:

Sometimes I think people in the US have become so inured to gun violence they've started to believe that getting shot is no big deal.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

OK lets pretend one of them had a gun.
He shoots the guy and kills him, he is well within his rights.
On the other hand to parallel what you advocate if he stops him kicks the gun away and then shoots him a few more times that is murder. This is what you are advocating.
Are you really that dense or is your lack of comprehension deliberate?

Wrong.
What I advocate is exactly what you advocate. You just cannot seem to comprehend that people can kill without a gun without it being a long and drawn out process.

Do you realize that if you are right you have built a case for Cocker being in reasonable fear for his life?

Wrong. He did not have a right to defend himself. He initiated the encounter. He had to retreat. Do you not understand the law? Even in SYG states he would have been required to retreat.

You cannot just start waving a gun around, say "I made other people reasonably afraid for their lives so since they could take defensive action against me I killed them" and get away with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

OK lets pretend one of them had a gun.
He shoots the guy and kills him, he is well within his rights.
On the other hand to parallel what you advocate if he stops him kicks the gun away and then shoots him a few more times that is murder. This is what you are advocating.
Are you really that dense or is your lack of comprehension deliberate?

Wrong.
What I advocate is exactly what you advocate. You just cannot seem to comprehend that people can kill without a gun without it being a long and drawn out process.

Do you realize that if you are right you have built a case for Cocker being in reasonable fear for his life?

Wrong. He did not have a right to defend himself. He initiated the encounter. He had to retreat. Do you not understand the law? Even in SYG states he would have been required to retreat.

You cannot just start waving a gun around, say "I made other people reasonably afraid for their lives so since they could take defensive action against me I killed them" and get away with it.

I said from the beginning that regardless he was the one responsible but your argument about them killing him would have made real problems if the defense had gotten wind of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

OK lets pretend one of them had a gun.
He shoots the guy and kills him, he is well within his rights.
On the other hand to parallel what you advocate if he stops him kicks the gun away and then shoots him a few more times that is murder. This is what you are advocating.
Are you really that dense or is your lack of comprehension deliberate?

Wrong.
What I advocate is exactly what you advocate. You just cannot seem to comprehend that people can kill without a gun without it being a long and drawn out process.

Do you realize that if you are right you have built a case for Cocker being in reasonable fear for his life?

Wrong. He did not have a right to defend himself. He initiated the encounter. He had to retreat. Do you not understand the law? Even in SYG states he would have been required to retreat.

You cannot just start waving a gun around, say "I made other people reasonably afraid for their lives so since they could take defensive action against me I killed them" and get away with it.

I said from the beginning that regardless he was the one responsible but your argument about them killing him would have made real problems if the defense had gotten wind of it.

No, it wouldn't. You seem to have no concept that they had the right to defend themselves and his lawyer certainly knew it. Do you think it is some novel concept that people without guns can defend themselves?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

OK lets pretend one of them had a gun.
He shoots the guy and kills him, he is well within his rights.
On the other hand to parallel what you advocate if he stops him kicks the gun away and then shoots him a few more times that is murder. This is what you are advocating.
Are you really that dense or is your lack of comprehension deliberate?

Wrong.
What I advocate is exactly what you advocate. You just cannot seem to comprehend that people can kill without a gun without it being a long and drawn out process.

Do you realize that if you are right you have built a case for Cocker being in reasonable fear for his life?

Wrong. He did not have a right to defend himself. He initiated the encounter. He had to retreat. Do you not understand the law? Even in SYG states he would have been required to retreat.

You cannot just start waving a gun around, say "I made other people reasonably afraid for their lives so since they could take defensive action against me I killed them" and get away with it.

I said from the beginning that regardless he was the one responsible but your argument about them killing him would have made real problems if the defense had gotten wind of it.

No, it wouldn't. You seem to have no concept that they had the right to defend themselves and his lawyer certainly knew it. Do you think it is some novel concept that people without guns can defend themselves?

Idiot of course they have the right to defend themselves as I said earlier.
Your proposed human wave tactics are stupid beyond belief that was the time to talk not to escalate.
I am willing to kill them but I wouldn't be willing them to die.
You weren't just willing to have him die but willing him to be dead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I proposed nothing moron. I simply stated a fact.
Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.


You expressed an opinion.
The fact that your opinion is automatically a fact makes you not only a moron
but arrogant beyond reason.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I proposed nothing moron. I simply stated a fact.
Please stop trying to put words in my mouth.


You expressed an opinion.
The fact that your opinion is automatically a fact makes you not only a moron
but arrogant beyond reason.

Wrong as always. Please do try to stop being such a complete asshole.