As I said before, there is nothing positive that the new law adds. There were already safeguards in place when deadly force is justified, even against LEOs. Yes, it is possible, even inevitable given the sheer number of LEOs in the country and fallen human nature, that there will be some bad apples that are good at covering themselves. But the new law does nothing to protect victims from their abuse. If the civilian had a gun and the shooting is justified, it is just as justified under the old law. If the civilian does not have a gun, he is just as much scr**ed under the new law.
Instead, what the new law does is it gives the kind of hotheads who always seem to take low-level forcefullness as challenging force an excuse to blow their "attackers" away. Under the old law, the could defend their use of deadly force only to the extent that a reasonable person would feel threatened. Now, they can claim they felt threatened, and no one can question whether or not their fear was reasonable. It's a get out of a homicide charge free card. Just like Florida's DNR law. (While I am not personally in favor of any state's current DNR laws, it is possible to word one reasonably. Florida's however is an open invitation to shoot first and answer questions later. If the other person is dead, it only matters what you claim you were afraid of)
This just sounds like typical liberal doublespeak. Ok, so the law was unneeded, let's say. Then wouldn't the "hotheads" have just as much leeway without this law?
This law is a people emphasizing that they are not pleased with the way the police are doing their job, and making it overtly clear that we consider police to be under the same restrictions as civilians, and not to think they have some right to be armed while citizens cower in fear of confronting them.
I'll add that as I have gotten older, I have fewer and fewer positive experiences with the police. They are always there, hovering around, hoping for a chance to stick their hands in my pockets, while never doing anything useful when, for example, my bike is stolen.
They are an extension of our useless governments that take more and more money to give fewer and fewer services.
How's about the government back off a little bit? Is anyone getting the idea that might be a great thing for them to do, a DECADE after 9/11?
I don't understand.
Surely police officers aren't above current self defence laws. Why did this need to be passed?
Because they are both legally and perspectively.
Originally Posted by kermit
If to juries cops are above current self-defense laws (which they really aren't), then why would one expect a new law to change that?
The unjustified killing of a law enforcement office should receive harsher sentencing.
Actually they are above current self-defense laws. Take Florida, for example, (where I reside) where it is illegal under any circumstance to resist a cop physically. You can argue that it is not if he breaks the law; but there have been no successful test cases. Basically, if you see a uniformed law enforcement agent unlawfully enter a home (no warrant, etc.) then your stepping in could suddenly escalate that scenario into your spending the rest of your life in jail.
Originally Posted by SmellsLikeCurlyFries
Yes, because that is my job. They DO train us, you know.
As someone who has trained in various schools of martial arts my entire life - 20 years - (where I am 24 now) as well as someone who has instructed as a teacher; I would like to see this super training in action.
Either you're inexperienced in actual combat or you're just full-of-it. I know it is the former just from reading your posts.
Originally Posted by MachZer0
Can you give us a rundown of the training that prepares one to immobilize and disarm a group of (let's make it easy for you) three cops that barge through your door illegally?
I, too, would like to concise summary of your program. It need not be exhaustive; simply a rudimentary outline will suffice please.
Originally Posted by Theofane
How many of you self-identify as anarchists?
As stated above, if human beings were capable of practicing government and economic models perfectly then anarchy would be the ideal utopia. However, as someone who self-identifies as a realist I realize that we need government. I support America the way the Founding Fathers envisioned it - well educated men, women, and children all well-armed who kept their government in check.
Do you politely ask the cop to hold still while you aim at his shoulder or do you just take your chances and blast away? By the way, I've never seen target practice where the shooter aims for the shoulder every time. Seems like the bullseye has always been the goal
As someone who has trained in various schools of martial arts my entire life - 20 years - (where I am 24 now) as well as someone who has instructed as a teacher; I would like to see this super training in action.
Either you're inexperienced in actual combat or you're just full-of-it. I know it is the former just from reading your posts.
Who is talking about martial arts? I thought we were talking about what you can do with a gun.
Do you politely ask the cop to hold still while you aim at his shoulder or do you just take your chances and blast away? By the way, I've never seen target practice where the shooter aims for the shoulder every time. Seems like the bullseye has always been the goal
It'd only work if you had that polite, British accent to go along with the request.
"Excuse me good sir, might I trouble you to hold still while I shoot you in the shoulder?"
"Oh.. um, of course, of course."
"Cheerio" *fires*
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Click the image for the collection. Latest card(s): Tom Coburn, Godwin's Law (L) and Godwin's Law (D)
Linear Mode
