Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
To every rule there is an exception, most of us do not major in focusing on the rare exceptions. This comment is in no way failing to consider the value of Mr Castile's life, he was a victim, nothing is ever going to be perfect. I feel bad for his family and everyone that event touched.Philandro Castile would like to object.
I believe that the court had the facts and did not try to make an uninformed decision like so many people seem eager to do in these cases. Their minds are made up they do not want to be confused by considering the facts.Do you really believe that justice always prevails? That what is was meant to be?
an inexperienced officer reacted improperly, frankly if I had been his FTO I would have put his gun is a place where it would have been real uncomfortable for him. He pointed his gun at his FTO when he decided to shoot past him. The term flat out stupid, dangerous, and unjustified fails to adequately describe his actions.
My knife just is not sharp enough to split that hair.
an inexperienced officer reacted improperly, frankly if I had been his FTO I would have put his gun is a place where it would have been real uncomfortable for him. He pointed his gun at his FTO when he decided to shoot past him. The term flat out stupid, dangerous, and unjustified fails to adequately describe his actions.
Sure it can be improved, I like trial by ordeal.
Suppose a murder trial defendant is found not guilty of a murder. Then fresh evidence pops up years later and the same person admits to the killing. A retrial finds them guilty.
What kind of force should a police officer use against an unarmed person if they believe that person has a gun? Should they shoot and kill unarmed people?That figure has nothing to do with what we are talking about, it is like blaming the officer who kept a girl from being killed by killing the assaulter. Police do need to use deadly force to save the innocent.
Let's say the criminal was speeding and had a gun. Does the cop get to kill them then?False starting point. They can shoot someone because they had a gun or because they had intent to commit a crime with the gun?
When does a P.O. shoot as someone just for possession?
It is a very hard question because the person is either armed and presents a threat to the officer or he is not. That in fact is the key question.What kind of force should a police officer use against an unarmed person if they believe that person has a gun? Should they shoot and kill unarmed people?
This isn't a hard question.
Reminder: OJ Simpson was Not Guilty, but he certainly was also not Innocent.Synonyms, yes. But not identical.
I can be found not guilty of a crime for all sorts of reasons. That doesn't mean that if I'm found 'not guilty', I'm actually innocent.
Should cops shoot people for having guns? Yes, or no?It is a very hard question because the person is either armed and presents a threat to the officer or he is not. That in fact is the key question.
If you want to discuss criminal law, but you prefer colloquial English over legal definitions, then you're not going to be speaking the same language as everyone else.My knife just is not sharp enough to split that hair.
Definition of SYNONYMOUS
having the same connotations, implications, or reference
it depends on what they are doing with the gun.Should cops shoot people for having guns? Yes, or no?
If you want to discuss criminal law, but you prefer colloquial English over legal definitions, then you're not going to be speaking the same language as everyone else.
Okay.it depends on what they are doing with the gun.
It is not an easy question, it is a question intended to entrap. An officer is authorized to use deadly force to prevent the grievous injury or death of a person including the officer, which the officer has reasonable belief would occur if the officer failed to act.Okay.
Now, what if they don't have a gun, but the cop BELIEVES they have a gun. Should cops shoot unarmed people? Yes or no?
EDIT: This is an easy question.
NOBODY SHOULD SHOOT UNARMED PEOPLE.
It's not a trick question. NOBODY SHOULD SHOOT UNARMED PEOPLE.It is not an easy question, it is a question intended to entrap. An officer is authorized to use deadly force to prevent the grievous injury or death of a person including the officer, which the officer has reasonable belief would occur if the officer failed to act.
What is your definition of "unarmed people"?It's not a trick question. NOBODY SHOULD SHOOT UNARMED PEOPLE.
It depends on what your definition of "is" is.What is your definition of "unarmed people"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?