|
Not a single person has argued that.
I thought you did, amd mojo certainly did.
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
If someone is throwing punches at a police officer, then that officer has every reason to believe that their life is being threatened. If brandishing their weapon doesn't immediately end the assault, then shooting to kill out of self preservation is exactly what should happen.
I'm saying shoot to disable, and if you kill, well you tried to be reasonable.
Most of the chance of dying comes from falling and hitting your head on something. There were several examples in the link I gave above.
But this can happen chasing a criminal. Is a cop justified in shooting someone who committed a misdemeanor, who is running away, on the basis that chasing him risks his life?
The probability of dying when punched, whether due to being hit sweetly, or falling and banging your head, is extremely low. I know it happens, my ex witnessed this happen in a street fight in my town a few years back and had to call the cops. But people get punched in the head all the time, noone expects it to result in death.
As an aside, I think it's interesting how people tend to take all responsibility away from the aggressor in situations like the Trayvon case (and much like what you've described in some of your responses on this).
That's because cops are supposed to act responsibly. Where that's the case, all sympathy for the aggressor evaporates.
That doesn't make an armed population a problem. It actually indicates the opposite.
It does. If the population is armed, then the police have to be too. There's no way around that. And when all cops are armed, then it means training them to elite status is impractical.
We're not an armed nation, and cops rarely die on duty. As a result, cops rarely feel the need to shoot. So an unarmed population is not making the problem worse. If that were true, our figures would make worse reading than yours.
Let me put it this way so that there's [hopefully] no confusion: No amount of training makes this a good idea.
Yeah I realise I'm way off base here. I'm not trained in gun handling, which is exactly why I'm naive about it.
What the fuck is wrong with people when their own life is so worthless as to be willingly wasted just by punching someone in the face? This is where the responsibility wufwugy was talking about comes into play.
But fights happen all the time, often for good reason, and often it is necessary to resolve issues. My problem here is, if it's ok to shoot someone in the head for punching you, then fights are gonna get out of hand really fucking quickly, with little legal consequences for those who decide to "protect" themselves by wasting a human being.
If I go to punch someone in the head, I'm really not expecting it to result in me getting shot. Not unless I try punching a badass gangsta, anyway.
I resigned a won endgame in my first tournament game against a master when I was ~1450 or so, so there's that. I'd just come off of a win against a ~1950, who was the highest-rated person I'd ever beaten in tournament play at that point. /random
I've only ever once beaten a 2000+ player. My rating got above 1900 on gameknot in long games, I'm currently under 1500 in 10min blitz games on chess.com though. I dunno how accurate these rating are in relation to ELO.
|