Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
I had a run in with a CCW'er last night...
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Michael Brown" data-source="post: 1593291" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>The is completely inaccurate both legally and ethically. Reasonable perception is the standard not absolute fact.</p><p></p><p>For instance if a subject points a realistic-looking toy pistol at you during the course of a robbery and you BELIEVE your life is in danger, you are justified in using deadly force. </p><p></p><p>This is a mistake of fact shooting. The subject posed no lethal threat to you, so by your logic that person should be guilty of negligent homicide.</p><p></p><p>That is absolutely stupid.</p><p></p><p>In your example of a person reaching for his wallet, I ask people for items that they retrieve from their wallet on a daily basis and haven't shot someone for it because I expect they would be reaching for their wallet.</p><p></p><p>However, unexplained movement to the waistband is a court-accepted pre-assault cue; i.e. the Diallo shooting in NYC. Two courts both accepted than when confronted with ALL the facts, this was a reasonable mistake of fact shooting.</p><p></p><p>Do you have an example of a non-justifiable shooting by police where a subject was minding his own business doing nothing criminal or suspicious, reached for his wallet after being asked for ID by police and was shot in response? Do you have more than one?</p><p></p><p>If not, then GTG and my criticisms of your post are valid since you stated that the "go home alive" rule was being overused despite evidence to the contrary i.e. number of unjustifiable shootings by police, number of justifiable shootings by police, and number of felonious officer deaths. The number of unjustifiable shootings by police pales in comparison to justifiable shootings by police so the rule is obviously not "overused" as you so broadly stated.</p><p></p><p>The point is that your statement, while perhaps not malicious, was ill-informed and not supported by empirical evidence and I will not simply allow you to make such broad, unsupported statements about a very important topic.</p><p></p><p>Simply having a police officer for a father does not make you well-informed on this issue. I have two children who don't have a direct understanding of what police officers do so I'm confident that while they, and you, may be sympathetic to police officers the relationship in and of itself doesn't mean you understand anything.</p><p></p><p>There are repercussions for mistake of fact shootings but they are civil, not criminal as they should be if the perception was reasonable.</p><p></p><p>If the perception in such a shooting is NOT reasonable that is a different issue, however the facts being incorrect IN HINDSIGHT is not the accepted standard for any use of force by any citizen, police officer or not.</p><p></p><p>Michael Brown</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Michael Brown, post: 1593291, member: 18"] The is completely inaccurate both legally and ethically. Reasonable perception is the standard not absolute fact. For instance if a subject points a realistic-looking toy pistol at you during the course of a robbery and you BELIEVE your life is in danger, you are justified in using deadly force. This is a mistake of fact shooting. The subject posed no lethal threat to you, so by your logic that person should be guilty of negligent homicide. That is absolutely stupid. In your example of a person reaching for his wallet, I ask people for items that they retrieve from their wallet on a daily basis and haven't shot someone for it because I expect they would be reaching for their wallet. However, unexplained movement to the waistband is a court-accepted pre-assault cue; i.e. the Diallo shooting in NYC. Two courts both accepted than when confronted with ALL the facts, this was a reasonable mistake of fact shooting. Do you have an example of a non-justifiable shooting by police where a subject was minding his own business doing nothing criminal or suspicious, reached for his wallet after being asked for ID by police and was shot in response? Do you have more than one? If not, then GTG and my criticisms of your post are valid since you stated that the "go home alive" rule was being overused despite evidence to the contrary i.e. number of unjustifiable shootings by police, number of justifiable shootings by police, and number of felonious officer deaths. The number of unjustifiable shootings by police pales in comparison to justifiable shootings by police so the rule is obviously not "overused" as you so broadly stated. The point is that your statement, while perhaps not malicious, was ill-informed and not supported by empirical evidence and I will not simply allow you to make such broad, unsupported statements about a very important topic. Simply having a police officer for a father does not make you well-informed on this issue. I have two children who don't have a direct understanding of what police officers do so I'm confident that while they, and you, may be sympathetic to police officers the relationship in and of itself doesn't mean you understand anything. There are repercussions for mistake of fact shootings but they are civil, not criminal as they should be if the perception was reasonable. If the perception in such a shooting is NOT reasonable that is a different issue, however the facts being incorrect IN HINDSIGHT is not the accepted standard for any use of force by any citizen, police officer or not. Michael Brown [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
I had a run in with a CCW'er last night...
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom