Soju

Sure is. I've been guilty of sarcasm taken the wrong way too. I'm glad it was sarcastic, or else I would have thought you were the egotistical type who gets off on having authority. Good to hear that isn't the case. My apologies.

Here is what gets me. In your situation, being a police officer, you are allowed to, as part of your job I presume, enter and confront a possible criminal with a firearm. It being your home or not. Why should anyone else who is not a police officer not be allowed to? Instead, we have to wait for police to show up, in the mean time, your house could be ransacked, your belongs destroyed or stolen, lots of things. I mean, the reason we call the police is because they have guns and other tools at their disposal. If I already have those things, what difference does it make? This isn't directed at your specifically, just a philosophical type question. Messed up indeed. A scary thought that could in fact happen, and if I heard a story on the news of something similar to this happening, well, it wouldn't surprise me. Sad. Very sad. I disagree. You DO have to worry about being arrested and prosecuted. You SHOULDN'T have to, but to say that it couldn't, or wouldn't happen, is in fact ignorant. I can think of plenty of examples of law abiding citizens getting arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of petty things much less than that under the wrong circumstances. This is the reality we live in. At the same time, there are plenty of examples of people not getting arrested for things potentially worse.

Care to elaborate? I am confused as to why people who hate cops would make you like being a cop, unless I implied something incorrectly. Edit: I also did not mean to -1 your post. That was done mistakenly. Sorry.

I generally agree, situation depending. But my question is, what is worth dying for?

Expect more to come out in relation to the region. I'd tell more if I knew, but they wouldn't tell me either.

I'm pretty sure he is pulling off the wires/prongs from a taser, but either way it is irrelevant.

"He said the gun was fully-loaded with hollow-point bullets, which are prohibited." As dumb as the statement is, it isn't wrong. However it should have said "He said the gun was fully-loaded with hollow-point bullets, which WAS prohibited." That would imply that both the gun, and ammunition, in the capacity of that situation, were prohibited. Why they continually just point out the hollow points is beyond me.

As I told Ron earlier, please read the statue before making assumptions. 2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection. Thank you.

They wouldn't let you go home? That is messed up. What right do they have to do that? If it is for your own safety, and you don't want their 'protection', in a situation like, can they still refuse you access to your own house?

You are right. I shouldn't have been more specific. I was however, trying to illustrate a point, and I see you understand that point. I suppose I could have phrased it better and may not have done the best job in my post. Agreed also. You guys are doing a better job of explaining it than I did. I meant to show, that it is darn near impossible, to both be the one tasked with holding people accountable, and be held accountable yourself. It is not necessarily indicative of individuals, but rather the system itself, and how people act in these roles.

The only people who are upset about his decision to not attended are people who a) Already are not Tim Thomas fans. b) Love Obama. c) Hate liberty. d) The federal government. e) (The only one that holds merit) people who are disappointed that he may have 'slighted' his team/teammates

<<<<Point is over here Krdshrk is over there>>>> Things have to be substantiated. I can't just manifest something as true in my mind, based of generalizations, (which by definition, are generally true) and call it good. Things don't, or should I say, shouldn't work that way. But of course if you want to jump to conclusions and use a witty poster to back up yourself, knock yourself out. I will counter with a quote. "A witty sayings proves nothing." - Voltaire

I doubt any "authorization" to be armed had any legal standing, but quite frankly, he, like you or me, shouldn't even need it! I find this whole situation quite ironic actually, but not for the usual ironic reasons. How can his, or anyone's commander authorize him or anyone to be armed while on leave? Unless they are treated like, for example, OSI, as federal law enforcement officials, then I am confused. Just for future reference. I am not sure I have ever read a news article that hasn't had something in it that makes us shake our heads a bit.

I did not interpret that as such. I apologize. Looking at it from a lighter angle, I get you. I still think it was, if not brash, at least a bit over the top, but you point is now taken.

Since you are purposefully ignoring, and not bothering to read the statues, I will purposefully not answer your question. Read the law and tell me where it says, as you quote "equal force", or even rather, how you interpret something similar to such. If you can demonstrate any amount of logic, and back it up with something, anything really, then I will continue to engage in a legitimate discussion. If not, don't expect a response. But I will even help you, and give you the statue. 2C:3-4 Use of force in self-protection.

Probably puzzles you because it isn't true. Edit: Question: Is being beaten to death with a blunt object less force than being shot to death with a gun? No need to answer, it is rhetoric. Kind of ironic though.

Absolute truth in the first part of your statement, but what is the point of making a brash comment?

I know right. Who should be bothered with trivial "frivolous" things like facts and specifics when a quick generalization is all you need.

It looked like the guy was bluffing after he got tased. I'm not sure he was actually going to swing. But it doesn't matter. That was the worst decision he could have made. Because it leaves the officers with 2 choices. Don't shoot, and hope he doesn't actually assault them. Or shoot and defend themselves. If anyone has enough faith in a guy that was already allegedly destroying the restaurant with that instrument, they have more faith than me. They already tried non lethal force once. Unfortunately that did not work because it appears that would have been the only way this guy was going down without being killed. Did they need 10 shots? I have no idea, but I don't really care. How can one make a judgment to shoot yet make the same judgment that they shot too much? That is a hard case to make unless they started shooting him again after he was down. I didn't see that happen.

Agreed. I wasn't saying she is right. Quite the opposite. I just was commenting on the oddity of people quick to almost defend sometimes, in the sake of "reserving judgment because they don't have all the facts", yet other times, are quick to attack for the same reason. Though who is right or wrong IS the root of the thread, and the case, the way people determine that is an issue. It is often hard to look at things objectively when you have a predetermined view. Again...I am not saying this is necessarily the case. It is a general observation. She doesn't have a case unless it was malicious. I would be more concerned if it was just for negligence. If the truth is close to what I am reading, being police are called, guy is angry, gun is involved, nobody is winning any criminal or civil trial for police negligence. There is only a case if the officer acted maliciously. Again, I am not saying he did. I am not saying she has a case. I am making an observation, and reserving my judgment, as I am not intimately involved or knowledgeable on the specifics of the incident.

I find it odd that in so many threads people mention to reserve judgment until more information is revealed, yet here, everyone is saying to throw them to the wolves? Did it not say he was shot inside his own home? How can you be certain HE wasn't trying to defend himself? Sometimes things are not as they initially appear. I refer you to the Philly incidents where twice, an officer, did in fact shoot people in their own homes unprovoked. Is this the same thing? I don't think so. But to say a wife who lost her husband has no grounds for any restitution on what she feels was an unjust action, I can't agree with that. If she is wrong, she won't win her case. Or that is how the system is suppose to work. It isn't meant to immediately throw EITHER side to the wolves. I lose more and more faith in humanity as the days go on.

Serpa Desantis OWB Don Hume OWB Crossbreed Supertuck IWB

"The only hard alcohol I drink is Arbor Mist and Schnapps". "GTFO of my house."

But these things that are illegal don't apply to law enforcement and government agencies. I mean sure, they are suppose to, but in reality...well, we all know how it works. Accountability doesn't exist to those who have power and authority.

There is about a million times greater a chance that intelligent thought will be made illegal before stupidity.