Deadly force or Felonious Action Ceasing Maneuver is that level of force which is inherently likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Firearms, bladed weapons, explosives, and vehicles are among those weapons the use of which is considered deadly force.

I've argued nothing contrary to that.

Perhaps you can demonstrate where that definition is flawed.

Or, perhaps not...

Aiming a weapon and "waving" a weapon are two entirely different things, and cannot be compared by anyone who expects to engage in intelligent discussion.

You can't admit that, though, because it would hurt your argument...

I can absolutely understand the context of the thread.

I can also absolutely understand that you have no knowledge of the subject on which you'd like to be taken seriously.

Go get educated, then get back to us. Until that time, it'll be impossible to take you seriously...

Aww thats so sweet....you learned a new word and now you just want to try and throw it around whenever you can.

Slon, you would do well to first correct your comprehension and contextual understanding issues before even thinking about suggesting others are having an issue with it.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Source?Tell me how they are different in the sense of threatening someone with a gun? Is pointing a gun at someone less or more threatening than is waving it at them?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Then try to show it.I really don't give a shit about "getting back" to you since you still have not substantiated your arguments.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Why do you assume I just learned it? Last effort of a failing debate "attempt?"You would do well to try and argue the topic, not the poster.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

It would do Erik no good to debate the topic with someone who possesses a woefully poor understanding of it.

Hence, he won't debate it with you...

It's now no wonder why you have no clue about "deadly force", because it's painfully obvious that you have no clue about how to properly use a weapon.

You're done, Slon, and you've lost this debate, thanks only to your own reluctance to educate yourself on the topic...

How does YOUR inability to substantiated ANY of your shit result in MY loss? The burden of proof is on you, given that it was your claim.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

That coming from someone who believes that "waving" a gun and "aiming" a gun are the same thing.

That's just too fuckin' funny...

Clearly, the only person here who's unaware that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about is you.

The definition of "deadly force" isn't something I made up, Slon; it's something I had to learn. If you have any hope of being taken seriously, it would do you well to learn it, too...

What's funny is that you fucked up even understanding the general idea of the thread, and still have the nerve to post the bullshit you're posting.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Then why don't you substantiate it instead of shitting all over this thread?

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Because nothing would suffice for you. Every law enforcement agency on the planet is expected to adhere to the tenets of the use of deadly force, and escalation of force. You, on the other hand, have such a disdain for law enforcement that you would simply dismiss anything offered to substantiate it.

But, start here: Deadly Force

There's plenty there for you to read. I don't suspect that you'll either accept or even understand any of it, but at least you can't say I didn't get you started.

You will, however, likely say something to the effect of how you're "not going to waste time going through all that stuff", and then you'll "demand" that I provide "proof".

The proof is there.

Or, I'll make a deal with ya': You agree to go away for 30 days. Don't post here, don't log in; Hell, don't even read anything here. If you do that, I'll save my energy and just say "You're a WINNER!" so you can be happy, and so your folks can be proud of you...