You're dodging the question, Steve. If the decision to use deadly force has been made, then what you are telling me is that it is deadly force even if the trigger is not pulled? Or are you saying that it is physically impossible to choose not to fire once you aim your gun? From your own abortion-of-an-attempt to substantiate your claims:

"Deadly force is a 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."

Well, that's the problem. Nothing you do seems to have anything to do with backing up your claims. One must wonder why you even bother posting here.

This is a forum to debate politics, so opinions on politics, on the forum called US Politics Online, DO matter. It's the entire premise of the forum. Sorry if you missed it.Sure you do: the utter lack of physical evidence that he actually has one, along with the chance that he is kidding. Do you consider yourself to be gullible? What would be accurate is to say that the only "evidence" you have of his possession of a firearm is what you assume to be the meaning of what he said.

__________________
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's correct.

In fact, I believe Erik pointed that out already...

If you draw your weapon, you are, in fact, using it...

We're not debating politics, we're debating the law.

Sorry if you missed it...

Sorry, but that just doesn't wash. I don't know if the guy's joking. I must then act accordingly to protect myself if a feel threatened. In such scenarios, it's prudent to assume the worst case scenario...

If the guy says he's got a gun, and then quickly reaches under his jacket, he's getting shot. Period...

If he says "I have a gun", yeah, I'll assume he has a gun. It would be idiotic to assume he didn't, if for no other reason than it's idiotic to joke about having a gun...

So merely POINTING a gun at someone, without firing, "is inherently likely to cause death or great bodily injury?"Then you missed the point of this forum.Debating law is a part of debating politics.But then you don't know if he is serious. Many people won't tell you they are getting a gun if they want to kill you. Some will. Others will perceive telling you that they have a gun for what it is: the worst time to kill you. You simply never know.Might as well act that way always. Both situations lack physical evidence of the possession of a gun by the other party.Hopefully it's a wallet.It's mostly a baseless assumption. It suggests a bit of gullibility.You don't have to assume either way. Just know that a guy who jokes about having a gun, and a guy who does not say anything, both have equal levels of physical evidence of having a gun. If you decide to shoot the joker, you might as well shoot everyone.

__________________
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.

What utter bullshit.

Here's the deal, lad: You don't know what you're talking about. You're the only one who isn't aware that you don't know what you're talking about.

If you ever find yourself in a situation where someone tells you they have a gun, assume he doesn't and hope for the best. Just do so knowing that the best could, quite easily, pan out to be a pretty shitty deal for you.

It's prudent to always err on the side of caution. Anyone who doesn't is a complete fucking idiot. If someone tells you they have a gun, and you assume that he doesn't, that's stupid.

I'll now follow those who've grown weary of your silly bullshit, and take my leave of you. You offer an great big steaming pile of nothing to a discussion.

Enjoy arguing with yourself...

Then why don't you refute it?Why would I assume either way? Something tells me you either didn't read or didn't understand my post.Of course. Shoot anyone who moves! All those idiots who didn't kill me for reaching to get my wallet...Failed to read or understand my post."You don't have to assume either way"

__________________
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.

Slon, if you pull a gun on someone and do not have every intention of pulling the trigger, you are one stupid SOB. From a legal and practical perspective, you had better be willing to shoot them, otherwise there was no reason to draw your weapon. This is a simple fact you just dont seem to comprehend.
ABSOLUTELY! You cannot look at that kind of a situation and judge a person's actions from the comfortable position of months later knowing everything which couldn't have been known at the time. You MUST look at it from the same perspective - and taking into account all the facts known AT THE TIME. At night, in a questionable area, yes, it is most certainly reasonable to assume it was NOT a joke and he very likely was going back to his car for a gun.

In that circumstance, waiting to see if he does pull one out before drawing your weapon is a very good way to get killed. Action ALWAYS beats reaction Slon.
Not "perhaps", definitely. The legal perspective is the only one which matters.
So? It is still the employment of lethal force.

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

You should try to actually stay on topic instead of finding reasons to somehow include these childish remarks. I comprehend just fine. The point remains that:
"pointing a gun at someone does not mean you WILL pull the trigger"
You can theoretically reason out why that is true.
Sure I can. This "you weren't there!" mentality is one of the biggest cop-outs ever.Not at all. It could just be a joke. What they did was basically use deadly force against someone when they had no physical evidence that he was even armed, and even less that he was about the threaten one of them with a gun. If all it takes is for someone to look suspicious to legally use deadly force, you'd have cops killing people left and right for no reason. Mere suspicion, with no physical evidence, should not give you the right to kill people. And if those cops are so insecure, they need to look for a new job.So is being in a dangerous area. Doesn't mean you can shoot whomever the fuck you want to "feel safer."I agree. Do you support my right to shoot anyone I find remotely suspicious? After all, why wait to react? Shooting them in the back is so much more effective and safe. I'm not sure what definition you're using, but pointing a gun, without firing, is not lethal in the same way that using a maglite to shine light onto a dark corner of your attic is not lethal.

__________________
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.

Meanwhile, a philadelphia gang of policemen beats down people.

YouTube - Philadelphia Police Beating...Philly Cops on the "Beat"

__________________
Client: In six days, do you hear me, six days, God made the world. And you are not bloody well capable of making me a pair of trousers in three months!
Tailor: But my dear Sir, my dear Sir, look at the world, and look at my trousers.
(Beckett)

That makes the Rodney King police beating look like amateur hour.