So my belief is ignorant, even though it is based on multiple news sources describing the event, but your belief is not ignorant even though it is based on the baseless premise that "by and large," cops are infallible in this type of situation?

__________________
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.

How so? Again, I'm just asking because you agreed with my statement in that post ("Is it theoretically possible to shoot someone in the leg? Of course."), and then berated me for statements or beliefs I didn't post.

__________________
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.

Hardly. In fact, i made it quite clear that I have no love for them.

I DO, on the other hand, recognize they have the legitimate legal power to arrest.
It IS a realistic threat. Cops get run over intentionally, and it is not uncommon for criminals to attempt to retrieve a gun from a car.
When you have the legal authority to arrest someone we'll have that discussion.
Rights? No. They DO have legitimate legal powers and authority though, regardless of what you think.
Not realistic.
Of course not. Stop being an idiot.
Yes.
Do you seriously expect me to entertain that statement?
They ARRESTED him! They had every legitimate authority to order him to stop! Good fucking lord, are you retarded?

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

This is a statement you made:

as opposed to shooting someone in the leg once, which suggests you do NOT consider them as threatening

(emphasis mine)

Once a weapon is drawn, there are no longer degrees of "threatening". The escalation of force has gone about as far as it can go. Whatever threat would compel someone to shoot someone in the leg is no different than the threat that would compel someone to aim for center mass.

Basically, if you shoot someone in the leg, you've used deadly force, and that deadly force is no different than the deadly used if you aim and shoot center mass. They are exactly the same...

First, I've not said that police are infallible, so stop presenting falsehoods under the guise of them being statements of mine.

Second, you're ignorant not because you base you belief on news articles (although that doesn't really help), but because it's glaringly obvious that you don't really have even the most basic understanding of the concept you're discussing; that being deadly force...

Here is what you said:

"If you're a police officer who has given a lawful order to stop, yes you CAN threaten."

...with a gun, as that is what happened. In other words, cops can point there guns at whomever they want, only because they are cops. How is that not the same as giving them special class status and special rights?

Again, it's imagined. They saw no gun and no reasonable intent to run them over (prior to pointing their guns at him). POSSIBILITY of it does not equate to a reasonable threat, unless you consider everyone getting into their cars threats at which you can point a gun.Citizen's arrest?
In other words, yes, but you want to replace the word to make a cop-out attempt.Why not? They assumed he would get a gun WITHOUT SEEING A GUN AND WITHOUT THERE BEING A GUN. Why not a nuke with the same set of attributes?So you feel cops should be allowed to assume things here, but not in another situation? Why not?Such as?Arrested him FOR WHAT?So yelling "stop" gives you legitimate authority to wave your gun at people? Can I try that and you can bail me out if I get in trouble? Or is it the whole cops should have special rights...err...I mean "powers," belief again?

__________________
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 doesn;t give you or I that authority, but it does give it to a police officer...

Sure. Give that a shot, and e-mail us from the county lock up so we can take up a collection...

Do you agree that shooting someone through the heart is more likely to kill/stop them than shooting them in the leg is? Do you agree that cops understand this? If so, then making the decision to aim for one as opposed to the other would suggest that one believes the target to be more or less threatening/immediate.legally, perhaps. However, logically and practically there are no such absolutes.Again, can you prove this?Except that one is more likely to be lethal than the other. And that knowledge, combined with one's intent to aim towards one point instead of the other, suggests the level of threat that the target was perceived as. First because the person knows that shooting in the leg is less lethal, and second because shooting someone in the leg is more difficult than shooting center mass. So, the person chose a less effective target and a target more difficult to hit. Why would he do that? I don't know, but it SUGGESTS that the person considers the target less of a threat, logically.

__________________
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.

In other words, you are a fan of giving cops special class status as well as special rights? Also, where does it say, in current laws, that yelling "stop" at someone gives cops the authority to wave their guns 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.

Neither did I. I said you consider them to be, BY AND LARGE, infallible IN THAT SITUATION (determining threats), when clearly they were already wrong in thinking the guy had a gun.How did you determine that from the post in question, especially since I didn't mention "deadly force" there?

__________________
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.

There's no decision to be made, Slon. If someone reaches the point where they feel they need to use deadly force, there's only one place they should be aiming, and it's not the leg...

Logically, if I draw my weapon, it's with the intent of firing it. I would never draw a gun to "scare" someone into submission. The weapon is drawn, always, with intent. The only thing that will alter that is the reaction of the suspect. In this case, Bell's reaction caused the police to conclude that it was necessary to fire...

The use of a firearm is considered "deadly force", regardless of what part of the body ends up getting hit.

I'm not entirely sure what "proof" you're looking for...

It suggests nothing of the sort.

Until you educate yourself on exactly what's entailed in using deadly force, you;re only going to continue making silly statements like that...

You're not able to speak from a position of logic on this topic, Slon, because you don't know the first thing about it.

Go talk to someone who (legally) carries a gun for a living, and maybe you'll be able to come back here and not look so silly...

Again, you're arguing from a position which has its' foothold in ignorance.

Please go get educated on the use of deadly force, and the concepts of escalation of force, and we can carry on this discussion. Until that time, discussing it with you is a waste of time, because you simply don't possess the ability to comprehend it...

Again, the level of ignorance shown by you is astounding.

I've never suggested that police are infallible.

Clearly, you want them to be. Hell, in a perfect world, they would be. But expecting them to be, as you seem to do, is fantasy...

It might be the place they SHOULD be aiming, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still a decision one can make. Remember, you agreed that it is possible to shoot someone in the leg.That may be the way it is legally defined, but the fact remains that someone can physically draw a weapon and have no intent of firing it. You're confusing legal expectations with reality.You're not the only person on the planet. ...to shoot? Perhaps for you, but the fact remains that it is physically possible to draw a weapon without intent to shoot.Well, by quoting "deadly force," it is suggested that you are using "deadly force" the technical/legal definition, as opposed to the deadly force practical and dictionary definition (ie force that is deadly). So, I'm looking for some sort of official manual or legal document.So if a person shoots someone 100 times out a machine gun, it suggests that the shooter considered that target the same threat as if the shooter instead approached the target calmly and asked him to surrender?So no proof and no argument. Just ad hominem. The typical Steve.

__________________
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.