Originally Posted by Slon

I see no proof in your post. So I guess it is your position that is based on ignorance. It sure as hell isn't substantiated by anything else!



Look, Steve, you'll have to figure out the English language sooner or later. Generally, in the English language (whether written or spoken), it is necessary to take into account ALL of the words present in the sentences in order to understand it. It's especially important to take into accounts words that are EMPHASIZED.

"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."

Let me explain further. Here is what you said:

"By and large, cops won;t point there weapon at someone without due cause."

You're saying that generally (by and large), cops will not point their weapon at someone without due cause. Now, pointing one's weapon at someone WITHOUT such cause would be a mistake, correct? Thus, what you said was that generally, in that situation and in that field (of determining whether or not a threat is worthy of having a gun pointed at it), cops are infallible.

Originally Posted by Steve

Slon, I've been trained in the use of deadly force. I carried a sidearm in the performance of my duties from 1996 until 2001. I had to undergo regularly scheduled requalification to continue to carry a sidearm.

I know what deadly force is, and I know what it isn't.

You don't.

Originally Posted by OldMarine

Slon
We all now know a weapon was not recovered. However if you were outside of a night club known for criminal activity late at night and a group of people were arguing and someone in the group started talking about Get my gun. Do you think a reasonable person not a police officer could think that a gun could be in the car the group went to? what would you do wait to see what happens or get out of the area just to be sure you don't get shot?

Originally Posted by Slon

I would wait until I actually saw a gun. Imagine that...not pointing your gun at people until they commit the "crime" of possessing a firearm.

Originally Posted by Slon

...still no proof......still no proof...
No argument, just ad hominem. All the i tags in the world couldn't conceal your incompetence as a debater. I think you're better off not posting.

Originally Posted by MattLarson

And you'd be dead the first time you actually encountered an armed felon.

If you wait until you already see his gun to draw yours, you'll be shot by the time you decide to draw.

Matt

Originally Posted by MattLarson

And you'd be dead the first time you actually encountered an armed felon.

If you wait until you already see his gun to draw yours, you'll be shot by the time you decide to draw.

Matt

Originally Posted by OldMarine

so your not going to answer the first question. could a reasonable person think they may have a gun?

Originally Posted by Slon

Not necessarily. He might not decide to shoot as quickly. But you bring up a good point. Executing people you don't like as soon as you spot them, for any reason or no reason at all, is much safer. Perhaps cops ought to take safer jobs if they can't handle the risk associated with waiting for people to commit crimes before they slip into their delusions about non-existent guns and off innocent people.

Originally Posted by Steve

Well, you can call it an educated guess.

Originally Posted by Steve

Slon, given your overwhelming distate for law enforcement officers and, indeed, the rule of law in general, I think it's safe for you to assume that there aren't too many people here who would waste much time trying to take you seriously.

But you're helping to pass the afternoon in a comical manner so, please, keep it up...

Originally Posted by OldMarine

Ok now that we agree that a reasonable person could think a gun was in the vehicle try reading Terry V Ohio. It may clear thing up a little for you. It basically allows an Officer to stop and search a person that a reasonable person thinks could have a weapon.