General Discussion

Uponthegears

(1,499 posts)

77. At least you have proposed

Wed Jul 20, 2016, 11:06 AM

Jul 2016

a scenario justifying lethal force. IF what you describe is accurate, I have no problem, and more importantly the Constitution has no problem, with the use of deadly force.

Could you do me a favor, though. I have yet to see a single story where a reliable source (and, no, I am not automatically deeming law enforcement unreliable, so if you have law enforcement reports that would be great) reports that he was "actively threatening to kill more by gun and by explosive detonation" and "he continued to make threats and claimed to be wired with explosives" AT THE TIME HE WAS KILLED.

If you have a source for those statements, could you give me a link?

As I have said over and over, an immediate threat, or even possible threat, of harm to innocent people obviously would have justified the use of deadly force. I have never said otherwise. What I have argued is that, absent such a threat, cops can't constitutionally or morally just up and kill us, even if we have done something really horrible.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

95 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Damage shown from blast that stopped police-killing sniper [View all] Eugene Jul 2016 OP

who you gonna call? Gabi Hayes Jul 2016 #1

That will learn ya. Lance Bass esquire Jul 2016 #2

Extrajudicial execution Uponthegears Jul 2016 #3

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. Lance Bass esquire Jul 2016 #4

Couldn't have brought dishonor Uponthegears Jul 2016 #6

yep +10 840high Jul 2016 #24

Well, since he was still firing at the cops... Joe the Revelator Jul 2016 #5

Wasn't firing Uponthegears Jul 2016 #9

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #11

This message was self-deleted by its author Uponthegears Jul 2016 #15

Justified deadly force WhisCo Jul 2016 #8

Justified? Uponthegears Jul 2016 #10

If you're shooting people left and right, deadly force is justified for fucks sake WhisCo Jul 2016 #49

It would be a lot easier on people if they did not run. Jim Beard Jul 2016 #53

Yeah, I agree. Just stand there and let them shoot you. Ikonoklast Jul 2016 #63

So if the cops tell you to do something and you don't do it, killing is justified? Angel Martin Jul 2016 #68

Thank you for Uponthegears Jul 2016 #80

The actual facts of the Brown shooting Angel Martin Jul 2016 #88

WHAT . . . there's a difference between Uponthegears Jul 2016 #92

You equate Brown to a mass murderer armed to the teeth and issuing threats. Bluenorthwest Jul 2016 #75

Legitimate police action. MohRokTah Jul 2016 #21

... Adrahil Jul 2016 #51

You're 100% correct gratuitous Jul 2016 #73

Does the same apply to LaVoy Finicum? Matrosov Jul 2016 #79

I believe the claim Uponthegears Jul 2016 #82

He claimed he had planted explosive devices throughout Dallas Matrosov Jul 2016 #87

Forigve me if I don't feel sorry for that piece of shit. NaturalHigh Jul 2016 #95

Did they try tear gas? Red Mountain Jul 2016 #7

They talked about it Uponthegears Jul 2016 #12

I can see both sides on this one True Dough Jul 2016 #13

Trolling for a cop killer to boot. Lance Bass esquire Jul 2016 #14

It's called defending the Constitution Uponthegears Jul 2016 #16

Its called defending a cop killer. Lance Bass esquire Jul 2016 #17

"Defending" him Uponthegears Jul 2016 #23

By your inaccurate reading, there is nothing anybody could do that would merit mythology Jul 2016 #34

Did the Bastille Day Uponthegears Jul 2016 #45

or you have to wait until he runs out of fuel ! Angel Martin Jul 2016 #67

No....you misinterpret the 5th amendment. He got his due. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #19

Bring that argument Uponthegears Jul 2016 #25

No....it is you who claim the killing is "extrajudicial." That is an extrodinary msanthrope Jul 2016 #26

There was no authorizing legal proceedings Uponthegears Jul 2016 #33

It's unfortunate that you seem to think that 200 years of jurisprudence simply don't count. msanthrope Jul 2016 #35

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime ..." Statistical Jul 2016 #38

Yeah.....no. He wasn't custodial. He was deemed an active threat, and refused to surrender.nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #41

Deemed an active threat = we killed him because he killed cops Statistical Jul 2016 #44

Exactly Uponthegears Jul 2016 #46

He hadn't fired a shot because the Dallas Police declined to present him with human targets. msanthrope Jul 2016 #50

Whose ass? Straw Man Jul 2016 #60

Perhaps if you'd been listening to the scanner.. you would have heard officers.. X_Digger Jul 2016 #65

It's called a trial Uponthegears Jul 2016 #39

Yeah.....you don't get a trial if you refuse custody. you cannot both flee msanthrope Jul 2016 #40

but a fugitive Uponthegears Jul 2016 #42

No reason to believe this one was. Perhaps you could cite a case,or a law you think msanthrope Jul 2016 #48

Yea Uponthegears Jul 2016 #72

Yeah....You think a Ruby Ridge lawsuit has some bearing on its incident? Um, no. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #85

I was willing Uponthegears Jul 2016 #86

To be fair, I haven't read past your first paragraph. But, I've enjoyed this subthread, where my msanthrope Jul 2016 #90

Take the draw Uponthegears Jul 2016 #91

Execution requires the subject be under control of the authority administering the sentence. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2016 #70

Hence the term "extrajudicial" Uponthegears Jul 2016 #74

Extrajudicial would not apply either. Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2016 #83

I think in this case the old addage anyone can claim anything on the internet is applicable stevenleser Jul 2016 #43

I have no doubt they are a civil rights attorney.....in the same vein that Mr. Greenwald also msanthrope Jul 2016 #54

Oh my Uponthegears Jul 2016 #55

Steve graciously interviewed me on last Election night...I had been working for the Obama msanthrope Jul 2016 #56

For which you will be blessed Uponthegears Jul 2016 #58

You've presented nothing to argue with other than claims you are an attorney. stevenleser Jul 2016 #57

"Care to prove yourself" Uponthegears Jul 2016 #62

I didn't read past my misspelled user name. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #69

Sincerely sorry Uponthegears Jul 2016 #71

There are none unless he is arrested treestar Jul 2016 #36

Oh come on. Orrex Jul 2016 #81

I bet they didn't even offer him pizza, or a blankie. nt msanthrope Jul 2016 #84

Monsters. Orrex Jul 2016 #94

Question: Is it unconstitutional.. X_Digger Jul 2016 #64

99% of the "peeps" here say it was JUSTIFIED. essme Jul 2016 #18

Please give us your contact info Lance Bass esquire Jul 2016 #22

I was a "youngin" when I voted in my first essme Jul 2016 #27

Post removed Post removed Jul 2016 #31

Broke open the bale, huh? Uponthegears Jul 2016 #37

You keep repeating an assertion that is very dubious: that he no longer poses a threat Bluenorthwest Jul 2016 #76

At least you have proposed Uponthegears Jul 2016 #77

Mixed feelings on this one. backscatter712 Jul 2016 #20

I somewhat agree with that essme Jul 2016 #29

Heaven forbid Uponthegears Jul 2016 #30

Boom Boom.. Elmergantry Jul 2016 #28

PT RULES! n/t Lance Bass esquire Jul 2016 #32

Taking out an active shooter. Warren DeMontague Jul 2016 #47

No one has an issue Uponthegears Jul 2016 #52

Did he still have the gun? How long had it been since he had last shot someone? Warren DeMontague Jul 2016 #66

This is still... deathrind Jul 2016 #59

I live in this city. I have lived here since 1969. We blew up 7wo7rees Jul 2016 #61

Kill bad man with guns=fine; bomb = OMG1!1!1! Bonx Jul 2016 #78

good robot nt geek tragedy Jul 2016 #89

If a remote-controlled device is a robot, then so is a gun. randome Jul 2016 #93