I watched the video. A non event.
Hide your kids y'all!
Hide your kids y'all!
|
|
|
Fresh catch of the day!
- Thread starter griff2
- Start date
State of mind, and reasonable options available. In the case of the Ottawa fool, Ottawa Police had issued warnings that he should be considered armed and dangerous. Who am I to argue when that same person might be pointing a gun at me?
Waving a knife, fine, you may have opportunity to escape that, but a gun just needs to be pointed and trigger squeezed. Imminent threat of lethal force justifies immediate use of potentially lethal force in self-defence. There is no requirement to somehow guess correctly if the pointed gun is just an attempt to intimidate, or full-on intent to cause you harm.
If I'm in a car or truck, I know I won't be able to get away from a sport bike even if I was able to brake marginally better. The bike will out-maneuver and out-accelerate me, and the bike can lane-split through traffic that would otherwise trap me and leave me no escape. The NYC SUV and motorcycle horde showed that.
Bumping him to knock him off the bike would be seen as an acceptable response if he came right alongside you and pointed a gun at you. Going back to hit him again after the threat is distanced would not be. EDIT: And if he passed right on by you, chasing him to bump him off the bike would also not be acceptable. The threat must be both deadly and immediate. At that point the rider is no longer a rider, but a potential killer.
I'm not looking for an excuse to "bang-bang". Killers gonna kill as you say, but I won't risk my life on the chance that the guy pointing a gun at me is not one of those killers and is "just foolin'.
Last edited:
Read again. You seem to not understand nuance.
Mostly I said that the jury would see all the evidence and that they would decide based on a complete examination of evidence that none of us here would see ourselves. I said that the video evidence provides some evidence that he might have felt threatened enough to fire the first three shots. The jury took the same stance and did not convict him of murder for those three shots which were the ones that killed him. I questioned the need for the second volley, and the jury having access to all of the evidence thought the same, convicting him for that second volley.
Would you deride the jury for somehow "supporting" the cop by not convicting him of murder for the first 3 shots?
It's not premeditated. It's called a hypothetical response if faced with a hypothetical situation. The hypothetical response would be to use a fender to knock the gunman off his bike not to kill, but to end an immediate deadly threat to life.
Funny, at least a few other people in Ottawa were able to end the "immediate deadly threat" without such measures. The real telling part is this was your go to response; yet your polemic against speeders lives on... Again, messed up.
Welp, this thread is getting locked
Funny, but people in Toronto have been killed in their vehicles during drive-by shootings. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/candice-rochelle-bobb-baby-1.3617585
No doubt you would still see it as "bad form" had the victims had the chance to take extreme measures to protect themselves.
Suspected. Same attitude, at least. This version doesn't do some of the things that version 1.0 did, so I can't be bothered to investigate any further.
Face
Well-known member
Video showed the guy waving the gun with his right hand. Not sure how he's gonna chase you down gun in hand without working his throttle or front brake.
Anyway, the best way to deal with a bully is to ignore him. I'm done!
In gt5 you go to a wind farm. Police helicopters just fly right into the Windmils.
How long does it take to aim and fire a shot at close range, say 5 to 10 feet away? How long to put gun in pocket and put hand back on throttle?
Is that what you would be counting on? If so, do what you want if a situation arises where someone points a gun at you while riding alongside you.
-D-
Banned
I agree with some dude's earlier post. To me, this is a non-event. He's going fast. I don't see a lot of traffic. Maybe I looked down and missed something but I didn't notice any moves that seemed incredibly dangerous. He has lots of room around him.
Not saying that he should be let go or anything. . . .
I just think that compared to many places I've been to, our society has a strange, unyielding anal retentive closed mind when in comes to anything speed related. Every political entity that seems to get into power, or has a shot at getting into power takes the position that speed kills, that's it. And any ANY argument to the contrary, no matter how strong or compelling the evidence, is not at all heard. They may nod their head, but I quote Faith No More: "If I speak at one constant volume, at one constant pitch, at one constant rhythm, right into your ear, you still won't hear."
I can't fathom for the life of me why the limit on the 400 highways is so low here. And the city streets? I'm fine with most of it, but the penalties are out of whack a lot of the time.
So some dude wants to gun it. It's late, let's assume (I don't know, but let's assume) he's sobre. There's not a lot of people/hazards around. Now if something does happen, dude should be hit with the backhand of the law, sure. But what were the odds there? Nothing bad happened, the vast vast majority of us here could handle that on those roads. When we think of the fines, and then the insurance hit, and how prohibitive that winds up being; is that a bit of overkill? I think it is anyway.
But I've come to a point in life where I see a lot of unnecessary government regulation. There's a public safety issue there for sure. Just don't think the dude needs to be crucified like he will be. What do you think the odds are that he would have crashed? Pretty minimal if I was at the helm (I'm no track master, but jeez what he did isn't that challenging if you can just concentrate), can't attest to his riding ability though.
So penalize but why crucify the guy?
Not saying that he should be let go or anything. . . .
I just think that compared to many places I've been to, our society has a strange, unyielding anal retentive closed mind when in comes to anything speed related. Every political entity that seems to get into power, or has a shot at getting into power takes the position that speed kills, that's it. And any ANY argument to the contrary, no matter how strong or compelling the evidence, is not at all heard. They may nod their head, but I quote Faith No More: "If I speak at one constant volume, at one constant pitch, at one constant rhythm, right into your ear, you still won't hear."
I can't fathom for the life of me why the limit on the 400 highways is so low here. And the city streets? I'm fine with most of it, but the penalties are out of whack a lot of the time.
So some dude wants to gun it. It's late, let's assume (I don't know, but let's assume) he's sobre. There's not a lot of people/hazards around. Now if something does happen, dude should be hit with the backhand of the law, sure. But what were the odds there? Nothing bad happened, the vast vast majority of us here could handle that on those roads. When we think of the fines, and then the insurance hit, and how prohibitive that winds up being; is that a bit of overkill? I think it is anyway.
But I've come to a point in life where I see a lot of unnecessary government regulation. There's a public safety issue there for sure. Just don't think the dude needs to be crucified like he will be. What do you think the odds are that he would have crashed? Pretty minimal if I was at the helm (I'm no track master, but jeez what he did isn't that challenging if you can just concentrate), can't attest to his riding ability though.
So penalize but why crucify the guy?
Oh and for the record, that Faith no More lyric? There's a lot of people on this forum who can learn from that. Debating and discourse are different. Debate and you wind up just trying to win. You're not listening. If you're discoursing you have an opinion and explore differences of opinion to learn and entertain a different perspective. There, you're actually listening. You can walk away still thinking that you're perspective is correct; but you've engaged in a process that consciously tests your subjective validity on the matter.
You can always tell who's debating and who's listening through discourse. Look at this thread and see who digs in their heels when challenged. Look at any thread that becomes a gear nazi vs everybody else with a different opinion. Same thing.
You can always tell who's debating and who's listening through discourse. Look at this thread and see who digs in their heels when challenged. Look at any thread that becomes a gear nazi vs everybody else with a different opinion. Same thing.
It appears, and it's unfortunate, that you have to make laws like you bend metal. You have to over bend so it'll spring back to where you want it. Some people say if you put 400 HWY speed limits at 120-130 everybody will push it to 150. That's a red herring because it's not true but you can't use that logic for all driving situations. The fact is (I'm sure) that there are enough people busting at the chain just wanting to rip it up everywhere. Like the over bent metal these heavy handed speed and stunt laws seem to be required to keep the most self centered road users in check. They're like the dui laws that ruin lives. DUI legal consequences are brutal. How many people have been seriously inconvenienced by blowing slightly over? If you raised BAC levels, people would allow themselves more drink. See bent metal. There might also be a bit of NIMFYISM involved. If you're standing in your front yard with a limp garden hose in your hand watching your money trickle down thru the sewer grate and some totally dooshed out CSBK reject makes sport of your residential street you may want to drive your Home Depot galvanized white metal knuckles down his throat. See bent metal.
-D-
Banned
Please reference my work in Romper Room.
|
|
|
|
|