Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JR777" data-source="post: 4391162" data-attributes="member: 45725">The reason that&#039;s a justified shooting is because the definition is based on what the shooter knew at the time. It&#039;s the same as if someone were to point a toy gun at a cop. Just like a cop can&#039;t be convicted for not being able to distinguish a toy gun from a real one, cops can&#039;t be convicted for doing their job in good faith. This incident would fall under the general category of swatting. Whoever falsified the information is the one who&#039;s responsible for her murder (premeditated too).The Vu incident is night and day. Based on the information he knew at the time, he was not justified in using force. He would have been justified in grabbing the old man&#039;s arm to prevent him from touching him, and using whatever force was necessary to get him into cuffs (which would have been zero because Vu had already consented to be arrested two or three times).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JR777, post: 4391162, member: 45725"] The reason that's a justified shooting is because the definition is based on what the shooter knew at the time. It's the same as if someone were to point a toy gun at a cop. Just like a cop can't be convicted for not being able to distinguish a toy gun from a real one, cops can't be convicted for doing their job in good faith. This incident would fall under the general category of swatting. Whoever falsified the information is the one who's responsible for her murder (premeditated too). The Vu incident is night and day. Based on the information he knew at the time, he was not justified in using force. He would have been justified in grabbing the old man's arm to prevent him from touching him, and using whatever force was necessary to get him into cuffs (which would have been zero because Vu had already consented to be arrested two or three times). [/QUOTE]

Verification