I ninja-edited my post, including more real life legislation; Tennessee v Garner was my first example, prohibition on firearms are other bona fide examples. This is all far from hyperbole.
I ninja-edited my post, including more real life legislation; Tennessee v Garner was my first example, prohibition on firearms are other bona fide examples. This is all far from hyperbole.
Actually you said
Which was exactly the issue addressed in Tennesse v Garner, which is why I linked it.
Do you drive slow to evade the police while in a vehicle? I'm sorry, Im not entirely sure... but with the exception of a cop being on my tail... evading and speeding are the same thing. So, by your "poses a threat to the safety of the public warrants deadly force..." You could also shoot someone you suspect of drunk driving who is unresponsive to police lights... loud speaker... etc?
If thats the case... I feel sorry for those old people, people suffering insulin/heart/or some other medical attack who are mistaken for evading drunk drivers almost monthly across the united states.
If you're going to be retarded, then we're done here. You obviously are trying to distract and create controversy by claiming innocence. the OP was about a high-speed pursuit evading police on a public roadway. Now you want to claim you didn't realize that I wasn't talking about some guy on foot hopping a fence.
Another for the /i, since you're obviously just here for the laughs.
And yet again... reaching for more ways to change the subject. So yet another. You've been on the radar for some time, but you've finally earned it. I'm sure you'll be glad.
And I'm done with this topic, since simply providing my opinion has allowed these two the opportunity to try to turn the whole thing into some circus so they can feel superior. Adios...
Thats not changing the subject. You said that "I actually think if they authorized deadly force for attempting to evade police, we'd end up with a whole lot less incidents of it after a few people get it. The way I see, when you attempt to evade on a public street with a multi-thousand-pound vehicle at high rates of speed, you're utilizing deadly force without due regard for the safety of your fellow citizens." So your reasoning is that if someone is "utilizing deadly force without due regard for the safety of your fellow citizens" which would be a subjective analysis of a situation where what you regard as "utilizing deadly force without due regard" is not the same as the next guy.
As far as being on the radar... I dont even know what that means. As far as being glad Im on it,.. I doubt I would care.
Im alright with being on your radar... but if I evade,.. you arent going to shoot me are you?
Last edited:
It's not retarded. It's not a circus. See, the whole point is that laws and legal decisions and precedent are intermingled and build off each other. A ruling about a felon fleeing on foot may well affect the jurisprudence ruling about a felon fleeing in a vehicle.
It's all interconnected. To many people try to make these issues out to be black and white. I concede maybe they should be. I concede perhaps the differences between a fleeing felon on foot and fleeing felon behind the wheel should be obvious. Truth be told, they aren't. These matters carry a weight far heavier than they superficially appear. This is why many of us are so cautious, so critical or skeptical or cynical, about anything that starts to encroach on anyone's liberties or rights. Even if their beliefs may be contrary to our own.
"Rights" being a very applicable word, as it was the 4th Amendment that was cited in Tennessee v Garner. So again as much as you try to make it out as retarded, or hyperbole, or distraction (all your words) this is all very topical and many here don't take it lightly.
Last edited:
Similar threads
