Not-a-lawyer wrote:
Sorry, no backpedaling here... I stand behind my previous statements on this topic.
Good idea. If you were to stand in front of it, you'd probably lose the other eye.
We're not talking about 'self-defence' here...
No, we're talking 'self-defense', this is the US, not the UK.
...we're talking 'deadly force'. Not 1-to-1. Nice strawman though.
Jimbo, you ignorant slut, do you even know what a "straw man" argument is? DEADLY FORCE may be used in SELF-DEFENSE when one is in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. That's black-letter law. (There are some refinements, such as "to oneself or another," but they are not germane to the instant hypothetical of someone trying to bash you with a fire extinguisher through your car window.)
Couldn't pay me to be a lawyer.
Don't know about 'couldn't, but I certainly wouldn't. Your verbal reasoning skills suck.
I do know what sort of law I want my country to have and...
"...don't confuse me with the fact"?
I've really got better things to do with my time than some silly elementary school bully schtick you're emotionally attached to.
Yeah, we can see that by the quantity and quality of your posts. God, what a chicken shit way to turn tail. You've got all kinds of monetary offers to take the LSAT and you wimp out.
If you'll pay the bill and somebody can identify the weight of the extinguisher and the model of the car...
Cluck, cluck, cluck. The victim in the car doesn't get to know what sort of extinguisher the rioter will use. After take a long paragraph to blame the victim Jimbo asserts:
A broken arm or hand is not 'great bodily harm' by any definition (except a self-serving one perhaps).
Actually, it would fall under the definition of "great bodily harm," whether you think so or not. This is not a self-serving definition, you idiot, just a legal one that you happen to disagree with.
Amateurs with no experience around those sorts of environments really should keep their mouths shut about how that stuff works.
Yup Jimbo, you're right about that.
No, the cops panicked...
You really should become a lawyer or even a judge. You seem to already have figured this one out by ESP or something. Wow, I'm fucking impressed with your legal acumen.
And then there is the point that at no time is the police officer relieved of their sworn duty to protect the citizens, including the rioters.
Is THAT what cops swear to? I'd like to see a citation on that piece of bullshit. There is established case law in the US that says the police have no specific duty to protect anyone.
Self-defence is NOT a sufficient release (there is a term for this policy but it escapes me, I know where to find it though and I'll share it tomorrow).
How convenient. Now don't you forget to "share" that with us tomorrow Little Jimmie.
This is a perfect example of why the standard police psych requirement of 'likes to be in charge'...
Did you pull that out of your ass or someone else's?
A police officers primary responsiblity is not to save their own life but to spend it to save another.
This guy is a laugh riot. Where does he dig this stuff up? What a moron. S a n d y