Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Could they, maybe. But I don't think a guy that is working to protect the community should risk his life or a serious injury because someone is pissed off. These guys have to make split second decisions, neither me nor you where present when this took place. If the cop that shot him thought he needed to shoot in order to protect someone else than he made the right decision at the time. BTW I know a guy in a wheel chair that probably has the most upper body strength of anyone I ever met. All this guy had to do was comply with their orders, that is all. He choose not to, and because of that put a few people in risk of injury or death. I will never defend a person that chooses to do that.

Had he not had a weapon I am sure the cops would have taken him down. I just don't think that a cop should have to place himself in that type of danger unless it is necessary. If I had to choose who got hurt in this situation it would have been the guy that got shot. The cops are their just trying to do their job.

I think anyone that is armed, has a responsibility to minimise the harm to others around them. If the guy is in a wheelchair, yes you can shoot & kill them to protect yourself. But you also have the option of ... leaving the room and letting them work it out.

Just because you have a gun and someone else is acting in a threatening manner doesn't give you the right to kill them...

And as for killing someone to prevent vandalism at night? What madness is that?

They can not just leave the room. The are legally required to make sure the public is safe. If they leave and this guy hurts himself or someone else they are held liable.



Yes it does. Look at texas penal code use of deadly force. Here are a couple sections.

a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:

(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;

(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or

(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.




Not madness, it is our law. Don't want to get killed respect the property of others.


§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Well I agree with you, to a degree on this, in particullar on "soft drugs"
I still think it should be regulated like alcohol or pharmas.
War on drugs have become a rather expencive joke
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MESZh-_u ... re=related

On the "incident" I still see it as a liquidation.
The guy was in his home, so this was a call for police assistance on domestic violence,(at best)
the police is entering the scene with that knowledge, acording to the article the object is to calm down a diagnosed scitso/bipolar dissabled person.
He was scaring the other residents by his abusiv language, because he was denied siggarets and a soft drink (in my books he should be allowed those substanses, in his home, in the first place) No crime or attack was in progress, only the kind of behavior you can expect from a person with the diagnose (scitzo/bipolar)
A police officer should not be issued a gun, iff he is not capable(trained) to sort this mission out,
without one.
IMO he (the police) is a danger to society at large, and not fit to serve and protect.
I gues we want agree on this point

cheers

They shot and killed a man in a wheelchair to avoid being liable for something he might have done? I think my head just exploded with the logic of that!





But do you think that's right? Really?






And you're defending this law? It's madness!

I agree, it should be regulated by each state as they see fit.



I still don't understand Liquidation?

On a domestic violence call the police are required by law to take someone in if there is evidence of violence. They have no choice. I also agree if he can afford cigeretes and a soft drink he should be able to get them. But he should not be given them if he can't afford them.

Police are not trained to deal with this, they are not doctors or care givers. Their job is to make sure society is safe. That is the way it is. It has nothing to do with his mental capacity, it has to do with him threatening another person. And even a civilian has the legal right to use deadly force to stop someone that is threatening another, (and not just with words they have to have the ability to do the threat)

But surely they also have the responsibility to use the minimum force necessary. If they're able to remove everyone from danger without drawing a weapon, let alone shooting someone then they should do so. If they take the option of shooting someone when that wasn't an absolute last resort, I have no issue with them being arrested and charged with a serious crime.

Someone doesn't deserve to die for the (relatively) trivial crime of vandalism IMO.

That is your logic. That is not what I said. If you could refrain from twisting everything we may actually get somewhere.

They are not allowed to leave the guy acting like that. They have to take him into custody. Now during that he tried to fight them and threatened them with a weapon. At that point HE (the idiot) took it to the next level and they used force to stop the threat.



100% right. Law abiding citizens should have the right to defend themselves and their property.




Yes completely, and most of my state agrees with me.

So how should it be handled let the theives take what they want with no consequences. We both know finding the theif after the fact is not likely. So what do you think people should do when their stuff they worked hard for is being stolen? Please tell.

His partner was cornered by this person. The person took it to the next level. Like I said above I was not there, neither of us where. I will take the word of a veteran law enforcement officer over some idiot threatening people. If they felt they needed to use deadly force than they where justified under our law.


So what are the property owners options. Let the thugs vandilize their property? I disagree, if the vandal does not value their life enough to no risk it why should I place any more value on their life.

and we call this civilization..
i think it will change in 2047.. when the singularity event happens

I remember this was in the news : quote
Response from the United States

The official position of the United States government was that while it recognized Singapore's right to try to punish Fay with due process of law, it deemed the punishment of caning to be excessive for a teenager committing a non-violent crime. The United States embassy in Singapore pointed out that the graffiti damage that Fay made on the cars was not permanent, but caning would leave Fay with physical as well as long-term emotional scars.[5]

U.S. President Bill Clinton called the punishment extreme and mistaken, continuing to pressure the Singaporean government to grant Fay clemency from caning. Two dozen U.S. Senators signed a letter to the Singaporean government also appealing for clemency. After Fay's punishment was carried out, the United States Trade Representative said that he would try to prevent the World Trade Organization's first ministerial meeting from taking place in Singapore. The Singaporean government pointed out that Singaporeans who break the law faced the same punishments as Fay

quote end

Quite a contraste huh, In Texas he could legaly be shot dead but in Singapore.............

I like the Romans way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8

As for the "liquidation" you say you don't get it, I don't know how to put it but its like the banana killing (self defence) no more no less IMO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... sJr-w&NR=1

cheers

I don't believe we should meddle in the affairs of other countries. I believe Singapore had the right to deal with the punk how ever their law states. I remember when this happened and I hoped they would cane him. He sure would have learned his lesson.

Also the differnece is that was state sanctioned. There is no state punishment like that here in the states. The vandilism law is for civilians. Basically they don't want an innocent person going out to stop a vandal and getting killed in the process. That is why it is only allowed at night. During daylight you can't use deadly force for such crimes. It is because in the daylight you are better able to defend yourself while protecting your property. You can still use deadly force during the daylight, but only to protect yourself. Actually most juries won't find people guilty of self defense or defense of property even if they did not follow the letter of the law.

Had a case in my county of a guy killing a guy. He shot him in the back after an argument, and was found not guilty. Because the other guy started the encounter. Even by the letter of the law he was guilty of a crime, the jury found him not guilty. This happens all the time, people are sick and tired of criminals and thugs.

... there's over 80 nations around the world that would probably scream.... bullshit...

Not about me, I don't believe we should be in any other country. That is why I vote for Ron Paul. Obama and romney can kiss my arse. Do you support everything your government does? Why can't you seem to stay in reality with what I say. Do you think I sent our troops over seas? Do you think I meddles in the business of other countries? Can you understand I don't agree with my government? Do I have to type slower? Stop twisting my f8cking words.

I noted that it was probably a personal perspective Helomech...

And I'm glad to hear it....