I can get behind that sentiment, rr

Yeah, no kidding. I have no idea why you typed this though because that isn't all that happened.

Kylie knew that Rosie had said he was going to kill him, other people said "go kill him" and Rosie was reaching for the gun. And come on with the "he couldn't have touched his weapon if he was shot in the hand." I mean, please.

All very well said.

DAs in LA (gascon), SF (boudin) and philadelphia (krasner, maybe?) do this routinely. So too did the progressive prosecutor in Waukesha let a guy out on bail for $1k despite a violent history and an open warrant.

As a realistic matter, if prosecutors don't prosecute, we will see more crime and likely more vigilantism. I'm not opining on the moral question here, but rather just saying what is likely to happen.

Quite the hot take.

The trial concluded a week ago. There is no reason that your facts should be so glaringly incorrect at this point.

The "did you feel threatened" defense is treading towards what police too often use and get away with based on them having even a lower bar for engagement and killing.

They just need to convince a jury that 'I did feel threatened and here is why...' and it does not have to be attached to any guilt or real threat, just that someone in their spot can see why they might perceive a threat. You or I would have a hard time getting away with killing an innocent person pulling out their cell phone simply because we felt threatened it was a gun. The standard is generally we must identify the threat and it must be imminent. We might be legit scared that cell phone is a gun and others can sympathise and see in our position that they could understand that fear but that is not going to save us.

That is entirely enough for most cop killings in most States but thankfully a few States are considering tightening it up closer to the standard you and I submit to and California already did.

It is nonsense that cops had the lowest standard to kill in self defense when they are supposed protectors of the citizenry, trained and take the job knowing it has risks. Logic dictates they should have a higher standard to meet before killing.

The standard is not "did you feel threatened."

The standard is "did you reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to yourself."

There is a big difference.

I think a lot of people sincerely believe this and a lot of people don't believe it but they like guns so they pretend they do.

Biden is a conservative in all worlds. The laws he proposed were densely packed with assumptions about and victim blaming toward marginalized groups. He's been a bagman for the credit card industry for decades. He is now pretty much continuing with Trump's foreign policy. The few progressive leaning positions he has taken come off looking like just lies. He said he was going to raise the corporate income tax rate to 28%. That turned into nothing but a half ass attempt to bring up the idea of a global corporate tax of IRRC 15%, but the percent doesn't matter because it's pie-in-the-sky BS that's never going to happen. Now he is going to let the IRS employees rummage through everyone's bank accounts. Having mouthed some criticism of inequality he then proceeds, in deed, to go after the working people. He's a conservative, the essential character of which is to maintain the existing social hierarchy first and foremost and resist especially any egalitarian reform efforts. Locking up a bunch of Black people he knew would be out of jobs after the next round of globalization is just an extra cynical way of advancing that agenda.


I don't think violence against people is ok, at least not at this point. Well actually I think it's ok morally in some cases. I mean, people should be killing and dying over the environmental issues, but on a practical basis violence against people as a tactic is extremely ill advised at the moment. Essentially what I think is ok is property damage which functions as a tax on society for employing illiberal measures against citizens, especially when certain marginalized groups are targeted. The wanton killing of civilians by cops, including White civilians, for some reason isn't enough to mobilize political sentiment sufficient to get reforms. And holding up signs and yelling isn't going to achieve it either. I wished we lived in a society where people listened to each other and took complaints seriously but we don't. We're a country of dum dums who have to be whacked over the head for anything to register.

Curious how you think this road rage incident above would have played out on scene if she had had her gun with her, like the guy on the motorcycle did?

Do you still think people like this librarian are safer because they have a gun and can protect themselves if a victim of crime or can you recognize now that far more people die due to incidents like this one BECAUSE they have guns? That it is the owning of easily accessible guns that makes society less safe.

Judges set bail, not prosecutors.

Are you sure you're a lawyer ?

Well, he's probably better than George...

I'm not so sure.

While it's true the judge sets bail, usually before the judge decides on a specific amount of bail, s/he allows each lawyer to make a statement to influence the judge's decision.

Who's decision ?

By definition, I’m order for a bullet to pass through the hand the hand must be in front of the opening of the barrel out of which the bullet is fired. If the hand is behind the opening, it’s not in the path of the bullet.
I’m going to take your legal advice and go out in public, provoke angry people, then shoot them down the moment they threaten me with their lethal words.

Yet you cannot provide a single incorrect fact. Great debate skills.

I often feel that deadly force is necessary against unarmed individuals who have taken any action at all to harm me.

Well said. Gun laws, the second amendment, and/or the way they are interpreted seem out of step with today's reality. Unfortunately, the NRA and like-minded supporters don't seem to be willing to give a fraction of an inch on...anything. Any time I hear about a proposal of even a tiny modicum of "gun control", the gun advocates are out in force to let it be known there's no way it can be supported, infringes on their god-and-founding-fathers-given rights blah blah blah.

Hard to go wrong with Blackadder clips.

lol fin lol.

The judge.

Excellent rebuttal fool.

You can get shot in the hand while grabbing the barrel of a gun.

Also.

He must have accidentally called in a bomb threat while he was fleeing from an altercation.

How do you know he was grabbing for the gun. I know, let’s ask him. Oh, wait……

I don't know, that's why I'm asking. Do you have kids? Did they ever live with you when they were small and relied on you to protect them?

So the mere presence of a firearm when a mob is burning up an entire neighborhood and the police refuse to do anything is being a vigilante?

Strange times when "burn my house down with my kids in it" is fine, but protecting my family from it is Charles Bronson shiit.



Ah, give us the list of politicians that are not like this.





So you're against police enforcing laws?

No idea. I started to just scroll past you and the other dude sperging out about OK hand symbols. Which post in particular are you referring to?