Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2026, 09:39:06 PMAs a general principle, yes. If shooting can't reasonably be expected to stop any harm, then you shouldn't be shooting.Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2026, 09:23:00 PMIt's even more general than that. Clearly if the threat has passed, you shouldn't be shooting anymore. However, even if the threat hasn't passed, if shooting is not going to stop the threat, then you can't shoot either. Shooting is not a punishment for creating a threat, past or present, it's a tool to stop it.
Let's see if I have this right. A car is barreling towards me, it gets to 10 feet, I can't shoot because even if I kill the driver I won't stop the threat due to inertia?
QuoteFederal Reserve Chair Powell says DOJ has subpoenaed central bank, threatens criminal indictment
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2026, 09:23:00 PMIt's even more general than that. Clearly if the threat has passed, you shouldn't be shooting anymore. However, even if the threat hasn't passed, if shooting is not going to stop the threat, then you can't shoot either. Shooting is not a punishment for creating a threat, past or present, it's a tool to stop it.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2026, 09:17:11 PMIt's even more general than that. Clearly if the threat has passed, you shouldn't be shooting anymore. However, even if the threat hasn't passed, if shooting is not going to stop the threat, then you can't shoot either. Shooting is not a punishment for creating a threat, past or present, it's a tool to stop it.Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2026, 09:02:39 PMI don't think that's the right question to ask. I think the right question is whether shooting was going to stop the threat. Cops aren't supposed to shoot to retaliate for being threatened, they shoot to stop the threat, and when that's the only thing that can stop the threat.
So your point is whether the driver constituted a threat at the moment she hit the gas, she clearly did not constitute a threat at the instant the shots are fired? That's a reasonable POV.
Quote from: DGuller on January 11, 2026, 09:02:39 PMI don't think that's the right question to ask. I think the right question is whether shooting was going to stop the threat. Cops aren't supposed to shoot to retaliate for being threatened, they shoot to stop the threat, and when that's the only thing that can stop the threat.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 11, 2026, 04:59:29 PMI don't think that's the right question to ask. I think the right question is whether shooting was going to stop the threat. Cops aren't supposed to shoot to retaliate for being threatened, they shoot to stop the threat, and when that's the only thing that can stop the threat.Quote from: bogh on January 11, 2026, 06:01:46 AMI find the discussion on whether she was complying, whether she was a protestor, what went before etc to be fairly pointless.
None of that should carry the penalty of point blank execution. Whether it's legal or not, it's clearly disproportionate, amoral, incompetent and so very unnecessary. Nothing necessitates this, nothing is achieved by it, except human tragedy.
I agree. The only thing that matters in terms of the shooting is whether the movement of the car constituted an immediate threat.
Page created in 0.021 seconds with 11 queries.