Even after injury due to a beating and elevated anxiety from being assaulted in their own home.
An honest question:I kick in your door, grab your child when you look like you have a defensive weapon. I put a gun to her head. Tell you to start emptying your wallet, safe, and for kicks tell your pretty wife to undress. But in the mean time you see an opening, you have a weapon, a clear shot and the skills to take it.
Your kid drops to the ground like she should have been taught, and you what? Offer coffee and cookies? Or drop the scum wear he is standing.
Or do you say, "I don't want to be a murderer" so you tell momma to disrobe like he says and clean our your safe and lay it at his feet like a good little victim.
No he didn't. If you think he did, you do not understand English that well.
And what is flabbergastedly wrong about your position is believing that
“I shot her, so that’s going to leave a message on his mind for the rest of his life.”
is somehow akin to:
I shot her to leave a message on his mind for the rest of his life.
or
I shot her so as to leave a message on his mind for the rest of his life.
Watch the damn video and stop being dishonest about what he says.
Yep. You stand by a failed position and untruths. That is to be expected.
The fight or flight theory is valid. There is a reason why cops often shoot 16 rounds...because their magazines dont hold 17. And I'm sorry...you are just painting yourself as ridiculous if you think you would be calm, reasonable, and rational if you were an 80 year old getting jumped in your own home by multiple assailants.I have and did. You seem to think everyone is just a jumble of base instincts. We aren't. We have a brain that can reason. It is what separates us from the animals.
I tend to agree. I just understand others would behave differently. Trained law enforcement have behaved similarly. Its not UNREASONABLE to expect that some people in that set of circumstances might act 'unreasonably'.It was what it was. I would react no differently. Why do you assume someones age makes them radically different? In the end I would still not shoot an unarmed woman in the back. She was running away, no reason to at that point.
The fight or flight theory is valid. There is a reason why cops often shoot 16 rounds...because their magazines dont hold 17. And I'm sorry...you are just painting yourself as ridiculous if you think you would be calm, reasonable, and rational if you were an 80 year old getting jumped in your own home by multiple assailants.
I tend to agree. I just understand others would behave differently. Trained law enforcement have behaved similarly. Its not UNREASONABLE to expect that some people in that set of circumstances might act 'unreasonably'.
OMG! The attacks of the blah, blah and blah! :lamoBlah, blah and blah. He said what he said and showed no regret.
Yes he did say what he said. So what?He said what he said and he did not shoot anyone at that point in self defence.
More dishonest bs from you. Figures.He was angry and wanted revenge and to send a message, period.
Idk, but the case you cite is the case which ruled that particular law to be unconstitutional.Did Tennessee change its law?
TNvG provides a two part test for when it is okay to shoot a fleeing suspect.The point being,there is precedence where law enforcement officers have shot fleeing unarmed suspects.
Even though Greer's situation would fail the TNvG test were Greer a cop, I'd like to point out a couple of things.Its unreasonable to presume civilians should be held to higher standards. Particularly not civilians that have just gotten jumped in their own homes and have had body parts literally broken.
It shouldn't be when using deadly force. It should be more relaxed for civilians as they are not trained as an Officer is.It is entirely reasonable for civilians to be held to a higher standard that cops.
More dishonest bs from you figures.
He was caught up in the moment. That is all.
It was not to send a message, nor an act of revenge. Saying so is just dishonesty. Period.
It shouldn't be when using deadly force. It should be more relaxed for civilians as they are not trained as an Officer is.
This shows the ridiculousness of your argument.
So now getting "caught up in the moment" is not getting revenge? So getting "caught up in the moment" was not to send a message? Come on then what was the motivation for getting "caught up in the moment" a desire to kill someone running away and shooting them in the back?
Absolute nonsense. People should not be shooting people in the back who are running away.
Civilians should have the same immunity from prosecution as cops?It shouldn't be when using deadly force. It should be more relaxed for civilians as they are not trained as an Officer is.
No, it shows the ridiculousness of your argument.
He was not sending any message. That exist solely in your mind.
The old man is a murderer and there is no changing his mind on that. Age and mental condition at the time means nothing to him. He must have been on great cop.What is absolute nonsense, is you replying while not understanding what is being spoken to.
Do try to keep up.
And at least bother to note what my position is regarding the shooting.
Right...I get it. You like to judge others without perspective. God Bless America...or wherever you are from.
What is absolute nonsense, is you replying while not understanding what is being spoken to.
Do try to keep up.
And at least bother to note what my position is regarding the shooting.
What did you not understand about the following?Civilians should have the same immunity from prosecution as cops?
Civilians should be able to forcibly detain one another and not be held liable for the use of violence if the other civilian resists?
On its face, that does not sound workable. But perhaps I am missing something which would make that make sense.
In any case, current conditions are that police have special protections which go along with their job--part of which is catching criminals.
Greer was not trying to apprehend Miller, btw. He was trying to kill her.
So even if Greer had been a cop, Greer still would be a murderer.
This whole TNvGarner business is a red herring.
Is there a special set of laws for octogenarians?The old man is a murderer and there is no changing his mind on that. Age and mental condition at the time means nothing to him. He must have been on great cop.
Dont you think thats a bit bassackwards giving cops leeway you wouldnt give a civilian? And the Tennessee case is merely one case where law enforcement personnel have shot fleeing unarmed suspects. Pittsburgh, Albuquerque...lots of others. Relevant point still in play. Cops are intervening. They typically arent the 80 year old victim getting his ass beat down.Idk, but the case you cite is the case which ruled that particular law to be unconstitutional.
TNvG provides a two part test for when it is okay to shoot a fleeing suspect.
The suspect must present and "immediate" danger sufficient to warrant seizing that person's life.
Shooting the suspect must be the only available method for seizing the suspect.
Greer shooting Miller failed on both counts.
Greer's case fails most egregiously in the second case in that Greer was not trying to apprehend Miller at all.
He was trying to kill her not capture her.
So in addition to Greer not being a cop, neither he nor the community at large was in immediate danger from Miller, nor was Greer attempting to arrest Miller at all.
TNvG has zero bearing on Greer's case.
Even though Greer's situation would fail the TNvG test were Greer a cop, I'd like to point out a couple of things.
We give police leeway in these matter which we don't give to civilians.
If a cop arrests you and it's a mistake the cop is protected even if he has to use physical force to effect the arrest.
If a citizen tries the same crap--tries to arrest you and gets violent--the citizen is open to criminal charges as well as civil suits.
It is entirely reasonable for civilians to be held to a higher standard that cops.
Second, Greer is not being held to a higher standard than is indicated by TNvG.
Why you think that changes anything about how the world is.What did you not understand about the following?
"as they are not trained as an Officer is."
The old man is a murderer and there is no changing his mind on that. Age and mental condition at the time means nothing to him. He must have been on great cop.
Dodge?I understood what you said... Nice dodge tough. Fact: you think civilians should be held to less of a standard than police.
And?That is what I responded to and I say again... absolute nonsense.
I do not have to disprove your claim, especially as you did not understand what was being spoken to. That is on you.Now prove it is viable and not nonsense.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?