We're looking for the exact field manual or law. A link would be nice.
Yes, stealing is risky. Do thieves place the value of what they're stealing above their lives? Well, they're pretty quick to drop it and run when the occasion calls for it.
Now, that stereo...did the life of the owner and his family depend on that stereo? Really? When someone is stealing such a piece of equipment, is it really your contention that it's OK to kill them to protect the stereo, and yet you're not placing the value of property over the value of life?
The stereo owner who shot the thief in the back must value the stereo more than freedom, as he is extremely lucky not to have been thrown in jail for a very long time on a second degree murder charge. Shooting people in the back while they're running away is not justifiable homicide anywhere in the USA.
But, it might be acceptable in Iran, I'm not sure.
The cops are the real criminals - they're a bunch of yahoos, and I have seen their tyranny and laziness first hand.... Hell, my dad just won $150,000 in a lawsuit because the storm troopers invaded his home without a warrant and tased him for no damn reason (oh and it's also a viral video to boot)...
I have no respect for those tyrannical monsters, I wont even talk to them.
Anyone who refers to others as "bad guys" either has the mentality of a child or has some sort of complex....
I would not shoot someone for a stereo but obviously the law, even in a liberal area, recognizes a person's right to protect their property using lethal force.
Not in NY. If I shot someone and told the police I did it to stop him from swiping my stereo I'd be staring at a murder 2 charge. lethal force can only be used in defense of life. If someone breaks into my home I have to shoot him because I reasonably believed my life was in danger, not because he's taking my property.
I'm glad that your father held them accountable and won. What was the punishment for the officers?
Your blanket assessments about cops are very wrong however. Most cops are nothing like that and dont act like that, nor desire to.
Gaius, is any action, in New York state, taken to prevent theft a violation of law? Could there be double indictments? One for prevention of theft and the other for theft?
The bitch that tased my dad had her taser taken away and was placed on desk duty and the rest of the "officers" were also placed on desk duty indefinitely - they're no longer on the streets and they won't be doing anymore tactical work anytime soon.
BTW, the mentally disabled female cop that shot my dad was a rookie and shot 4 more people after him in a span of 6 months - she is is big trouble.
I"m really sorry for your dad. I hope he's ok now.
There are ****ty cops, no doubt, and incompetant ones. But not the majority.
But hey, we had an incident here where cops went into a home looking for a suspect. They found a man, asleep in bed, in the basement. Did not identify him, but shot him 16 times. He was not even the suspect. He did survive.
Sooooo many things wrong here, criminally and incompetently.
--didnt identify suspect
--shot an unarmed man who was no threat
--shot him 16 times
--shot him 16 times *and didnt kill him.*
That's pretty much the law here....but not how it all played out in the stereo case. It was pretty surprising.
Here's an article I found on it. It was a stereo speaker, not stereo. It explains the circumstances that obviously the charging court and the jury took into consideration.
A year later, man charged in deadly car prowler shooting | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News
He said he only meant to scare or wound.
He was charged with manslaughter (I'm not positive that was the final charge) but he got off with time served.
Still a pretty surprising outcome IMO.
Please quote the law or FM.The Untied States military cannot use auto-fire on US civilians unless Martial Law is declared, or in the case of state police - they can't use auto unless they have reasonable suspicion/cause that it may be used against them (pretty much self defense).
Yes, a reason, but Im trying to discover the range and scope of that reason.Im going on what the JAG said. Obvioisly a device to restrict automatic fire exists for a reason.
Yes, a reason, but Im trying to discover the range and scope of that reason.
FM 100-19 appears to be the relevant refrence for domestic operations, with special attention to chapter 3. I was unable to find any rules on the use of force within this FM, however. What material resource were you using at the time?Th prevent soldiers from using rock-n-roll on American citizens.
FM 100-19 appears to be the relevant refrence for domestic operations, with special attention to chapter 3. I was unable to find any rules on the use of force within this FM, however. What material resource were you using at the time?
ATP 3-39.33 is the most recent publication spicific to counter-riot operations. In it's escalation-of-force guidance it does not state a need for the aforementioned blocks.Th prevent soldiers from using rock-n-roll on American citizens.
ATP 3-39.33 is the most recent publication spicific to counter-riot operations. In it's escalation-of-force guidance it does not state a need for the aforementioned blocks.
The best I can guess at this point is that the use of those blocks in your rifles was the Comander's discretion while making the use-of-force matrix for that operation. You would have gon to jail not for using an assult-rifle without a block, but for acting outside of the comander's use-of-force matrix.
It stands to reason that if civilians cannot be shot with select-fire weapons, that police would not be allowed to have those weapons in their inventory at all.
ATP 3-39.33 is the most recent publication spicific to counter-riot operations. In it's escalation-of-force guidance it does not state a need for the aforementioned blocks.
The best I can guess at this point is that the use of those blocks in your rifles was the Comander's discretion while making the use-of-force matrix for that operation. You would have gon to jail not for using an assult-rifle without a block, but for acting outside of the comander's use-of-force matrix.
It stands to reason that if civilians cannot be shot with select-fire weapons, that police would not be allowed to have those weapons in their inventory at all.
Yes.Taliban considers murder wrong? Oh, the people they beheaded and shot from behind must have been executed huh?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...aFdBiooFgVLDVd90ySo7Q5w&bvm=bv.74649129,d.aWwAccording to NGR 500, only the state AG has that descretion.
Yes.
It's all dependent on what your culture/government define as unacceptable killing - aka "Murder".
Edit: We, of course, consider them to be sick murdering ****s.
But I'm sure they justify their behavior in some way.
None.So a group who murders considers murder wrong, that's a new one, how many Taliban have you interviewed to draw that conclusion?
So a group who murders considers murder wrong, that's a new one, how many Taliban have you interviewed to draw that conclusion?
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?