XPost: alt.law-enforcement, alt.thebird.copwatch, nyc.general   
   XPost: alt.true-crime   
   From: rrufiange@cfl.rr.com   
      
   "Morf"  wrote in message   
   news:3FEAAB8B.12F2@hotmail.com...   
   > Chris wrote:   
   > >   
   > > "Morf"  wrote in message   
   > > news:3FE9CCB9.5BCF@hotmail.com...   
   > > > Unless the threatening person is a cop pointing a gun at you and you   
   > > > have committed no crime.   
   > > >   
   > > > A citizen is not allowed to percieve a threat by a cop(God) as a   
   threat.   
   > >   
   > > They are, within certain guidelines.   
   > >   
   > > Case in point, down here in Florida afew times someone has raped women   
   while   
   > > posing as a police officer, waylaying these women along long dimly-lit   
   > > stretches of road at night.   
   > >   
   > > Because of this history, it is an accepted reason for women to avoid   
   > > stopping until they reach a well-lit area, in many cases.   
   > >   
   > > > > From the movies it may appear that it's easy to knock a knife   
   > > > > from someone's hand with a baton, but it's not that way in real   
   life.   
   > > >   
   > > > Mental patients are disarmed every day by non-cops.   
   > >   
   > > While it is fairly easy to disarm someone, mental patients are disarmed   
   by   
   > > TRAINED personnel, not merely by "non-cops".   
   >   
   >   
   > And the reason cops aren't trained in the same manner?   
      
   They are, within a point.   
      
   > Would people stand for medical professionals executing anyone the   
   > percieve as a threat?   
      
   Medical professionals aren't generally carrying a firearm in the ward.   
      
   > > > > A   
   > > > > knife can be met by a gun according to the law.  The cops used a   
   taser,   
   > > that   
   > > > > didn't work, so the next level of force is a firearm to stop that   
   > > threat.   
   > > > > They were being generous in using the taser in the first place.   
   > >   
   > > That is entirely accurate.  An armed assailant wielding a weapons   
   generally   
   > > accepted as CAPABLE of lethal force, can be legally met with like lethal   
   > > force.  It is a fair law, and is 100% reliant on the situation.  If   
   they're   
   > > not applying lethal force, you may not.  Simple enough?   
   > >   
   > > > Hitler acted within his laws too.   
   > >   
   > > Typical.  Can't apply your logic to the facts at hand, invoke the name   
   of   
   > > someone despised, and long-dead.   
   > >   
   > > What Hitler did or did not do has NOTHING to do with being able to kill   
   > > someone who is trying to take your life.  This isn't Nazi Germany, and   
   > > Hitler is an eroded non-person.   
   >   
   > Self-justification of atrcoities is terrorism.   
      
   Who is justifying atrocities?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)