i did, and i quoted from page 5 Section II. A (II.Summary of the Evidence, Investigation, and Applicable Law - A.Summary of the Evidence)
there is no "section 12" at that
link, and i quoted directly from II.A
the quote you used comes from section III Summary of the evidence
if you look at section III. B. 4 (page 21, continued on to 22) you will see that the physical evidence is confirmed by the dispatch statements and findings
You do that. You're the guy making the opinion based claims that don't add up.
actually, you are the one making the claim
i challenged your claim and asked for you to produce evidence that was not subjective and opinion
extraordinary evidence, and all that, eh?
bringing in all this irrelevant stuff about whether of not the victims were "thugs"
re-read that again: i didn't state anything about them being thugs
in fact, you attributed someone else to me and now you're reiterating that one as me
kinda speaks to delusional (or illiterate) behaviour IMHO
all this irrelevant stuff about whether of not the victims were "thugs", talking about me reading nothing but posts from gun foes, etc, there's visible reason to doubt your evaluation. They seem to be based on political opinions extraneous to the events
false claim - for starters, you have yet to provide evidence that is not subjective (other than your questionable attempt to read the DOJ document above)
strawman as well ... let me reiterate a post i made to you already once
... and don't put words in my mouth
perhaps you would like to try that one again?
I'll be my own authority on what I've been reading, which is not confined to anti-gun missives, and your guesses and speculations will be corrected accordingly, how about.
except your demonstrations thus far have been reference to subjective opinion and articles, not factual or evidenciary links (excepting the DOJ reference you have problems with above)... so, in your own words:
bringing in all this irrelevant stuff ... there's visible reason to doubt your evaluation. They seem to be based on political opinions extraneous to the events.
care to try that again without the subjectivity and with something other than mis-attributed statements?
thanks
It may well mean that to anyone taking a reasonable account of the record of events, instead of pretending that what obviously happened can be legally defined not to have occurred.
It's not that it "can be said to justify", it's that it did in fact justify, and almost certainly will again unless something changes.
so you're pissed at the US Legal system like @T is?
just say so... don't attempt to strawman, redirect, mis-attribute and BS it
Every time you brought up their character or past behaviors as a reason for their shootings being declared legal.
when a cop gets a call of a criminal act, he doesn't stop the offender and attempt high tea with a parental invitation for introduction - they have only the working history of the offender, well known or not.
ignoring the facts will not win you any prizes for accuracy, let alone brownie points (except from the fanatical fringe to which you seem to be attempting to support at this point)
are you going to tell me that criminals deserve to be released into the public regardless of their crime because incarceration is also a bad thing and no one took into account their good deeds in kindergarten when they helped jimmie-joe-crotchrot out of a tree when their leg got stuck?
how altruistic of you... perhaps the past is irrelevant and we should fire all the cops for doing their job
lets start with your own home town, eh?
[@T - sarc/hyperbole intended - just in case it wasn't bloody obvious]
it's irrelevant that there was no trial to seek to adjudicate whether a shooting is justified or not?
really?
what planet do you live on?
you can't call something "a "legal" shooting" without adjudication or justification legally rendered. if you do, it's called opinion, not fact. until it's adjudicated it is simply a shooting. period. full stop.
That's a central problem here - what makes a shooting "legal" is the official determination. That's what's being discussed in this thread.
to be official it must be adjudicated or investigated for review, and that is standard for all LE shootings, especially for fatal shootings
and the thread is not about shooting at all, but about punching (battery) a nazi. it was simply hijacked into the shooting by false claims.
Not an abstract legality up for discussion, but the fact of declared legality by a court or official law enforcement agency: the fact that those three already declared legal - and the fourth in suspense, which may very well be declared legal (so it's easily possible, right?) - shootings were of black males whose threat consisted largely or entirely of the fact that they were black.
for starters, if it is adjudicated as a legal shooting then it was found to be justified, regardless of race, so it's not about it being legal to shoot black people as the claim was made: it is about being able to use deadly force in defense of your life or in defense of the law. maybe that doesn't mean a whole lot to you but it is orders of magnitude different than the "claim" of it being legal to shoot black people, which is a direct false statement
how do i know it's a false statement?
because homicide is illegal unless you're acting upon specific justifiable instinct (like to preserve life or family, etc) as stated by law
now, if you want to state that the justified shooting of a criminal (or threat) is proof that shooting blacks is legal, that makes you a complete idiot who can't see for the arse cheeks in the way because that is blatantly false, by law and by direct evidence above.
period.
full stop.
care to re-word that?