RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit

RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/8/2014 11:59:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen So you have no idea what you are arguing but just want to retreat to snark. I got it. Get back to me when you figure out what you meant. I'm sorry you're confused. Okay, let me help. I'm arguing exactly what I said. All you have to do is just focus on that, and remember that it's English. It's easy it is once you know the trick! You're arguing that it's ok to shoot someone because 1) They are approaching you 2) Have something in their hand 3) You have spoken to them You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what constitutes a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm. So are we back to giving them first strike. Do you not understand that you have to be in actual imminent danger? Being worried is not enough. Do you not understand that when you allow someone with a bludgeon walk right up to you you have given him right of first strike? Do you comprehend that as smart person with a bludgeon will walk up to you rather than charge, better tactics. Can't you see that by any reasonable view Hendrix had every reason to see a real threat? Don't you comprehend that all your pontificating aside we do not know that Westbrook was harmless. For all we know he may have thought Hendrix was an intruder and that he was defending his home.

lovmuffin -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/8/2014 12:01:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 And by the fact that Hendrix had issued verbal requests that went unanswered should have given him thought to investigate further - not just shoot into the unknown. If he had investigated, Hendrix would have realised that Westbrook was not a dangerous person. How would you possibly know that he would have had time to investigate ? How close was Westbrook when Hendrix gave that third warning ? Who can answer that ? Does anyone know if Hendrix fired 3 warning shots or missed his target three times ? Untill you have answers to these questions, you guys are just blowing smoke up your ass and once again convicting someone without all the facts.

BamaD -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 12:05:02 PM)
If he didn't KNOW, he shouldn't have fired his weapon. Period. You don't get to shoot first and ask questions later - SYG doesn't (or shouldn't) work like that. And neither shouldn't any sensible defense IMHO. To me, a flashlight is an everyday object carried by many people when it's dark. Unless the person is wielding it in a menacing manner, it shouldn't be considered as a weapon. You seem to have forgotten that a couple of months ago we had a thread about a man beaten to death with a flashlight. Menacing manner anyone who ignore three warnings is menacing. As for not knowing what did he need, a notarized letter of intent.

BamaD -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 12:07:41 PM)
And by the fact that Hendrix had issued verbal requests that went unanswered should have given him thought to investigate further - not just shoot into the unknown. If he had investigated, Hendrix would have realised that Westbrook was not a dangerous person. The fact that the warnings went unheeded would increase the indication of hostile intent. How do you know that Westbrook was harmless.

Kirata -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 12:11:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 In my eyes, if Hendrix didn't check first, that was his major mistake and should be held accountable for it. How might one go about "checking first" to see if a fellow has Alzheimer's? And are there any other impairments that a person being advanced upon in the dark by someone who refuses to identify himself should "check first" for? How should he "check" for these impairments? Could you please make a list for us with instructions? And what is the proper response to someone who doesn't want to be "checked first" and continues advancing? K.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/8/2014 12:18:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin How would you possibly know that he would have had time to investigate ? Because Hendrix had time to challenge Westbrook 3 times. That's more than enough to move around and see if he was in fact in imminent danger. Unless of course you are claiming his legs don't work when his mouth was engaged?? quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin How close was Westbrook when Hendrix gave that third warning ? From everything I've seen and heard about this case - they were not face-to-face. quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Does anyone know if Hendrix fired 3 warning shots or missed his target three times ? Does it matter if it was one bullet, or 3 or 4 or.... or whatever?? It's irrelevant. Hendrix shot. Westbrook died - even if it only took one bullet. That was enough to kill him. quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Untill you have answers to these questions, you guys are just blowing smoke up your ass and once again All answered. [:D] quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin convicting someone without all the facts. Really?? I didn't offer any verdict. Where did you get that from? Quote me where I said either was guilty or innocent.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 12:20:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 In my eyes, if Hendrix didn't check first, that was his major mistake and should be held accountable for it. How might one go about "checking first" to see if a fellow has Alzheimer's? And are there any other impairments that a person being advanced upon in the dark by someone who refuses to identify himself should "check first" for? How should he "check" for these impairments? Could you please make a list for us with instructions? And what is the proper response to someone who doesn't want to be "checked first" and continues advancing? K. Obviously Westbrook wasn't behaving normally. And, AFAIK and from the news reports, Westbrook wasn't being aggressive either. ETA: You don't need to do a full-blown examination to see (or sense) that someone is not being aggressive. Just sayin'

BamaD -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 12:25:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 In my eyes, if Hendrix didn't check first, that was his major mistake and should be held accountable for it. How might one go about "checking first" to see if a fellow has Alzheimer's? And are there any other impairments that a person being advanced upon in the dark by someone who refuses to identify himself should "check first" for? How should he "check" for these impairments? Could you please make a list for us with instructions? And what is the proper response to someone who doesn't want to be "checked first" and continues advancing? K. Obviously Westbrook wasn't behaving normally. And, AFAIK and from the news reports, Westbrook wasn't being aggressive either. ETA: You don't need to do a full-blown examination to see (or sense) that someone is not being aggressive. Just sayin' Advancing on a man with a gun when he tells you 3 times not to is pretty aggressive. The sort of thing a crack head would do.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 12:33:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The fact that the warnings went unheeded would increase the indication of hostile intent. I don't agree with that statement. I have challenged unknown people in my yard at night. Unless I am directly challenged or I SEE that I'm being confronted in an unfriendly manner - I never assume hostile intent. Are the American people sooo paranoid that they assume hostility all the time?? [8\|] quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD How do you know that Westbrook was harmless. Because we wasn't being confrontational in any way. Why do the same people on here automatically assume people are bad and being nasty (and thereby justifying someone being shot or killed) when there is NO evidence of such in the news stories??

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 12:37:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Advancing on a man with a gun when he tells you 3 times not to is pretty aggressive. The sort of thing a crack head would do. Maybe. But a lot is all down to context and position. If an unarmed person is not being overtly aggressive and the defendant has a gun, there is still no need to shoot the fucker UNTIL it becomes an imminent danger.

lovmuffin -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 12:50:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Advancing on a man with a gun when he tells you 3 times not to is pretty aggressive. The sort of thing a crack head would do. Maybe. But a lot is all down to context and position. If an unarmed person is not being overtly aggressive and the defendant has a gun, there is still no need to shoot the fucker UNTIL it becomes an imminent danger. So ya wait for em ta hit you over the head with that flashlight ?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 12:52:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Advancing on a man with a gun when he tells you 3 times not to is pretty aggressive. The sort of thing a crack head would do. Maybe. But a lot is all down to context and position. If an unarmed person is not being overtly aggressive and the defendant has a gun, there is still no need to shoot the fucker UNTIL it becomes an imminent danger. So ya wait for em ta hit you over the head with that flashlight ? Don't be so obtuse!! That's not what I said at all. [8\|]

Kirata -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 1:01:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Obviously Westbrook wasn't behaving normally. And, AFAIK and from the news reports, Westbrook wasn't being aggressive either. Well as a matter of fact, Alzheimer's patients can be aggressive, though whether or not Westbrook was I don't know. As for a person not behaving normally, that depends. It's not an automatic case of the warm protective fuzzies. It stands at least as good a chance of making somebody feel more at risk. We just have to face the fact that we weren't there, and that this whole cheery thread is blind speculation. The only thing "obvious" is that Westbrook should never have been out wandering around alone and unsupervised in the first place. K.

lovmuffin -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 1:03:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Advancing on a man with a gun when he tells you 3 times not to is pretty aggressive. The sort of thing a crack head would do. Maybe. But a lot is all down to context and position. If an unarmed person is not being overtly aggressive and the defendant has a gun, there is still no need to shoot the fucker UNTIL it becomes an imminent danger. So ya wait for em ta hit you over the head with that flashlight ? Don't be so obtuse!! That's not what I said at all. [8\|] Then how is he supposed to know he's in imminent danger ? 4 warnings ? 5 maybe ? How is he supposed to know the guy was impaired ? How can you pass moral judgement without all the facts ?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 1:15:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Then how is he supposed to know he's in imminent danger ? 4 warnings ? 5 maybe ? How is he supposed to know the guy was impaired ? How can you pass moral judgement without all the facts ? Perhaps your understanding of imminent is lacking. Try here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imminent There could be a dozen warnings. It's not the number of them that matters - it's the proximity of the assailant that is important. All the while they are out of physical reach, then it isn't very imminent is it. Once they make that final step, or make a lunge, or attempt to throw something at you, that is when you act, not before; unless you are making a definite action to disarm or immobilize them.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 1:24:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Obviously Westbrook wasn't behaving normally. And, AFAIK and from the news reports, Westbrook wasn't being aggressive either. Well as a matter of fact, Alzheimer's patients can be aggressive, though whether or not Westbrook was I don't know. As for a person not behaving normally, that depends. It's not an automatic case of the warm protective fuzzies. It stands at least as good a chance of making somebody feel more at risk. We just have to face the fact that we weren't there, and that this whole cheery thread is blind speculation. The only thing "obvious" is that Westbrook should never have been out wandering around alone and unsupervised in the first place. K. Yep, I quite agree. But the fact that he escaped into the real world is another ball of wax that needs to be addressed and IMHO as a separate issue altogether. The consequences of what happened later (ie, he was killed) is what is being discussed here. As I said earlier, each argument has its own merits and equally valid as to the whole scenario from beginning to end.

kdsub -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 1:31:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Advancing on a man with a gun when he tells you 3 times not to is pretty aggressive. The sort of thing a crack head would do. Maybe. But a lot is all down to context and position. If an unarmed person is not being overtly aggressive and the defendant has a gun, there is still no need to shoot the fucker UNTIL it becomes an imminent danger. So ya wait for em ta hit you over the head with that flashlight ? I've already made clear my position on the wisdom of him leaving the house in the first place...but... say I was a dumb yahoo asshole with a big gun... what I would have done... was say stop... If he did not immediately stop then fire a WARNING shot into the ground... If THAT did not stop him then i would have shot center body mass. Butch

lovmuffin -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimers (3/8/2014 1:31:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Then how is he supposed to know he's in imminent danger ? 4 warnings ? 5 maybe ? How is he supposed to know the guy was impaired ? How can you pass moral judgement without all the facts ? Perhaps your understanding of imminent is lacking. Try here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imminent There could be a dozen warnings. It's not the number of them that matters - it's the proximity of the assailant that is important. All the while they are out of physical reach, then it isn't very imminent is it. Once they make that final step, or make a lunge, or attempt to throw something at you, that is when you act, not before; unless you are making a definite action to disarm or immobilize them. My point is that you don't know what the proximity actually was along with several other facts.

Aylee -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/8/2014 1:33:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity” - Sigmund Freud This is not a statement that appears in any translation of any of Freud's works. It is a paraphrase of a statement from the essay "Guns, Murders, and the Constitution" (February 1990) by Don B. Kates, Jr. where Kates summarizes his views of passages in Dreams in Folklore (1958) by Freud and David E. Oppenheim, while disputing statements by Emmanuel Tanay in "Neurotic Attachment to Guns" in a 1976 edition of The Fifty Minute Hour: A Collection of True Psychoanalytic Tales (1955) by Robert Mitchell Lindner: Dr. Tanay is perhaps unaware of — in any event, he does not cite — other passages more relevant to his argument. In these other passages Freud associates retarded sexual and emotional development not with gun ownership, but with fear and loathing of weapons. The probative importance that ought to be attached to the views of Freud is, of course, a matter of opinion. The point here is only that those views provide no support for the penis theory of gun ownership. Due to misreading of this essay and its citations, this paraphrase of an opinion about Freud's ideas has been wrongly attributed to Freud himself, and specifically to his 10th Lecture "Symbolism in Dreams" in General Introduction to Psychoanalysis on some internet forum pages: alt.quotations, uk.politics.guns, talk.politics.guns, can.talk.guns , etc. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud#Misattributed Cool. Thanks!

GotSteel -> RE: Senseless shooting: Gunman kills man with Alzheimersquiquit (3/8/2014 2:30:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD So are we back to giving them first strike. Yeah we wouldn't want to wait until there's an actual threat. So it should be legal to shoot tea party protestors, right?

Page: << < prev 21 22 [23] 24 25 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625