Ferguson shooting indictment announcement coming at 9PM EST

[Psychic Missile]

The basic facts are simple. The only thing I "made" up was the percentages because I don't know the exact ones for each case.

It is a thought experiment, meant for square_peg to answer. If he can't even answer a simplified version of the event then he has no chance in understanding the more complex version that he continues to opine upon.

IF he would have tried a non-lethal method of takedown, he would not have time to then use his gun. So the two options are viable. Would SP risk his life on a lower chance of stopping an assailant with a non-lethal method, or would he have opted for shooting which has a better chance of takedown and at much less risk to him?

Feel free to answer for yourself instead of merely hand-waving away what you don't like to hear.

Wilson said that he would have used non-lethal means around the time of the struggle but wasn't able to reach them in the heat of the moment, so your scenario is against the man's own judgment. The bigger issue, however, is that it is a false dichotomy.

[Sparko]

I think it's ridiculous that you turned a complicated event into a gross simplification and made up rules to suit your opinion instead of the facts.

The basic facts are simple. The only thing I "made" up was the percentages because I don't know the exact ones for each case.

It is a thought experiment, meant for square_peg to answer. If he can't even answer a simplified version of the event then he has no chance in understanding the more complex version that he continues to opine upon.

IF he would have tried a non-lethal method of takedown, he would not have time to then use his gun. So the two options are viable. Would SP risk his life on a lower chance of stopping an assailant with a non-lethal method, or would he have opted for shooting which has a better chance of takedown and at much less risk to him?

Feel free to answer for yourself instead of merely hand-waving away what you don't like to hear.

[Psychic Missile]

Here is the situation: You have just been attacked by someone who has tried to take your gun and kill you. Despite being wounded the guy turns around and runs back at you and if he reaches you he will kill you.
1. You have a 75% chance to stop him using pepper spray but by the time you find out if it works or not it will be too late to use your gun.
2. You have a 95% chance to stop him by shooting him with your gun.

You want to live, go home to your wife and kids. The guy has already proven he will kill you if he gets the chance. Then he will be on the loose with a police gun, badge and car.

Do you risk the 25% chance of not stopping him with pepper spray, or do you shoot him?

I think it's ridiculous that you turned a complicated event into a gross simplification and made up rules to suit your opinion instead of the facts.

[Psychic Missile]

Well, with my example of the woman defending herself from a rapist, your response appears to be, "No, don't carry a gun. Just use all the other methods of defense available to you." It seems rather extreme to argue that guns are never, under any circumstances, necessary in defending oneself from an unarmed attacker.

Considering the fact that most rapists know their attackers, I question the effectiveness of a gun. But that's a digression. Your point seems to be "why not make all avenues available?" My objection stems from the lethality of a gun. I believe that people should only be killed as a last resort (I hope you believe this too), so if other means are not as lethal but still effective, they are preferable.

[Sparko]

Here is the situation: You have just been attacked by someone who has tried to take your gun and kill you. Despite being wounded the guy turns around and runs back at you and if he reaches you he will kill you.
1. You have a 75% chance to stop him using pepper spray but by the time you find out if it works or not it will be too late to use your gun.
2. You have a 95% chance to stop him by shooting him with your gun.

You want to live, go home to your wife and kids. The guy has already proven he will kill you if he gets the chance. Then he will be on the loose with a police gun, badge and car.

Do you risk the 25% chance of not stopping him with pepper spray, or do you shoot him?

[fm93]

And they are held to higher standards... just not unrealistic ones. By my count three posters with actual experience in police/law enforcement (Adrift, myth, Cow Poke) have told you that you're being unrealistic, the link I provided also confirms that.

And as the link that *I* provided shows, an entire police department is reporting that there are devices like pepper spray that are capable of disabling a potential attacker without kill him. Hardly unrealistic.

Then you don't want to live in the real world, huh? Doing dangerous things by definition carries the risk that you'll get hurt. Sometimes that hurt can be fatal.

Yes, because you're encouraging people to think that certain actions shouldn't have certain consequences. You're encouraging him to make decisions based on a worldview that is empirically false. Trying to wrestle a gun off a policeman is empirically dangerous. Breaking the law, then violently resisting a law enforcement officer, to the point where he had a reasonable expectation that you are a danger to him and others, is dangerous behaviour, and should be so.

You seem to have ignored my example earlier. Driving drunk and over the speed limit is absolutely a stupid, dangerous act that has empirically dangerous consequences. But do you believe that creating options that lessen the chance of death, such as creating better airbags, is somehow "enabling" drunk drivers? Is trying to prevent people from dying in the unfortunate case that they do choose something dangerous "encouraging drunk drivers to make decisions based on a world view that's empirically false?"

What on earth do you think society would be like if we told those people: "Relax, we understand how much it would limit your potential to make you face the possible risk of death in the course of your criminal behaviours. So, from now on, no policeman will be allowed to shoot you or even shoot at you."?

Strawman aside, do you really see no middle ground? We make it clear that if you do something criminal, you can be apprehended via painful methods like tasing and pepper spraying, be found guilty in a trial, lose the support of your friends and family, and then be thrown in prison for the rest of your life. It has nothing to do with not limiting their personal potential, but rather merely keeping them alive so that grace has room and time to abound.

There is, however, plenty of legal precedent (in America, at least) that a police officer will use lethal force to stop you if you assault him, try to steal his weapon, and charge at him when he has his gun drawn on you.

There was also legal precedent in America for people to own slaves and kill them if they tried to resist correction, and do so without punishment. Not that I'm accusing the cops of being like slavemasters, but merely pointing out that something is legal does not have a bearing on whether it is morally right.

I think it was Cow Poke who pointed out that the policeman's decision-making process is reactive, based on what the offender does. Wilson did not shoot Brown down on some random drive-by - he reacted; legally to what Brown chose to do.

This is true, but considering that the issue is whether the reaction necessarily had to involve lethal force, it's not completely relevant.

A sizeable segment of the African American population, for a start. The rioters in Ferguson who think burning down businesses is a reasonable response to Brown being an idiot and getting himself killed.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, the majority of the protesters have been peaceful. You're conflating a relatively fringe group with the movements as a whole.

What I see you doing is 'enabling' in the sense that you're looking for fault only on one side - why aren't you questioning the choices Brown made, or his parents failure to bring him up well, or his community's apparent failure to give him positive role models, aspirations and dreams that would have prevented him from throwing his life away foolishly

I am doing that, just like I'm questioning and morally condemning the people who choose to drink while driving. And just as I'm not "enabling" their behavior when I say that I don't want their dangerous choices to result in death, neither am I "enabling" people to make Brown's choices.

(Additionally, those last few sentences may be unwarranted. Do we really know for sure that his parents did a poor job raising him, or that his community didn't have positive role models? Engaging in criminal behavior doesn't always relate to parenting failure. There's no indication that the parents of the Columbine shooters raised their sons in a particularly bad way, for instance.)

or expressing any sympathy at all for the man who risked injury and possibly death trying to get Brown to obey the law, and now faces vilification, hatred and a desire for 'revenge' from who knows how many, simply for serving the community?

It's hard to say that a man is serving the community when he kills a member of said community. And even if Wilson is truly completely innocent and there was literally nothing else he could've done, it's still hard to feel that much sympathy for someone who's alive and physically well. Sympathy is generally reserved for the oppressed and downtrodden, which he is not.

You're enabling because your response seems to be pretty much one-sided, as if Brown somehow was a victim rather than a violent, bullying, and foolish criminal. The message is: "If you're young and black, you don't deserve to face the real-world consequences of your choices. Society owes you."

I've been clear that my response is that he was both, not merely one of the two. My message, at least, is this:

"If you do something to harm human beings, I will not hesitate to punish and imprison you for your choices, because human beings have intrinsic worth and a right to life that I won't let you take away...and so I'll make that punishment as severe as necessary without killing you, because you're ALSO a human being, supposedly made in the image of God, and you, too, have a right to life...and if God truly died for our sins and extends grace to us that we may repent and be reformed, so, too, should you have that opportunity."

That enables a fantasy-based rather than a reality-based decision making process that has a role in the poor choices people like Brown make. Deal with it.

No, you.

[Zymologist]

Not from experience, no. Why aren't you finding my words helpful?

Well, with my example of the woman defending herself from a rapist, your response appears to be, "No, don't carry a gun. Just use all the other methods of defense available to you." It seems rather extreme to argue that guns are never, under any circumstances, necessary in defending oneself from an unarmed attacker.

[Sparko]

What other available avenues?

Carrying guns.

JS43005447.jpg

[Psychic Missile]

Are you speaking from experience? This doesn't seem very helpful.

Not from experience, no. Why aren't you finding my words helpful?

[Zymologist]

Every non-gun related way a person could avoid getting hurt in an unarmed confrontation.

Are you speaking from experience? This doesn't seem very helpful.

[Psychic Missile]

What other available avenues?

Every non-gun related way a person could avoid getting hurt in an unarmed confrontation.

[Zymologist]

The other available avenues seem sufficient to me.

What other available avenues?

[Psychic Missile]

Would you then, for example, oppose a woman using a gun to stop a rapist, who is much larger and stronger than she is?

This reasoning is just bizarre to me. Unarmed people can do a lot of damage.

The other available avenues seem sufficient to me.

[Zymologist]

I believe a gun can never be justified when a person is unarmed, yes. I believe police should use appropriate tools and methods at appropriate times. If police in the UK can deal with unarmed people without guns, I don't see why police in the US can't. I don't think you're giving our police enough credit.

Would you then, for example, oppose a woman using a gun to stop a rapist, who is much larger and stronger than she is?

This reasoning is just bizarre to me. Unarmed people can do a lot of damage.

[Psychic Missile]

So you believe that a gun can never be justified when a person is unarmed? Do you believe that in order to stop a criminal the cop must disarm himself so as to create a "fair fight?"

Being unarmed doesn't make somebody not a threat. Brown was plenty big and strong enough to beat Wilson to death.

I believe a gun can never be justified when a person is unarmed, yes. I believe police should use appropriate tools and methods at appropriate times. If police in the UK can deal with unarmed people without guns, I don't see why police in the US can't. I don't think you're giving our police enough credit.