people are kidding themselves and reaching if they think the person who was actually the most dangerous of all these people wasn't the one who was taken alive.

And what is your reasoning that Holmes was taken alive when these other two that you mentioned were not?

 

Are you, or have you ever been an officer or other personnel who puts their life on the line and in front of people who may be dangerous?

 

As far as the "reaching" part, do you actually think that if the officers who confronted Holmes thought that they were in danger that they wouldn't have shot.

Look out, they're hitting the country club

And what is your reasoning that Holmes was taken alive when these other two that you mentioned were not?

 

Are you, or have you ever been an officer or other personnel who puts their life on the line and in front of people who may be dangerous?

 

As far as the "reaching" part, do you actually think that if the officers who confronted Holmes thought that they were in danger that they wouldn't have shot.

 

 

My reasoning is that the perception of a threat is sometimes different based on a suspect's race. Don't think that's anything ground breaking there. Not saying that people consciously do it, but that sometimes it's a factor.

 

To your second question, have you or anyone else saying that my critique of probable cause based on information or an assessment I've made on civil rights ever been to law school? Has that ever stopped anyone from questioning what I say about things of that nature? Have you ever stepped into a room and did a one on one interview with someone who'd just spent a decade locked up in a Texas death row prison with just a pen and paper?

 

To the third, no, analyzing the situation, I don't think that the officers who confronted Holmes "felt" threatened, my point is that they probably should have felt a little more threatened than they were apparently feeling, either that or that it's unfortunate that some officers can enter tense situations with nerves of steel (i.e., Aurora) while other times the situations don't work out nearly as well in hindsight.

And the Toys R Us has been burglarized

Good point. No time would have been good but that does make sense.

Should have done it when the temperatures were in the teens.

I have only followed bits and pieces but it sounds like the officers self defense claim, is due to the fact that the victim was a very large man and essentially could have beaten him to death?

My reasoning is that the perception of a threat is sometimes different based on a suspect's race. Don't think that's anything ground breaking there. Not saying that people consciously do it' date=' but that sometimes it's a factor. To your second question, have you or anyone else saying that my critique of probable cause based on information or an assessment I've made on civil rights ever been to law school? Has that ever stopped anyone from questioning what I say about things of that nature? Have you ever stepped into a room and did a one on one interview with someone who'd just spent a decade locked up in a Texas death row prison with just a pen and paper? To the third, no, analyzing the situation, I don't think that the officers who confronted Holmes "felt" threatened, my point is that they probably should have felt a little more threatened than they were apparently feeling, either that or that it's unfortunate that some officers can enter tense situations with nerves of steel (i.e., Aurora) while other times the situations don't work out nearly as well in hindsight.[/quote'] What does interviewing someone on death row have to do with the is? So I take it that your response to the question is a no? Again, something that has nothing to do with this event.

Should have done it when the temperatures were in the teens.

That's what I heard from someone who is there now, that it was going a day that it was cold, and possibly a Sunday so people were not out as much.

Has anybody seen the National Guard?

 

My point is that the perception of danger seems somewhat skewed.

 

To illustrate what I'm trying to say about the guy in Colorado:

 

War crimes have outlawed what is sometimes called a "double tap" as an act of warfare. A "double tap" is an incident where someone shoots a secondary target first, but the objective is to maximize bloodshed and the ability to respond to similar situations later, so the primary targets are first responders such as police officers, EMTs, etc.

 

If someone is crazy enough to shoot that many people, how do you know he isn't doing this (or part of a plan to do so)? That's my point.

 

As someone who deals in this kind of work, actually, I think the events are related enough for the point I'm trying to make, and that people are kidding themselves and reaching if they think the person who was actually the most dangerous of all these people wasn't the one who was taken alive. Could we at least agree that the person who was the most dangerous out of Holmes and the kid in Cleveland was the one who was taken alive?

 

Your understanding of the use of deadly force is wrong.

 

I've said it a hundred times...They probably didn't know how many people Holmes killed when they arrested him. They arrested him outside the theater.

 

He did not present a threat to the officers. You keep mentioning things that are irrelevant. They had no clue about his apartment but you keep bringing it up.

I have only followed bits and pieces but it sounds like the officers self defense claim' date=' is due to the fact that the victim was a very large man and essentially could have beaten him to death?[/quote']

 

And he reached for his gun.

Gun shot victim near the McDonalds

What does interviewing someone on death row have to do with the is? So I take it that your response to the question is a no? Again, something that has nothing to do with this event.

 

It was more that you seemed to insinuate that I have no dealings at all with people who are dangerous or who have proven they can survive in violent situations because I went to law school.

Your understanding of the use of deadly force is wrong.

 

I've said it a hundred times...They probably didn't know how many people Holmes killed when they arrested him. They arrested him outside the theater.

 

He did not present a threat to the officers. You keep mentioning things that are irrelevant. They had no clue about his apartment but you keep bringing it up.

 

Agree to disagree, I think we're misinterpreting what the other is saying because I've considered your second and third points and see the validity in them.

 

I was just using the Holmes thing as a situation where it actually turned out that he was more dangerous than the other two people if we're just looking at it as a function of injuries inflicted or intended body count.

Am I the only one still keeping up with Ferguson? :lol2: