Bert

I don't know if they will necessarily arrest you and I probably should not have used the term "booking" since that suggests so but basically stated that if you shoot someone, even if everyone around would attest you did it out of self defense, that the police will not be saying good bye to you at the scene, they will take you to the police station and you will have to go through a long ordeal to be cleared in the justice system that were justified using lethal force and that regardless to how determined you are that you were justified, get an attorney.

It would have to be a very popular person (former Reds great maybe?? Sort of the Democrat version of Jim Bunning) I wonder what make NKY so solidly GOP? Generally the GOP is strong in rural settings and NKY is far from that.

I was thinking the same thing.

In THIS instance the police may not have been justified. My comments have been more geared to the quote stating that NEVER in no way shape or form can a shooting of a man/woman on their own property not committing a crime be justified because I believe that comment is too all encompassing. I do believe there are cases where someone could not act to smart and innocently make some kind of movement while brandishing a firearm that any reasonable person could mistaken as hostile movements. I also agree that in 95% or more of cases police should announce their presence but there can be exceptions.

The man would be arrested regardless and the task of determining if he was justified would fall to a prosecutor and possibly a judge/jury. If the police showed up and were wearing uniforms, his defense attorney would have a difficult task because it would be difficult to argue that he could have reasonably not known they were police officers. If the police showed up and were undercover, I could see a jury coming to a conclusion that the guy just made a tragic mistake but it was just that, a mistake.

I think HOW the term has been used historically rather than the term itself generally determines how offensive the term is. The term blacks and whites most often have been used in a primarily neutral (neither offensive or praising manner) way to simply point out race. Where as Redskins I am assuming was used most often in a manner to insinuate Native Americans as less than civilized or outright savages. On the other hand, Indians was generally intended to be neither offensive or praising, it just got a bad wrap since most Native Americans role their eyes at the term because Indians are from India, not the Western Hemisphere. The two Native Americans I have talked to when someone incorrectly refers to them as Indians, they joking say something like, "We're not Indians, we build casinos, not call centers". They two guys take terms like Redskin, Braves and Indians with a grain of salt so long as the person is using the terms is doing so in a non insulting way.

The question is, where do you differerentiate between back room brokering and good compromise? KY's own Henry Clay was highly thought of for his ability to meet middle ground through compromise so each party was satisfied even though maybe not thrilled with the outcome and this compromise allowed for things to get done rather than obstructionist gridlock which is becoming quite common. The biggest problem I have with the Tea Party is their no compromise view. The Tea Party (stupidly in my opinion) seriously considered throwing a candidate against Mitch for the Republican nomination as retribution for Mitch's compromise he made with Obama on legislation to get it passed. I applauded Mitch on sucking it up and being willing to compromise with Obama on the legistlation.

I would agree. I say Grimes (if she runs) odds of pulling off the upset are much less han 50%. Mitch is not as comfortable as he has been in past elections but he is still fairly comfortable. Like someone said, so long as Obama is president, Mitch has plenty of ammunition to throw at whoever his opponent it. The Democratic nominee HAS to find a way to distance himself from Obama while still being a democrat. Areas the nominee may want to approach are being (and having a track record of being) Pro Second Amendment and being able to state that he/she has never been for Obamacare or saying that Obamacare in its current form is flawed and Democrats and Republicans need to work together to come up with a better way to reach the original goals of Obamacare. That would give the Democratic nominee the view as being a Democrat but not aligned with Obama.

Not necessarily but I have seen a few posts in this thread by posters who I believe are looking at this WAY too simplistic. In some cases, police cannot just announce who they are when they arrive on the scene when reason and logic would say entering the crime scene quietly and trying to catch the suspect(s) off guard will most likely result in the fewest loss of life (or none at all). And some cases, when you have milliseconds (just picking on you Guru) to make a decision, an innocent person with a weapon can be confused as the suspect by even the best trained officer and a review might show that while the officer was mistaken in using deadly force, he was justified in doing so.

By no means am I implying he was not justified in pointing the gun. But that does not automatically take away he officers' right to defend themselves if they have justified reason to believe they are about to be shot, even if in error. This relates to my post a few minutes ago where KY state laws (and I imagine all state laws) understand that there are times when someone my justifiably believe they are in imminent danger and may legally using lethal force and it turn out, they actually were not in danger. We have to accept the fact that when it comes to bad people doing bad thinkgs, sometime innocent people who are trying to good get hurt or killed in the confusion. How often have American soldiers been killed by friendly fire. While we need to do our best to avoid it, sometimes it does happen.

This is in response to Habib's comment about who investigates, I messed up the quotes. I just took my concealed carry class at the Jeffersontown Police Department. We had to watch a video about the laws regarding concealed carry, self defense, justified use of lethal force, etc.. The one thing mentioned by the KY laws, and this was highlighted by the attorney on the video, was that KY State Law allows room for bad judgement in use of justified lethal force. The example the instructor gave was if you are carrying and some one pulls a gun on you and makes a threatening comment and you draw your weapon and shoot them. If it turns out that the person was trying to be a prankster and actually had an unloaded gun or a fake but real looking gun, the "room for bad judgement" area of the law would say while you in actually were not in danger, a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that you were reasonable in believing you were in danger and were justified in using deadly force. This same "room for bad judgement" I would have to believe applies to police officers also when using deadly force against someone who turn out not to be a real threat. Both instructors in my course stressed that if any of us ever are forced to use deadly force for self defense, when they police show up, they will confiscate the weapon and take us to the police station for booking because police are only charged with enforcing laws, they are not allowed to interpret laws (ie determine if someone was justified using deadly force or not). That would be put to the prosecutor to determine if he/she wants to take the matter to trial or drop any charges. My guess is something very similar happens when police accidently shoot the wrong person.

You may have taken me a little too literally when I used the term "a second" Lol. I just couldn't think of a substitute measurement of time to use to get the point across. The point I am making, while I do realize there are a FEW police officers who are a little too militant/Rambo type who may shoot too soon, I almost always give the benefit of the doubt to police officers due to the the situations they may be in where there simply is not time to ponder the best action to take.

Depends on which Native Americans you talk to. Some don't like it, would prefer the franchise drop it but won't lose sleep over it. Others, yes, they find it very offensive. I am not sure if "Braves" is as offensive.

What if when the police officers approached the man (who did not realize they were police) pointed his weapon at them not giving them a chance to ID themselves. In that case, I think the police would be justified in using lethal force since they have no clue at that point if the guy is a suspect or not, all they know is someone is pointing a gun at them. We have the benefit of time to think out what to do and what not to do. Often times, police have less than a second to make such a decision.

There is alot of truth to that. Anne Northup proved that being on the same team as an unpopular president makes winning reelection more difficult. (George W. Bush's unpopularity cost Anne reelection more so than John Yarmuth). It didn't hurt Yarmuth has deep pockets and was already a well known name in Louisville before the election. Many say the only way to beat Yarmuth in liberal Louisville would be for a deep pocketed well known GOPer to run against him. Patti Swope has been brought up, I doubt she would win the the election would be as entertaining as a three ring circus.

Generally those things are said by politicians who are deemed "Untouchable", ie there is no worry about them being defeated and losing their seat to the opposition. Mitch historically has held that position and could pretty much say what those GOPers not so "Untouchable" could not say. The question now is, is Mitch still so untouchable???

I could see a case where police determine that reaching the gunman unnoticed would be critical and unfortunately the elderly gentleman did something to alarm the police and decide deadly force was needed. You would hope people know that once the police show up, at a bare minimum, holster your firearm or preferably lie it down.

I think the stronger Dems look at the Governor's Office as a much more winnable office and see it as a way to get them in position to run for the Senate in 4/8 years.

If Grimes or whoever runs against Mitch is able to stay reasonably close in the polls, we may not be able to keep Bill and the Hildebeast out of KY. The Dems would LOVE to see Mitch fall, especially in a Red State (red on a national level atleast). They would love that even more than the defeat of Rick Santorum back in 2008. I think 2008. If the dems are smart, they will keep Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. out of KY up to the election.

I took the joke to mean that many baptists do drink when they are not around other baptists who will blab on them at church but around Catholics or other faiths, they enjoy having a beer or two assuming it will not get back to church. I was too young to understand what was really going on but years ago I was at a wedding reception that seemed to be dry but as soon as the pastor/preacher left, the alcohol flowed freely. :lol2:

I believe what TTP is referring to is going into this election, his lead isn't near as overwhelming as it has been in the past few elections he has been in. This is giving the Dem's hope but no one really seems interested. Conway, Abramson, and others all have their eyes on the Governors seat. Beshear would probably like to have another shot at Mitch but the timing of his term as Gov and the Senate election just doesn't work out for him and I cannot see him leaving the Governor's office early. I know some do it but, just can't see him doing it.

I will add, while I am glad to see the economy recovering, I hope it doesn't start to recover faster than supply can keep up with causing high inflation to come back. Nothing can take the steam out of a recovery like high inflation.

If a student loan default does occur, while it will not be good, I question if it will have the same degree of negative pull down on the economy. When the mortgage defaults occured, they drug down the housing market with it due to the housing market being flooded with homes people lost on default. And let's face it, what item are people so emotionally attached to that when its value comes crashing down, it has a huge affect on their consumer confidence and consumer spending? Their home. And even people who stayed on top of their mortgage saw the value of their homes going down also, in many cases, less that the balance of the mortgage. If/when the student loans defualt, I don't see it having such a huge ripple affect throughout the economy. Not saying it will not hurt the economy, just don't see it hurting nearly as bad.

I woudn't say my confidence is up because my personal situation is any better than it was five years ago, my confidence is up just from looking around. The stock market is up it appears due to companies reaching better earnings. The unemployment level has been steadily decreasing, I believe it is 7.5% right now. Finding a job in Louisville seems to be easier. By no means do I think things are rosey, I just thing they are better off than five years ago and it would appear will slowly continue to get better.

Up? Yes. Way up? Not so sure about that.