What justifies lethal force?

Plenty of incidents when OC is used in robberies.

The guy with the OC can appears to be somewhat belligerent with the “BGM” guy, to the extent that 3rd person needs to get in between them. What interaction happened 10 seconds later between the OC guy and the security guy, I 've no idea.

3 Likes

Welcome to the family brother and you are blessed to be here.

2 Likes

Well I’m guessing no you cannot shoot a protester who sprayed you with mace. If I got sprayed I would try to get help and guard my weapon for dear life. What or who would you be shooting at in this case if you decide to start shooting after being maced. You will be blindly shooting and can hit innocent bystanders. A jury most likely would say that it’s not justified to use lethal force in that situation. Tough thing is trying to guard your weapon after being sprayed.

4 Likes

Welcome to the family @Chas and god bless you.

2 Likes

I would think that it would all come down to the intent of the person doing the spraying… once you are incapacitated you are at the mercy of the one who sprayed you…
As for the Denver situation… its looking more like the “guard” was antagonizing the victim…

4 Likes

This is a tough situation that could go either way. I mean now that Security Guard is pissed off after being sprayed he decided to spray bullets in the direction of the attacker hoping to hit him. But there are other protesters there that can take his firearm it’s a tough call.

3 Likes

Free speech? The first amendment only covers the government restricting your words. If, for example, the moderators remove your post for whatever reason, that is not a violation of your right to free speech. If someone tells another person to be quiet, that is not a violation of free speech.
I see this a lot on the internet. People get shut down and cry “Free Speech!” when that does not apply at all. Here’s the actual text:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
No action taken, either by other posters or moderators on a private forum can be in violation as they are not Congress making a law against you, nor are they government in general silencing you.
XKCD put it best: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

2 Likes

Already handled between @Virgil_H and myself.

6 Likes

Yeah man, Danny and I are good to go! My thanks to him as well.

6 Likes

And this is why sec.230 needs to be removed. Some group, lets say twitter, decide they know better and prevent others from providing their points of view. Just because they don’t like it, they remove it, to your point!
Just because you don’t like the truth gives no-one the right to prevent it from being said. The world is full of opinion, media provides only one side of it. Applying the “popular” point of view as facts is hypocrisy. Reported Facts are few and far between. Try a week of OAN and open your mind, sir.

2 Likes

My mind is quite open, actually. I leave it unlocked, and take it out and wash it at least once a week, with a more through cleansing monthly and have it dry cleaned on the first Monday in January.
However, let’s try to keep this apolitical, please.
My only real issue with changes to section 230 is that, from what I understand, the changes would make forum hosts legally responsible for what is posted by other people. This is major. It means that for a busy forum, you now would need someone to watch the posting closely 24/7/365, ready to delete anything the least bit ‘off color’ or in any way demeaning to literally anyone lest you get sued into insolvency. One person couldn’t do it unless you locked the board every single time you got out of your chair. Gotta go to the head? Lock the message board. Same for sleep, going to the store, eating with your family, walking the dog, etc.
It seems to me that such a state of affairs would far more drastically limit what you could say, not expand it. I think the Law of Unintended Consequences applies here with a vengeance.
My understanding could easily be wrong, but if not, I believe it would mark the end of forums of any kind in America, and the big forums like Twitter and FB would likely just block all American IPs.

1 Like

Section 230 implementation AND removal were, are, and would be filled with unintended consequences.

“Who” decides what is acceptable or not and “who” is responsible for enforcing them is a massive bag 'o cats.

3 Likes

Yes, it’s a tangled mess for sure. Really though, it seems to me that what should happen is a national vote, with the changes clearly laid out. On such an important issue, our voices should be heard. Sadly, I doubt that will happen, but it seriously should.
Making massive and intrinsically Constitutional-level alterations of our rights should not be arbitrarily decided by politicians, but by WE THE PEOPLE.
Wishful thinking in full bloom, I guess.

3 Likes

I would become very busy on anti-rights sites.

2 Likes

Biker Lives Matter (dead guy) tried to reach TV producer, and slapped bodyguard who got in the way. Bodyguard drew his weapon, and Biker sprayed him with bear spray before being shot. Biker apparently didn’t reach his gun in time.


https://www.9news.com/article/news/crime/unlicensed-security-guard-matthew-dolloff-shooting-probable-cause-statement-video/73-a5a0a0e9-11b1-4d7d-972d-7b2a25fd1173
2 Likes

It appears that he drew his firearm right after being slapped, and the discharge of spray and the firearm occurred almost simultaneously. There was no imminent threat of great bodily harm nor death, other than to the decedent, which may be why he used the spray, it was in his hand. Obviously he did appear to have the intent to use the spray on someone, but even if he had, I still do not see this as a justified use of lethal force.

3 Likes