>>8647>Right, there wasn't an immediate threat. The threat was what she might do when she reached the legislators, which she was very close to doing.Lethal force is to be used for
IMMEDIATE threats. Not threats for some later point.
Otherwise, what's the moral reasoning for them not to be allowed to murder you in your own home, right now?
You might be a threat to the state at a later date.
Maybe you'll disagree with some policy taken, and rebel against the state.
You're a threat, then, so it's warranted by your logic to murder you before that can take place.
> And the cop might not have had a safe backstop if she broke through the window and starting running.As stated; The distance was significant, and she had no weapon in her hand, with all hands visible.
He could've waited until that point. Though even then, I'd call him a murderer.
If you cannot overpower a single unarmed woman, you are too pathetic to be a member of law enforcement.
>I dunno where you live, but in my state, in someone broke into my house and I shot them, my actions would be presumed to be lawful. There is a difference between that and
THE STATE.
This ought be exceptionally obvious.
Especially given I've only mentioned it some dozen times now, without you ever bothering to address that point.
Nonetheless; I highly doubt that if you shot someone who was clearly unarmed, while you stood well over a dozen feet away, before they've even climbed through the window, you
would be arrested.
>Likewise, if I owned a store and was inside it, and BLM rioters broke the windows and started invading the premises, me shooting the intruders would be presumed to be lawful. Again;
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SINGLE CITIZEN, AND A STATE BUILDING PROTECTED BY MULTIPLE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENTSThis is such an exceptionally simple thing, and I really do not understand why you cannot grasp it.
I, alone, have little to no power over a mob.
I am just one single man.
I do not have the state behind me.
I do not have numerous armed guards at my beck and call.
I do not, as in that video, have a man with a loaded assault rifle posed right behind that crowd.
I certainly don't have access to riot police. Nor do I have the right to arrest people, imprison them, and so on.
And again; I do not agree at all that in
any state, even ones with exceptionally loose self-defense law, would say it is acceptable for you to shoot someone who is clearly unarmed, dozens of feet away from you, who hasn't even finished climbing through a window, in broad daylight, while you have several other comrades right besides you.
I think you would, rightfully, be behind bars.
Likewise, I think this man
must be put behind bars.
>, I guess you think that government property is different. But I don't think it really it.Well, I would say thank God you aren't in charge, but it doesn't seem like it matters.
I can only hope that if the state refuses to bring justice against this murder, honest citizens do so instead.
If the state refuses to prosecute such a blatant and clear abuse of one's power, the shooting of an unarmed woman in cold blood who quite clearly and as you yourself admit posed no immediate threat, then I would say it is the responsibility and duty of citizens to ensure that man is punished, by whatever means may be necessary to ensure it is.
I can only hope more people on the right wake up to the reality that police is not on their side.
The way that politics works right now, the left is allowed to do their riots without consequence, as they terrorize innocent people, while anyone on the right who even behaves slightly the same is immediately murdered.
