Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Regal Cinema's new "security policy"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="soberups" data-source="post: 1808438" data-attributes="member: 14668"><p>I never intended that the term "Good Samaritan" be used as a legal term in this context.</p><p></p><p>I was merely pointing out that a legally armed person who was acting in good faith under the emergency circumstances of a mass shooting event would probably be given a considerable amount of leeway in a court of law if he were charged with "negligence" due to one of his rounds hitting an innocent bystander.</p><p></p><p>You brought up the term "collateral damage" in one of your posts, and while that phrase has come to be synonymous with a total lack of concern for the deaths of innocent civilians who are adjacent to a military target, it can also refer to the process of weighing the number of lives that will be <em>saved</em> by the destruction of a military objective versus the number of innocents who will <em>die</em> during its destruction.</p><p></p><p>Under the circumstances of a mass shooting incident.....where the murderer has entered a theater or school <strong>with the clear and obvious intent of killing as many people as possible</strong>.....the argument could be made that in order to save lives he must be taken out as quickly as possible and by any means necessary. If an innocent person does get killed in the crossfire it would certainly be tragic, but the alternative......doing nothing and allowing the murderer to continue his rampage unchecked.....could lead to many <em>more</em> deaths.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="soberups, post: 1808438, member: 14668"] I never intended that the term "Good Samaritan" be used as a legal term in this context. I was merely pointing out that a legally armed person who was acting in good faith under the emergency circumstances of a mass shooting event would probably be given a considerable amount of leeway in a court of law if he were charged with "negligence" due to one of his rounds hitting an innocent bystander. You brought up the term "collateral damage" in one of your posts, and while that phrase has come to be synonymous with a total lack of concern for the deaths of innocent civilians who are adjacent to a military target, it can also refer to the process of weighing the number of lives that will be [I]saved[/I] by the destruction of a military objective versus the number of innocents who will [I]die[/I] during its destruction. Under the circumstances of a mass shooting incident.....where the murderer has entered a theater or school [B]with the clear and obvious intent of killing as many people as possible[/B].....the argument could be made that in order to save lives he must be taken out as quickly as possible and by any means necessary. If an innocent person does get killed in the crossfire it would certainly be tragic, but the alternative......doing nothing and allowing the murderer to continue his rampage unchecked.....could lead to many [I]more[/I] deaths. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Regal Cinema's new "security policy"
Top