PT Car Washer

Well-Known Member
No, he doesn't have the right to reach for firearms while resisting arrest. The probability of that is what justifies even if they shot him in the back while unarmed.

Easy peasy.
I thought the whole Second Amendment thing was so citizens could protect themselves from an oppressive police state. I believe you may have a point.
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
Wrong. Just another racist view that all black men are convicted felons.
No, it's only like 1/4 or 1/3 of them.

I didn't claim he was. I used the fleeing felon rule to demonstrate that a resisting or fleeing criminal can be considered a lethal threat even if unarmed and with his back turned.

Kthanks.

Try to read or think or something.
 

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
No, it's only like 1/4 or 1/3 of them.

I didn't claim he was. I used the fleeing felon rule to demonstrate that a resisting or fleeing criminal can be considered a lethal threat even if unarmed and with his back turned.

Kthanks.

Try to read or think or something.
They weren't under threat as the video shows. Ttku son..
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
They weren't under threat as the video shows. Ttku son..
Ok, you're still not keeping up.

You don't know what a threat is.

A man fighting cops is a lethal threat, because they are armed and if they lose, they lose their guns. Ergo, any threat to their possession of the gun is a lethal threat.

In real fights, things happen fast and crazy.

If he's reaching or moving into car, that's an immediate threat to them and others, because a gun may be in there, and the car itself is a weapon.

You're really not trying to be smart, or you're just not capable.
 
Top