Just break out the “F” word and The resident heterophobes chime in like sicadas chirping on a sticky midsummer’s eve.
Same douche, different bag.
- Yssup Rider
- 04-04-2018, 11:10 AM
- LexusLover
- 04-04-2018, 11:38 AM
Suit-A-More is what a political hack gets when making an "Identity Nomination" instead of one solid on legal analysis and reality on the streets.
The significant and/or landmark decisions of the SCOTUS regarding "police" authority have been in effect "instructions" on LE as to what they can and CANNOT DO, and if analyzed on a practical backdrop with some critical thinking actually sets standards for the LE to meet when taking action.
If someone pulls a "deadly weapon" on you most (if not all) States provide self-defense statutes that allow the person confronted with the AGGRAVATED ASSAULT to use "deadly force" in response to the threat of "deadly force" to stop the aggression by way of a threat to use deadly force.
It is ludicrous, IF NOT NONSENSICAL, to expect ANYONE to wait until the deadly force has been actually applied to respond.
If you believe otherwise you are as stupid as she is.
She apparently didn't read Tennessee vs. Garner or doesn't care!
The significant and/or landmark decisions of the SCOTUS regarding "police" authority have been in effect "instructions" on LE as to what they can and CANNOT DO, and if analyzed on a practical backdrop with some critical thinking actually sets standards for the LE to meet when taking action.
If someone pulls a "deadly weapon" on you most (if not all) States provide self-defense statutes that allow the person confronted with the AGGRAVATED ASSAULT to use "deadly force" in response to the threat of "deadly force" to stop the aggression by way of a threat to use deadly force.
It is ludicrous, IF NOT NONSENSICAL, to expect ANYONE to wait until the deadly force has been actually applied to respond.
If you believe otherwise you are as stupid as she is.
She apparently didn't read Tennessee vs. Garner or doesn't care!
- eccieuser9500
- 04-04-2018, 06:06 PM
- The_Waco_Kid
- 04-04-2018, 06:10 PM
- bamscram
- 04-04-2018, 06:21 PM
- eccieuser9500
- 04-04-2018, 06:36 PM
- TheDaliLama
- 04-04-2018, 06:41 PM
Facts prove you wrong. But don’t let ruin your good time.
- LexusLover
- 04-05-2018, 07:03 AM
Facts prove you wrong. But don’t let ruin your good time. Originally Posted by TheDaliLamaHe likes "his facts" better. He also is clueless. The "Cliff Notes" he reads are LIBERAL!
"Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster."
Tennessee vs. Garner
Like as posted: Too bad she can't read and neither can "EccieAbuser"!
And what I posted is accurate: "Suit-A-More is what a political hack gets when making an "Identity Nomination" instead of one solid on legal analysis and reality on the streets."
Part D of Paragraph III of Tennessee Garner discusses "street reality" and "deadly force."
That was over 30 years ago. So today Suit-A-More and EccieAbuser think it's OK to threaten police officers with a deadly weapon with impunity!!! Good luck in Pergatory.
Both of you need to read the WHOLE OPINION!