• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Arsonist in Chief!

Father Heathen

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Nowhere Man said:
Nobody ever questions the mentality behind looting.

Wreak havoc on those who are completely uninvolved and have nothing to do with events. What kind of message is that supposed to bring?

I'm not going to cry any tears for any shot looters.
Click to expand...

I'm not defending looting and vandalism, but having the military randomly firing into a crowd of unarmed protestors would obviously open a huge *** can of worms. Seriously think of the exponentially escalating domino effect. You may find vindictive vengeance fantasies to be rather gratifying, but that doesn't make them sensible solutions for actual real world problems.
 
BSM1

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Father Heathen said:
Clear your head of the testicles dancing through it for a moment and let's actually think about this rationally; what do you think would happen afterwards once the military opened fire into a crowd of unarmed protestors? Sure, some were breaking windows and tossing trash cans which is unacceptable, of course. But deadly force would obviously be a disproportionate response, especially considering the likeliness that many of the resulting maimed and dead weren't participating any looting or vandalism. What do you think the public reaction and political aftermath would be? Do you really think that would be the end of it? Things would escalate into a much bigger mess real quick, one I assure would end your appetite for testicles.
Click to expand...

A dead looter will never make that same mistake again.....
 
BSM1

BSM1

What? Me worry?
Father Heathen said:
Clear your head of the testicles dancing through it for a moment and let's actually think about this rationally; what do you think would happen afterwards once the military opened fire into a crowd of unarmed protestors? Sure, some were breaking windows and tossing trash cans which is unacceptable, of course. But deadly force would obviously be a disproportionate response, especially considering the likeliness that many of the resulting maimed and dead weren't participating any looting or vandalism. What do you think the public reaction and political aftermath would be? Do you really think that would be the end of it? Things would escalate into a much bigger mess real quick, one I assure would end your appetite for testicles.
Click to expand...


Let me ask you a simple question. Suppose you could time travel back to the spot where you could reach and touch the cop while he had his knee on Floyd's neck. Now knowing what you do now would you have considered using deadly force on the cop to save Floyd's life?
 
Father Heathen

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
BSM1 said:
A dead looter will never make that same mistake again.....
Click to expand...

Yes, we get it, you find the idea of someone being killed over theft and/or vandalism to be gratifying, but please be a big boy if not only for a moment and address the actual points made by my posts? Thanks.
 
Father Heathen

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
BSM1 said:
Let me ask you a simple question. Suppose you could time travel back to the spot where you could reach and touch the cop while he had his knee on Floyd's neck. Now knowing what you do now would you have considered using deadly force on the cop to save Floyd's life?
Click to expand...
Answer my questions first.
 
The Hammer

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
BSM1 said:
Let me ask you a simple question. Suppose you could time travel back to the spot where you could reach and touch the cop while he had his knee on Floyd's neck. Now knowing what you do now would you have considered using deadly force on the cop to save Floyd's life?
Click to expand...

No, but I would have thrown the ****ing cop, if I was his partner. Police need to police their own brethren, and they are not. You're supposed to use a lesser to proportional amount of force to stop what is going on. Gentleman isn't dead yet, in this scenario, so deadly force is not authorized.
 
epronovost

epronovost

Well-Known Member
The Hammer said:
Gentleman isn't dead yet, in this scenario, so deadly force is not authorized.
Click to expand...

Actually if someone is dying or in the process of being killed (or if you believe that this person could reasonnably be killed), you can use deadly force to save someone life if it's necessary. Sure, throwing the murderer off his victim would have been enough to save Floyd provided the police officer didn't fight you off to continue trying to kill the man.
 
The Hammer

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
epronovost said:
Actually if someone is dying or in the process of being killed (or if you believe that this person could reasonnably be killed), you can use deadly force to save someone life if it's necessary. Sure, throwing the murderer off his victim would have been enough to save Floyd provided the police officer didn't fight you off to continue trying to kill the man.
Click to expand...

Yes, but at that point this scenario is a different one, and the officers actively resistant. As for the original scenario, this may or may not have worked , but would have been my first instinct. I was taught use the least amount of force possible while in the Navy. But yes, in this instance he could be killed technically according to deadly force ROE.

I am also not 100% certain that this cop killed him on purpose, it was positional asphyxiation I think. Does accidental murder still warrant deadly force?
 
The Hammer

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
epronovost said:
Does accidental deadly force makes the victim any less dead? If not, then yes, deadly force could be warranted to save someone.
Click to expand...

Where do you do your deadly force training? I haven't reupped mine in a few years.

Also, less dead of course not. My point was, if I had intervened the man wouldn't be dead, and in your scenario if the cop resumed his attack, then yes "I" would have chosen deadly force. But it isn't my first reaction.

Edit: Considering this is all hypothetical.
Edit 2: Trying not to sound rude.
 
Last edited:
epronovost

epronovost

Well-Known Member
The Hammer said:
Where do you do your deadly force training? I haven't reupped mine in a few years.

Also, less dead of course not, don't play me for stupid. My point was, if I had intervened the man wouldn't be dead, and in your scenario if the cop resumed his attack, then yes "I" would have chosen deadly force. But it isn't my first reaction.

Edit: Considering this is all hypothetical.
Click to expand...

It's very dependant on the situation. Let say you are witnessing a person chocking another person who is in clear distress and could very well die from such treatment, but the dude doing the chocking is a giant and you are about as heavy and strong as thoughts and prayers, you might be justify in using a weapon to kill the giant and save the victim. Of course if you don't think you absolutely need to kill someone to save someone's life then you don't use deadly force, but that goes without saying and is true at all time.
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
The Hammer said:
No, but I would have thrown the ****ing cop, if I was his partner. Police need to police their own brethren, and they are not. You're supposed to use a lesser to proportional amount of force to stop what is going on. Gentleman isn't dead yet, in this scenario, so deadly force is not authorized.
Click to expand...

I am not certain, but I suspect that the pool of people who want to be policemen is very small and that many communities are forced to accept questionable officers.

And to some degree, being a policeman is a position of power which can go to some people's heads. I saw this with Military Police when I was in the Army. You would have young private MPs harassing high ranking officers in any legitimate way they could reasonably justify.
 
BSM1

BSM1

What? Me worry?
The Hammer said:
No, but I would have thrown the ****ing cop, if I was his partner. Police need to police their own brethren, and they are not. You're supposed to use a lesser to proportional amount of force to stop what is going on. Gentleman isn't dead yet, in this scenario, so deadly force is not authorized.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question. If you had no other recourse, would you have used deadly force to save George Floyd's life?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top