|
Post by bartlesby on May 15, 2023 10:09:52 GMT
Cope with being restrained? The guy had no right to restrain him to begin with. He's not a policeman.
That's an odd place to start off on. People like yourself criticize the police all the time........so who does have a right?
Only criminals and miscreants, apparently.
In terms of restraining somebody, police do have the right. They also have rules to follow from that right being granted to them and can't use lethal force unless justified. Ideally, that's how it works. In reality, that's a different topic. But they do have the right to restrain somebody. Your civilian, on the other hand, does not have the right to restrain somebody because they're getting shouted at. Depending on the state, they have varying levels of a right to self-defense. That right ends once the threat is neutralized. They do not have the right to be vigilantes. They don't have the right to choke somebody to death because they were threatened.
|
|
|
Post by Boricanator on May 15, 2023 10:25:33 GMT
Yahoo is a racist cesspool and has been for a long time. So, those comments are not surprising.
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on May 15, 2023 10:27:02 GMT
What I find strange is that no information is ever given on the only possible thing relevant to the case.
In order to believe one man is dangerous, size and health and mobility have to be the factors. Was either man six feet six and the other one five foot six? Was the man making the threats moving with acrobatic skill?
We're not getting any useful information, so there's no possible way to even comment one way or the other on the case. Therefore, the idea that either side was definitely in the right is impossible to even consider.
But, Americans are finished with objectivity in trials. Americans are self-righteous in their prejudices, so what we see when we see prejudicial judgments is which people are totally incapable of being objective.
So you're correct. Can we even get a jury of twelve objective Americans in any city?
|
|
|
Post by Boricanator on May 15, 2023 10:41:17 GMT
What I find strange is that no information is ever given on the only possible thing relevant to the case. In order to believe one man is dangerous, size and health and mobility have to be the factors. Was either man six feet six and the other one five foot six? Was the man making the threats moving with acrobatic skill? We're not getting any useful information, so there's no possible way to even comment one way or the other on the case. Therefore, the idea that either side was definitely in the right is impossible to even consider. But, Americans are finished with objectivity in trials. Americans are self-righteous in their prejudices, so what we see when we see prejudicial judgments is which people are totally incapable of being objective. So you're correct. Can we even get a jury of twelve objective Americans in any city? This is why I’ve stated from the beginning that this is a case where we will probably have to wait until the trial to have a better understanding of what happened. Penny will have to find friendly witnesses to establish what threats Neely was making and if they felt there was imminent danger. At the same time, the Government is definitely interested in getting the guy that told Penny to stop because he was killing him.
|
|