Killing Drunk Drivers Justifiable Homicide?
Michael Ejercito
and started shooting people from the top of a tower. Police went in
and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The homicide of Charles Whitman
was ruled justifiable.
Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it be
justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk, since they
endanger other people's lives just as Charles Whitman endangered the
lives of people at UTA?
Michael
Larry
Michael Ejercito <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Obviously not.
Deadrat
news:1189483069.7...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
Even though this is probably a rhetorical question, I'll answer it anyway.
Whitman had already killed a number of people before he himself was killed.
Most drunk drivers don't kill anyone, so the danger isn't proximate enough
for preemptive killing.
• UltraMan •
Under the neo-con Repugnikan Bu$h Doctrine of "Pre-emptive Strike" it
is clearly acceptable behavior to attack and kill people who you imagine
*might* attack/harm you are any time in the future.
But you should know that Mikey, you're one of those shitsucking Repugs yourself.
>
>
> Michael
• UltraMan •
How many U$ citizens did Saddam kill prior to 2003 ?
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
While he was driving drunk?
• UltraMan •
Bu$h was ...
Michael Ejercito
> In article <1189483069.784438.168...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of Texas, Austin
> > and started shooting people from the top of a tower. Police went in
> > and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The homicide of Charles Whitman
> > was ruled justifiable.
>
> > Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it be
> > justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk, since they
> > endanger other people's lives just as Charles Whitman endangered the
> > lives of people at UTA?
>
> Obviously not.
Why was it okay to kill Charles Whitman?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
UNTIL he kills someone first?
Michael
Michael Ejercito
Michael
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> Michael Ejercito wrote:
>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of Texas, Austin
>> and started shooting people from the top of a tower. Police went in
>> and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The homicide of Charles Whitman
>> was ruled justifiable.
>>
>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it be
>> justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk, since they
>> endanger other people's lives just as Charles Whitman endangered the
>> lives of people at UTA?
>
Trouble is you don't know they're driving drunk. Best solution to the
enormous DUI problem is for the law to dole out much tougher penalties.
DUI should be an automatic felony with a mandatory one year or more
prison sentence.
Not much chance of that though since DUI is the favorite drug crime of
rich white people.
Porgy Tirebiter
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:13edbol...@corp.supernews.com...
DRUNKEN DRIVERS....
TWICE I have left them there to die, I did not call for help, did not render
help, I did nothing for them.
How did I know they were drunk? you can smell the booze,see the open
containers.....
A "Throw-away" is just that.....
Larry
Michael Ejercito <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Because he posed an IMMINENT and CERTAIN threat.
Larry
Michael Ejercito <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent risk.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> Michael Ejercito <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 10, 11:56 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Austin and started shooting people from the top of a tower. Police
>>>> went in and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The homicide of
>>>> Charles Whitman was ruled justifiable.
>>>
>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it be
>>>> justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk, since
>>>> they endanger other people's lives just as Charles Whitman
>>>> endangered the lives of people at UTA?
>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>
>>> Even though this is probably a rhetorical question, I'll answer it
>>> anyway. Whitman had already killed a number of people before he
>>> himself was killed. Most drunk drivers don't kill anyone, so the
>>> danger isn't proximate enough for preemptive killing.
>> So if someone starts shooting from a tower, it is wrong to kill
>> him UNTIL he kills someone first?
>
> It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent risk.
The moment he starts that car, while drunk, he puts people at imminent risk.
Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than that.
The Great Jimbo
"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:13edbol...@corp.supernews.com...
> :
>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of Texas, Austin
>>> and started shooting people from the top of a tower. Police went in
>>> and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The homicide of Charles Whitman
>>> was ruled justifiable.
>>>
>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it be
>>> justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk, since they
>>> endanger other people's lives just as Charles Whitman endangered the
>>> lives of people at UTA?
>>
>
> Trouble is you don't know they're driving drunk. Best solution to the
> enormous DUI problem is for the law to dole out much tougher penalties.
> DUI should be an automatic felony with a mandatory one year or more prison
> sentence.
I always thought one year in prison for the first offense for drunking was a
fair sentence. Five years for the second offense. Third time around, well,
they're too fucking stupid to live anyway. the death penalty. Think about
this a moment. If you knew you were going to go to prison for a year if you
got caught DUI, would you be willing to risk it? Or would you call a cab?
Most people would call a cab, making America's highways safer.
But just supposed you did get caught DUI. You spend a year in jail. Do you
really want to go back for another five years of fun and games with your
fellow inmates? Probably not.
Surely you're not going to be stupid enough to try for a third offense. No,
I didn't think so.
The penalty of one year for the first offense should server as a major
deterrent for drinking and driving for most folks. However, posting
something like this, I can expect a lot of flaming from some of these drunk
drivers who have sobered up enough yo read this.
TGJ
_ Prof. Jonez _
So if increasingly harsh penalties are an effective deterrant, then there
should be very few murders in the U$A, or drug users/dealers, eh?
Michael Ejercito
> In article <1189519510.855465.284...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
Michael
Deadrat
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:57:49 -0700, Michael Ejercito
> <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it be
>>justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk, since they
>>endanger other people's lives just as Charles Whitman endangered the
>>lives of people at UTA?
This is incorrect. Charles Whitman didn't just endagner lives; he killed
them. And most drunk drivers don't kill anyone.
> It would make for interesting case law at the very minimum.
How do you figure interesting?
Deadrat
news:5koh2jF...@mid.individual.net:
Since most drunk drivers don't kill people, this statement is false. If
non-lethal force would do the trick, you have to go with that. Why not
shoot out the tires.
> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than that.
What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
Larry
Michael Ejercito <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Which is exactly why his shooting - by members of law enforcement, its
worth noting - was justified.
Deadrat
news:YP6dnaB4Ud6_jHrb...@vci.net:
>
> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote
> in message news:13edbol...@corp.supernews.com...
>> :
>>> Michael Ejercito wrote:
>>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of Texas, Austin
>>>> and started shooting people from the top of a tower. Police went in
>>>> and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The homicide of Charles
>>>> Whitman was ruled justifiable.
>>>>
>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it be
>>>> justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk, since
>>>> they endanger other people's lives just as Charles Whitman
>>>> endangered the lives of people at UTA?
>>>
>>
>> Trouble is you don't know they're driving drunk. Best solution to the
>> enormous DUI problem is for the law to dole out much tougher
>> penalties. DUI should be an automatic felony with a mandatory one
>> year or more prison sentence.
>
> I always thought one year in prison for the first offense for drunking
> was a fair sentence. Five years for the second offense. Third time
> around, well, they're too fucking stupid to live anyway. the death
> penalty. Think about this a moment. If you knew you were going to go
> to prison for a year if you got caught DUI, would you be willing to
> risk it?
Well, not if I were sober. But I'm drunk!
> Or would you call a cab? Most people would call a cab, making
> America's highways safer.
Sure. If they were thinking clearly. But they're drunk!
> But just supposed you did get caught DUI. You spend a year in jail. Do
> you really want to go back for another five years of fun and games
> with your fellow inmates? Probably not.
Do I want to? Of course, not. Do I think I'm going to get caught? Of
course not. I'm drunk!
>
> Surely you're not going to be stupid enough to try for a third
> offense. No, I didn't think so.
Look at it this way. Every drink lowers my IQ by 30 points. How stupid
do you think I am when I get in the car to try for a third offense?
>
> The penalty of one year for the first offense should server as a major
> deterrent for drinking and driving for most folks. However, posting
> something like this, I can expect a lot of flaming from some of these
> drunk drivers who have sobered up enough yo read this.
I'll bet many drunk drivers would agree that they deserved your penal
program. I'll also bet they'd tell you how ineffective it would be.
> TGJ
• UltraMan •
Most armed robbers don't kill people either, so it it false when
the cops/guards kill them citing "imminent risk" ?
> Why not shoot out the tires.
Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!
Good one ...!
>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than that.
>
> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others claiming
a specious imminent risk ?
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
If there was no imminent risk, e.g., the armed robber drops his gun and
raises his arms, then it's wrong for the cops to kill him. If he points
his gun at the cops, not so much.
>
>> Why not shoot out the tires.
>
> Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!
>
> Good one ...!
I live to amuse.
>>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than that.
>>
>> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
>
> So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others claiming
> a specious imminent risk ?
I'm not the one so stating. That's the law. If you want to argue about
whether cops follow the law, post to alt.law-enforcement.
• UltraMan •
So if a drunk driver drops his key and moves away from the car, there isn't
so much risk, but if he points the car down the road toward other vehicles, then
?
>>
>>> Why not shoot out the tires.
>>
>> Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!
>>
>> Good one ...!
>
> I live to amuse.
>
>>>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than that.
>>>
>>> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
>>
>> So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others claiming
>> a specious imminent risk ?
>
> I'm not the one so stating. That's the law.
Are you claiming the standard of "imminent risk" is different for
cops as opposed to civilians ?
> If you want to argue
> about whether cops follow the law, post to alt.law-enforcement.
It is posted there. Do pay attention.
Larry
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
> Deadrat wrote:
> > "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote
Then there's still a very low risk that someone's death or serious
injury will result, and there are still very effective means of stopping
the driver short of killing him.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <5kpbsqF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Ą UltraMan Ą" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> "Ą UltraMan Ą" <ul...@man.jp> wrote
Define "low".
And if it is so "low", then why is Drunk Driving per se punnished, instead
of punishing only those that actually cause accidents/harm/death, eh?
> and there are still very effective means of
> stopping the driver short of killing him.
As is the case with many police killings of civilians, there
are very effective means of stopping the perps, short of killing them,
yet the U$ cowardly cops kill not because they must, but because
policy states they can.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
> TWICE in 10 years I have happened along single car accidents involving
> DRUNKEN DRIVERS....
> TWICE I have left them there to die, I did not call for help, did not render
> help, I did nothing for them.
> How did I know they were drunk? you can smell the booze,see the open
> containers.....
> A "Throw-away" is just that.....
That's a good idea. I would never help a drunk driver either.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS
>
> I always thought one year in prison for the first offense for drunking was a
> fair sentence. Five years for the second offense. Third time around, well,
> they're too fucking stupid to live anyway. the death penalty. Think about
> this a moment. If you knew you were going to go to prison for a year if you
> got caught DUI, would you be willing to risk it? Or would you call a cab?
> Most people would call a cab, making America's highways safer.
>
> But just supposed you did get caught DUI. You spend a year in jail. Do you
> really want to go back for another five years of fun and games with your
> fellow inmates? Probably not.
>
> Surely you're not going to be stupid enough to try for a third offense. No,
> I didn't think so.
>
> The penalty of one year for the first offense should server as a major
> deterrent for drinking and driving for most folks. However, posting
> something like this, I can expect a lot of flaming from some of these drunk
> drivers who have sobered up enough yo read this.
>
I'd love to see that too but as i said earlier, since DUI is the favored
drug crime of rich white people, the coddling will continue. It's a
national scandal that both our pres and vp have convictions for DUI and
nobody holds that against them.
Deadrat
news:5kpbsqF...@mid.individual.net:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> "Ą UltraMan Ą" <ul...@man.jp> wrote
... there's more risk. But you still can't shoot him.
>
>>>
>>>> Why not shoot out the tires.
>>>
>>> Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!
>>>
>>> Good one ...!
>>
>> I live to amuse.
>>
>>>>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than that.
>>>>
>>>> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
>>>
>>> So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others claiming
>>> a specious imminent risk ?
>>
>> I'm not the one so stating. That's the law.
>
> Are you claiming the standard of "imminent risk" is different for
> cops as opposed to civilians ?
Are you claiming that's what I'm claiming?
>> If you want to argue
>> about whether cops follow the law, post to alt.law-enforcement.
>
> It is posted there. Do pay attention.
That was my polite way of saying "and not in misc.legal."
Deadrat
Not clearly and immediately leading to death or injury.
> And if it is so "low", then why is Drunk Driving per se punnished,
> instead of punishing only those that actually cause
> accidents/harm/death, eh?
It's not "so" low as to be unworthy of punishment.
>> and there are still very effective means of
>> stopping the driver short of killing him.
>
> As is the case with many police killings of civilians, there
> are very effective means of stopping the perps, short of killing them,
> yet the U$ cowardly cops kill not because they must, but because
> policy states they can.
What's your argument? Police sometimes kill then they don't have to so
everyone should shoot drunk drivers?
Deadrat
W had a DUI in 1976, and Cheney in 1962.
And *that's* what you want held against them?
• UltraMan •
Define "clearly" and describe how one would construct a working
objective standard of same so that everyone in society, cops and civilians,
would know they are applying an equal standard.
>
>> And if it is so "low", then why is Drunk Driving per se punnished,
>> instead of punishing only those that actually cause
>> accidents/harm/death, eh?
>
> It's not "so" low as to be unworthy of punishment.
Are all behaviors that carry a "very low risk" to others punished ?
>
>>> and there are still very effective means of
>>> stopping the driver short of killing him.
>>
>> As is the case with many police killings of civilians, there
>> are very effective means of stopping the perps, short of killing
>> them, yet the U$ cowardly cops kill not because they must, but
>> because policy states they can.
>
> What's your argument? Police sometimes kill then they don't have to
> so everyone should shoot drunk drivers?
Close, Señor Obtuso , but the point is that the objective standard of "imminent
danger"
should be the same for cops and civilians alike.
• UltraMan •
> "Ą UltraMan Ą" <ul...@man.jp> wrote in
If cops can shoot fleeing suspects, why not joe citizen ?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Why not shoot out the tires.
>>>>
>>>> Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!
>>>>
>>>> Good one ...!
>>>
>>> I live to amuse.
>>>
>>>>>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than
>>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
>>>>
>>>> So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others claiming
>>>> a specious imminent risk ?
>>>
>>> I'm not the one so stating. That's the law.
>>
>> Are you claiming the standard of "imminent risk" is different for
>> cops as opposed to civilians ?
>
> Are you claiming that's what I'm claiming?
Claims are only taken between the hours of 2pm - 4pm. Please
come back later.
>
>>> If you want to argue
>>> about whether cops follow the law, post to alt.law-enforcement.
>>
>> It is posted there. Do pay attention.
>
> That was my polite way of saying "and not in misc.legal."
Yet you didn't say that. Do you often imagine you say things that you don't, and
that
omission is somehow an expression of politeness ?
Deadrat
news:5kqntaF...@mid.individual.net:
Argh! An essay test! I thought this was going to be multiple choice.
The task is impossible.
>>> And if it is so "low", then why is Drunk Driving per se punnished,
>>> instead of punishing only those that actually cause
>>> accidents/harm/death, eh?
>>
>> It's not "so" low as to be unworthy of punishment.
>
> Are all behaviors that carry a "very low risk" to others punished ?
No.
>>>> and there are still very effective means of
>>>> stopping the driver short of killing him.
>>>
>>> As is the case with many police killings of civilians, there
>>> are very effective means of stopping the perps, short of killing
>>> them, yet the U$ cowardly cops kill not because they must, but
>>> because policy states they can.
>>
>> What's your argument? Police sometimes kill then they don't have to
>> so everyone should shoot drunk drivers?
>
> Close, Señor Obtuso , but the point is that the objective standard of
> "imminent danger" should be the same for cops and civilians alike.
If I agree with you, will you concede that it is and should be illegal to
kill someone because he's drunk and about to drive a car?
Deadrat
May cops shoot fleeing suspects? How does this apply to shooting drunk
drivers?
>>>>>> Why not shoot out the tires.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!
>>>>>
>>>>> Good one ...!
>>>>
>>>> I live to amuse.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others
>>>>> claiming a specious imminent risk ?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not the one so stating. That's the law.
>>>
>>> Are you claiming the standard of "imminent risk" is different for
>>> cops as opposed to civilians ?
>>
>> Are you claiming that's what I'm claiming?
>
> Claims are only taken between the hours of 2pm - 4pm. Please
> come back later.
It's between 2pm and 4pm somewhere. Here in fact.
>>>> If you want to argue
>>>> about whether cops follow the law, post to alt.law-enforcement.
>>>
>>> It is posted there. Do pay attention.
>>
>> That was my polite way of saying "and not in misc.legal."
>
> Yet you didn't say that.
> Do you often imagine you say things that you
> don't, and that omission is somehow an expression of politeness ?
Why, yes I do. Did you notice that in this reply, the understood
"asshole" in the vocative case was omitted for politeness?
You're welcome.
• UltraMan •
> "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote in
Your honor, please instruct the witness to answer the question.
>
>>>> And if it is so "low", then why is Drunk Driving per se punnished,
>>>> instead of punishing only those that actually cause
>>>> accidents/harm/death, eh?
>>>
>>> It's not "so" low as to be unworthy of punishment.
>>
>> Are all behaviors that carry a "very low risk" to others punished ?
>
> No.
>
>>>>> and there are still very effective means of
>>>>> stopping the driver short of killing him.
>>>>
>>>> As is the case with many police killings of civilians, there
>>>> are very effective means of stopping the perps, short of killing
>>>> them, yet the U$ cowardly cops kill not because they must, but
>>>> because policy states they can.
>>>
>>> What's your argument? Police sometimes kill then they don't have to
>>> so everyone should shoot drunk drivers?
>>
>> Close, Señor Obtuso , but the point is that the objective standard of
>> "imminent danger" should be the same for cops and civilians alike.
>
> If I agree with you, will you concede that it is and should be
> illegal to kill someone because he's drunk and about to drive a car?
The hypo wasn't "about to drive drunk", it was actually driving drunk.
So you think Joe Schmoe citizen can perform a PITT maneuver on the perp,
to save lives down the road, even if it takes a life during the execution?
• UltraMan •
Are drunk drivers not actual criminals if not suspects?
>
>>>>>>> Why not shoot out the tires.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good one ...!
>>>>>
>>>>> I live to amuse.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than
>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others
>>>>>> claiming a specious imminent risk ?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not the one so stating. That's the law.
>>>>
>>>> Are you claiming the standard of "imminent risk" is different for
>>>> cops as opposed to civilians ?
>>>
>>> Are you claiming that's what I'm claiming?
>>
>> Claims are only taken between the hours of 2pm - 4pm. Please
>> come back later.
>
> It's between 2pm and 4pm somewhere. Here in fact.
4:51 here, sorry, try again tomorrow.
>
>>>>> If you want to argue
>>>>> about whether cops follow the law, post to alt.law-enforcement.
>>>>
>>>> It is posted there. Do pay attention.
>>>
>>> That was my polite way of saying "and not in misc.legal."
>>
>> Yet you didn't say that.
>
>> Do you often imagine you say things that you
>> don't, and that omission is somehow an expression of politeness ?
>
> Why, yes I do. Did you notice that in this reply, the understood
> "asshole" in the vocative case was omitted for politeness?
Bet Jayzus knows if you're naughty of mind or not.
> You're welcome.
To where ?
Deadrat
news:5kr8pbF...@mid.individual.net:
OK, actually driving drunk. Same answer, not least because Joe Schmoe
wouldn't have any idea whether the bad driver was actually drunk.
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
> Deadrat wrote:
>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote in
>> news:5kqo5pF...@mid.individual.net:
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote in
>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote
A driver, even if drunk, isn't an "actual" criminal as a result of his
current driving until he's been convicted of something. He may be a
suspect because of his driving, but we don't allow an open season on
suspects unless they are an imminent danger. Most drunk drivers don't
kill anyone. Enough do that we haul them into court when we find them.
>>>>>>>> Why not shoot out the tires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good one ...!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I live to amuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others
>>>>>>> claiming a specious imminent risk ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not the one so stating. That's the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you claiming the standard of "imminent risk" is different for
>>>>> cops as opposed to civilians ?
>>>>
>>>> Are you claiming that's what I'm claiming?
>>>
>>> Claims are only taken between the hours of 2pm - 4pm. Please
>>> come back later.
>>
>> It's between 2pm and 4pm somewhere. Here in fact.
>
> 4:51 here, sorry, try again tomorrow.
That explains some of your confusion.
>>>>>> If you want to argue
>>>>>> about whether cops follow the law, post to alt.law-enforcement.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is posted there. Do pay attention.
>>>>
>>>> That was my polite way of saying "and not in misc.legal."
>>>
>>> Yet you didn't say that.
>>
>>> Do you often imagine you say things that you
>>> don't, and that omission is somehow an expression of politeness ?
>>
>> Why, yes I do. Did you notice that in this reply, the understood
>> "asshole" in the vocative case was omitted for politeness?
>
> Bet Jayzus knows if you're naughty of mind or not.
Not my mind.
>> You're welcome.
>
> To where ?
To the land of the English idiom. And I'm still being polite.
Impressed?
Larry
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > In article <5kpbsqF...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
> >
> >> Deadrat wrote:
> >>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote
Because "risk of death or serious physical injury" is not the only
standard for whether conduct is criminal or not.
Larry
"• UltraMan •" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
> Deadrat wrote:
> >
> > ... there's more risk. But you still can't shoot him.
>
> If cops can shoot fleeing suspects, why not joe citizen ?
Where is it legal for cops to shoot fleeing suspects?
Larry
"¥ UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
The question is irrelevant. He gets that; you don't seem to.
No one is claiming that "clearly and immediately leading to death or
injury" is the standard to be applied. It was simply a phrase he used
to distinguish the scenarios of drunk drivers from that of someone
shooting at others. Such a distinction should not even need to be
articulated in intelligent discussion.
> >>>> And if it is so "low", then why is Drunk Driving per se punnished,
> >>>> instead of punishing only those that actually cause
> >>>> accidents/harm/death, eh?
> >>>
> >>> It's not "so" low as to be unworthy of punishment.
> >>
> >> Are all behaviors that carry a "very low risk" to others punished ?
> >
> > No.
> >
> >>>>> and there are still very effective means of
> >>>>> stopping the driver short of killing him.
> >>>>
> >>>> As is the case with many police killings of civilians, there
> >>>> are very effective means of stopping the perps, short of killing
> >>>> them, yet the U$ cowardly cops kill not because they must, but
> >>>> because policy states they can.
> >>>
> >>> What's your argument? Police sometimes kill then they don't have to
> >>> so everyone should shoot drunk drivers?
> >>
> >> Close, Señor Obtuso , but the point is that the objective standard of
> >> "imminent danger" should be the same for cops and civilians alike.
> >
> > If I agree with you, will you concede that it is and should be
> > illegal to kill someone because he's drunk and about to drive a car?
>
> The hypo wasn't "about to drive drunk", it was actually driving drunk.
>
> So you think Joe Schmoe citizen can perform a PITT maneuver on the perp,
> to save lives down the road, even if it takes a life during the execution?
If a drunk driver was imminently about to kill an innocent bystander,
and was going to keep on killing other innocent bystanders, and the only
way to prevent the deaths was to shoot the driver, then perhaps it would
be justified. But that's as close an analogy you can get to what
Charles Whitman did.
• UltraMan •
The "only" way?
Is that the standard cops use when they shoot to kill?
Or is shooting/killing just the most convenient way ?
• UltraMan •
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:>>>>> "Ą UltraMan Ą" <ul...@man.jp> wrote
Riiiight. We can't forget offense to the "peace and dignity" of the collective
... whatever the fuck that
means beyond ritualistic recitation.
• UltraMan •
Then neither is a fleeing felony suspect.
> He may be a
> suspect because of his driving, but we don't allow an open season on
> suspects unless they are an imminent danger.
Really? So how is mere flight from an alleged felony an "imminent danger" ?
> Most drunk drivers don't kill anyone.
Yeah, we covered this already. Most Armed Robbers don't kill anyone either.
>Enough do that we haul them into court when we find
> them.
So punish the vast majority for the bad acts of the few, eh?
Betwixt what ?
• UltraMan •
Playing ignorant again Larry, or another acute outbreak ?
Deadrat
news:5kserfF...@mid.individual.net:
By definition an armed robber is committing a crime that threatens
another person with imminent death. A drunk driver poses an added risk
to others.
>>Enough do that we haul them into court when we find
>> them.
>
> So punish the vast majority for the bad acts of the few, eh?
We don't punish drunk drivers for the drinks other drivers take. You get
popped only for your own drinking.
Between the rock of my logic and the hard place of my wit.
_ Prof. Jonez _
And if they watched them become intoxicated in the bar, and followed them out
to their car ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
Denial and delusion ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
Lynette Fromme hasn't shot at anyone since 1975,
and Edward Howard Maps hasn't lit any houses on fire since 1962.
Deadrat
Call the cops or roll 'em for their keys. The latter should be easy
since they're drunk. Still can't shoot 'em.
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
Good for you! Admitting that you have a problem is the first step, but
you may still post here while you're getting that help.
Larry
Michael Ejercito
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote innews:5koh2jF...@mid.individual.net:
>
>
>
> > Larry wrote:
> >> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sep 10, 11:56 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
> >>>> Michael Ejercito <mejer...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> >>>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of Texas,
> >>>>> Austin and started shooting people from the top of a tower. Police
> >>>>> went in and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The homicide of
> >>>>> Charles Whitman was ruled justifiable.
>
> >>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it be
> >>>>> justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk, since
> >>>>> they endanger other people's lives just as Charles Whitman
> >>>>> endangered the lives of people at UTA?
>
> >>>>> Michael
>
> >>>> Even though this is probably a rhetorical question, I'll answer it
> >>>> anyway. Whitman had already killed a number of people before he
> >>>> himself was killed. Most drunk drivers don't kill anyone, so the
> >>>> danger isn't proximate enough for preemptive killing.
> >>> So if someone starts shooting from a tower, it is wrong to kill
> >>> him UNTIL he kills someone first?
>
> >> It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent risk.
>
> > The moment he starts that car, while drunk, he puts people at imminent
> > risk.
>
> Since most drunk drivers don't kill people, this statement is false. If
> shoot out the tires.
>
Most rapists do not kill their victims.
Why is it justified to kill them to stop rape?
Michael
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>
> W had a DUI in 1976, and Cheney in 1962.
>
> And *that's* what you want held against them?
Fine with you, eh larry?
For the record, Cheney had two DUIs. And Bush was 30 when he was convicted
of his - no spring chicken.
Deadrat
news:1189778657.1...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
Why is it justifiable homicide to kill them? Because the law says so.
Why does the law say so? For the reasons you already know.
Why is it morally acceptable to kill them? Try alt.ethics.
If you want to make your analogy applicable to the thread, consider why
it is illegal to kill a rapist lurking in the bushes waiting for a
victim.
>
>
> Michael
>
>
Deadrat
> In article <x-D2B39C.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>
>> W had a DUI in 1976, and Cheney in 1962.
Watch your attributions. Larry didn't write that; I did.
>>
>> And *that's* what you want held against them?
>
> Fine with you, eh larry?
>
> For the record, Cheney had two DUIs. And Bush was 30 when he was
> convicted of his - no spring chicken.
Drunk driving is never "fine," but complaining about the old DUIs of this
pair is like denigrating Nero for his violin playing.
_ Prof. Jonez _
And when they kill someone before the cops get done with their jelly donuts and
coffee ?
> or roll 'em for their keys.
Assaulty and Battery ... yeah, that's the ticket.
> The latter should be easy since they're drunk. Still can't shoot 'em.
And if they resist, violently, your attempts to mug them for their keys,
and you kill them in that struggle?
The topic of the thread is whether you can KILL them, the method
of doing so is largely irrelevant.
_ Prof. Jonez _
>>> "Ą UltraMan Ą" <ul...@man.jp> wrote in
>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>> "Ą UltraMan Ą" <ul...@man.jp> wrote in
>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ą UltraMan Ą" <ul...@man.jp> wrote in
>>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Ą UltraMan Ą" <ul...@man.jp> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Ą UltraMan Ą" <ul...@man.jp> wrote
<deadrat standing in front of mirror>
> Good for you! Admitting that you have a problem is the first step,
> but you may still post here while you're getting that help.
<end deadrat's morning self-affirmation ritual>
_ Prof. Jonez _
You better enlist for Analogy Refresher 101 classes.
The drunk driver is already IN the car, actively committing the crime,
activly endangering the lives and limbs of everyone else.
If you want your erroneous analogy to be applicable,
consider why it IS legal to kill a rapist who has already
captured and subdued his victim and it about to, but hasn't
quite yet, inserted his turgid member into her submissive passion
pit ...
>
>>
>>
>> Michael
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>> Deadrat wrote:
>>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS <xeto...@yahoo.com> wrote
How many people has Lynette Fromme killed, ever?
How many people has Ted Kennedy killed ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
Does G aWol Bu$h even know how to play a musical instrument ?
tjab
Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote in news:fce6cf$6...@rac1.wam.umd.edu:
>
>> In article <x-D2B39C.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
>> Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> W had a DUI in 1976, and Cheney in 1962.
>
>Watch your attributions. Larry didn't write that; I did.
Sorry, Larry.
Deadrat
Then it's not your problem, is it?
>> or roll 'em for their keys.
>
> Assaulty and Battery ... yeah, that's the ticket.
I think you meant assaulty and batter.
>> The latter should be easy since they're drunk. Still can't shoot
>> 'em.
>
> And if they resist, violently, your attempts to mug them for their
> keys, and you kill them in that struggle?
Then you didn't do it right.
> The topic of the thread is whether you can KILL them, the method
> of doing so is largely irrelevant.
You can't kill them or even KILL them. The topic includes alternatives
to killing (or KILLING, if you prefer). One can always come up with a
hypothetical in which taking keys from a drunk results in his death.
Check that. I should have said *you* can always come up with such a
hypothetical.
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
My, but you do have an active fantasy life. Or, as they say in the biz,
a cry for help.
Deadrat
@mid.individual.net:
OK, the rapist is actively stalking his victim and even has in hand the
rope with which to bind her.
>
> If you want your erroneous analogy to be applicable,
> consider why it IS legal to kill a rapist who has already
> captured and subdued his victim and it about to, but hasn't
> quite yet, inserted his turgid member into her submissive passion
> pit ...
It's legal because they passed a law that says so. They passed a law
that says so because in the wisdom of the legislators, deadly force is an
appropriate response to violent actions that are about to cause imminent,
serious harm.
If you think that deadly force is wrong in these circumstances, write
your state legislators and post to alt.ethics.
If you think that nearly-concluded rape and drunk driving are the same,
get help for your cognitive problem.
"Turgid member"? "Submissive passion pit"?
Get help anyway.
>>> Michael
>
>
>
_ Prof. Jonez _
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote
-- RataMuerte
Correctomundo ... why didn't you say so about a dozen or so posts earlier ?
>
> If you think that deadly force is wrong in these circumstances, write
> your state legislators and post to alt.ethics.
>
> If you think that nearly-concluded rape and drunk driving are the
> same, get help for your cognitive problem.
Would you rather be raped, or killed by a drunk driver ?
>
> "Turgid member"?
Illegal to possess in public.
>"Submissive passion pit"?
You prefer another term of endearment ?
Something from Chaucer perhaps ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
Yes, he is.
Larry
Michael Ejercito <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Who said it is?
Larry
wrote:
It's not at all fine with me. But you have to keep perspective and
consider both the recency and severity of the charge.
Larry
So you think pointing the gun at someone and pulling the trigger is of
the same severity as drunk driving?
>
> How many people has Ted Kennedy killed ?
Depends how you define killed, I would think. Not that I'm a Teddy
supporter, but its certainly something that would be debated.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> Michael Ejercito <meje...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 11, 6:41 pm, Deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:
>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@jonez.net> wrote
Are you claiming it's not?
Larry
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>
> The topic of the thread is whether you can KILL them, the method
> of doing so is largely irrelevant.
If that's the topic of the thread, it should have ended awhile back,
since you CANNOT legally kill a drunk driver without other aggravating
circumstances.
Larry
Morally or legally? Because legally, it depends on the jurisdiction you
are in.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> In article <5l02inF...@mid.individual.net>,
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
>>
>> The topic of the thread is whether you can KILL them, the method
>> of doing so is largely irrelevant.
>
> If that's the topic of the thread,
Funny, the very subject line of *your* post is:
"Killing Drunk Drivers Justifiable Homicide?"
Read much, eh Larry?
>it should have ended awhile back,
> since you CANNOT legally kill a drunk driver without other aggravating
> circumstances.
So you can legally kill a drunk driver, eh Larry ?
_ Prof. Jonez _
So then you already knew the affirmative answer to the
nuisance question you posed above.
Typical distractive discussion tactics from a prevaricating prosecutor
like you Larry.
_ Prof. Jonez _
So you aren't for Borking nominees to the SCOTUS ...
or Swiftboating presidential candidates then either, eh Larry?
Larry
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> Larry wrote:
> > In article <5l02inF...@mid.individual.net>,
> > "_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> The topic of the thread is whether you can KILL them, the method
> >> of doing so is largely irrelevant.
> >
> > If that's the topic of the thread,
>
> Funny, the very subject line of *your* post is:
> "Killing Drunk Drivers Justifiable Homicide?"
1) It's not my thread.
2) As you know quite well, from your own doing, threads often veer off
the topic of the subject line.
> Read much, eh Larry?
Yes, quite a bit.
> >it should have ended awhile back,
> > since you CANNOT legally kill a drunk driver without other aggravating
> > circumstances.
>
> So you can legally kill a drunk driver, eh Larry ?
Not without aggravating circumstances. Certainly not the way the OP
posited the question.
Larry
I did not know whether anyone was claiming it is justifiable or not.
> Typical distractive discussion tactics from a prevaricating prosecutor
> like you Larry.
How is it prevaricating for me to say whether it is justifiable or not
depends on the law of the jurisdiction where the act is occurring?
_ Prof. Jonez _
As pointing a 3000lb missile, putting it in gear and hitting the throttle ?
>>
>> How many people has Ted Kennedy killed ?
>
> Depends how you define killed, I would think.
Dead due to the direct or proximate action(s) of another?
> Not that I'm a Teddy supporter, but its certainly something that would be
> debated.
Debate away, prosecutor.
Larry
Larry
If a driver - drunk or otherwise - intentionally points their vehicle at
someone, puts it in gear, and hits the throttle, they're committing
crimes other than DWI, and when that happens, killing them after taking
the actions you describe above would be justified.
> >> How many people has Ted Kennedy killed ?
> >
> > Depends how you define killed, I would think.
>
> Dead due to the direct or proximate action(s) of another?
>
>
> > Not that I'm a Teddy supporter, but its certainly something that would be
> > debated.
>
> Debate away, prosecutor.
No thanks, I'm not interested. I think Ted caused her death.