Do you believe "unarmed"= no threat, when debating the use of deadly force?

[poorpreacher]

We have heard it over and over again, after a shooting. "She was unarmed and not a threat to anyone".

The implication is that you must-be threatened, with a visible weapon, before deadly force is justified.

I disagree with that, but I'm curious how you you all feel.

Great bodily harm can be accomplished without a gun or knife,in my opinion.

 

[blackout2435]

Completely agree.

Ironically I just got done reading multiple people on social media referring to the Atlanta “cop city” protestor as an “unarmed peaceful protestor who was shot 57 times by police”. The same protestor who was armed and shot a GSP Trooper…

So it ultimately doesn’t matter if they’re armed or not because many of these morons will just disregard facts altogether.

 

[Dirty Hairy Dawg]

I tend to give the benefit of a doubt to the guys that would run in when others are running out or would do their duty and intervene in a dispute between some very unsavory people. Having said that, I don't believe a person must possess a gun or knife to be a threat but I would want to see some compelling evidence that the person either posed a threat to the officers or other innocents or was mimicking a person with a weapon before I completely excused an officer for killing or maiming an unarmed perp.

 

[Dawg 'n IT]

We have heard it over and over again, after a shooting. "She was unarmed and not a threat to anyone".

The implication is that you must-be threatened, with a visible weapon, before deadly force is justified.

I disagree with that, but I'm curious how you you all feel.

Great bodily harm can be accomplished without a gun or knife,in my opinion.

Our entire existence is built on lies accepted as truth, confusion, and semantics.

There's really no such thing as being unarmed when it comes to being a threat against another.

There is such a thing as being unarmed if the scope of the word "armed" specifically refers to being in possession of an object deemed a weapon.

A person or group of people can absolutely use their bodies as weapons against others which is why I said there’s really no such thing as being unarmed.

I believe this is part of the reason SYG laws include wording that considers if a person feels their life or another's life is in danger. The truth is that there are many ways we can threaten to harm others and only focusing on someone holding a specific group of objects to consider them armed is shortsighted.

If you have house keys in your pocket you are armed. If you're gardening in your yard with garden tools you are armed. If you beat someone then you are armed.

Armed/unarmed is used to control a narrative.

 

[BonJax]

I am 67 years old. If someone younger and stronger attacks me and I am able, I will shoot his ass. I’m too old to take an ass whipping.

 

[Bells76]

Hell no. It doesn’t take a gun to harm someone annd sometimes it’s impossible to determine if they anre carrying a weapon or not. Everyone has a God-given right to self defense.

 

[Bells76]

I am 67 years old. If someone younger and stronger attacks me and I am able, I will shoot his ass. I’m too old to take an ass whipping.

Lol, I’m 54 and feel the same

 

[Dafinus02]

We have heard it over and over again, after a shooting. "She was unarmed and not a threat to anyone".

The implication is that you must-be threatened, with a visible weapon, before deadly force is justified.

I disagree with that, but I'm curious how you you all feel.

Great bodily harm can be accomplished without a gun or knife,in my opinion.

Not going to lie some of yall sound nuts. I’m active duty military and completed 3 tours in Iraq and another one in Afghanistan. Even in a combat zone where we are constantly being ambushed we still had ROE’s and EOF’s that we had to follow. The whole “felt threatened” thing when someone is unarmed from a cop is complete BS.

 

[poorpreacher]

Not going to lie some of yall sound nuts. I’m active duty military and completed 3 tours in Iraq and another one in Afghanistan. Even in a combat zone where we are constantly being ambushed we still had ROE’s and EOF’s that we had to follow. The whole “felt threatened” thing when someone is unarmed from a cop is complete BS.

1. Thank you for your service
2. I don't understand anything else in your post.

 

[shonuff253]

1. Thank you for your service
2. I don't understand anything else in your post.

You don't read so good?

 

[Athens is Heaven]

1. Thank you for your service
2. I don't understand anything else in your post.

And I don’t agree with anything else he posted.

 

[808 Dawg]

Feeling threatened and being in imminent danger can be two vastly different situations. Feeling threatened is not justification for shooting someone. Being in imminent danger, certainly is. Personally, I don't give sh*t how someone feels in this type of situation. Is there evidence of imminent danger? If so, do what you have to do to protect yourself. If not, don't fire your weapon.

 

[Athens is Heaven]

Feeling threatened and being in imminent danger can be two vastly different situations. Feeling threatened is not justification for shooting someone. Being in imminent danger, certainly is. Personally, I don't give sh*t how someone feels in this type of situation. Is there evidence of imminent danger? If so, do what you have to do to protect yourself. If not, don't fire your weapon

If you do pull your weapon be ready to use it otherwise just keep it hidden.

 

[BonJax]

The first thing you have to understand when you carry is that you are now an adult. All the silly shit that pisses you off can no longer do so. Somebody flips the bird? Shake it off. Somebody calls you a poltroon ? Just laugh and walk away.

Do anything you can to avoid pulling your weapon. If necessary, I’d go for the switchblade first and if that doesn’t work, as a last resort pull the artillery.
But no, shooting someone because they are the wrong color, or making too much noise, etc. is the wrong answer.

 

[stray]

Not going to lie some of yall sound nuts. I’m active duty military and completed 3 tours in Iraq and another one in Afghanistan. Even in a combat zone where we are constantly being ambushed we still had ROE’s and EOF’s that we had to follow. The whole “felt threatened” thing when someone is unarmed from a cop is complete BS.

Does that go for Lt Michael Byrd as well? Asking for a friend.

 

[poorpreacher]

You don't read so good?

I read reasonably well. Maybe you can explain what his last sentence means or how combat zones apply to this discussion. However those situations are handled don't seem to be relevant.

I read ok, but don't know what ROE stands for, or EOF.

 

[KidneyStoned]

Not going to lie some of yall sound nuts. I’m active duty military and completed 3 tours in Iraq and another one in Afghanistan. Even in a combat zone where we are constantly being ambushed we still had ROE’s and EOF’s that we had to follow. The whole “felt threatened” thing when someone is unarmed from a cop is complete BS.

They sound nuts because they ARE nuts.

 

[poorpreacher]

You don't read so good?

It's "well" not "good". Please question my ability to read in a grammatically correct manner.

 

[Dafinus02]

I read reasonably well. Maybe you can explain what his last sentence means or how combat zones apply to this discussion. However those situations are handled don't seem to be relevant.

I read ok, but don't know what ROE stands for, or EOF.

Im simply stating that in a combat zone where we are aware that people are trying to kill us we still have Rules of Engagements that we must follow. Being over there didnt give us the right to just shoot and kill whoever because we felt like they "could" be a threat. Wasnt uncommon to see men women and children holding AK-47's as we were in and out of some these villages. We never knew exactly who was friendly or who wasnt. But even in that case until they posed a legit threat to our lives we weren't authorized to use deadly force.

 

[poorpreacher]

Im simply stating that in a combat zone where we are aware that people are trying to kill us we still have Rules of Engagements that we must follow. Being over there didnt give us the right to just shoot and kill whoever because we felt like they "could" be a threat. Wasnt uncommon to see men women and children holding AK-47's as we were in and out of some these villages. We never knew exactly who was friendly or who wasnt. But even in that case until they posed a legit threat to our lives we weren't authorized to use deadly force.

Completely agree with that.

My thought is that, a person doesn't have to be pointing a gun to be a threat to life. There all all kinds of scenarios where this would be evident. But the media sends out a very different message.

 

[stray]

Completely agree with that.

My thought is that, a person doesn't have to be pointing a gun to be a threat to life. There all all kinds of scenarios where this would be evident. But the media sends out a very different message.

https://www.police1.com/officer-saf...s-behind-some-ois-headlines-17xQeMIyZn1pR1yK/

This article based on research should hit the nail on the head. Does a good job of showing how the media loves to create division and drama through hyperbole and deception instead of investigating and reporting facts.

 

[zingerdawg]

Im simply stating that in a combat zone where we are aware that people are trying to kill us we still have Rules of Engagements that we must follow. Being over there didnt give us the right to just shoot and kill whoever because we felt like they "could" be a threat. Wasnt uncommon to see men women and children holding AK-47's as we were in and out of some these villages. We never knew exactly who was friendly or who wasnt. But even in that case until they posed a legit threat to our lives we weren't authorized to use deadly force.

I think the difference(thank you for your service) is in the training. I am torn with this one. You can’t just go around shooting people that may look threatening. I get what you are saying. You have to establish the threat. The different levels of fear depending on the size of who you are around. Even your gender, may lead to action quicker than normal. I think the question is legitimate. When is it ok? And it can’t be based on military or police training. Yes, I believe that training allows you to be more rule driven when deciding this. You really feel like that is a crazy question. Examples of this contradiction happen every single day in this country. Jmo.

 

[Pecanman]

Shonuff , you don’t comprehend so good.

 

[Dafinus02]

Completely agree with that.

My thought is that, a person doesn't have to be pointing a gun to be a threat to life. There all all kinds of scenarios where this would be evident. But the media sends out a very different message.

Yes this is true but how do you police the people who are just bad people who for whatever reason want to cause someone else harm and hide behind the "I felt threatened" and individuals who may actually feel threatened if the person shot or killed didnt posses a weapon of some sort? Its a very slippery slope.

 

[poorpreacher]

Yes this is true but how do you police the people who are just bad people who for whatever reason want to cause someone else harm and hide behind the "I felt threatened" and individuals who may actually feel threatened if the person shot or killed didnt posses a weapon of some sort? Its a very slippery slope.

Details matter.

For example, in Florida, a woman shot through her locked front door, and killed an unarmed neighbor, because she "felt threatened". In my opinion thats ridiculous and she should go to jail. There was a DOOR between them. If you are scared, call 911. But there was no immediate danger, that justified that shot.

If my wife is suddenly attacked by an unarmed guy who is 6'5", 300 pounds,and she shoots him, that's a different situation.

So you have to look at the details and prosecute, when "I felt threatened" doesn't add up.

 

[SLC_Dawg]

Stop the argument. If threatened with “serious bodily harm” may be good to shoot Or you may not. If it’s a small woman or child, your argument certainly isn’t going to stand up. The law is tricky on many points, and you shouldn’t take my advice but you should watch Critical Mas with Massad Ayoob on YouTube. the former Sheriff in NH is considered an expert witness in shooting trials. Moreover, you should never post anything online about shooting someone.