No, he doesn't have the right to reach for firearms while resisting arrest. The probability of that is what justifies even if they shot him in the back while unarmed.

Easy peasy.
I thought the whole Second Amendment thing was so citizens could protect themselves from an oppressive police state. I believe you may have a point.
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
Wrong. Just another racist view that all black men are convicted felons.
No, it's only like 1/4 or 1/3 of them.

I didn't claim he was. I used the fleeing felon rule to demonstrate that a resisting or fleeing criminal can be considered a lethal threat even if unarmed and with his back turned.

Kthanks.

Try to read or think or something.
 

MAKAVELI

Well-Known Member
No, it's only like 1/4 or 1/3 of them.

I didn't claim he was. I used the fleeing felon rule to demonstrate that a resisting or fleeing criminal can be considered a lethal threat even if unarmed and with his back turned.

Kthanks.

Try to read or think or something.
They weren't under threat as the video shows. Ttku son..
 

wilberforce15

Well-Known Member
They weren't under threat as the video shows. Ttku son..
Ok, you're still not keeping up.

You don't know what a threat is.

A man fighting cops is a lethal threat, because they are armed and if they lose, they lose their guns. Ergo, any threat to their possession of the gun is a lethal threat.

In real fights, things happen fast and crazy.

If he's reaching or moving into car, that's an immediate threat to them and others, because a gun may be in there, and the car itself is a weapon.

You're really not trying to be smart, or you're just not capable.
 
Top