Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (198487)	4/10/2021 8:04:07 PM
From: Mannie	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356192

Good example...at the Capitol, the police/secret service had to stop the breach of the chamber immediately or risk losing control. They were there to protect the legislators, including the Vice President. Without that one shot, they would have been most likely been overrun.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (198487)	4/10/2021 10:20:52 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 356192

>> a crowd of people bash in your door, will you or she refrain from shooting the first invader who enters your home till you know their breaking in is a real threat? This is apples and oranges, and and an entirely inapt comparison. A cop has a responsibility to behave according to a particular code or set of rules for when lethal force is allowed, and the bar is pretty high for shooting someone. Individuals in their home, upon finding someone there who shouldn’t be, has an inherent right to self defense. However, in most states, you must Not be the aggressor; Only use enough force to combat the threat and no more (i.e. you can't bring a gun to a fistfight); Have a reasonable belief that force is necessary; Have a reasonable belief that an attack is imminent; andRetreat (if possible). Hence, even under the more relaxed concept of home ownership, that cop committed a crime. And in fact, he met only condition (1) and the other four were not met. Again we are talking about two different legal structures, but even homeowners in most states have essential requirements to be met. There is zero evidence that Babbitt intended to harm anyone, most importantly, she brought no weapon, would not reasonably have expected to encounter anyone in a position of political authority, was not associated with any group that would or could provide tactical support, and had no history of violence. She was simply there to exercise her constitutional right to protest.