Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

flamin lib

(14,559 posts)
2. From your own excert they were running away.
Tue Aug 1, 2017, 11:31 PM
Aug 2017

No longer a threat. Police can't shoot under those circumsrances. Stand your ground laws don't apply in those situations.

So, yeah, it was a criminal use of force.

As the suspects fled. RandySF Aug 2017 #1
From your own excert they were running away. flamin lib Aug 2017 #2
Artical is not clear on the details... virginia mountainman Aug 2017 #3
Why would you have to shoot at someone running away? Eko Aug 2017 #4
Me? out on the street? I wont.. Unless you're pointing a gun at me as you run... virginia mountainman Aug 2017 #5
Whatever, Eko Aug 2017 #6
Revenge code don't apply to me. virginia mountainman Aug 2017 #9
And I wold never, ever, ever Eko Aug 2017 #7
Who said I would shoot at an "unknown target"? virginia mountainman Aug 2017 #8
Dunno if you noticed, but this Monroe guy isn't even named AS THE HOMEOWNER ... mr_lebowski Aug 2017 #14
It says " sarisataka Aug 2017 #11
Not only does it not say Monroe is the homeowner ... it doesn't even say he's not one of the 3 mr_lebowski Aug 2017 #15
The article doesn't say sarisataka Aug 2017 #10
"Shots were fired as the suspects fled." Straw Man Aug 2017 #12
I must say I find the 'gist' here rather hard to believe ... mr_lebowski Aug 2017 #13
Judging by the discussion on this, the NRA will have a field day using this as "proof" of what will Nitram Aug 2017 #16
I suppose you could oppose any restriction sarisataka Aug 2017 #17
I don't. Nitram Aug 2017 #21
IMHO, you, me or anyone... discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #18
guns already are regulated in the US, gejohnston Aug 2017 #19
"the most tightly regulated consumer product in the US." That is patently false. Nitram Aug 2017 #22
Cars and guns. Straw Man Aug 2017 #23
There are no restrictions on openly carrying a firearm in public in Virginia. Nitram Aug 2017 #24
yes but owning a gun is a right, driving is not gejohnston Aug 2017 #26
In a "well regulated militia." Nitram Aug 2017 #55
And who is the militia? discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #58
"When properly formed..." Nitram Aug 2017 #60
yes and no, gejohnston Aug 2017 #61
No, the National Guards were what became of the militias, which were originally conceived to protect Nitram Aug 2017 #63
I said that gejohnston Aug 2017 #66
No, you did not say that. You said, "The National Guard and Reserves are simply reserve forces..." Nitram Aug 2017 #67
They are, gejohnston Aug 2017 #68
It does not say THE PEOPLE have a right. It says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary Nitram Aug 2017 #69
The New Yorker is wrong, gejohnston Aug 2017 #70
Like the guy who has 5 cars that he never drives off his property so he doesn't have to Nitram Aug 2017 #72
Your point? gejohnston Aug 2017 #73
Interpreting of laws relies on certain principles discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #71
that isn't a restriction, gejohnston Aug 2017 #59
It isn't a restriction, it is a right. Every property-owning white man (as the Constitution Nitram Aug 2017 #62
wrong on the history. gejohnston Aug 2017 #64
You have a point, gejonston. Nitram Aug 2017 #65
But there are restrictions on concealed carry. Straw Man Aug 2017 #47
Then why do you need to pay for insurance for every vehicle you own? Nitram Aug 2017 #54
You don't. oneshooter Aug 2017 #56
If you have to use that silly argument that you don't have to pay insurance except on vehicles Nitram Aug 2017 #57
Let me type this slower. oneshooter Aug 2017 #74
That was so slow I fell asleep halfway through. Nitram Aug 2017 #76
Because comprehensive insurance also covers damage to the vehicle. Straw Man Aug 2017 #75
no it isn't. gejohnston Aug 2017 #25
Oh come on marylandblue Aug 2017 #27
many people buy a gun without ever intending to carry in public discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #28
It is in fact assumed you'll drive it public, so laws are all about driving marylandblue Aug 2017 #31
You asserted that it is assumed that most all car buyers will drive in public. discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #33
Whatever you buy, it is assumed you will use it for it's intended purpose marylandblue Aug 2017 #36
huh? gejohnston Aug 2017 #37
Huh right back marylandblue Aug 2017 #39
the CDC website under accidents gejohnston Aug 2017 #40
Yes I saw the statistics. marylandblue Aug 2017 #42
that is why I said near zero gejohnston Aug 2017 #43
Near Zero isn't zero marylandblue Aug 2017 #44
Maybe you could cut to the chase here and list what you want as law discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #48
I don't like the term "control" either marylandblue Aug 2017 #49
honest question, gejohnston Aug 2017 #50
There would only need to be one check marylandblue Aug 2017 #52
NICS is a federal program gejohnston Aug 2017 #53
Please see my embedded comments below discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #51
collectors and people who live on farms. gejohnston Aug 2017 #29
Okay, lets do it like they do in Norway marylandblue Aug 2017 #34
Actually, no gejohnston Aug 2017 #35
You raised a lot of issues at once: Some questions and responses about that marylandblue Aug 2017 #38
I read and study the issue more gejohnston Aug 2017 #41
You brought up Brazil and Mexico, so fine they aren't relevant marylandblue Aug 2017 #45
Brazil and Mexico is relevant because of their GINI coefficents gejohnston Aug 2017 #46
Stories like this is why we must remain progressive on the 2A here in the USA. ileus Aug 2017 #20
Define "progressive on the 2a" please... eom Purveyor Aug 2017 #30
pardon the intrusion discntnt_irny_srcsm Aug 2017 #32
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Unreal, Canadian being fu...»Reply #2