Lucky
Member
Wait a second, the finest legal minds on THR have declared, and with ample supporting references, that the force used against Rodney King was justified. This kid was ARRESTING the criminal, who resisted. End of story.
right?
Whatever the kid did earlier, is irrelevant. Period. He was victimized, reversed the situation, and subdued the assailant.
Anyone who ever, EVER posted in other threads saying not to 'second guess' you know who because 'they weren't there' and 'it's complicated situation', had better step up REAL quick here and prove themselves. I hope.
For everyone else, think about how YOU would be written up if YOU had to defend yourself. You the good guy, is victimized, turns it around, then attempts to LEGALLY ARREST the assailant. This is a GOOD THING, it is a CIVIC DUTY, it prevents the assailant from VICTIMIZING YOUR NEIGHBORS. The assailant struggles, the man who TRIED TO DO YOU HARM. Yet if you use force on him, YOU will be the one punished.
In Canada the law says 'reasonable' force may be used, but the safe bet is called 'proportional' force. Either way when a man tries to kill you, which is what POINTING A GUN AT YOU is, anything short of killing him back is both reasonable and proportional, actually it's technically rather restrained. How can anyone here POSSIBLY know that the assailant was not physically resisting the legal arrest? What are the odds he didn't try to get away? You use an impact weapon you use an impact weapon, *** does it matter if it's a baton or a butt. Except to people who think they're better than the rest, and XYZ's don't have the same basic rights.
This is ****ING WRONG. I'm glad so many people here know that, but mournful that so many can't see past the stupid labels. "Well he's an XYZ so he's different from me and basic truths no longer apply."
right?
Whatever the kid did earlier, is irrelevant. Period. He was victimized, reversed the situation, and subdued the assailant.
Anyone who ever, EVER posted in other threads saying not to 'second guess' you know who because 'they weren't there' and 'it's complicated situation', had better step up REAL quick here and prove themselves. I hope.
For everyone else, think about how YOU would be written up if YOU had to defend yourself. You the good guy, is victimized, turns it around, then attempts to LEGALLY ARREST the assailant. This is a GOOD THING, it is a CIVIC DUTY, it prevents the assailant from VICTIMIZING YOUR NEIGHBORS. The assailant struggles, the man who TRIED TO DO YOU HARM. Yet if you use force on him, YOU will be the one punished.
In Canada the law says 'reasonable' force may be used, but the safe bet is called 'proportional' force. Either way when a man tries to kill you, which is what POINTING A GUN AT YOU is, anything short of killing him back is both reasonable and proportional, actually it's technically rather restrained. How can anyone here POSSIBLY know that the assailant was not physically resisting the legal arrest? What are the odds he didn't try to get away? You use an impact weapon you use an impact weapon, *** does it matter if it's a baton or a butt. Except to people who think they're better than the rest, and XYZ's don't have the same basic rights.
This is ****ING WRONG. I'm glad so many people here know that, but mournful that so many can't see past the stupid labels. "Well he's an XYZ so he's different from me and basic truths no longer apply."