Oh, I missed your last post!
That there is Fisking Gold!
The public is entitled to get a reasonable amount of information from the investigating department about the incident. SLCPD is stonewalling. The watch commander is wordsmithing. Something's up.
Apparently wordsmithing = using a word from 5th grade vocabulary.
Give me a break. Stonewalling? If you had a clue you would know that is ridiculous. The SLC admin is about the most liberal you will find in any department in the state. The street officers have to put up with admin and city leadership that is doesn't really like CCW or guns or any of our Utah typical red state values.
Trust me on this one. SLC admin won't go out of their way to protect a CCWer, no more than they would go out of their way to crucify one. If this shooting had happened in rural Utah, they would have just pinned a medal on the shooter and called it good. What you're seeing here is a professional department going about their jobs.
The public has a right to know.
No. Actually, you don't.
See, most people who talk about their "Right To Know" only care about stories that validate their preconceived notions. Just like the press decides that the only gun related stories that are fit to print involve bad shoots or massacres at elementary schools or other things that fit their agenda.
Once this shoot is gone over and the shooter is aquited, the press will forget about it, until the next thing comes along that they can get their knee-jerk reactions on about.
This is simply a reporting of events that took place seven days ago now. The longer they wait to release crucial information about the shooting incident, the less professionalism SLCPD is displaying.
Nope. I've never once, in my entire life, EVER, seen a newspaper report the facts of a violent encounter with anything that even approached what actually happened. And this includes situations that I was involved in myself.
A good rule of thumb. If it is about self-defense, guns, or law, and you read it in the paper, it is probably wrong.
I was once involved with a SWAT team raid where NOTHING happened. It turned out that no crime was committed. Nada. Zip. Zero. It was a false call out based upon a Federal Agent committing perjury on the search warrant. However the next day I got to read in the paper about how this SWAT raid turned up surface to air missiles, RPGs, hand grenades, and anti-tank mines.
Why? Because the paper was too lazy and stupid to check their facts. And just took the perjured information and ran with it.
So if you're expecting factual info about a shooting from the paper, keep wishing. Even if the SLCPD released a report that read like an issue of the Ayoob Files from American Handgunner, the paper would report it to say whatever mood they wanted to create in the grass eating populace anyway.
And SLCPD is a very professional department. Except for Rocky Anderson's old psych-eval guy. He sucked. Luckily professionalism is not graded by people like you.
As stated previously, the criterion is not feeling in danger. The criterion is reasonably feeling in danger of life or limb
And that tidbit out of the way, how exactly does that change anything that I've said before? Not at all. Like I said in my first post. You take something somebody said, and then chastise them for not putting down EVERYTHING.
Wee... that was fun.
Reasonable doctrine goes along with Ability, Opportunity, Immediate Threat. Obviously, unless your a troll... Then you need to be beaten over the head with it like a sack full of rocks.
When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail.
But sometimes a nail is just a nail, and then you can hammer the ever livin' hell out of it.
(and he'll come along and chastise me about this too, I'm certain, even though I usually teach hours of how to AVOID shooting people)
Your little bit of homespun wisdom is noted. However in this case, it has nothing to do with justification or not. Here in Utah we are not required to wrestle somebody if we feel that we're in danger of serious bodily harm. There is no legal requirement to meet like force with like force. No law in Utah says that you have to go hand to hand with the crazy guy filled with blood-borne pathogens, just because it makes people like Rebecca Walsh all warm and fuzzy inside.
I think he rejected it because he simply thought about the gun first.
Wow, for all of your pontificating I thought for sure you would KNOW. Well, regardless, your opinion is less than useless. Your points are duly noted, and dismissed. Thank you for sharing.
I consider myself a patient man. But I have zero patience for devil's advocates with no wisdom, facts, or original ideas, who's only argument is to slander somebody braver than they are, or question the integrity and professionalism of their betters.