Nope. I never said or implied that someone pointing lasers at someone should not be charged criminally.
They can use force.
That really isnāt the question though.
Yes. But the question is can they legitimately use deadly force?
Those were the words put in my mouth, so just correcting the record.
I guess it would depend on the scenario. āLegitimatelyā in this thread seems to be a moving target. I am seeing all kinds of different scenarios posed by posters, so which one are we asking about? An officer getting his/her eyes gouged out? An officer one hundred yards away having a laser pointed in his/her direction? An officer maybe about to be blinded but not actively being blinded? An airline pilot having a laser pointed at a plane?
Which one?
So officers who are attacked with a weapon that can potentially blind them for life, aggravated assault on a PO, cannot justifiably use deadly force to stop such an attack?
By any definition blindness is grave bodily harm. In all fifty states the imminent, immediate threat of grave bodily harm or death justifies the use of deadly force by either POās or by average citizens.
How can you justify taking away the ability to respond with deadly force when it is completely justifiable morally and legally?
How are you going to replace those blinded officers and those who refuse to take to the streets when this is implemented?
How about we stick to reality. You point a weapon capable of inflicting grave bodily harm or death at someone illegally it justifies the use of deadly force in all 50 states.
4 Likes
Absolutely.
3 Likes
Lasers cause death?
āa weapon capable of inflicting grave bodily harm or deathā
Reading is fundamental.
1 Like
Lasers can cause death? Iāll answer: No, they cannot. Tell me what is the probability of them causing grave bodily harm in the scenario provided? Then tell me how many people in that exact scenario have been blinded by a laser?
To charge a person pointing a laser at someone, I reckon one would have to show some intent to cause such bodily harm or that their act was reckless, meaning their substantial understanding that a result (blindness) was likely to occur.
I wonāt argue that the injury may occur, but I am playing devilās advocate by saying that this wonāt hold up in court as a good shoot. That sucks, but based on the scenario, I fear that would be the outcome.
Iāll ask you if you would use lethal force if someone pointed a laser at you from a crowd in the darkā¦ put yourself in that scenario and ask if thatās a justified use of force.
Quote me a statistic that verifies this is an imminent threat of bodily harm. Quote a number of how many people have been blinded in this exact scenario.
Now, ask yourself: If you were looking into a crowd at night and a laser was near you and you knew it was a laser, would you shoot into the crowd? Yes or no. You sure of your target and beyond? You certain that what you are pointing your weapon at is what you intend to destroy? Couple range rules might come into play thereā¦ and in court.
Just a laser pointer, right?
2 Likes
Nope. Not at all. Are we moving the goalposts again? That is a bit silly, donāt you think? No one has mentioned or even implicated that an officer would not be justified if presented with that level of force. Fail.
If all an officer sees or can discern is a laser pointed at them, how do they know what mark posted is not what is actually being pointed at them?
They may be far enough way that identification of āitās just a laserā is impossible. Maybe like mark said, ājust a laser pointerā is not always an easy identification.
Your first sentecnce is the best question in this whole thread. Answer? They couldnāt identify an article in those conditions. It IS impossible under the conditions in this scenario to tell what was being pointed at the officers. So does that make the use of lethal force more or less justifiable?
Letās get all back on center, shall we? I want everyone to go back to the first post and watch the video. Under those exact circumstances, with only that information available to you (if you were in the camera personās shoes), would you shoot? No moving the goalposts, no extra, additional information, no ābut what if x, y or z is occurring?ā ONLY WITH THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO YOU IN THE SHORT VIDEO CLIPā¦ would you shoot? yea or nay.
Try reading what I actually wrote, respond accordingly and then we can have a discussion.
How about we stick to reality. You point a weapon capable of inflicting grave bodily harm or death at someone illegally it justifies the use of deadly force in all 50 states.
If I were one of the actual officers standing there? I would not shoot live rounds. I would however not stand there and take that ā ā ā ā ā By doing so you are asking those officers to allow the protestors to physically harm/maim them while offering no resistance.
Thatās not going to fly in my world. You want to play the game, you get to reap the consequences, whatever those consequences may end up being. I donāt however think death should be one of them.
Iām feeling magnanimous tonight. Maybe we could just blind the little ā ā ā ā ā ā ā for life right back? Sound fair?
