Inability to Understand Excessive force?
Oct 31, 2023 8:11:45 GMT -5
Post by Radrook Admin on Oct 31, 2023 8:11:45 GMT -5
Proportional Response
Self-defense law requires the response to match the threat level in question. In other words, a person can only use as much force as required to remove the threat. If the threat involves deadly force, the person defending themselves can use deadly force to counteract the threat. If the threat involves only minor force and the person claiming self-defense uses force that could cause grievous bodily harm or death, their claim of self-defense will fail.
Inability to Understand Excessive force?
Strange how certain people who are always complaining about being submitted to excessive force, suddenly can't seem to tell the difference whenever they are the ones using the excessive force-isn't it? Then, suddenly, the once simple issue becomes so profound, that it literally defies a simple definition-doesn't it?
A knee on George Floyd's neck for an extended period of time or even temporarily, is easily perceived as excessive since it wasn't really necessary in restraining the suspect. Bludgeoning a man repeatedly while he writhes in pain on the ground, such as was done to Rodney King, was clearly excessive. After all, he could have easily been subdued in a far more humane way. Absolutely no doubt about it. Right?
Yet suddenly, there is trouble in saying that a man who repeatedly punches a much weaker and smaller woman in the face, and then calmly chooses to slam her head-or face-first into the concrete pavement simply because she slap-tapped his muscular male body, is not using excessive force? Or when people are tap-dancing on an unconscious dude's skull, then suddenly, you have trouble calling it excessive force?
I mean, those dudes savaging Rodney King with their batons, and the ones holding George Floyd by sitting on his back, while the other cop had a knee on his neck, could have easily said the same thing, that he had started it.
In fact, that is the exact mentality that abusive police officers have towards those whom they abuse, that the suspects started it. Yet it doesn't always fly in a court of law, does it? It is judged to be excessive because it was unnecessary, right?
So despite your attempt to make it look complicated, it really doesn't take a rocket scientist to detect the difference between what is and what isn't excessive force, and by going around claiming otherwise, you manage to look just plain silly doing it. Worse yet, you also manage to look extremely hypocritical. You know, similar to a person who only complains when it's his ox that's getting gored, but who doesn't say shit whenever it's his ox that is doing the goring.