Different rules apply for cops.

They certainly seem to, and I cannot support the distinction made in their favor.

Different rules apply for cops.

They certainly seem to, and I cannot support the distinction made in their favor.

The definition of seem: “Give the impression of being something.””

Rather than making a decision on an impression, would it be better to have a thorough grasp of the various facts before deciding not to support something?

Some would think so …

In almost no state are you justified in using lethal force to stop a butt whooping.

How do we know this maniac was going to stop with a butt whooping?

The guy was "in a rage" and "standing in the middle of the street blocking traffic". He took off his belt (a lethal weapon) and approached the car.

Unless you started the fight, why should any armed individual have to tolerate a butt whooping? Bad ruling.

When you talk about self-defense shooting, the phrase “I was in fear of my life” gets thrown around a lot. Some will even try and argue that you can use that argument to justify almost any shooting, that as long as you can say you were scared then a jury will let you off the hook.

I was with ya until I read the story.

The guy was INSIDE a car when he shot out the window to hit the guy that he THOUGHT was GOING to harm him.

He had the option of keeping his window rolled up and just driving away.

Granted,he,as well as everyone else should have a reasonable expectation he can leave a bar at night and not be attacked,but it ain't like he was cornered in an alley.

It's really pretty basic,if you don't HAVE to shoot,you DON'T shoot.

Rather than making a decision on an impression, would it be better to have a thorough grasp of the various facts before deciding not to support something?

Some would think so …

No. We live in a complex world, and we only have the time to be really good and deeply informed about the things that we are directly engaged with in our lives: our jobs, our families, etc.

Nevertheless, as citizens and voters, we have absolute power over the way the country is run. WE, not the professionals, are the ultimate deciders, through our votes.

It is therefore incumbent on the professionals who depend on us: our financial support, our voting support and our goodwill, to do everything possible to inform us, and to serve us in the way that we wish to be served.

In particular, it is incumbent on them to practice good public relations, to make it such that we have confidence in what they are doing. This is done in a variety of ways, but it is THEIR responsibility to make the effort and put on the show to satisfy US.

It is NOT our responsibility to withhold our judgment, withhold exercising our power as the sovereign: voters, taxpayers - until we have all of the facts. That would mean, in effect, that we simply stayed home, did not vote, did not force change when we don't like the appearance of something, because we can never be as well informed as the insiders.

However, we, not the professionals, are the insiders, and we decide, based on imperfect knowledge. It's THEIR job to keep us happy by what they generally do, to sell and promote themselves.

When they permit themselves a pattern of crappy conduct that becomes so pervasive that we take note and start turning against them, THEY have the problem, and THEY need to police themselves and clean up their act and stop having even the APPEARANCE of impropriety.

We do not have the time, the inclination or the duty to be perfectly informed, but we do have the absolute power to determine what the law will be, what budgets will be, who will be favored and who will be cut off.

That is democracy in a republic.

So no, it is not our job to be perfectly or deeply informed. It's the job of the police to behave in such a manner that they are not constantly coming before the public as killers, dog-killers, corrupt criminals and 'roid raging scumbags. They have to do a much better job of policing themselves. We don't have to do anything more than we are doing. We, not they, are the sovereign. They serve us, and they had better please us, or eventually we will turn on them politically and start prosecuting them, cutting them way back, etc., as is our right.

It should not be all that hard for the cops to police themselves. They are not doing a good job of that right now, and they had better start in a hurry, or it's going to be more and more miserable to be a cop, because the public will turn on them - and we're they're boss, not the other way around. Look how the public just creamed the professional politicians of both parties by electing Trump. Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton really believed themselves entitled to power because of family, insider status, connections. They were both broken and disgraced by a public who were tired of them. We live in a democracy - in the end, the people rule.

Rather than making a decision on an impression, would it be better to have a thorough grasp of the various facts before deciding not to support something?

Some would think so …

Give it up. There is not a day that goes by without a cop shooting somebody and walking away from it free,where a "citizen" without a badge would have been arrested and sent to trial.

It's the judicial system,like every other system ever created,looking out for itself.

The guy was "in a rage" and "standing in the middle of the street blocking traffic". He took off his belt (a lethal weapon) and approached the car.

And the shooter was inside the car,shooting out the window.

No. We live in a complex world, and we only have the time to be really good and deeply informed about the things that we are directly engaged with in our lives: our jobs, our families, etc.

/..../

We do not have the time, the inclination or the duty to be perfectly informed ...

I would not feel comfortable and therefore I would not make a decision without conscious thought or on the basis of little evidence. If called upon to do so, I could express and “opinion” and I would clearly state that it was an opinion.

Thank you for responding to my post …

I will leave you with this:

Confucius said:

Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated.

A. Lee Martinez, In the Company of Ogres:

I believe it was the great ogre philosopher Gary who observed that complexity is, generally speaking, an illusion of conscious desire. All things exist in as simple a form as necessity dictates. When a thing is labeled 'complex,' that's just a roundabout way of saying you're not observant enough to understand it.

Give it up. ...

Okay....since you said so.

The guy was "in a rage" and "standing in the middle of the street blocking traffic". He took off his belt (a lethal weapon) and approached the car.

As Mr. Ketter approached Vasos’ window, Vasos said he pulled out his legally possessed gun and fired once out of fear.

And the shooter was inside the car,shooting out the window.

Sitting in a car with the window rolled up is no protection, the man in this video had a baton….the man in the article had a belt with a buckle that would do the same thing …

Sitting in a car with the window rolled up is no protection,

It is if the car is running. He is shielded and can just put the car in gear and drive off.

You NEVER kill anyone as long as there are any other options available to you.

It is if the car is running. He is shielded and can just put the car in gear and drive off.

You NEVER kill anyone as long as there are any other options available to you.

Bullshit.

I have just PROVEN to you with videos that a car window is NO shield.

Furthermore, the article stated traffic was BLOCKED so the Uber driver was not able to JUST put the car in gear and drive off.

You should NEVER make assumptions when all the facts are not available to you. Which brings me back to the point I was making on another post when you jumped in off my topic …

Bullshit.

I have just PROVEN to you with videos that a car window is NO shield.

Are you retarded,or just a drunken coward?

You must live your life in constant terror if you are in a running vehicle and are still afraid of a man coming at you with a belt wrapped around his hand,like a cast member of a NYC musical.

You just drive away,dumbass!

It is if the car is running. He is shielded and can just put the car in gear and drive off.

This assumes he was truly shielded. He was certainly reasonably shielded, but that assumes all the guy had was a fist wrapped in a belt. If he had a gun instead or in addition, then obviously a rolled up window would do no good.

To that end, this seems to have been his undoing:

Vasos testified that Mr. Ketter appeared to be in a rage, took off his belt and wrapped it around his hand in what he interpreted as a threat.

He admitted in court he knew the guy had a fist wrapped in a belt, ergo, that he had no gun in at least that hand. It seems he had no way to legitimize in court any fear that the guy had a gun.

Of course if he said the guy reached f or his waistband that may have gotten him off as it gets cops off all the time, it works well as that's the natural place for any person's hand to be more often than not.

You NEVER kill anyone as long as there are any other options available to you.

A good rule. But yes, in spite of what I said, the case does show a double standard between cops and civs. Cops are no doubt well versed in the importance of articulating a true fear of getting killed, whereas civs are not.

You just drive away,dumbass!

He COULDN'T DRIVE AWAY you stupid asshole....traffic was "blocked."

Read the article.

You always have an answer for everything....it's too bad that one cannot be rigtht sometime.

I have shown you with two videos where a car window Is no “shield.” I then called to your attention where it stated in the article that traffic was “blocked” and the Uber driver could not “drive away.” Now I will now show you here where a man was attacked and assaulted with a “belt buckle.” The victim fell and and was kicked until someone intervened to help. The attacker was later arrested on the charge of “assault with a dangerous weapon. The weapon”….police said, was the "belt buckle.

Here is different case where five men attacked three people “with a with a belt buckle on Georgia Avenue in Northwest DC.” The beating was so brutal, investigators said the two male victims were taken to the hospital.

So, don’t say a car window is “shield, don’t say a car can drive away when traffic is “blocked” and never say that a belt with a buckle cannot when used to attack someone and will not be a dangerous “felony assault.”

I’m done here….I am convinced that you are dumber than Deckard and I shall waste no more time with you. Believe whatever in the Hell you wish to …

I’m done here….I am convinced that you are dumber than Deckard and I shall waste no more time with you. Believe whatever in the Hell you wish to …

Most of all I believe you get wood at the thought of shooting someone to death.

I repeat for your stupidity....READ VERY SLOWLY....you may use your finger to follow the words:

I have shown you with two videos where a car window Is no “shield.” I then called to your attention where it stated in the article that traffic was “blocked” and the Uber driver could not “drive away.” Now I will now show you here where a man was attacked and assaulted with a “belt buckle.” The victim fell and and was kicked until someone intervened to help. The attacker was later arrested on the charge of “assault with a dangerous weapon. The weapon”….police said, was the "belt buckle.

So, don’t say a car window is “shield, don’t say a car can drive away when traffic is “blocked” and never say that a belt with a buckle cannot when used to attack someone and will not be a dangerous “felony assault.”

I have shown you with two videos where a car window Is no “shield.” I then called to your attention where it stated in the article that traffic was “blocked” and the Uber driver could not “drive away.” Now I will now show you here where a man was attacked and assaulted with a “belt buckle.” The victim fell and and was kicked until someone intervened to help. The attacker was later arrested on the charge of “assault with a dangerous weapon. The weapon”….police said, was the "belt buckle.

So, don’t say a car window is “shield, don’t say a car can drive away when traffic is “blocked” and never say that a belt with a buckle cannot when used to attack someone and will not be a dangerous “felony assault.”

I think you are just so scared you need to remain locked in your house and have everything delivered to you.

I think you are just so scared you need to remain locked in your house and have everything delivered to you.

You are free to say that, but don’t you ever again say a car window is “shield, don’t say a car can drive away when traffic is “blocked” and never say that a belt with a buckle cannot when used to attack someone and will not be a dangerous “felony assault.”

Since ...

I have shown you with two videos where a car window Is no “shield.” I then called to your attention where it stated in the article that traffic was “blocked” and the Uber driver could not “drive away.” Now I will now show you here where a man was attacked and assaulted with a “belt buckle.” The victim fell and and was kicked until someone intervened to help. The attacker was later arrested on the charge of “assault with a dangerous weapon. The weapon”….police said, was the "belt buckle.

You are free to say that, but don’t you ever again say a car window is “shield, don’t say a car can drive away when traffic is “blocked” and never say that a belt with a buckle cannot when used to attack someone and will not be a dangerous “felony assault.”

Since ...

I have shown you with two videos where a car window Is no “shield.” I then called to your attention where it stated in the article that traffic was “blocked” and the Uber driver could not “drive away.” Now I will now show you here where a man was attacked and assaulted with a “belt buckle.”

I think you should just stay at home and cower with fear so no belt buckle can launch a sneak attack on you when you're not looking.

Unless of course you are handicapped in some way and unable to defend yourself.

Since ...

I have shown you with two videos where a car window Is no “shield.” I then called to your attention where it stated in the article that traffic was “blocked” and the Uber driver could not “drive away.” Now I will now show you here where a man was attacked and assaulted with a “belt buckle.”

I have shown you with two videos where a car window Is no “shield.” I then called to your attention where it stated in the article that traffic was “blocked” and the Uber driver could not “drive away.” Now I will now show you here where a man was attacked and assaulted with a “belt buckle.”

None of that means anything to me because if someone approached me like that and started to bust out my car window,I'd go after his ass. Belt buckle ain't shit if you don't let him hit you with it.

I have shown you with two videos where a car window Is no “shield.” I then called to your attention where it stated in the article that traffic was “blocked” and the Uber driver could not “drive away.” Now I will now show you here where a man was attacked and assaulted with a “belt buckle.”

None of that means anything to me because if someone approached me like that and started to bust out my car window,I'd go after his ass. Belt buckle ain't shit if you don't let him hit you with it.

In that regard and after considering your comments….I took everything that you said …

• The individual in the vehicle had the car window to protect him.
  
• The vehicle would have been placed in gear and driven away.
  
• And the belt (with buckle) was no threatening weapon.
  

That’s all I set out to do….that’s what I did it….now I will move on.