Killing Drunk Drivers Justifiable Homicide?

"_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
:

> Larry wrote:
>> Michael Ejercito > wrote:
>>> On Sep 10, 11:56 pm, Deadrat > wrote:
>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of Texas,
>>>>> Austin and started shooting people from the top of a tower. Police
>>>>> went in and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The homicide of
>>>>> Charles Whitman was ruled justifiable.
>>>>
>>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it be
>>>>> justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk, since
>>>>> they endanger other people's lives just as Charles Whitman
>>>>> endangered the lives of people at UTA?
>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> Even though this is probably a rhetorical question, I'll answer it
>>>> anyway. Whitman had already killed a number of people before he
>>>> himself was killed. Most drunk drivers don't kill anyone, so the
>>>> danger isn't proximate enough for preemptive killing.
>>> So if someone starts shooting from a tower, it is wrong to kill
>>> him UNTIL he kills someone first?
>>
>> It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent risk.
>
> The moment he starts that car, while drunk, he puts people at imminent
> risk.

Since most drunk drivers don't kill people, this statement is false. If
non-lethal force would do the trick, you have to go with that. Why not
shoot out the tires.

> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than that.

What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?

"¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in news:5kp97rF4r3mcU1
@mid.individual.net:

> Deadrat wrote:
>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 10, 11:56 pm, Deadrat > wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of Texas,
>>>>>>> Austin and started shooting people from the top of a tower.
>>>>>>> Police went in and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The
>>>>>>> homicide of Charles Whitman was ruled justifiable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it be
>>>>>>> justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk, since
>>>>>>> they endanger other people's lives just as Charles Whitman
>>>>>>> endangered the lives of people at UTA?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even though this is probably a rhetorical question, I'll answer it
>>>>>> anyway. Whitman had already killed a number of people before he
>>>>>> himself was killed. Most drunk drivers don't kill anyone, so the
>>>>>> danger isn't proximate enough for preemptive killing.
>>>>> So if someone starts shooting from a tower, it is wrong to kill
>>>>> him UNTIL he kills someone first?
>>>>
>>>> It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent risk.
>>>
>>> The moment he starts that car, while drunk, he puts people at
>>> imminent risk.
>>
>> Since most drunk drivers don't kill people, this statement is false.
>> If non-lethal force would do the trick, you have to go with that.
>
> Most armed robbers don't kill people either, so it it false when
> the cops/guards kill them citing "imminent risk" ?

If there was no imminent risk, e.g., the armed robber drops his gun and
raises his arms, then it's wrong for the cops to kill him. If he points
his gun at the cops, not so much.

>
>> Why not shoot out the tires.
>
> Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaa aa!
>
> Good one ...!

I live to amuse.

>>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than that.
>>
>> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
>
> So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others claiming
> a specious imminent risk ?

I'm not the one so stating. That's the law. If you want to argue about
whether cops follow the law, post to alt.law-enforcement.

"¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
:

> Deadrat wrote:
>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 11:56 pm, Deadrat > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of Texas,
>>>>>>>>> Austin and started shooting people from the top of a tower.
>>>>>>>>> Police went in and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The
>>>>>>>>> homicide of Charles Whitman was ruled justifiable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk,
>>>>>>>>> since they endanger other people's lives just as Charles
>>>>>>>>> Whitman endangered the lives of people at UTA?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even though this is probably a rhetorical question, I'll answer
>>>>>>>> it anyway. Whitman had already killed a number of people before
>>>>>>>> he himself was killed. Most drunk drivers don't kill anyone, so
>>>>>>>> the danger isn't proximate enough for preemptive killing.
>>>>>>> So if someone starts shooting from a tower, it is wrong to
>>>>>>> kill him UNTIL he kills someone first?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent risk.
>>>>>
>>>>> The moment he starts that car, while drunk, he puts people at
>>>>> imminent risk.
>>>>
>>>> Since most drunk drivers don't kill people, this statement is
>>>> false. If non-lethal force would do the trick, you have to go with
>>>> that.
>>>
>>> Most armed robbers don't kill people either, so it it false when
>>> the cops/guards kill them citing "imminent risk" ?
>>
>> If there was no imminent risk, e.g., the armed robber drops his gun
>> and raises his arms, then it's wrong for the cops to kill him. If he
>> points his gun at the cops, not so much.
>
> So if a drunk driver drops his key and moves away from the car, there
> isn't so much risk, but if he points the car down the road toward
> other vehicles, then ?

.... there's more risk. But you still can't shoot him.

>
>>>
>>>> Why not shoot out the tires.
>>>
>>> Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaa aa!
>>>
>>> Good one ...!
>>
>> I live to amuse.
>>
>>>>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than that.
>>>>
>>>> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
>>>
>>> So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others claiming
>>> a specious imminent risk ?
>>
>> I'm not the one so stating. That's the law.
>
> Are you claiming the standard of "imminent risk" is different for
> cops as opposed to civilians ?

Are you claiming that's what I'm claiming?

>> If you want to argue
>> about whether cops follow the law, post to alt.law-enforcement.
>
> It is posted there. Do pay attention.

That was my polite way of saying "and not in misc.legal."

"_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
:

> Larry wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote
>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
>>>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 11:56 pm, Deadrat > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of
>>>>>>>>>>> Texas,
>>>>>>>>>>> Austin and started shooting people from the top of a tower.
>>>>>>>>>>> Police went in and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The
>>>>>>>>>>> homicide of Charles Whitman was ruled justifiable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it
>>>>>>>>>>> be justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving
>>>>>>>>>>> drunk, since they endanger other people's lives just as
>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Whitman endangered the lives of people at UTA?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even though this is probably a rhetorical question, I'll
>>>>>>>>>> answer it anyway. Whitman had already killed a number of
>>>>>>>>>> people before he himself was killed. Most drunk drivers don't
>>>>>>>>>> kill anyone, so the danger isn't proximate enough for
>>>>>>>>>> preemptive killing.
>>>>>>>>> So if someone starts shooting from a tower, it is wrong to
>>>>>>>>> kill him UNTIL he kills someone first?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent risk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The moment he starts that car, while drunk, he puts people at
>>>>>>> imminent risk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since most drunk drivers don't kill people, this statement is
>>>>>> false. If non-lethal force would do the trick, you have to go
>>>>>> with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most armed robbers don't kill people either, so it it false when
>>>>> the cops/guards kill them citing "imminent risk" ?
>>>>
>>>> If there was no imminent risk, e.g., the armed robber drops his gun
>>>> and raises his arms, then it's wrong for the cops to kill him. If
>>>> he points his gun at the cops, not so much.
>>>
>>> So if a drunk driver drops his key and moves away from the car,
>>> there isn't so much risk, but if he points the car down the road
>>> toward other vehicles, then
>>> ?
>>
>> Then there's still a very low risk that someone's death or serious
>> injury will result,
>
> Define "low".

Not clearly and immediately leading to death or injury.

> And if it is so "low", then why is Drunk Driving per se punnished,
> instead of punishing only those that actually cause
> accidents/harm/death, eh?

It's not "so" low as to be unworthy of punishment.

>> and there are still very effective means of
>> stopping the driver short of killing him.
>
> As is the case with many police killings of civilians, there
> are very effective means of stopping the perps, short of killing them,
> yet the U$ cowardly cops kill not because they must, but because
> policy states they can.

What's your argument? Police sometimes kill then they don't have to so
everyone should shoot drunk drivers?

"¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
:

> Deadrat wrote:
>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
>>> Larry wrote:
>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote
>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 11:56 pm, Deadrat > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Texas,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Austin and started shooting people from the top of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> tower. Police went in and Whitman was killed in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gunfight. The homicide of Charles Whitman was ruled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifiable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> drunk, since they endanger other people's lives just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Whitman endangered the lives of people at UTA?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even though this is probably a rhetorical question, I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer it anyway. Whitman had already killed a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>> people before he himself was killed. Most drunk drivers
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't kill anyone, so the danger isn't proximate enough for
>>>>>>>>>>>> preemptive killing.
>>>>>>>>>>> So if someone starts shooting from a tower, it is wrong
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> kill him UNTIL he kills someone first?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent
>>>>>>>>>> risk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The moment he starts that car, while drunk, he puts people at
>>>>>>>>> imminent risk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since most drunk drivers don't kill people, this statement is
>>>>>>>> false. If non-lethal force would do the trick, you have to go
>>>>>>>> with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most armed robbers don't kill people either, so it it false when
>>>>>>> the cops/guards kill them citing "imminent risk" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there was no imminent risk, e.g., the armed robber drops his
>>>>>> gun and raises his arms, then it's wrong for the cops to kill
>>>>>> him. If he points his gun at the cops, not so much.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if a drunk driver drops his key and moves away from the car,
>>>>> there isn't so much risk, but if he points the car down the road
>>>>> toward other vehicles, then
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> Then there's still a very low risk that someone's death or serious
>>>> injury will result,
>>>
>>> Define "low".
>>
>> Not clearly and immediately leading to death or injury.
>
> Define "clearly" and describe how one would construct a working
> objective standard of same so that everyone in society, cops and
> civilians, would know they are applying an equal standard.

Argh! An essay test! I thought this was going to be multiple choice.
The task is impossible.

>>> And if it is so "low", then why is Drunk Driving per se punnished,
>>> instead of punishing only those that actually cause
>>> accidents/harm/death, eh?
>>
>> It's not "so" low as to be unworthy of punishment.
>
> Are all behaviors that carry a "very low risk" to others punished ?

No.

>>>> and there are still very effective means of
>>>> stopping the driver short of killing him.
>>>
>>> As is the case with many police killings of civilians, there
>>> are very effective means of stopping the perps, short of killing
>>> them, yet the U$ cowardly cops kill not because they must, but
>>> because policy states they can.
>>
>> What's your argument? Police sometimes kill then they don't have to
>> so everyone should shoot drunk drivers?
>
> Close, Señor Obtuso , but the point is that the objective standard of
> "imminent danger" should be the same for cops and civilians alike.

If I agree with you, will you concede that it is and should be illegal to
kill someone because he's drunk and about to drive a car?

"¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
:

> Deadrat wrote:
>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote
>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
>>>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 11:56 pm, Deadrat > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of
>>>>>>>>>>> Texas,
>>>>>>>>>>> Austin and started shooting people from the top of a tower.
>>>>>>>>>>> Police went in and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The
>>>>>>>>>>> homicide of Charles Whitman was ruled justifiable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild it
>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>> justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk,
>>>>>>>>>>> since they endanger other people's lives just as Charles
>>>>>>>>>>> Whitman endangered the lives of people at UTA?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Even though this is probably a rhetorical question, I'll
>>>>>>>>>> answer it anyway. Whitman had already killed a number of
>>>>>>>>>> people before he himself was killed. Most drunk drivers don't
>>>>>>>>>> kill anyone, so the danger isn't proximate enough for
>>>>>>>>>> preemptive killing.
>>>>>>>>> So if someone starts shooting from a tower, it is wrong to
>>>>>>>>> kill him UNTIL he kills someone first?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent risk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The moment he starts that car, while drunk, he puts people at
>>>>>>> imminent risk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since most drunk drivers don't kill people, this statement is
>>>>>> false. If non-lethal force would do the trick, you have to go
>>>>>> with that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most armed robbers don't kill people either, so it it false when
>>>>> the cops/guards kill them citing "imminent risk" ?
>>>>
>>>> If there was no imminent risk, e.g., the armed robber drops his gun
>>>> and raises his arms, then it's wrong for the cops to kill him. If
>>>> he points his gun at the cops, not so much.
>>>
>>> So if a drunk driver drops his key and moves away from the car,
>>> there isn't so much risk, but if he points the car down the road
>>> toward other vehicles, then ?
>>
>> ... there's more risk. But you still can't shoot him.
>
> If cops can shoot fleeing suspects, why not joe citizen ?

May cops shoot fleeing suspects? How does this apply to shooting drunk
drivers?

>>>>>> Why not shoot out the tires.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaa aa!
>>>>>
>>>>> Good one ...!
>>>>
>>>> I live to amuse.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than
>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
>>>>>
>>>>> So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others
>>>>> claiming a specious imminent risk ?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not the one so stating. That's the law.
>>>
>>> Are you claiming the standard of "imminent risk" is different for
>>> cops as opposed to civilians ?
>>
>> Are you claiming that's what I'm claiming?
>
> Claims are only taken between the hours of 2pm - 4pm. Please
> come back later.

It's between 2pm and 4pm somewhere. Here in fact.

>>>> If you want to argue
>>>> about whether cops follow the law, post to alt.law-enforcement.
>>>
>>> It is posted there. Do pay attention.
>>
>> That was my polite way of saying "and not in misc.legal."
>
> Yet you didn't say that.

> Do you often imagine you say things that you
> don't, and that omission is somehow an expression of politeness ?

Why, yes I do. Did you notice that in this reply, the understood
"asshole" in the vocative case was omitted for politeness?

You're welcome.

"¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
:

> Deadrat wrote:
>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote
>>>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 11:56 pm, Deadrat > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Texas,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Austin and started shooting people from the top of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tower. Police went in and Whitman was killed in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gunfight. The homicide of Charles Whitman was ruled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifiable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Woild
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be justifiable homicide to kill people who are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driving drunk, since they endanger other people's lives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just as Charles Whitman endangered the lives of people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at UTA?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even though this is probably a rhetorical question, I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer it anyway. Whitman had already killed a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people before he himself was killed. Most drunk drivers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't kill anyone, so the danger isn't proximate enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for preemptive killing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if someone starts shooting from a tower, it is wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill him UNTIL he kills someone first?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent
>>>>>>>>>>>> risk.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The moment he starts that car, while drunk, he puts people
>>>>>>>>>>> at imminent risk.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since most drunk drivers don't kill people, this statement is
>>>>>>>>>> false. If non-lethal force would do the trick, you have to go
>>>>>>>>>> with that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most armed robbers don't kill people either, so it it false
>>>>>>>>> when the cops/guards kill them citing "imminent risk" ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there was no imminent risk, e.g., the armed robber drops his
>>>>>>>> gun and raises his arms, then it's wrong for the cops to kill
>>>>>>>> him. If he points his gun at the cops, not so much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if a drunk driver drops his key and moves away from the car,
>>>>>>> there isn't so much risk, but if he points the car down the road
>>>>>>> toward other vehicles, then
>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then there's still a very low risk that someone's death or
>>>>>> serious injury will result,
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "low".
>>>>
>>>> Not clearly and immediately leading to death or injury.
>>>
>>> Define "clearly" and describe how one would construct a working
>>> objective standard of same so that everyone in society, cops and
>>> civilians, would know they are applying an equal standard.
>>
>> Argh! An essay test! I thought this was going to be multiple
>> choice. The task is impossible.
>
> Your honor, please instruct the witness to answer the question.
>
>>
>>>>> And if it is so "low", then why is Drunk Driving per se punnished,
>>>>> instead of punishing only those that actually cause
>>>>> accidents/harm/death, eh?
>>>>
>>>> It's not "so" low as to be unworthy of punishment.
>>>
>>> Are all behaviors that carry a "very low risk" to others punished ?
>>
>> No.
>>
>>>>>> and there are still very effective means of
>>>>>> stopping the driver short of killing him.
>>>>>
>>>>> As is the case with many police killings of civilians, there
>>>>> are very effective means of stopping the perps, short of killing
>>>>> them, yet the U$ cowardly cops kill not because they must, but
>>>>> because policy states they can.
>>>>
>>>> What's your argument? Police sometimes kill then they don't have
>>>> to so everyone should shoot drunk drivers?
>>>
>>> Close, Señor Obtuso , but the point is that the objective standard
>>> of "imminent danger" should be the same for cops and civilians
>>> alike.
>>
>> If I agree with you, will you concede that it is and should be
>> illegal to kill someone because he's drunk and about to drive a car?
>
> The hypo wasn't "about to drive drunk", it was actually driving drunk.
>
> So you think Joe Schmoe citizen can perform a PITT maneuver on the
> perp, to save lives down the road, even if it takes a life during the
> execution?

OK, actually driving drunk. Same answer, not least because Joe Schmoe
wouldn't have any idea whether the bad driver was actually drunk.

"¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in news:5kr8vrF54di4U1
@mid.individual.net:

> Deadrat wrote:
>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote
>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 11:56 pm, Deadrat > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Texas,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Austin and started shooting people from the top of a tower.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Police went in and Whitman was killed in a gunfight. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>> homicide of Charles Whitman was ruled justifiable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year. Woild
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be
>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving drunk,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since they endanger other people's lives just as Charles
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Whitman endangered the lives of people at UTA?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Even though this is probably a rhetorical question, I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>> answer it anyway. Whitman had already killed a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>> people before he himself was killed. Most drunk drivers
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't kill anyone, so the danger isn't proximate enough for
>>>>>>>>>>>> preemptive killing.
>>>>>>>>>>> So if someone starts shooting from a tower, it is wrong to
>>>>>>>>>>> kill him UNTIL he kills someone first?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent risk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The moment he starts that car, while drunk, he puts people at
>>>>>>>>> imminent risk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Since most drunk drivers don't kill people, this statement is
>>>>>>>> false. If non-lethal force would do the trick, you have to go
>>>>>>>> with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Most armed robbers don't kill people either, so it it false when
>>>>>>> the cops/guards kill them citing "imminent risk" ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If there was no imminent risk, e.g., the armed robber drops his
>>>>>> gun and raises his arms, then it's wrong for the cops to kill
>>>>>> him. If he points his gun at the cops, not so much.
>>>>>
>>>>> So if a drunk driver drops his key and moves away from the car,
>>>>> there isn't so much risk, but if he points the car down the road
>>>>> toward other vehicles, then ?
>>>>
>>>> ... there's more risk. But you still can't shoot him.
>>>
>>> If cops can shoot fleeing suspects, why not joe citizen ?
>>
>> May cops shoot fleeing suspects? How does this apply to shooting
>> drunk drivers?
>
> Are drunk drivers not actual criminals if not suspects?

A driver, even if drunk, isn't an "actual" criminal as a result of his
current driving until he's been convicted of something. He may be a
suspect because of his driving, but we don't allow an open season on
suspects unless they are an imminent danger. Most drunk drivers don't
kill anyone. Enough do that we haul them into court when we find them.

>>>>>>>> Why not shoot out the tires.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaa aa!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good one ...!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I live to amuse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than
>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others
>>>>>>> claiming a specious imminent risk ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not the one so stating. That's the law.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you claiming the standard of "imminent risk" is different for
>>>>> cops as opposed to civilians ?
>>>>
>>>> Are you claiming that's what I'm claiming?
>>>
>>> Claims are only taken between the hours of 2pm - 4pm. Please
>>> come back later.
>>
>> It's between 2pm and 4pm somewhere. Here in fact.
>
> 4:51 here, sorry, try again tomorrow.

That explains some of your confusion.

>>>>>> If you want to argue
>>>>>> about whether cops follow the law, post to alt.law-enforcement.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is posted there. Do pay attention.
>>>>
>>>> That was my polite way of saying "and not in misc.legal."
>>>
>>> Yet you didn't say that.
>>
>>> Do you often imagine you say things that you
>>> don't, and that omission is somehow an expression of politeness ?
>>
>> Why, yes I do. Did you notice that in this reply, the understood
>> "asshole" in the vocative case was omitted for politeness?
>
> Bet Jayzus knows if you're naughty of mind or not.

Not my mind.

>> You're welcome.
>
> To where ?

To the land of the English idiom. And I'm still being polite.

Impressed?

"¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
:

> Deadrat wrote:
>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote
>>>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 11:56 pm, Deadrat > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Texas,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Austin and started shooting people from the top of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tower. Police went in and Whitman was killed in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gunfight. The homicide of Charles Whitman was ruled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifiable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Woild it be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifiable homicide to kill people who are driving
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drunk, since they endanger other people's lives just as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Charles Whitman endangered the lives of people at UTA?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even though this is probably a rhetorical question, I'll
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer it anyway. Whitman had already killed a number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people before he himself was killed. Most drunk drivers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't kill anyone, so the danger isn't proximate enough
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for preemptive killing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if someone starts shooting from a tower, it is wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to kill him UNTIL he kills someone first?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent
>>>>>>>>>>>> risk.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The moment he starts that car, while drunk, he puts people
>>>>>>>>>>> at imminent risk.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Since most drunk drivers don't kill people, this statement is
>>>>>>>>>> false. If non-lethal force would do the trick, you have to go
>>>>>>>>>> with that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Most armed robbers don't kill people either, so it it false
>>>>>>>>> when the cops/guards kill them citing "imminent risk" ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If there was no imminent risk, e.g., the armed robber drops his
>>>>>>>> gun and raises his arms, then it's wrong for the cops to kill
>>>>>>>> him. If he points his gun at the cops, not so much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if a drunk driver drops his key and moves away from the car,
>>>>>>> there isn't so much risk, but if he points the car down the road
>>>>>>> toward other vehicles, then ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... there's more risk. But you still can't shoot him.
>>>>>
>>>>> If cops can shoot fleeing suspects, why not joe citizen ?
>>>>
>>>> May cops shoot fleeing suspects? How does this apply to shooting
>>>> drunk drivers?
>>>
>>> Are drunk drivers not actual criminals if not suspects?
>>
>> A driver, even if drunk, isn't an "actual" criminal as a result of
>> his current driving until he's been convicted of something.
>
> Then neither is a fleeing felony suspect.
>
>> He may be a
>> suspect because of his driving, but we don't allow an open season on
>> suspects unless they are an imminent danger.
>
> Really? So how is mere flight from an alleged felony an "imminent
> danger" ?
>
>> Most drunk drivers don't kill anyone.
>
> Yeah, we covered this already. Most Armed Robbers don't kill anyone
> either.

By definition an armed robber is committing a crime that threatens
another person with imminent death. A drunk driver poses an added risk
to others.

>>Enough do that we haul them into court when we find
>> them.
>
> So punish the vast majority for the bad acts of the few, eh?

We don't punish drunk drivers for the drinks other drivers take. You get
popped only for your own drinking.

>>>>>>>>>> Why not shoot out the tires.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bwhahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahaaaaaaaa aa!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good one ...!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I live to amuse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Cops kill citizens when the "imminent risk" to far less than
>>>>>>>>>>> that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What's the argument? If cops do wrong, then you can too?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So you're stating that cops do wrong when they kill others
>>>>>>>>> claiming a specious imminent risk ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm not the one so stating. That's the law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you claiming the standard of "imminent risk" is different
>>>>>>> for cops as opposed to civilians ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you claiming that's what I'm claiming?
>>>>>
>>>>> Claims are only taken between the hours of 2pm - 4pm. Please
>>>>> come back later.
>>>>
>>>> It's between 2pm and 4pm somewhere. Here in fact.
>>>
>>> 4:51 here, sorry, try again tomorrow.
>>
>> That explains some of your confusion.
>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to argue
>>>>>>>> about whether cops follow the law, post to alt.law-enforcement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is posted there. Do pay attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That was my polite way of saying "and not in misc.legal."
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet you didn't say that.
>>>>
>>>>> Do you often imagine you say things that you
>>>>> don't, and that omission is somehow an expression of politeness ?
>>>>
>>>> Why, yes I do. Did you notice that in this reply, the understood
>>>> "asshole" in the vocative case was omitted for politeness?
>>>
>>> Bet Jayzus knows if you're naughty of mind or not.
>>
>> Not my mind.
>>
>>>> You're welcome.
>>>
>>> To where ?
>>
>> To the land of the English idiom. And I'm still being polite.
>>
>> Impressed?
>
> Betwixt what ?

Between the rock of my logic and the hard place of my wit.

"_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
:

> Deadrat wrote:
>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote in
>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
>>>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "¥ UltraMan ¥" > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Deadrat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "_ Prof. Jonez _" > wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Larry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sep 10, 11:56 pm, Deadrat > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael Ejercito > wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In 1966, Charles Whitman went to the University of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Texas,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Austin and started shooting people from the top of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tower. Police went in and Whitman was killed in a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gunfight. The homicide of Charles Whitman was ruled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justifiable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Drunk drivers kill over 10,000 Americans a year.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Woild
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it be justifiable homicide to kill people who are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driving drunk, since they endanger other people's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lives just as Charles Whitman endangered the lives of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people at UTA?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Even though this is probably a rhetorical question,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll answer it anyway. Whitman had already killed a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of people before he himself was killed. Most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drunk drivers don't kill anyone, so the danger isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proximate enough for preemptive killing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if someone starts shooting from a tower, it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kill him UNTIL he kills someone first?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's wrong to kill him BEFORE he puts anyone at imminent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The moment he starts that car, while drunk, he puts people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at imminent risk.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since most drunk drivers don't kill people, this statement
>>>>>>>>>>>> is false. If non-lethal force would do the trick, you have
>>>>>>>>>>>> to go with that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Most armed robbers don't kill people either, so it it false
>>>>>>>>>>> when the cops/guards kill them citing "imminent risk" ?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If there was no imminent risk, e.g., the armed robber drops
>>>>>>>>>> his gun and raises his arms, then it's wrong for the cops to
>>>>>>>>>> kill him. If he points his gun at the cops, not so much.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So if a drunk driver drops his key and moves away from the
>>>>>>>>> car, there isn't so much risk, but if he points the car down
>>>>>>>>> the road toward other vehicles, then
>>>>>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then there's still a very low risk that someone's death or
>>>>>>>> serious injury will result,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define "low".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not clearly and immediately leading to death or injury.
>>>>>
>>>>> Define "clearly" and describe how one would construct a working
>>>>> objective standard of same so that everyone in society, cops and
>>>>> civilians, would know they are applying an equal standard.
>>>>
>>>> Argh! An essay test! I thought this was going to be multiple
>>>> choice. The task is impossible.
>>>
>>> Your honor, please instruct the witness to answer the question.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> And if it is so "low", then why is Drunk Driving per se
>>>>>>> punnished, instead of punishing only those that actually cause
>>>>>>> accidents/harm/death, eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not "so" low as to be unworthy of punishment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are all behaviors that carry a "very low risk" to others punished
>>>>> ?
>>>>
>>>> No.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> and there are still very effective means of
>>>>>>>> stopping the driver short of killing him.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As is the case with many police killings of civilians, there
>>>>>>> are very effective means of stopping the perps, short of killing
>>>>>>> them, yet the U$ cowardly cops kill not because they must, but
>>>>>>> because policy states they can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's your argument? Police sometimes kill then they don't have
>>>>>> to so everyone should shoot drunk drivers?
>>>>>
>>>>> Close, Señor Obtuso , but the point is that the objective standard
>>>>> of "imminent danger" should be the same for cops and civilians
>>>>> alike.
>>>>
>>>> If I agree with you, will you concede that it is and should be
>>>> illegal to kill someone because he's drunk and about to drive a
>>>> car?
>>>
>>> The hypo wasn't "about to drive drunk", it was actually driving
>>> drunk.
>>>
>>> So you think Joe Schmoe citizen can perform a PITT maneuver on the
>>> perp, to save lives down the road, even if it takes a life during
>>> the execution?
>>
>> OK, actually driving drunk. Same answer, not least because Joe
>> Schmoe wouldn't have any idea whether the bad driver was actually
>> drunk.
>
> And if they watched them become intoxicated in the bar, and followed
> them out to their car ?

Call the cops or roll 'em for their keys. The latter should be easy
since they're drunk. Still can't shoot 'em.