Example: The gentleman shot 4 people, ran over a dog, set fire to a bank, and escaped with 7 hostages.  Police pursuit is underway.  Consider the suspect armed and dangerous.
213791
YES.  A gentleman would never do those things.  \n\nThey should have said "The man shot 4 people...."  Oh, and of course nowadays we have to add the word "allegedly"....<rolleyes>
274167
I have a friend that recently went through police training. One thing that they had to do was...\n5 trainees stood side by side and interlocked their elbows. The trainee at either end were given a wire each to hold onto and they were then hit with a taser jolt which had an equal effect on each of them.
526588
The constable got out of the police cruiser to question the suspect.\n\nThe suspect was in cahoots with the person they had arrested earlier. \n\nThe horse performed a smooth lead change and continued cantering toward the jump.\n\nHis indomitable spirit made him refuse to give up in the face of a terrible choice.
128631
As a person who is no stranger to our "justice system". I had about 5 cases at one time when they got in front of a judge he dismissed them because the police dont do (or lack of )investigation . They are real quick to throw you in jail and slap a case on you. Most of the police are under trained (except in the firearm training)shoot first, ask questions later.
567776
What do you mean an alternative to deadly force?  Tasers usually fall on the scale below deadly force.   If someone is threatening an officers life why would he taz them instead of shoot them?  You shoot until the threat is stopped, I guess a taser could do that...\n\nAn example of a deadly force situation is if the subject had a knife.  If the officer shoots that subject with his firearm he is justified.  I can't see anyone grabbing a taser instead of a gun in that instance.  Another example would be a small stature officer with a huge drugged up subject that threatens to kill the officer.  That officer might taz them instead of shoot them.  \n\nTasers are good for everyone.  Police should continue to carry tasers.  It is safer for the officer than trying to subdue the individual with their hands.  People don't die because of the taser it is because of other, pre existing circumstances.  \nI would rather be hit with a taser than hit with that metal baton.  The taser will stop the person then and there won't be any broken bones.  A baton can break a bone.  \n\nJust do what the police say and dont try to hurt them and you won't be getting either.  DUH!  \n\nSeriously, who cares if the guy dies.  He shouldn't have been breaking the law.  Cleanse the gene pool so to speak.
159581
Back then...some time ago....Crime was lower, hood looms didn't carry guns...one did not get sued for interfering in tricky situations...those were the good old days...Long gone.\nNow people are so desensitized that nothing faces them,they don't want to be bothered,don't want to get involved , so what if a crime is being committed...Turn away,close your eyes...make pretend it doesn't happen...that sadly is the norm now these days.\nIf I would have seen a drunk or anyone bother another human being that is incapable of defending him/herself, I would kick some serious A$$...been there done that and had to report to the police.Charges were dropped.\nWe need to watch out for each other...get involved...I do.
332123
Rule of Engagement.\nDo not fire until fired upon by the enemy.\nDO not engage civilian targets
601472
One, I think the article is confusing…\n\nOk after like reading it for like 3 times over to get everything clear…\nI agree with what the article said, and I also think the definition should be universal, not just for certain entities.\nI also agree that it is a “much more serious crime of aggression”.\n\nI agree that a lot of times terror happens because one group thinks that their beliefs are more legitimate then another’s, and when they think they’re better they think they can force another to conform to it, usually this happens through force. All that the other can do is fight back; defend themselves. I think this is what he meant when he said: “Similar interesting issues about terror and resistance, almost always suppressed in the self-declared "enlightened states."”\n\nWhat would constitute terrorism?\n\nI think nothing, because I do not believe that terrorism / force / violence solves anything, it just creates more problems and makes stuff more complicated. I believe that one has the right to defend themselves in order to live and live how they wish, but nothing more. Defending yourself doesn’t mean you have to go on a shooting spree or go through with kidnapping schemes or trying to make others believe in what you think.\n\nYa know in the end of V for Vendetta (in the comic book, and kinda in the movie) V hands it off to Evey, he was the destructive force that brought down the system of oppression but she symbolized the rebirth of a new era of freedom and peace. After experiencing and committing such atrocities how could V go on to help the masses? For what, when the corrupt had fallen. Evey on the other hand had less of a violent history and because of that would most likely be more effective in carrying on V’s symbol since she will not have the luggage of old tendencies. This is assuming that V couldn’t heal himself from such violence he committed and experienced in the past, so instead handed it off to someone who could bring about a future that he truly wanted and dreamed of. Also by him going through with his final act would have been pushing his belief onto the masses, it was up to someone akin or who represented the masses (Evey) to commit the final act to bring down the system once and for all, it was not V’s place because that would have been a force against the masses, that and they may have not been ready for it. People need to free themselves before they can truly end a system that oppresses them. If the people’s minds weren’t freed then destroying the State would serve no purpose because it would be repeated all over again. I think people forget things like this, and that’s why some really good efforts of change are short lived because people forget to work on the root of the problem that also tends to lay within themselves(and everyone for that matter). For example if the root of the problem is money then what does money mean, then when we solve that problem how are we going to live without it and not just create another form of it? In other words how are we going to stop it from manifesting into similar things in the future? We have to be careful of that since we were once so accustom/use to it.\n\nAs for Noam Chomsky, I think he’s another academic old white man. One, the article was confusing because it was written so academic like, be forreal don’t try to prove yourself by fancy words. Plus I personally think the man still has some whiteness to work on. Other then that I think he’s done a great job in making the subject of Anarchism a more accepted topic in the academic world and is helping to give credit for it’s political perspective instead of just a philosophical theory.\n\n...\nto add to the notes you listed above after the Q:\n\nYes the IMF, WTO, and World Bank are horrific terrorists just as many governments and other financial institutions around the world are too. So I agree with “victor” the definition should be expanded upon. Yet it is peopl
572446
Hey, if you're telling the truth, you need a lawyer, man, and a good one at that!!  I don't know about Maine, but I'm sure there must be some fellas up there who are willing to take on a case like this ... I don't know how police can shoot someone in the head twice and not have an investigation into the shooting ... I would've thought they were responsible for accounting for every bullet fired ... as I said, get a lawyer, and get him quick!!
26745
Not everyone.  Fear can be situational.  I would fear a man pointing a gun at me who is yelling "You rotten ****".  I might fear a mother bear if she was running at me and I noticed I was standing between her and her cub.  I might fear a federal law which states that all blue-eyed people would be rounded up and or shot on sight.  But just fear something or some situation for no reason?  Nope.
654739
Ummm, duh. Let's start telling everyone where not to be, that's a great idea. If someone told you they were gonna shoot you at a specific time and place, and you believed them, would you be there? ? ? If you said yes go ahead and smack yourself now please. . . .
100022
They are treated differently because attemepted murder and an officer involved shooting are completely different things. \n\nIf a citizen, as you put it, "commits attempted murder", he goes to jail when the investigation has been completed and probable cause has been found. Also, he does get bail for an attempted murder charge. People also get bail in murder charges, so I'm not really sure where you are going with that.\n\nIf an officer gets in a shooting on-duty, he/she was probably faced with a direct threat to his/her life or a victim's life. Even if justified, the shooting will be investigated to make sure all laws and policies were followed.\n\nIt seems you want to convict the police before all of the facts are investigated. Remember, innocent unitl proven guilty.
398985
It's a legal term meaning you found a key piece of evidence.  I would guess it comes from an investigation where the police would find a gun that was still hot from being fired after a murder.
266114
attempted murder, that is...
654495
An officer is responsible to use only the minimum amount of force as needed to apprehend a suspect up to and including deadly force in certain situations.  If a person was noted with a weapon earlier by a witness but at the time of arrest no weapon is visible the officers still must consider the suspect as dangerous until no danger is found.  Not all "Jackbooted" Officers are and unless you were there to witness the whole incident you might want to remember that TV only shows what it wants for dramatic effect.  Most Police will only act in a threatening manor when there is a possibility for violence or where violence has already occurred.  To give you an example, If you have a dog that is gentle and loving to you but out of your sight bites anyone it can the dog is still dangerous no mater what you see of that dog... People are not dogs, and in most cases dogs wont revert to violence unless it is threatened, sick or badly hurt... Humans are much more capable of violence with little less provocation...
478460
Let's say your daughter has just been raped & beaten.   The police see the car that left her house and start chasing it.   He (of course) runs red lights and races in & out of traffic.    Your city's policy is not to chase in town, so he gets away even though he was within their sights.    \n\nI say no.
490888
Police gone wild? Yes.\n\nWhen relaxed rules defining what constitutes justification of the use of lethal force are combined with shoot to kill policies (and policies that differ from the law are illegal no matter who's they are) you get trial by allegation and execution of sentence is instantaneous.\n\nThat is unamerican.