- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
And in a life or death scenario I am pretty confident from 20 feet away I can shoot you and shatter that collar bone.
Collar bone? That’s your non-fatal target? Right next to the carotid artery, lungs, and heart?
Your confidence is indicative of your ignorance. The physiological effects of being in a life and death situation significantly reduces accuracy, which is already difficult to achieve even in ideal target practice conditions.
No one anywhere trains to flesh wound, or shoot the gun out of someone’s hand, or any of that other bullshit that movies fill people’s heads with.
I apologize for coming across like a jerk here, but I find this sort of thing aggravating.
Officers over seas are taught flesh wound the dude
Literally no one anywhere is taught that you should shoot at people to flesh wound them. Have you ever fired a gun? Hitting small targets is pretty difficult. With distance it becomes impossible. Officers are trained to stop the threat. That typically means shooting as best you can at the center of the largest part of your target.
Other than that I agree. When police wrongfully (or even rightfully) kill anyone it is a tragedy. Training will be an important factor for an officer to determine when to shoot, and how to remain calm enough to give simple direction.
“Marijuana smoke contains about 50% more benzopyrene and nearly 75% more benzanthracene, both known carcinogens, than a comparable quantity of unfiltered tobacco smoke (Tashkin, 2013)”
a situation that isn't considered normal yet
I think it is less important how the situation is considered by society and more important how it is considered by the individuals involved. My position is that the partner should be informed of this kind of situation regardless of what is considered normal.
I don't think most people would be ok with this, but they also don't want to appear intolerant in today's social atmosphere. Some would be offended by your position that the partner has a right to know, and further offended by the notion that ending a relationship on these grounds is justification for the right to know up front.
Thank you for the honest response.
As providing in LittleMisfits post, the cop was correct in enforcing laws against disturbing the peace. People like this jackass often like to carry around bogus documentation that say things like “you need a tool to measure decibels”. Cops often know the law but rarely know it verbatim. When cops are opposed by street corner lawyers, they usually do whatever they know they are supposed to (even if they can’t quote chapter and verse), get threatened every step of the way, and see no legal repercussions as they were in the right.
And yes, dumbass, a warning is given when you have violated the law. Nobody gets traffic warnings for driving correctly. If you are cited improperly, you get to fight it in court. You don’t get to refuse the officers citation.
Furthermore, the man must identify himself.
“‘Stop and identify’statutes are statutory laws in the United States that authorize police to legally obtain the identification of someone whom they reasonably suspect of having committed a crime.”
And from AZ Law:
“It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person’s refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime”
Guys like this never win in court because they are never right. All they get is a clever looking YouTube video.
The question is if exercising a Constitutional Right can be immoral. As I have illustrated, the answer is yes. Your mistake is in supposing that an immoral thing should be stopped. The answer to that is no. People have the legal Right to do things that are morally wrong.
Look, it would be wrong for me to go into someone’s house to stop them from getting wasted drunk on booze, but that doesn’t mean getting wasted drunk is a good idea.
Stopping the free exercise of the 1st Amendment would be morally wrong and Constitutionally illegal. But that doesn’t make all uses of the 1st Amendment moral.
So if a person is protesting against government sanctioned slavery, you would say it is just as moral as someone protesting against government abolition of slavery because both are right by virtue of being protests. I’m sorry you can’t see the moral error here.