Georgia Firearm Forums - Georgia Packing banner
1 - 20 of 94 Posts

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
28,534 Posts
The officer did not just "have the opportunity" to use deadly force.
He DID use such force.
That the suspect survived is immaterial; the force was if the kind likely to cause serious injury or death.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
After informing the man that he could not legally walk along this road the officers start asking a few questions.
you say the officer did everything right. you're wrong.
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,885 Posts
Hard to be sure but that didn't look like a limited access roadway. For what crime was the pedestrian subjected to a seizure of his person?
Upon further review, there appears to be a sign conforming to the standard Interstate route signs early on in the video which leads me to think our pedestrian may have been on I-71, a roadway upon which pedestrians are prohibited. If that's the case then the officer stopping him for that violation is perfectly fine.
 

·
Cross-drawer
Joined
·
7,332 Posts
Once things went sideways they showed a lot of restraint (relative). I think the last thing this officer wanted to do was shoot this guy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
Hard to be sure but that didn't look like a limited access roadway. For what crime was the pedestrian subjected to a seizure of his person?
Upon further review, there appears to be a sign conforming to the standard Interstate route signs early on in the video which leads me to think our pedestrian may have been on I-71, a roadway upon which pedestrians are prohibited. If that's the case then the officer stopping him for that violation is perfectly fine.
It was on I-75 in Cincinnati, where pedestrians are prohibited. He was a fugitive from Boston, wanted in connection to a stabbing a couple of weeks prior.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/new...wn--75-after-man-knife-shot-roadway/82386060/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
What did he do wrong?
if i told you, a man that was minding his own business, that you cannot walk a road, what would you think about it?
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,885 Posts
obviously, i'm prohibiting you from walking it, even though the road does not belong to me.
I think he meant, "Is that road prohibited to a reasonable person?" not "Is that road prohibited to a sovereign citizen who recognizes no law but his own?"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
I think he meant, "Is that road prohibited to a reasonable person?" not "Is that road prohibited to a sovereign citizen who recognizes no law but his own?"
sorry, i see nothing "reasonable" about creating a special class of people that get to boss you around at the point of a gun. it is clear to me that, while some may consider what the cop did legal, that it can also be "wrong".

i think it's important to remember that morality and legality aren't equivalent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,883 Posts
sorry, i see nothing "reasonable" about creating a special class of people that get to boss you around at the point of a gun. it is clear to me that, while some may consider what the cop did legal, that it can also be "wrong".

i think it's important to remember that morality and legality aren't equivalent.
I agree 100%.
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,885 Posts
sorry, i see nothing "reasonable" about creating a special class of people that get to boss you around at the point of a gun. it is clear to me that, while some may consider what the cop did legal, that it can also be "wrong".

i think it's important to remember that morality and legality aren't equivalent.
Kinda sorta sounds like you think pedestrians, bicyclists, and tricycle riders sharing the road with 40-ton trucks and 70 mph automobiles is just hunky dory.
Pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles are prohibited on limited access highways for safety reasons, not to give any special treatment to any particular class.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,360 Posts
Kinda sorta sounds like you think pedestrians, bicyclists, and tricycle riders sharing the road with 40-ton trucks and 70 mph automobiles is just hunky dory.
Pedestrians and non-motorized vehicles are prohibited on limited access highways for safety reasons, not to give any special treatment to any particular class.
i'm fine with being responsible for my own safety, as i'm not a child. i don't need others kidnapping, maming, caging, or killing me "for my own safety."
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,885 Posts
Your safety doesn't matter a bit to me. It's the danger someone presents to me and others that makes it a prohibited practice to walk along the shoulder of controlled access highways or operate non-motorized vehicles on them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,883 Posts
How does someone walking along the side of the road put you in danger? Are you not staying on the road when you're driving?
 

·
I watch the watchers
Joined
·
12,885 Posts
How does someone walking along the side of the road put you in danger? Are you not staying on the road when you're driving?
One person? Probably none.
Two people? A little more.
A parade of people migrating from one town to another using the interstate because that's the most direct route? More than you might imagine.

Why, if we allow pedestrians on the interstate, not allow bicyclists as well?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,883 Posts
One person? Probably none.
Two people? A little more.
A parade of people migrating from one town to another using the interstate because that's the most direct route? More than you might imagine.

Why, if we allow pedestrians on the interstate, not allow bicyclists as well?
Right, if you allow people to talk on the side of the interstate it will suddenly be flooded with all of the people who have just been itching to walk down the interstate. So like maybe two. Regardless, I still fail to see how people walking alongside the road endangers you.
 
1 - 20 of 94 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top