(08-31-2020, 06:15 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:

(08-31-2020, 06:02 PM)mikesez Wrote: a police officer should be a little bit nicer to a civilian who doesn't use the same terminology as him, especially when that officer clearly understands what the civilian is trying to say.
But I wouldn't expect you to understand what I'm saying. You're only there to catch and detain the people who cause trouble and report on what you saw. And you don't ever envision using a firearm as anything other than a firearm. You shouldn't have to. That's fine.  
But if you were the prosecutor, or a member of a jury, you absolutely would have to ask these kinds of questions. 
If he simply ejects his *magazine* at the beginning of the confrontation, all threat to life on either side is over. 
I know it sounds silly. 
It is an unusual situation. If his presence there was provocative, but lawful, the law wouldn't work out this way. If his presence there was unlawful, but also unprovocative, the law wouldn't work out this way. But as it stands, his presence was both unlawful and provocative, ergo his obligation to end the confrontation by the least meet lethal means possible never ended.

LOL.  Please don't stop posting.  I haven't had this good of a laugh in a long time.

For the record, I am not a police officer.  I was back before you were a gleam in your daddy's eye (late 1980's).

Regarding the part in bold.  Do you think that a convicted felon causing property damage and pursuing a clearly armed person is going to stop because the armed person ejects the magazine from his weapon?  Is all threat to life on either side really over?