|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 8 users and 57 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by white feather on Wed, 04/26/2006 - 6:25pm.
Here are some more Officers that should have turned the other cheek according to Rick.
link
»
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
More Flickr photos tagged with "olympia" and "washington" OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
So heres a question...
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 10:06am.If you drive by and see an
Submitted by The Fire Inside on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 11:55am.These means extend as far as taking someone else's life.
I actually think as a private citizen you should have less of a standard to meet than government. For government to take a life, it not only must feel someone is a threat but there must be some sort of action on the part of the other person (e.g. making unannounced movement into places one would reasonable believe there to be a firearm).
For a private citizen, I don't think action is necessary. I think someone should only need to prove the threat could reasonably exist (e.g. a woman home alone hears someone breaking in downstairs. Although no attempt has been made on her life, she should be justified in taking the life because this person has now encroached on her "castle." I also feel the same way about a carjacking attempt. If a person is attempting to carjack a private citizen, they have surrendered any protection from the "live and let live" philosophy).
When you begin to act in a manner which a person could reasonably expect physical danger, you're surrendering all benefit of the doubt to the person who is in fear.
Standards, double and otherwise
Submitted by DrewHendricks on Thu, 04/27/2006 - 1:18pm.I think you should be careful authorizing death for "potential" threats. I think the words you're looking for are "credible, immediate" threats.
If I were to show up at a presidential public appearance with a rifle slung on my shoulder, we both know who would go to jail. Yet it is legal to have longarms in WA without a license and legal to carry unconcealed weapons in WA. The 'crime' would be... what? Threat against a public official? The police in audience (even the Democrats) would be as guilty as I would be of being that "potential threat." Yet we both know that I would be the only one tackled, if not shot to death, for carrying a weapon at such an event. It's not an experiment I would try, by the way.