Police vs Zombie

[91CoupeMike]

When you have a question outside quoted material AND inside quoted material, use only one question mark and place it inside the quotation mark.

You are incorrect.

Matt was correct in his grammar, you were not.

[03trubluGT]

It wouldn't make a difference to you if I did, as I taylor my replies to the quality of the people they're aimed at.

Taylor?

How about "tailor"....

God forbid I provide information that supports or explains my reasoning, or some jackass will come in and take it the wrong way just like you did.

[LANTIRN]

Matt, I have never met you and I will be the first to admit I am skeptical of cops most of the time. However, are you really being serious saying if you came across someone eating another guy's face that you would ask him nicely to stop and the go hand to hand? You are either trolling for fun, insane, or have bigger balls than most of us on here, and I can't figure out which it is.

[03trubluGT]

Do you have any other personality than "doucher cop mode?"


Punctuation goes inside the quotes, for future reference.

How bout a nice, big tall glass of GFY.

[talisman]

Taylor?

How about "tailor"....

God forbid I provide information that supports or explains my reasoning, or some jackass will come in and take it the wrong way just like you did.

God forbid you talk about something other than being a cop, your son, fishing, or that one time you got bit by a dog 43 years ago.

[03trubluGT]

Matt, I have never met you and I will be the first to admit I am skeptical of cops most of the time. However, are you really being serious saying if you came across someone eating another guy's face that you would ask him nicely to stop and the go hand to hand? You are either trolling for fun, insane, or have bigger balls than most of us on here, and I can't figure out which it is.

Dead serious. I would not go directly to deadly force without being able to articulate/justify why.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

I would not believe that chewing on someone's face would be as imminent a threat as shooting or stabbing someone, so IMHO it would be hard to justify using deadly force against an assault that was being carried out with physical force.

You have to think beyond the moment and weigh the consequences to your actions. I'm sure this incident will be in court (civil) for years.

Just because the law says you are justified in doing it, does not make you immune from civil liability, or give you the green light to do it.

[Superwho]

Holy shit, is sspstang really 95snake/redfoxrod/trey? That joker replies to every damn thread at least five times. LOL I had a feeling he was an old user.

[03trubluGT]

God forbid you talk about something other than being a cop, your son, fishing, or that one time you got bit by a dog 43 years ago.

Then don't look at the thread, or my response.


You put more effort into being a cockbite than anyone else. Quit being so obviously antagonistic and try to have a positive attitude for once. Quit following my posts and think that you are compelled to reply.

Shit, it's like you have me on a permanent search function so you can pursue me around and try to stir shit up. It gets fucking old. You are worse than a damn child.

[SS Junk]

Dead serious. I would not go directly to deadly force without being able to articulate/justify why.

Maybe it would be a good idea to use deadly force because the guy that was eating a face was actually killing another person?
What it reads like is, if you were to do go against this guy, it would be for the challenge and not all this heroic bullshit you keep typing. Thing is if you play this stupid game you'd win a stupid prize. I think you know this, but would rather posture and barg...

[LANTIRN]

Dead serious. I would not go directly to deadly force without being able to articulate/justify why.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

I would not believe that chewing on someone's face would be as imminent a threat as shooting or stabbing someone, so IMHO it would be hard to justify using deadly force against an assault that was being carried out with physical force.

You have to think beyond the moment and weigh the consequences to your actions. I'm sure this incident will be in court (civil) for years.

Just because the law says you are justified in doing it, does not make you immune from civil liability, or give you the green light to do it.

Good enough for me. I just hope none of us ever have to make the decision on what to do with a face eating cannibal. Never mind the law suits; the years of nightmares would be enough to make you wish you didn't have to see any of it.

[03trubluGT]

Maybe it would be a good idea to use deadly force because the guy that was eating a face was actually killing another person?
What it reads like is, if you were to do go against this guy, it would be for the challenge and not all this heroic bullshit you keep typing. Thing is if you play this stupid game you'd win a stupid prize. I think you know this, but would rather posture and barg...

The human body can take a LOT of damage before succumbing to death.

Your eyes and nose is NOT an essential organ for supporting life. Getting those eaten does not mean you are in IMMINENT threat of death.

This three year old boy sustained horrific facial injuries by a dog, and yet he lived:



Nice try on insinuating that I'm all talk. Everything I have presented is fact.

It's not bragging if you can back it up.

[talisman]

Then don't look at the thread, or my response.


You put more effort into being a cockbite than anyone else. Quit being so obviously antagonistic and try to have a positive attitude for once. Quit following my posts and think that you are compelled to reply.

Shit, it's like you have me on a permanent search function so you can pursue me around and try to stir shit up. It gets fucking old. You are worse than a damn child.

Oh gee whiz, the guy that was complaining 2 months ago that I must be "following him around" because I responded to two threads he was involved in in the space of two weeks is now upset that that I really am making a concerted effort to respond to all the dumbass bullshit he posts. What a shocker.

[SS Junk]

Nice try on insinuating that I'm all talk. Everything I have presented is fact.

It's not bragging if you can back it up.

It is talk when you take what "fact" you have and present it in a hypothetical situation. It is when you talk shit about the cop who used deadly force when you have no clue of the details (see other thread where you pretty much contradict the fuck out of yourself). I guess we can see just how long you stay conscious and how much blood can be supplied to your brain once your neck starts to get chewed on.

That picture means about dick compared to this story.

[Downs]

I'd think the guy was in immediate danger of serious bodily injury or death honestly. I would have taken the shot(s)

[03trubluGT]

Oh gee whiz, the guy that was complaining 2 months ago that I must be "following him around" because I responded to two threads he was involved in in the space of two weeks is now upset that that I really am making a concerted effort to respond to all the dumbass bullshit he posts. What a shocker.

I'm so glad you can tell that I'm upset.

Flattered actually......

See, you just can't stay away....