well yeah, if the FBI says it, i guess they know their shit, but nobody had mentioned the FBI before. and where they talking about a gunfight or you with a gun vs attacker with a melee weapon?
Oh yes Qwerty, because you have lit someone up with something like a DM4 with ramp board and an empire reloader b and a nice nitro system(BTW, in good paintball guns you should have no trouble hitting 10-20-25 balls per second), that means you can shoot a real gun just great! YEAH!!
no no i play with a 300$ marker, accuracy a lot worse than nearly any gun you could find. gotta admit there is almost no recoil on a paintball gun.
oh btw i’m curious how do you shoot 25 times per second with a paintgun? because the normal loaders feed like 10-15 balls per second max so i guess you’d need some sort of special set up?
What would you define as a MINIMUM of definitive proof? A weapon on the perp? Prior criminal history? I am assuming that witnesses/video tape would be definitive, but what else?
Actually, they should pretty much ALWAYS be put on trial.
I disagree with you there. First because the prosecutor needs to have the flexability to decide not to try a case because it sucks. Secondly in certain circumstances the best evidence the defender can offer is consistant with self defense but will not conclusively establish self defense, but it will be obvious that there is so much reasonable doubt that the person should not be put on trial.
Thirdly, the justice system can be remarkably punitive. In a case like this, here are some of the things that might happen. 1) the person is held until trial because they cannot make a high bail. 2) Their house is ripped apart during the execution of a search warrent, and property is seized which will never be returned. (Try to get property back from a police department sometime, it a real pain in the ass) 3) the person will need to cough up lots o’ money to an attorney. In Connecticut a case like this in which there is a guarenteed trial will set you back at least $10,000 in a retainer fee. they are fired by their job and blackballed by their associates even if they are eventually acquitted.
Finally, such a policy emboldens criminals. For example the city in America in which it appears that you are most likely to go to jail for using force in a self defense situation is Los Angeles which also has an out of control gang problem. Your proposal is a bad idea.
It also costs us thousands in tax revenues to try those cases. Every case is fact specific, and believe me, prosecutors don’t want potential criminals to slip through their web of justice.
But don’t you think this opens the doors for corruption? If a prosecutor can decide which people get prosecuted and which people don’t, you can just buy the ability to kill without trial. (I’m sure this happens now, but it seems like this policy might invite it.)
Not likely. Believe me, some prosecutors will push bullshit charges regularly, especially if they think the defendnat is a criminal or danger to society. No one is just slipping by on a death case.
Understand… prosecutors live to take people out, its what they want to do. If they were motivated by money, they’d be criminal defense lawyers. :XXking: