Treasonous Bundy-led militia prepare to open kangaroo court

[enso]

And? Your overall point is?

[Wanderfound]

So, basically, your point is that the original commenter should have said “threats of deadly force” instead of “deadly force”.

I’d say you’re technically correct, but it doesn’t have the importance you think it does. “Threats of deadly force” are enough in themselves to earn vigorous condemnation and a forceful response (given that the justification for using such threats is so weak as to be nonexistent).

Clarifying your meaning much earlier on might’ve been a good idea.

[anon73629133]

Wikipedia also considers sharp pencils to be Deadly Force.

Obama is coming for your Blackwings.

[hello_friends]

@clevername

Like I said, they will shoot you. But they will not write in the incident report that you used deadly force against them. Can you see the difference?

That’s the right question.

[clevername]

@Wanderfound

Clarifying your meaning much earlier on might’ve been a good idea.

I thought I was being pretty clear, but hey, live and learn. I think the distinction has significance in that if they actually killed someone, the FBI or whoever would have stormed the place immediately and they know it. If they hurt anyone it will be because they think their 15 min of fame are over and they want to go out in a blaze of so-called-glory.

@Mark Twain

The difference between the almost right word and the right word is really a large matter—’tis the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning.

@funruly

Wikipedia also considers sharp pencils to be Deadly Force.

Declaring them as such beforehand is bit silly but I suppose someone, somewhere has probably stabbed another person in the heart with a pencil, which would be deadly force in that particular case.

[NickSay]

Is there a crime called “threat of deadly force”?

The thing that comes after the threat of force isn’t force, it’s attempted/murder.

[shaddack]

@clevername

Declaring them as such beforehand is bit silly but I suppose someone, somewhere has probably stabbed another person in the heart with a pencil, which would be deadly force in that particular case.

A bare fist can be deadly, if it hits in the right way.

And then there’s the weapon of mass destruction, also known as a rock in a sock…

[Brainspore]

@NickSay

Is there a crime called “threat of deadly force”?

Two scenarios:

1. Man walks into a bank and asks the teller if he can have some money. She asks him if he has an account there, he says no.
2. Man walks into a bank and asks the teller if he can have some money. She asks him if he has an account there, he points a gun at her head and says “no but if I don’t get some soon I’ll blow your fucking head off.”

The person in the first scenario would probably just be politely but firmly escorted out the door by a security guard. The person in the second scenario would be charged with armed robbery (if he wasn’t shot by police first).

So yes, the threat of deadly force is often what makes the crime.

[nimelennar]

@Wanderfound

Pharmacutically knocking people out is a bloody dangerous thing to do; essentially, what you’re doing is poisoning someone until they are almost (but not quite) dead. There is a reason why anaesthesiology is a highly skilled profession.

As is concussively knocking people out: essentially, what you’re doing is bludgeoning their brain until they are almost (but not quite) dead.

Contrary to what is shown in movies, when you hit someone in the head hard enough to knock them out, you’re almost certainly going to achieve one of three things:

1. They’ll have a simple concussion, which means that they’ll be out for, at most, a few seconds, and then they’ll have short-term memory problems for a while, but no other permanent ill effects
2. You’re going to give them permanent brain damage
3. You’re going to kill them

Note that the more that #1 happens, the more likely #2 and #3 become.

[Wanderfound]

@NickSay

Is there a crime called “threat of deadly force”?

“Assault with a deadly weapon” is the crime you’re after.

That’s illegally threatening someone with a gun or other serious weapon, no shots fired. If you actually shoot them, then we can add charges for wounding and probably attempted murder. Pistol-whip them and we can add a battery charge as well.

But the assault charge itself is not defined by the physical consequences; it’s defined by the perception of a threat to the victim (with appropriate “reasonable person” standards as safeguards to avoid abuse by the hypersensitive).

That’s how it works in my neighbouhood, anyway.

[wrecksdart]

@GilbertWham

Every society needs a Drinking and Explosives Holiday. Its civilised.

That’s EVERY DAY in 'Merica!

Purple mountain maaaaaajeeeesssttttttyyyyyyy…

[wrecksdart]

@anon50609448

Draw up arrest warrants, cut the power, blockade the supplies, and accept those who peacefully surrender. If we really insist on humouring them we could ask each if they want to be tried as a citizen of the united states or held as a prisoner of war.

I understand Guantanamo is lovely this time of year.

[Garymon]

FWIW one of the Bundy group finally managed to get themselves arrested.

Oregon Police Arrest Man Over Federal Vehicles Stolen From Refuge

[Brainspore]

I’m actually starting to really dig the Federal government’s approach of avoiding an armed conflict with this militia by just waiting until they all just stupid themselves into prison.

[anon8420928]

@Brainspore

they all just stupid themselves into prison.

If it doesn’t end in gunfire, it will be the lot of them in Federal Prison, where they belong.

Good riddance.

[Brainspore]

They could probably speed up the process by just parking a prisoner transport van outside the bird sanctuary and posting a sign reading “FREE SNACKS INSIDE” on the door.