To compare and contrast two threads.

[DRice.72]

I do tend to agree that actions are easier to defend than words. If words were so cut and dry, there would be no constitutional law. There would only be one faith etc. Actions that are seen and recorded will be harder to refute. We have sayings that back that up, "actions speak louder than words". Of course there is, "the pen is mightier than the sword" for what its worth. I guess that means a stack of paper filled out by a shyster can in the end do more damage to you than the bullet can.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by sixgun67: OldMarksman, out of curiosity, what makes a 'uniformed police officer' any different to you than a member of the general public?

Good question.

My answer is that his identity provides significant clarity regarding what is happening.

If it appears that an apparent "bad guy" is attacking someone, and you intervene, you may be in for one heck of an unpleasant surprise.

If what you have actually seen is a domestic disturbance, and you intervene, you will likely have both parties testifying against you and perhaps seeking damages.

If what you have actually seen is a caretaker or parent trying to intervene in the case of a grand mal seizure or choking situation, and you intervene, you may end up contributing to the death of that person.

If what you have actually seen is a dispute between members of two rival gangs, and you intervene, your problems may extend way beyond civil and criminal liability.

If what you have actually seen is an off-duty policeman trying to apprehend a dangerous felon who has just committed a heinous crime, and you intervene, you may end up contributing to the death of the officer and to the escape of the felon.

These examples are indicative of the reason why attorneys where I live strongly advise against trying to defend someone unknown to the actor, or a policeman who has requested help--even though it is lawful to use deadly force when immediately necessary to protect an innocent third party from imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

Depending of course upon the circumstances, I would likely not wait for a request for help from the officer.

Does that help?

I will not risk my life for another human other than my family.

I would extend that to any child in my care at the time.

However, if a uniformed law enforcement officer is under fire, letting the perp prevail by not acting could well put one's life at risk. If I could neutralize the threat immediately without putting myself at risk of being mistaken for one of the attackers, and without endangering innocent citizens "down range", if you will, I think it might well be prudent to try to do so.

And, I also don't post much info in writing and never will. I'm careful--I know it will come back to haunt a person, fair or not. First hand experience there.

While I think it more important to be careful what you write than to limit how much (Jim Wilson, Rob Pincus, and Mas Ayoob write quite a lot), that's not bad advice.

 

[OldMarksman]

Posted by The Tourist: How far we have fallen.

You are apparently under impression that use of one's letters, other writings, speeches, check registers, appointment books, diaries, event logs, files and memoranda, subscriptions, prescriptions, order forms, bank records, and so forth as evidence in courts of law, either civil or criminal is (1) a bad thing and (2) a relatively new development.

Neither is the case. We haven't "fallen" from anything.

It is true that the ability to gather a lot of data by computer from the internet or email databases has made the process easier, but subpoena power and the requirement to comply with court-ordered requests for documents have been with us for a very, very long time.

 

[The Tourist]

You are apparently under impression that use of one's...writings, speeches...is...a bad thing and...a relatively new development. We haven't "fallen" from anything.

Hmmm. I can understand this position, but at some important level my opinion is visceral. One of the books I read as a boy--that really had a profound impact on me--was Orwell's book, "1984." While I still believe that surveillance and airport security is manned by Barney Fife and Elmer Fudd, I see us moving to a point where we are "guilty until proven innoccent."

To that end, I have lots of friends in law enforcement, and many professional relationships. But those are individuals who have passed the smell test. Yikes, I've ridden with some Blue Knights that liked to party harder than we did. Overall I wonder just who watches the watchers. Who guards the guards. Who polices the police. And admittedly, I have a deep distrust.

I'm not even embarrassed by what I have said over the decades. The only issue I have in you dredging up something I have said is that in my twenties I would deliver a point of view in its raw and uncensored form. My message is still much the same, it's my delivery that has changed.

Fighting to repeal our helmet law and trying to get a CCW provision for Wisconsin has taught me quite a bit. As a young bill collector using a telephone I softened my youthful edges but still got results. And that's what I still proffer to the younger crowd.

But at the end of the day I still believe in as much freedom as I can devour, I believe picking through my trash is for bottom feeders, and if I have I have done something wrong then let your case speak for itself.

As for the other half of the equation, hey, your life amid violence is your own problem. I have been inside a courtroom and I have no wish to throw my life away to save yours.

 

[OldMarksman]

One of the books I read as a boy--that really had a profound impact on me--was Orwell's book, "1984."

The reason that attorneys advise clients to be careful about that they write, what they send via email, and what they post has a lot less to do with the possibility that "big brother" may be "watching" than it does about the fact that such information is discoverable and would be brought out in the event of a subpoena.

By the way, the internet and computer files have not only made discovery a whole lot easier, but the "track changes" mode in some applications have made it possible for plaintiffs and prosecutors, for example, to compare versions as documents have been developed and edited. An attorney might have a field day with the early existence and later disappearance of something like "these results indicate that there is considerable risk of product liability" in a draft document, for example.