I only have one question:

[PCIntern]

who the hell would shoot anyone in the back? when I was a young'un, in the Westerns I watched, and I watched hundreds of them, the lowest of the low was "shootin' someone in the back". It was consdered worse than "horse thievin'".

As an aside, one of the lines used by a Texas lawyer in the HBO series on Durst-the-serial-killer was that, "the reason they hang horse thieves and spare killers is that there aren't any horses than need stealing, but there are people who need killing." This seems to be the Mantra floating around these days...

[onehandle]

1. John Lennon was shot five times in the back with a legally purchased handgun. nt

[City Lights]

2. Cowards shoot people in the back. nt

[In_The_Wind]

3. The obvious answer is: someone who isn't thinking clearly about what they are doing.

[TeeYiYi]

4. Or...

...it's someone who is thinking VERY clearly about what they are doing; with malice aforethought.

TYY

[In_The_Wind]

7. Your answer makes me very sad.

I really don't understand why we can't all live in peace. As a young white child I can remember arguing with my father ... we are all the same color under our skin.

[madokie]

15. You got it

[world wide wally]

5. Haven't you figured out that according to the NRA, it is not important "where" you shoot someone

as long as you shoot someone.
We just need more guns...
and tax cuts for the rich.
See how simple it is?

[Lurks Often]

6. Legally, there are a few situations where shooting someone in the back is justified

While I have not read about the SC incident that triggered your post, from what little I have heard, this case does NOT meet that legal standard.

The short version, is that someone is legally justified shooting someone in the back if the person fleeing can reasonably be considered a grave menace to the general public if allowed to escape. For example, preventing someone who just murdered someone right in front you from escaping, would be probably be considered reasonable in a courtroom.

Another fairly extreme example, it would have almost certainly been legally acceptable to shoot Loughner in the back while he was shooting at all those people in AZ.

[PCIntern]

11. Well,you can't equate the two situations

and I know you know that...

It would also have been justifiable to shoot Hitler in the back. No question.


that being said.....................

[Lurks Often]

12. Ok, just answering the legal question as to when it is allowed

The SC cop is going to jail for a very long time barring some major surprise.

As an aside, in the real Old West, shooting one's opponent in the back was fairly common. The squaring off in the middle of the street and seeing who is faster is mostly a Hollywood creation

[logosoco]

8. That old Carole King song "Smackwater Jack" has a line:

You can't talk to a man with a shotgun in his hand.

I guess when some cops walk around with a gun as part of their job, they go to that as a "solution" without really thinking. Or maybe they fantasize about it and as soon as an opportunity arises, they reach for the gun.

[TeeYiYi]

9. I'll take part two...

...of your post for $1000, Alex.

re: "Or maybe they fantasize about it and as soon as an opportunity arises, they reach for the gun."

What is: You'll find it in the official police manual under Standard Operating Procedure When Dealing With an Unarmed Black Man.

TYY

[Lex]

10. Sociopaths and cowards. nt

[rock]

13. You're not a bully are you?

Else you wouldn't ask the question.

[PCIntern]

14. Whatever posseses you to ask a question

of me like that? Besides being nonsensical, it's puerile and insulting. It is argumentative and pointless.

[rock]

16. OK, so you are a bully

In which case there's no way I can answer your question so that you will understand.

[PCIntern]

17. Your hijacking attempts are laughable...

as is your "logic".