If you're going to be such a try-hard when it comes to getting the last word in in your future Sega Forum endeavors, I would suggest you come up with something a bit more tangible than that to base it on. Even by your skewed standards, claiming that 6 guys wailing on someone with batons is no different than 6 guys taking the same guy on with nothing unless they instantly knock him out with them is pretty thin.
That doesn't answer the question. What does assault mean? I know what you're trying to pretend the definition is for the purposes of this discussion, as shown by your poll below; but that's not what I'm asking, that's not what I took issue with, and that's not what you spent half of this thread saying with complete certainty.
There's that strawman again. What "people" actually said, and have reiterated when you assigned this exact argument last time, was that lethal force should be a last option in police confrontations.
There's that persecution complex again. I started this thread replying to specific statements of fact you said (and said and said and said and said and said) that were obviously incorrect to anyone who simply types a search term into google. I have a conceal carry permit, so I also had independent knowledge that one of your other facts was blatantly untrue. I still gave you the benefit of the doubt to justify it, but since you conceded that you mispoke I let the latter one go. But if you're going to call out other members for spreading what you perceive to be misinformation, you for damn sure better expect to be called on it when most of your posts to that point had been loaded with misinformation masquerading behind a specific example with specific circumstances. No, I was providing an example of a famous heavyweight professional boxer with mental stability problems who went to jail in his prime but still didn't take on a half dozen cops in the process, to rebuke this idea you're seemingly trying to spread that a heavyweight professional is an inherently difficult and dangerous quarry for police to bag. Your videos and links showed that maces and tasers didn't always incapacitate. No one said that they would guarantee to incapacitate someone, and the video you posted of the officer the taser clearly hurt his mobility. Yes you did: Really, is this just a lie, or... what? I'll get to this more in a minute, but when people say nothing more than non-lethal weapons should be considered as opposed to automatically plugging a guy with a full magazine and you outright deny the chance that they would be effective at all and raise a specific type of person who would overcome non-lethal weaponry, yes, you are implying that your hypothetical rampaging professional heavyweight boxer is immune to the effects of non-lethal weaponry. So your video showing them having a diminished but still clear affect on people somehow proves that? Really not sure about this "wholly fabricate posts" tactic. The post you quoted from CSS said it would give someone an edge in a fight that they wouldn't have against an opponent who would normally mop the floor with them. He literally said the words "should give even an average sized officer a better edge against a unarmed heavyweight boxer", and I know you saw what words were actually said because you fucking highlighted them. The post you quoted from me said that a stun gun or mace would alter the outcome of a fight in a 6-1 boxer against policeman brawl. I literally said "a taser or mace from an officer who knew how to use either would have still dramatically altered the outcome of whatever 6 against 1 Jackie Chan fight you're describing"; and I know you saw what words were actually said because you fucking highlighted those too. There wasn't even an implication of a boxer falling to the ground like a bag of potatoes, and the word incapacitate was nowhere to be found; so why are you pretending that that is what people were saying? You've got six officers going after a guy with tasers, mace and batons, and you seriously think the outcome will be the same as six officers going at a guy with their bare hands?
And what, really, is the point of lying about something so easily disproven? I don't give a shit what results you got from a poll with a made up definition of a word I've been trying to get you to define for three posts now. It's irrelevant to anything I've said in this thread, and I've even agreed from the start that the Michael Brown case was extraordinary. In fact, I literally said the words "Michael Brown had extenuating circumstances since in that case there was an attempted fight over the officer's gun"; so why am I supposed to care about opinions present in a poll you set up that tells me other people agree with the objectively correct answer I already knew anyway?
Really, if you were paying more attention, you would see that even in the extremely narrow context of this thread of when you started posting that I rarely actually agree with Nepenthe or Olgilvie on what constitutes a justifiable homicide. So that you're lumping me in with everyone else who is arguing against you is all the more ridiculous.
It should also be pointed out that no amount of focusing on the "real problems" would have made the concept itself and how Shadow was inextricably linked to it be received any better. Ratchet Deadlocked and Jak II were both entries in series much better than anything Sonic Team was putting out from developers much more talented than anyone at Sonic Team was, and they were and are both still widely mocked for the same thing that Shadow was and is.
Shadow is an easy scapegoat because his game and his appearance in the one following it were a cynical bit of hack pandering approaching Bubsy levels. The two games it happened in could have been Mario Galaxy quality and the disconnect and the shadow (hue hue hue) they cast over the series would have still been there. And that's a pretty big stigma to overcome when the games were in fact shit instead.
What does the word "assault" mean? You said it literally half a dozen times, so I hope you know; but it's becoming increasingly clear that you just said a word and pushed it through in the hopes no one would challenge it. Similar to "emulation". And "backtracking". There's probably more. Nope. Your persecution complex is your own problem no matter how hard you try and make it everyone else's, but if you're going to resort to a completely stupid extreme example for why non-lethal force cannot be considered in every situation, I'm going to call it for the attempt to move the goalposts that it is. First of all, I suggest you drop the bullshit attitude. You've been given such a free pass on the piles of indefensible garbage you've spewn all over this forum in every thread you've entered ever since you've joined that insulting the guy who has defended you from being banned on multiple occasions probably isn't the best idea on your part. You've contributed nothing to this discussion but show one example where lethal force was justified; and everything where you haven't specifically been talking about that one thing has been you attempting to simply will all other examples of racial police violence to be the same thing. There is a very clear pattern to your posting style, and I daresay you're running out of chances to move away from it.
But what, pray tell, did I dodge and cherry pick? The shit you posted was the same shit that I already responded to once, and in response you simply tried reiterating it again as if that makes it more true. What about mace, a gaseous/liquid solvent that irritates the skin on contact and plays havoc on someone's eyes and breathing, makes it the same as someone's fist? What about a strict training regiment or high athletic ability makes someone able to completely shrug off a hit from a taser or baton strike? You're acting as if they have no effect on people and others are saying that they are guaranteed to incapacitate someone; which is pretty ridiculous when neither is true.
Nope. You just have once again shot your mouth off extensively regarding a topic without knowing what the words you were saying meant.
Nope. I'm just mocking this contrived example you brought up for no other reason than to divert attention from your failed attempt to claim every hypothetical officer/suspect altercation into a justifiable cause for killing the suspect. Though I suppose it is possible that there is a roving pack of homicidal heavyweight boxers that police officers always have to be at the ready to deal with, I'm certainly questioning how often it is a thing that has actually happened.
Yeah, that's enough. You spent your entire fucking time in this topic unequivocally saying that police officers are allowed to shoot people for touching them. You don't get to mince words over who's been spreading misinformation. This absolute idiotic side conversation you're trying to push about how heavyweight boxers are trained fighters so they can somehow block mace as if it had the same physical consistency as a fist or casually shrug off baton strikes isn't diverting anyone's attention from your previous posts.
Mike Tyson was a professional heavyweight boxer; one of the best there ever was. Mike Tyson did go to jail for a major criminal act not too far removed from when he was in his prime. Mike Tyson was known for being about a half step away from being uncontrollably insane. Mike Tyson still did not fight off six cops in a rage induced arrest before finally going down for the seventh, so who the fuck gives a shit about what a boxer is capable of in this wonderful example devoid of any repeated basis in history? Does a heavyweight boxer's body react to electricity? Does a heavyweight boxer's hands have webbing between each finger? Because unless you can come up with something showing Mike Tyson was made out of rubber or some sort of merman in his prime I'm pretty sure a taser or mace from an officer who knew how to use either would have still dramatically altered the outcome of whatever 6 against 1 Jackie Chan fight you're describing without needing to put a dozen bullets into him.
You know, I think I'm going to have to see some citation for this, because I simply don't believe it is true. Michael Brown had extenuating circumstances since in that case there was an attempted fight over the officer's gun, but I'm pretty sure police officers are not, in fact allowed to simply light up anyone who takes a swing at them; as you've repeatedly insisted to be an inarguable truth from the start. This part in particular: As someone who has a concealed carry permit, I know for a fact isn't true. An opponent doesn't have to be armed for you to be allowed to respond with lethal force, but you absolutely do not have a right to pull a gun on someone and shoot them just because they assaulted you. Absolutely do not. The only context that that statement is true is if they have done so after having broken into your house, and even then there are specific requirements that must be met that vary from state to state or you might be up shit creek when the police do arrive.
Even ignoring that shooting people in the leg or arm or whatever is simply a movie thing (center mass is the rule), there's really no such thing as a non-lethal shot when you shoot a gun. Officers (or, really anyone who was trained to carry a handgun) aren't trained to act like there is, either.