I like to think I have a bit of both, but there is a thing that bothers me with most of the arguments here...Originally Posted by Fuchs
This was not ONE action, this was a series of actions. It may be fairer for the men involved to see it that way.
If you approach me swinging a stick and I think you are a danger to myself and family and I tazer you and handcuff you... then go into the kitchen and drink a beer... while looking for the bottle opener I find a pair of scissors and come out and cut of your pinkie fingers, give you a kick in the crotch then go back in for another beer...then go into my garage and get a bat and come out and break your ankles
When the cops come, they will buy it that the tazer and cuffs may have been legitimate self defense. over and above that they are probably going to view everything that happened after that as a seperate case.
if it turns out the guy swinging the stick was actually blind, and did not even know you where there... he was just trying to find his way... you can argue that
1) It was an honest and tragic mistake that led to a tazer, cuffs... then went totally pear shaped...
or
2) you did not have the time (or TAKE the time) to access the situation... acted rashly... and then went into overdrive....
Lets give the benifit of the doubt here....
The crew made a decision based on all possible information they had. What happened in the first part of the movie with the journalist was an honest and tragic mistake...
That takes us up to the Tazing and handcuffs....
And at that point they went into the kitchen to have a beer...
everything that happened afterwards... IM(as always)HO was a different story altogether....
Bookmarks