On 3 Apr, 17:50, Kisai gmail.com> wrote:

Poor Corey. I really don't believe that story. I believe that he was
waving what looked like a poker aroundm maybe agitated, maybe thinking
it was a wand, but the whole threatening to blow up a hospital and
attacking an officer seems to be a different person from the one we
know here. Sure - he's a bit of a nutter, but he's always struck me
as a kind and gentle nutter and I like the man.

The Speaking Clock live.co.uk> writes:

So, let me get this straight:

1) You have beliefs and assumptions about Corey, as we all do. What kind of
person he is, what he's likely to do, what he's unlikely to do, what you
believe he would never ever do. This is perfectly normal and reasonable.

2) Reality, in the form of news stories, comes into conflict with your
beliefs and assumptions. (Corey assaulted a police officer? What??)

3) You start rationalizing reality away, to conform to your model of Corey.
("Maybe it was a wand...")

In article 9c5741cae2bb@m71g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Aristos.Kisai@gmail.com
says...

XENIA ? The man shot by a Yellow Springs police officer after he
reportedly attacked the officer with a fireplace poker plans to plead
not guilty by reason of insanity.

On Monday, March 31, Judge Stephen Wolaver of Greene County Common Pleas
Court ordered Corey N. White be evaluated by physicians at Twin Valley
Behavioral Health Services.

White, 24, faces felonious assault and other charges after he reportedly
attacked Officer Timothy Knoth, who was dispatched to White's home after
White phoned Greene Memorial Hospital threatening to blow it up.

When Knoth arrived, White reportedly hit him with the poker. Knoth shot
him three times in the legs. Police ruled the shooting was self-defense.

...self defense?
three shots in the legs to defend oneself from... a firepoker?

like corey kept running after the first shot to his leg?

In article nothung.homelinux.net>,
hg@iki.fi.remove.these.invalid says...

On Apr 10, 11:22 am, quintal wrote:

The officer got hit with the poker, so the officer fired. Presuming
that fact pattern is correct, it's self-evidently self-defense. If you
use a firepoker to attack someone with a gun, you cannot sensibly
claim unreasonable force later because your target didn't have another
firepoker to protect himself with. You pays your money and you takes
your choice. Opening fire seems like a perfectly reasonable response
to me.

On 10 Apr, 18:33, Erwin Hessle erwinhessle.com> wrote:

On 10 Apr, 17:26, quintal wrote:

On Apr 10, 1:58 pm, The Speaking Clock live.co.uk>
wrote:

You'll have to find an alternative way of satisfying your idle and
prurient curiosity than pumping me for information, I'm afraid. Maybe
there'll be something good for you to watch on the TV tonight,
instead.

Erwin Hessle, 8=3

quintal writes: