laughing dog
Contributor
You need to explain what that is relevant to the issue of shooting to kill.
-
Features
3 brave officers disarm 17 year old girl by shooting her to death
- Thread starter ksen
- Start date
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,633
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Not of no concern, but of concern relative to whether the officer's life is in jeopardy and lethal force is legitimately required.
Big cop on top of teenaged girl can not be in that big of a danger from any direct stabbing attempt. She is relatively contained, and when the fellow officers get there to assist, the situation can be disarmed, she can get more treatment and live to see another day and hopefully happiness.
Read the thread.
The officer isn't required to risk getting stabbed.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,633
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Actually, he is.
I kind of want to become a cop, so I can shoot you and hear you say, "Well, I guess I must of had it coming."
laughing dog
Contributor
I have. I suggest you have your 3rd grade teacher read the underlined part and explain it to you.
funinspace
Don't Panic
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,204
- Location
- Oregon
- Gender
- Alien
- Basic Beliefs
- functional atheist; theoretical agnostic
They manage in a society that doesn't have more handguns than donuts floating about...we have this hard big shaft infatuation over here...
crispy
Member
Oooh yes he is...
Derec
Contributor
UK populace isn't routinely armed. That's how.
Outstanding argument for the repeal of the second amendment.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Except that this girl was armed with a knife, and those are still barely legal in the UK.
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,518
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Yup. If the poms eat steak, they have to use their teeth.
Because only Americans have freedom.
Underseer
Contributor
Don't you love how it's always the "small government" types who eagerly defend every act of police brutality?
Oops. Forgive me for being politically incorrect. Of course what I meant to say is that people who oppose police brutality hate our freedom and want the terrorists to win. Freedom isn't free! Benghazi! Freedom fries! Obama's a Muslim dictator!
Oops. Forgive me for being politically incorrect. Of course what I meant to say is that people who oppose police brutality hate our freedom and want the terrorists to win. Freedom isn't free! Benghazi! Freedom fries! Obama's a Muslim dictator!
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Don't you love how it's always the "small government" types who eagerly defend every act of police brutality?
Oops. Forgive me for being politically incorrect. Of course what I meant to say is that people who oppose police brutality hate our freedom and want the terrorists to win. Freedom isn't free! Benghazi! Freedom fries! Obama's a Muslim dictator!
Such as me, criticizing the police for their actions in this case. And in many other cases. Yep, that's how "small government types" defend police brutality, by condemning the police.
Stop trying to say that us libertarians are on the same side as you conservative Republicans on issues such as police abuse. I do not take your side that police abusing the public is acceptable.
laughing dog
Contributor
Underseer did not say "all" small government types, so your appear to be upset over a straw man.Don't you love how it's always the "small government" types who eagerly defend every act of police brutality?
Oops. Forgive me for being politically incorrect. Of course what I meant to say is that people who oppose police brutality hate our freedom and want the terrorists to win. Freedom isn't free! Benghazi! Freedom fries! Obama's a Muslim dictator!
Such as me, criticizing the police for their actions in this case. And in many other cases. Yep, that's how "small government types" defend police brutality, by condemning the police.
Stop trying to say that us libertarians are on the same side as you conservative Republicans on issues such as police abuse. I do not take your side that police abusing the public is acceptable.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
No, I'm upset that conservative Republicans like Underseer try to lump libertarians in with their statist authoritarian police-state positions.
You're right how he didn't say "all" when trying to say that libertarians travel in the same direction he does. But he also didn't say "some", which means we need to rely on conventional grammatical rules. The fact that his statement does not indicate that he is referring to a subset indicates that he is very likely not referring to a subset when he claims libertarians support the police as much as he does.
You're right how he didn't say "all" when trying to say that libertarians travel in the same direction he does. But he also didn't say "some", which means we need to rely on conventional grammatical rules. The fact that his statement does not indicate that he is referring to a subset indicates that he is very likely not referring to a subset when he claims libertarians support the police as much as he does.
Last edited:
laughing dog
Contributor
That post did not mention libertarians. It mentioned "small government types" which is not simply libertarians. Nor did he write he agreed with the defense. Your entire response is based solely on your imagined straw men, not the content of his post.
Jason Harvestdancer
Contributor
Whether he said "libertarians" or "small government types" of which libertarians are a subset, in either case his grammatical structure indicates that he was not referring to a subset of the group he was describing.
His grammatical structure says he wasn't describing a subset.
So he was describing the whole set as agreeing with his conservative Republican support of the police.
His grammatical structure says he wasn't describing a subset.
So he was describing the whole set as agreeing with his conservative Republican support of the police.
laughing dog
Contributor
That is simply not logical. So your entire argument is based on a false premise.
You have not shown he is supporting the police.
Perhaps if you focused more reading and reasoning and less on your hypersensitivity to alleged slights to libertarianstm, we could avoid these types of ill-reasoned derails.