Alleged bicycle thief lassoed by alert Wal-mart customer

[laughing dog]

I don't think we know the whole story on #1. It seems he took the officer's taser--at that point he's not unarmed. Someone with a weapon in hand and within that weapon's range is a threat, period.

Why do you feel the need to invent facts to support your claims?

#2 is apparently a death from a fall--something that certainly could have happened with this roping case, also.

Please give a citation that shows the death is from the fall, because the article does not say that.

And, of course, I could google more cases that show your initial claim is counterfactual, but why bother when you simply invent facts to support your claims?

 

[ronburgundy]

Your fallacious comparison to police officers and absurdly false claim that the cops cannot and do not apprehend unarmed miscreants without killing them ...

Yet another ridiculous straw man. I did not make any such claim. No one said police only shoot fleeing suspect. Really, what is driving your flight from basic comprehension and reason?

The fact that the position is absurd and so patently false doesn't make it a strawman, it just makes the person who holds it (you) devoid of rational thought and oblivious to the inherent logical presumptions of what you say (which is a standard feature of your posts).

You said that "apprehend an unarmed miscreant without killing him" is something that police "can't" do. That inherently means that they are incapable of it and thus never do it.n fact, this incident is utterly meaningless with regard to comparison to police unless one presumes that it is an outcome that never occurs with police. IF you understood and acknowledged that police in fact apprehend thousands of unarmed suspects each day without killing them, then you would have never mentioned the police and your OP would be completely nonsensical.

I accurately pointed out the absurdity of your comparison and the presumption it inherently makes that the police never apprehend without killing. Now, in typical fashion, you are furiously backpeddling (pun intended) because even you see the absurdity of your position once its pointed out to you.

Police can and do shoot unarmed fleeing suspects ( Shooting_of_Walter_Scott). Here is a case of a police office tasing a man (and killing him) who is riding a bicycle (http://gawker.com/5862447/deaf-disabled-senior-citizen-on-bicycle-deemed-threat-by-police-tased-to-death. This does not mean every police officer does this every time. It does not mean that police cannot and do not successfully apprehend fleeing suspects without hurting them. But these easily avoidable tragedies happen too frequently.

Which are completely irrelevant to your OP claim that the police "can't" apprehend anyone without killing them. You are doing the equivalent of pointing to a homosexual that happens to kill someone as support for a claim that you can't be homosexual without killing someone.

In addition, one of your two examples is of a cop trying to use sub-lethal force not unlike what this cowboy did, and it going wrong and accidentally killing the suspect, just as could have happened in the OP incident and would happen semi-regularly given the same number of times per day that the cops arrest people.

 

[laughing dog]

The fact that the position is absurd and so patently false doesn't make it a strawman, it just makes the person who holds it (you) devoid of rational thought and oblivious to the inherent logical presumptions of what you say (which is a standard feature of your posts)....

It is a straw man position because I don't hold it. That is true regardless of the number of rants you post in response.

 

[ronburgundy]

The fact that the position is absurd and so patently false doesn't make it a strawman, it just makes the person who holds it (you) devoid of rational thought and oblivious to the inherent logical presumptions of what you say (which is a standard feature of your posts)....

It is a straw man position because I don't hold it. That is true regardless of the number of rants you post in response.

Whether you hold it or not is irrelevant. You stated that position, and your entire OP presumes it. The fact that you have no clue what position your own arguments are taking is your failing.

 

[Toni]

It is a straw man position because I don't hold it. That is true regardless of the number of rants you post in response.

Whether you hold it or not is irrelevant. You stated that position, and your entire OP presumes it. The fact that you have no clue what position your own arguments are taking is your failing.

Uh, gotta go with laughing dog here. One pattern I've noticed with you is the tendency to interpret things in absolute terms, with no nuance, no complexity of thought or understanding, and no middle ground. You slap on an interetation that fits into some point you want to argue--or rant against, whether that is the point being made. You make many assumptions supported only by your predetermined debate points. It feels as though you are trying to redeem yourself from
some 8th grade debate team debacle. Any point you might have made is just swallowed up in a semantical morass.

Take it down a notch maybe.

 

[laughing dog]

It is a straw man position because I don't hold it. That is true regardless of the number of rants you post in response.

Whether you hold it or not is irrelevant. You stated that position, and your entire OP presumes it.

No, I did not state that position. Nor does my entire OP presume it. You are mistaken if you think that repetition of a falsehood makes it true.

The fact that you have no clue what position your own arguments are taking is your failing.

Perhaps, since I have many failings. But that does not detract from the irony when such an observation comes from someone who is incapable of fathoming what my arguments are.