Arrested woman shoots at police ...

[Derec]

laughing dog is not defending the culpability of the shooter.

He is not?

More in real life, like State Sen. Vincent Fort who is so far to the left he starts bending right on some issues, like Sunday sales of alcohol.

Who?

Georgia State Senator representing South Atlanta and suburb of East Point.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

He is not?

No. He is questioning the procedures the officers did or did not follow that allowed the woman to fire a gun post arrest at them.

More in real life, like State Sen. Vincent Fort who is so far to the left he starts bending right on some issues, like Sunday sales of alcohol.

Who?

Georgia State Senator representing South Atlanta and suburb of East Point.

So two people, one poster here and some state senator most Americans have never heard of, and of whom, you have not quoted. I trust ya and all, but you haven't actually quoted him.

 

[laughing dog]

And there appears only one "leftist" here who is questioning the cops motives.

At least two on here (arkirk and laughing dog).

Post #6 in this thread (my first post), the 1st two sentences read

I agree that once you start firing at the police, you are a legitimate target. In this case, that does not absolve the police of their responsibility to properly do their job.

. So, you are wrong,

 

[laughing dog]

It's been produced in the OP. It's not my fault you are too lazy to read it.

As I thought, you cannot support your claim.

What part of "it is more likely" do you not understand?

I understand you are confusing your assumptions with reality.

1. If she shot at police what does it matter whose gun she used?

It matters if she hid it or she got it from the police.

2. Nobody is claiming she used her own gun. The police know which gun she used and it belonged to the owner of the truck she stole, not her.

If she had the gun on her, it was her gun, not a gun she took from the police.

You think police leave guns on the back seat to goad detainees into shooting at them? Now, that's a cunning plan worthy of Baldrick himself!

Unlike you, until I see the actual evidence, I do not assume that the police are perfect.

Now who is assuming things?

As usual, you are.

Nope. And furthermore I start with facts and make reasonable inferences...

Nope. For some reason, you are under the impression that it is normal police procedure to allow suspects in custody to keep their firearms and to escape.

You on the other hand ignore the facts and jump to outlandish assumptions like police stashing guns on the backseat of their cruisers.

Yet another example of your using poor reasoning to generate a straw man. Never that nor did I assume it.