Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
So those two instances alone invalidates the others? Does one single misstep or mistake completely invalidate the premise or opinion of a research topic? If so, then every single one of us, including you, are full of shit and we should be completely disregarded in everything we ever say.
|
Those are two examples out of the whole site- those "examples" represent the majority of the items found there. I invite anyone to read them and make an intelligent decision based on its entire contents- which I did finish reading. They also listed the death of a woman
who died from a heart attack when a flash grenade went off in her home. These are all labeled as people who died as "casualties" of the police's "war on drugs". They're all told as a slant, not as a "news piece", and reek of the bias with which they were written. THAT makes it trash, and useless, and "full of shit".
Quote:
|
do you disregard all of the statements given by government officials as well, since they are also slanted with emotionally driven retelling?
|
I don't disregard anyone automatically. I have a brain in my head, and therefore am capable of reading multiple things from the same author and reasoning out whether or not I believe them to be imbalanced (both in storytelling fairness, and mentally). I did read multiple articles from the same person, and I do believe that person to be a disreputable "news reporter". Government officials are not crazy militia freaks sitting in their basement pounding out anti-police and anti-"war on drugs" rants on the internet, in a bid to mobilize "the public" in favor of their "cause" to topple the government, because the big bad government won't let them own a tank or nuclear bomb- no matter how much they claim its for "home protection" or "hunting". Again, I like guns. What I don't care for is nutjobs who pass off their opinions as facts, and ignore actual facts to sustain their delusions.
Quote:
|
First off, I'm not questioning the idea that the police shouldn't be allowed to fire back in their own defense. What I AM pissed off about is that this woman is dead, and the only reason for it is that the police who barged in to her home MOST LIKELY terrified her to the point of her shooting at what she thought were home invaders bent on robbing of killing her. We'll NEVER know what she was truly thinking, because SHE IS DEAD!!!! And she didn't have to be if the police weren't so gung ho on armed drug raids.
|
If you're not questioning the policy of return-fire, then where's the beef? Once again, the warrants are approved by a third party (judge)- and like I said before, if you have a problem with armed drug raids, you take it up with judges, not the police. I don't understand your comment of, "if the police weren't so gung ho". Where the hell are you getting that? Are you saying that the police should knock politely and not use guns? Yeah, that would work just fine.
Quote:
|
You are stipulating that everybody should do whatever they are told to do when armed men break down the door and yell police, simply because we should assume that criminals would NEVER yell police, is that right?
|
No, it's not. All I said is that when the police encounter a person pointing a gun at them, let alone a person who's already firing upon them, they are justified in returning fire. As I said before, and you well know,
any time you point a gun at someone, you are indicating you're going to shoot at them. The rest of your rant about fake police invasions is pointless; my point is, and always has been, it is not the fault of the police that she is dead. It doesn't matter who she thought was invading her home- burglars, the police, Big Bird, the Easter Bunny, it doesn't matter- she pointed a gun at them. Done.
I also have to assume, since i'm
sure you'd never do this knowingly, that you weren't aware that saying "news flash" to people is considered rudely condescending. So... now you know.
Quote:
|
By YOU advocating the use of armed raids by police and villifying civilians who would shoot at them out of fear, YOU place everyone in the position of having to make split second decisions of are these police or criminals. That may be a comfortable position for you right now, but if YOU are ever put in that same position, I hope you make the right decision.
|
I never advocated them above saying that knocking and going unarmed (maybe they'll be invited in for tea before they make their arrests) is a bad and ineffective idea- and that's not advocation, it's common sense. As for vilifying civilians, you're either "putting words in my mouth", or you don't understand what "vilifying" means. Saying that a person is going to be shot for aiming a gun at a cop (much less opening fire on a cop), regardless of the circumstances, is not making vicious and defamatory statements about them.