09-22-2016, 11:46 AM
(09-22-2016, 08:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: But you won't. You'll attack the messenger.
No, I attack the messengers point. When the messenger has a clear bias, as you obviously do, that obviously affects their argument. You have only your buddy Fred to blame, he already stated if something has happened once you can assume it just happened. You've posted blatantly anti-LEO posts, so using Fred's logic I can accuse you of it at any time. Sorry, I didn't make these rules.
Quote:The site I quoted showed multiple times where a person with a gun , sometimes aiming it at the police, did not get shot. That leads to the questions about why other times the victim is shot. I was directly addressing the supposition that having a gun is asking to get shot. Clearly it is not.
A point I directly addressed. Why did the site in question use only examples with white people in them? Do you honestly think no black person with a gun has ever been handled the same way? They have an agenda and you have an agenda. Cherry picking incidents doesn't prove a point, it only proves bias.
Quote:Clearly the police do not shoot EVERY person they interact with, gun or no.
I'll refer you to the questions above then. Why the cherry picking of events? Agenda maybe?
Quote:But that does not mean we can not question why a man in Tulsa is dead when he didn't have a weapon. Or a man who told police he had a gun is dead. Or a guy standing outside his car his dead.
No one said you couldn't. Please find one post in which anyone has said this topic is off limits. The closest you can get is my saying a decision cannot be made without all the facts. Fred, a person who claims to be a lawyer but fails to understand basic legal principles, wanted the officer arrested on the spot. Pointing out the fallacy of that argument is not an attack or trying to make the topic forbidden, it's simply pointing out a bad argument. You seem to get disagreement confused with attacks on a regular basis. I guess I can see where these college kids are getting it from.
