Put another "X" on the cops' guns

[TobiasFunke]

It wouldn't be a thread with Lifetime in it without the words Strawman and Hyperbole being flung

[Lifetime]

 It wouldn't be a thread with Lifetime in it without the words Strawman and Hyperbole being flung

Good contribution tf. 

Let me know when I use either of those terms inappropriately. 

 

Do you have anything to add to the topic? 

Edited October 25, 2013 by Lifetime

[TobiasFunke]

I already said my piece earlier. You were late on the discussion.

 

Personally I'm kind of in the middle of you and MT on the topic.

[Blarg]

Smack dab between hyperbole and strawman?

[mtangelsfan]

Well blarg, I guess we could be somewhere between ignorance and bliss.

Edited October 25, 2013 by mtangelsfan

[saangels]

His last gibberish was posted at 2:49 in the morning and since he lives here on the west ciast I am going to chalk it up to drunk posting.

I don't drink, schmuck.  But chalk it up to whatever you want.  I chalk up your response to fear and ignorance.  Thanks for failing to answer the question again.  Like I thought: you have no idea why you post these articles or why you think these kids are doing the things that they're doing.  

Edited October 25, 2013 by saangels

[tdawg87]

Educate yourselves, sheeple!

[saangels]

Chad isn't going to let Eric sidetrack him from sidetracking this conversation.

ugh...god damn it.  

 

A thread is something that, ideally, evolves.  Had we stuck to the original topic (is it right for the cops to have shot and killed this kid?) we wouldn't have moved beyond two pages.  People would be saying "this thread isn't going anywhere."  The whole objective of deliberation is to open up new avenues by which to explore topics related to the primary subject matter in an effort to make connections and arrive at a greater understanding of the material at large.  

 

The main topic was the kid who got shot and killed by the police.  

 

Eric Notti (not I) posted a link about a different crazy kid wielding a weapon--this, I could argue, was when we "went off topic."  But I didn't mind, because â€‹that is the nature of deliberation.  

 

I asked Nottie for a simple explanation as to why he posted the article, and, moreover, why he thought kids were committing these crimes.  

 

No answer.  

 

All of the sudden Notti and lifetime start hissing and foaming at the mouth like a two-headed irrational monster, and I'm supposed to drop it and "get back on topic."  

 

Fine.  Let's all go back to the original topic.  Let's see how long it takes until the topic changes.      

Edited October 25, 2013 by saangels

[tdawg87]

I lol'd at "Nottie".

[Lifetime]

Uh Chad. Your questions about the intention of mentioning the other incident were answered, read back at my responses. Nothing I said resembled anything close to hissing and foaming nor was it irrational. But you sir derailed the discussion assuming erroneously the point or intent of Erics post about the other KWG incident. You sir went off on a hissing and foaming at the mouth irrational tangent. You would have realized your error had you stayed in the context of the discussion rather than erecting a strawman and asking us to knock it down. And now you're all pissy for being called out for it.

[Blarg]

I lol'd at "Nottie".

 

Yes, I believe that is the English spelling, unfortunately I am Italian. The I makes the word plural in Italian while an E denotes singular. An I and E means someone is Fing with the language and is confused. Maybe that person should have gotten a good nights sleep rather than obsessing over something that if he were to read the entire thread, in context, the answer would have been pretty obvious.

[saangels]

wtf?  Now we're talking about the etymology of Eric's last name? 

 

Jesus Christ...

[mtangelsfan]

Stay classy guys

[Lifetime]

Lighten.up.Francis. 

[mtangelsfan]

Whatever Hulka

[Lifetime]

I wasn't speaking to you but OK

[Blarg]

wtf?  Now we're talking about the etymology of Eric's last name? 

 

Jesus Christ...

 

The thread evolved, Chad. Try and keep up.

[saangels]

lol.  how ironic.  

[Blarg]

Chad you appear to have two questions that you think I am dodging, when in fact I work for a living and have little time to post, But let's see if I can get to this quickly.

 

Question one I believe is why did I post the link to the 11 year caught bringing a weapon and spare ammunition to school.

 

MT and a couple of others were banging the drum of age and how could the police presume a 13 year old would have a loaded AK47 in his hands and not (as was described by others) an Airsoft replica. The point of the posting was to show that violence with weapons is not age specific even though it is mostly gender specific and then devolves to race specific but do we really want to open that can of worms?

 

It was a rebuttal to the thought that the police did not act in accordance to training and protocol simply because this was a 13 year old instead of say a tall 15 year old or 25 year college kid. Each day these guys get the rundown of what is happening around the US and more and more attention is being focused towards the violence being random in nature and the age not being a factor, it can come from a 13 year old or some guy in his late 20's gunning down kindergartners at point blank. 

 

Next question seems to be what do I believe the motive is for these kids to do these acts of violence.

 

That is a dead end venture, don't you think? Each act is carried out from whatever perspective each of the aggressors choose. I don't believe you can group them together and tie a simple bow around it like; they were bullied, they watch too much violence on TV, hear it in music or play GTA and want to live that lifestyle. That is lazy thinking process and leads to conclusions like all cops are killers and want to notch their holsters with the blood of the innocent. You know, the thread title.

[saangels]

Ok.  Thank you for taking the time to respond to my questions. 

[Blarg]

You're welcome, Chad. have a great weekend.

[HaloMagic]

So it turned out it wasn't the OP's topic that was going to kill the thread but actually whatever Chad was trying to shift it to. Imagine that. That is called irony.

Edited October 26, 2013 by HaloMagic

[saangels]

You're welcome, Chad. have a great weekend.

you too.  

[Tank]

Tank, to answer your question, of course if the kid refused to put the fake gun down and he refused he has some culpability.  But let me ask you a couple of questions.

 

1.  Do you think a 13 year old kid is going to always act correctly when confronted by police with guns pointed at him? 

2.  Do you think the responsibilty he has should have cost him his life?

I think he should have obeyed the commands to drop his weapon when law enforcement officers told him to. I know nothing this kid, and neither did the police. They had no idea what his plan was. The police have seen enough kids that are already hardened at that age that are capable and willing to turn the gun at the cops. If he's not willing to drop his weapon when ordered, there will be dire consequences.

I'm curious why you always side against police in these cases.

[mtangelsfan]

The story says that the police pulled in behind the kid and took cover behind their doors. He was walking away from them and so was facing the other way. They were several feet away.  Are you sure he heard what they said or even knew they were even police?  The story is they fired basically right when he turned around?

 

I pretty much side against the police because they are the ones with the weapons, they are the ones with the training and for the most part, they are the ones that get to circle the wagons and protect themselves.  Not only that I have seen enough stories where they have lied, cheated, bullied and murdered to know they do it.

 

Why do you always side with them?

Edited October 27, 2013 by mtangelsfan