Is there a shooting you disagree with?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Surefire
  • Start date Start date
I love how I categorized as a cop-loving conservative because I said the the border bridge shooting was reasonable. I always thought it was pretty clear I have a pretty strong disliking for law enforcement agencies in general, I've even gone so far as to argue that killing an on-duty cop is less morally reprehensible than killing a civillian, but that doesn't mean I can't look at an event and make an objective determination of whether it was a good shoot or bad shoot.
As for examples, the no-knock raids are an excellent example. I'd even say that the guy who is on death row (or has he been executed already?) for shooting and killing a cop on a no-knock raid on his house (which was totally clean) should have gotten off free and never should have spent a single day in jail.

You see, you always have your mind made up before you even read and analyze the whole story. You're just another mindless partisan hack who has no opinion of your own, you just see the story and think "I'M A LIBERAL SO I HAVE TO SAY IT WAS WRONG FOR THE COP TO SHOOT NO MATTER WHAT!!!" and that's as far as your brain will go. Try thinking for yourself and you might actually learn something.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_committed_by_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II
 
I remember that one. I had been meaning to get a retrospective on it, since when I first heard about it they hadn't yet determined that she only fired one shot, didn't hit any of them, and all of the evidence had been falsified (it was only determined that they had the wrong house).


From the wiki page:
"Prosecutors later said that Smith handcuffed Johnston as she was dying."
 
Actually, the difference between manslaughter and murder is intent. But you see, those are sophisticated legal terms which you obviously don't understand.
 
You were obviously addressing everyone who called the border shooting a good shoot, which included me. So yeah, you were talking about me.
 
I feel I should respond to this again after your pm. All those acts are intntional as I said before. If you were paying attention, I said negligence in determining the correct house on the affidavit, and negligence in determining the correct house upon arrival. Like hitting the neighbors house at 123 joe street when the warrant clearly says 122 joe street, that = negligence.
 
Can people take a different position from that which they normally take = partisan hackery and assumption?
 
Incorrect.

The crime is not the "failure to verify the address before executing the search warrant." In fact, those are distinguishable. "Failure to verify the address" should more properly be distinguished from "executing the search warrant." The former would be negligence, yes, but only if that were actually illegal, which it isn't (imagine the implications otherwise; I can help you out if you're confused). The latter (which is intentional) is illegal only when the former is true. Therein lies the problem with your argument: the crime is act of gaining unauthorized access into someone's house, not the inaction of failing to verify the address.

Negligence is inaction. In this particular case, there are no victims that resulted from any sort of inaction. It's actually pretty easy for you to verify this since it has already gone to court and the officers have already been sentenced.
 
This one was relatively recent. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/06/BART.shooting/index.html#cnnSTCVideo
 
Or when the house they've had under surveillance is 122 joe street, but the warrant comes back with 123 joe street, and that's the house they hit.
 
I didn't specify a preference for either end of the argument, mostly because I'm not stupid enough to waste my time and energy agonizing over the moral correctness of history. It happened, for x, y, and z reasons. The repercussions were a, b, and c.

Nowhere in the understanding of that event requires that an intelligent person be forced to personally support or reject the value of it's occurance.
 
Actually, the difference between manslaughter and murder is the degree of "malice" or "intent to kill."


But you see, those are sophisticated legal terms which you obviously don't understand.
 
Ah, I see. "INTENT TO KILL" has nothing to do with intent. So I was totally wrong and you schooled my lame ass.
 
oh excuse me, you're right- the fact that one of the police's murder victims happened to be at a gas station completely detracts from my case
 
Back
Top