Who was the rogue shooter here?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2012, 11:27 AM
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(26-08-2012 11:16 AM)The Governor Wrote:  
(26-08-2012 10:51 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  You are trying to portray it as if they intended to shoot innocents.

Either you are willfully misrepresenting my position or you have a problem with comprehensive reading: I have repeatedly said that the cop's 'intentions' are totally irrelevant vis-a-vis what they actually DO/DID: shooting innocent bystanders!
Whatever those 'intentions' are/were, who the fuck cares? The fact is that innocent bystanders got shot! The fact is that those 'intentions' resulted in exactly their opposite! So the fact is that those 'intentions' were worthless and useless IRL. Ergo: the cops are worthless and useless IRL. Worse: they shoot us!

Again, FYI: it wasn't the crook that shot nine innocent bystanders! It was the cops that shot nine innocent bystanders! 'Protecting them'...

Their intentions meant everything in that situation. You are attempting to portray them as the "big bad authoritarians", when in reality two officers accidentally shot (not killed) three bystanders (others sustained wounds from subsequent shrapnel or debris).

Must I point out that the officers and the murderer were engaged in a firefight? You can go ahead and continue to fume about this, I won't be replying again until you get a rational grip.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 11:46 AM
 
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
The cops' 'intentions' – which you merely assume motivated their actions – clearly don't protect the public. As the facts bear out. Cops and their 'intentions' are defacto a lethal combination and a very real threat to the public they are supposed to protect and serve...

It's about time you faced up to the reality that far too many 'officers' are really nothing more than trigger-happy, power-crazy punks in fancy dress.
Brownshirts in blue shirts.
Just look at what they DO in the streets.
Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 12:04 PM
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(26-08-2012 11:46 AM)The Governor Wrote:  The cops' 'intentions' – which you merely assume – clearly don't protect the public. As the facts bear out. Cops and their 'intentions' are defacto a lethal combination and a very real threat to the public they are supposed to protect and serve...

It's about time you faced up to the reality that far too many 'officers' are really nothing more than trigger-happy, power-crazy punks in fancy dress. Just look at what they DO in the streets.

It is not as though officers shooting civilians is a constant. They protect citizens far more than they hurt. It is time to face the facts: You are overly-biased and irrational. No one else is vocally upset, not even the people who were shot.

You have nothing to support your generalizations about the entirety of the police force either, let alone the New York police.

Not replying after this. C ya later, mon frere.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 12:09 PM
 
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(26-08-2012 12:04 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is not as though officers shooting civilians is a constant.

I never said it is a constant. Another assumption on your part. Stay with the facts. It is an intolerably frequent 'coincidence'. Check the stats. Forgot Rodney King already? The rogue vigilante police death squads in Rio and Macau? Joe Arpaio in Az? The list goes on and on. That's a fact. You tell me if that qualifies as a constant.
But if you prefer to close your eyes to the facts and the numbers:
Goodnight! Angel
Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 02:34 PM
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
The whole point here is, as Chas said, that those cops should not be allowed to carry and use firearms. Govener is saying that all cops are like this, which may not be the case at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Magoo's post
26-08-2012, 02:48 PM
 
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(26-08-2012 02:34 PM)Magoo Wrote:  Govener is saying that all cops are like this

Yeah?
Where did I say that?
Feel free to quote me.
Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 03:03 PM
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(25-08-2012 06:35 PM)The Governor Wrote:  New York cops have a peculiar way of interpreting their motto "To protect and to serve"...: they shoot us, the public!

That shooter knew how to shoot: he shot and killed one guy! The guy he intended to kill. In the middle of a bustling metropolis.
The cops fired 16 bullets, killed the shooter, and hit 9 – nine – innocent bystanders!

Now, tell me, who was the rogue shooter here?

'Organized' cops are worse than organized crime.

(26-08-2012 09:35 AM)The Governor Wrote:  Name-calling doesn't change the facts, mate.

The valid point is that NY cops demonstrate time and again – remember that innocent guy that was killed in a hail of 54 police bullets, last year? – that they are life-threateningly dangerous to the public, us, when they 'just do their job'.

The valid point is that we need police like that like we need a hole in the head. And guess what? They are trying real hard, and succeeding ever more often!

The valid point is that you play down the extremely REAL danger of the cops to the public. Whose side are you on?

The valid point is that crooks can shoot, while cops can't.

The valid point is that cops have guns, powers, and responsibilities they obviously are incapable of handling.

Consequently, the valid point is that cops are vastly overpaid out of our tax dollars!

And ultimately: the valid point is that we, taxpayers, are not getting our money's worth! That we, the taxpayers, are getting stiffed: we don't get what we pay for: protection! Instead, IRL, we get the opposite: we get shot!

Wait till Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, the Young Turks, etc. etc. get their teeth into this one!
I guess they are also irrational?

(26-08-2012 11:16 AM)The Governor Wrote:  Either you are willfully misrepresenting my position or you have a problem with comprehensive reading: I have repeatedly said that the cops' 'intentions' are totally irrelevant vis-a-vis what they actually DO/DID: shooting innocent bystanders!
Whatever those 'intentions' are/were, who the fuck cares? You are assuming those 'intentions'. On the basis of what? You don't know anything about them. You're projecting. So let's keep to the facts!

The fact is that innocent bystanders got shot! By the cops, not the crook! The fact is that those 'intentions' – that you assume – resulted in exactly their opposite! So the fact is that those 'intentions' were worthless and useless IRL. Ergo: the cops are worthless and useless IRL. Worse: they shoot us!

Again, FYI: it wasn't the crook that shot nine innocent bystanders! It was the cops that shot nine innocent bystanders! 'Protecting them'...


(26-08-2012 11:46 AM)The Governor Wrote:  The cops' 'intentions' – which you merely assume motivated their actions – clearly don't protect the public. As the facts bear out. Cops and their 'intentions' are defacto a lethal combination and a very real threat to the public they are supposed to protect and serve...

It's about time you faced up to the reality that far too many 'officers' are really nothing more than trigger-happy, power-crazy punks in fancy dress.
Brownshirts in blue shirts.
Just look at what they DO in the streets.

Do you even read what you post? And don't tell me those aren't generalizations.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 03:45 PM
 
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
Back already? Big Grin

Yeah, comprehensive reading isn't your strong suit. Big Grin

Hey, did you know the cops love generalizations? They generalize themselves away and hide behind those impersonal uniforms and service numbers, and laws, and self-invented ordnances, and fabricated and planted evidence, and perjurous statements. So that it is very difficult to hold individual 'officers' to account for their individual misconduct. Very clever. Or is it? Because that makes them all suspect of course! Big Grin And complicit, at the very least. Just like the RC clerus. All off them!

So it's a pretty stupid 'strategy', IYAM.
But totally in line with their thick-soled image.
Thankfully we now have mobile cameras and the internet to prevent them burying their 'accidents'.
Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 04:00 PM
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(26-08-2012 02:34 PM)Magoo Wrote:  The whole point here is, as Chas said, that those cops should not be allowed to carry and use firearms. Govener is saying that all cops are like this, which may not be the case at all.

It's not the case.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 04:45 PM
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(26-08-2012 03:45 PM)The Governor Wrote:  Back already? Big Grin

Yeah, comprehensive reading isn't your strong suit. Big Grin

Hey, did you know the cops love generalizations? They generalize themselves away and hide behind those impersonal uniforms and service numbers, and laws, and self-invented ordnances, and fabricated and planted evidence, and perjurous statements. So that it is very difficult to hold individual 'officers' to account for their individual misconduct. Very clever. Or is it? Because that makes them all suspect of course! Big Grin And complicit, at the very least. Just like the RC clerus. All off them!

So it's a pretty stupid 'strategy', IYAM.
But totally in line with their thick-soled image.
Thankfully we now have mobile cameras and the internet to prevent them burying their 'accidents'.
Your snide comments mean nothing to me, so give it a rest.

You did not specify. You made broad, generalized claims.

Ah, the good ol' fashioned intellectual argument of, "Two wrongs make a right."

Ah, yes. Because it happens so frequently. When's the last time you were gunned down by a police officer? Do you know anybody who was beaten? Surely if it happened frequently you'd know someone.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: