Police shoot and kill another person

[pritch]

Bad grammar mate, "there ARE none so blind" etc

Granted regarding the grammar, but that is messing around with the quotation
which I believe to be correct as stated. That could start a whole new thread though....

[Hitcher]

"There is none so blind as they that won't see". Jonathan Swift, Polite Conversation. Dialogue III.

"There is none" is grammatically correct. "None" in that context is singular, so therefore the "is" as the singular form of the verb to be is correct.

[Patrick]

Y E S H E W A S, I S T I L L R E F U S E T O S W A L L O W P O L I C E P R O P A G A N D A A S R E A D I L Y A S Y O U.

Yet you so readily are able to swallow that offered by the convict neighbour... fond memories of times past perhaps???

I find it interesting that when someone (anyone) takes a police officer to task (or takes the piss) on kb, be it personally or even hypothetically, all the police officers in creation get so defensive....etc

Just pointing out the obvious to those who can't see (or don't want to see)... I offer a perspective from this side of the fence, is all... Some think they know all about Policing and the world they see through their rose tinted lenses... Some call it defensive. I call it balance.

[idleidolidyll]

Yet you so readily are able to swallow that offered by the convict neighbour... fond memories of times past perhaps???

that kind of childish ad hominem is the last refuge a loser.

cheers, i accept your defeat

[idleidolidyll]

So there ya have it. The redneck tries character assassination by alluding that anyone who complains about the actions of cops is a criminal.

no attempt at Aristotelean reasoning, no sign of ethos, pathos or logos at all: way to lose dude

[jrandom]

I predict the imminent triggering of Godwin's Law.

[Patrick]

peacenik?

hilarious! valuing human life gets one branded as a peacenik now.

i suppose it's better than being called cuntstable

that kind of childish ad hominem is the last refuge a loser.

cheers, i accept your defeat

I guess you accepted your own defeat back then at the above post...

So there ya have it. The redneck tries character assassination by alluding that anyone who complains about the actions of cops is a criminal.

no attempt at Aristotelean reasoning, no sign of ethos, pathos or logos at all: way to lose dude

Dunno how you get redneck out of my supporting a cop saving his own life, whatever names get you through I suppose... see above...

Your idol, the one with the prison tats, is not my idea of an independant witness. He was the one who claimed their neighbour and mate was shot for just standing there with his hands at his sides, when everyone else, who didn't know the guy nor served time, gave their views. Those views are easier to comprehend, make sense, and are able to be believed.

[idleidolidyll]

i give back what i get. you guys got all bitchy that i was posting an opposing opinion so i used your own nonsense to make dicks of you.

judging from the ratings and pm's i got yesterday (11 in total and only one negative), it seems i am well supported in my opinions even if others can't be bothered putting up with your 'style' of so called debate.

Again; the cop saving his own life is police propaganda; the saame bullshit line greg oconnor automatically offers every timew some cop does something the public might not like. that you suck it down so readily indicates to me that you're either a cop or a redneck or both.
From what I can determine, the cop escalated the situation in which nobody had been threatened and then, without considering backing off or any other alternatives, shot the guy who turns out to have been pretty much just an ordinary guy who lost it out of character.

again; the message being sent by cops is that they are nopt prepared to even consider alternatives and will kill people for traffic offences or property damage.

[jrandom]

...even if others can't be bothered putting up with your 'style' of so called debate.

I think you do realise that you're arguing by assertion, and have failed to provide a sound logical chain for your conclusions. You've mentioned Socrates already; I doubt you're unfamiliar with the canonical logical fallacies.

However, your reaction to the situation is understandable. How you choose to argue a point against people disagreeing with you, though, is something you have to square with your own conscience; I smell intellectual dishonesty being brought to play, here.

*shrug*

You know, I'm curious as to whether, apart from ranting on the internet, you do anything to change the sociopolitical situation around you.

[idleidolidyll]

actually i mentioned aristotle not socrates and yes, i am vey familiar with the gamut of logical fallacies: i've even completed a research project around them based on online debate.

rather than provide your so called 'sound logical chain' without full disclosure of all the facts and witness statements, i've offered an alternative viewpoint to the one offered by greg oconnor and sucked down by the sychophants here so readily.

if there is a truly independent investigation (and i doubt there will be), we may learn all the facts and will ALL then be in a position to argue based on full logos. Until then, I will continue to offer counter arguments to the 'party line' and opinions based on what I believe we should be doing as opposed to the status quo.

[jrandom]

i mentioned aristotle not socrates...

Ayup. All-a them classical buggers kinda fade together after a while.

if there is a truly independent investigation (and i doubt there will be), we may learn all the facts and will ALL then be in a position to argue based on full logos...

And now you move from arguing by assertion to silently shifting your position. You haven't just been offering an alternate point of view; you have been stridently asserting that the dead guy was shot because he caused property damage, which simply doesn't make sense in any conceivable scenario, and paints you as being driven solely by your apparent dislike of the police.

And it's that assertion that your opponents, here, are taking issue with.

Believing that a police officer in this country would knowingly shoot an unarmed and/or nonaggressive individual as some sort of sadistic power-trip constitutes unjustifiable paranoia.

You may wish to stipulate that, yes, you believe that Mr Anonymous Copper is, in fact, a sadistic killer who shot a man for no good reason, but don't try to dress that statement up and offer it as an "alternative point of view". It's patently ridiculous. (Yes, I know you think it's not ridiculous. Shall we just leave that difference in opinion clearly defined, and move on from here?)

[crshbndct]

i will say this: i do not agree with III but then i believe this too:

arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics: even if you win, your still a retard.

(i realise that this is a pretty mean statement but the meaning of it is what i am talking about)

[crshbndct]

wow i need to get faster connection, i didnt see the pic. i got beatone like a red headed step child

[kiwifruit]

Well I won't back down
No I won't back down
You can stand me up at the gates of hell
But I won't back down

No I'll stand my ground, won't be turned around
And I'll keep this world from draggin me down
gonna stand my ground
... and I won't back down

[jrandom]

arguing on the internet is like competing in the special olympics: even if you win, your still a retard.

My boyfriend goaded me when I backed down, earlier, and isn't going to put out for ages unless I win this argument.