-
“Here's one you could ponder for a while before you try derailing yet another discussion:…”
talesin,
My comments to Simon address what Simon actually said.
How is it a red herring to address what a fellow participant actually says?
Marvin Shilmer
Boston bomb investigators kill Florida man
by Simon 162 Replies latest members politics
-
-
Simon
Yeah Marvin, you're doing your usual trick of going off topic when you have a weak argument.
Sorry, but we're not going to keep doing this.
-
soontobe
If he attacked the agents with a knife (a deadly weapon) and it was reasonable for them to believe they were in danger of death or severe bodily harm, they were justified in shooting him out of self defense.
However, I don't know all the details of what really happened.
Just my 2c.
-
MrFreeze
The first couple stories I read mentioned no knife, now they are saying knife. I even read a quote about from someone about how he was particularly dangerous because of his MMA background. This whole story is fishy. Same with the captured Boston bomber leaving a confession in the boat. It just makes no sense.
-
Simon
None of us know the details, but you can 'smell' when a story has been cobbled together and things definitley don't seem quite right with this one.
Marvin
When the police were firing off rounds at the second suspect in the boat he was unarmed and they were already filming him with a robot and helicopter. Not that I care about his sorry ass but they should have been concerned about questioning him precisely to assertain whether there were more bombs so as to protect people. You can tell that the shooting was unprofessional because the police ended up shooting themselves, initially attributed to the suspect as was the 'attempt to shoot himself' (although he had no weapon).
This is what happens when the police go nuts. They shoot each other and it takes a while for the truth to come out.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/04/26/300304/us-bombing-suspect-unarmed-when-shot/
Your argument seems to be 'so what ... shoot away'.
Well, why bother with trials and all this inconvenient stuff called 'law' at all? Heck, line the lawers up first and then everything will go smoother eh? We'll just have Judge Dred and co riding the streets popping off anyone they know deserves it and how dare anyone ask any questions. Is that how it's supposed to work? Your country can easily go down the shitter and become a police state if people stand by and allow it to happen. And anyone who imagines the police are 100% squeeky clean and trustworthy is a complete imbecile IMO.
-
Simon
Here you go Marvin, tell me this is great police work to apprehend an injured suspect needed for questioning:
http://www.nowthisnews.com/news/incredible-new-footage-watertown-firefight/
-
designs
ABC news is quoting FBI Agents as saying Ibragim 'just went crazy'. You wonder how much the FBI knows through its own methods of survelliance on this suspect who was said to be willing to sign a confession. So many answers need to be made public.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“Yeah Marvin, you're doing your usual trick of going off topic when you have a weak argument.
“Sorry, but we're not going to keep doing this.”
Simon,
Respectfully, you keep insulting my person rather than addressing the subject. Each time I’ve responded in this discussion it’s been to what you’ve said and, more recently, specifically to the current FBI shooting.
Please explain how this is a trick of going off topic.
Since you’re found time to accuse me as you have, hopefully you’ll find time to answer for your accusation.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Simon
Marvin: You are off topic again. You are discussing other posters again. Claiming again that you've been mortally insulted and are doing the "explain to me how ..." rigmarole again.
I don't have to answer anything to you and your act is getting stale.
No one is suggesting that if police are being shot or having bombs thrown at them that they shouldn't be allowed to shoot back. So your 'argument' (lets be kind and call it that) is completely irrelevant to the topic.
What we're talking about is the complete opposite - the police shooting and using overwhelming and inordinate force when it is not justified and doing more harm than good by killing what could be people with information.
Once could start to think that the agencies are more interested in stopping information coming out than in collecting and using it.
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
“None of us know the details, but you can 'smell' when a story has been cobbled together and things definitley don't seem quite right with this one.”
Nothing like a nice dose of speculation!
“When the police were firing off rounds at the second suspect in the boat he was unarmed and they were already filming him with a robot and helicopter.”
Simon,
We know now he was unarmed. I’m not so sure they knew prior to his capture. There were lots of items in the boat. Would you have asked your son or daughter in law enforcement to risk his or her life to go check for bombs prior to his capitulation or capture? Would you have risked the lives of people in the neighborhood?
I’ve not heard anyone in law enforcement suggest those policemen acted in anyways untoward. For all I know most of the projectiles fired were non-lethal rounds. I don’t know for sure. But if they were all lethal rounds I don’t blame them one bit. Enough people had already died at the hands of those two.
“Not that I care about his sorry ass but they should have been concerned about questioning him precisely to assertain whether there were more bombs so as to protect people.”
Sure they were concerned about questioning him, and they did. But I doubt they were willing to put that concern ahead of fellow police officers already in harms way.
“You can tell that the shooting was unprofessional because the police ended up shooting themselves, initially attributed to the suspect as was the 'attempt to shoot himself' (although he had no weapon).”
Highly trained gunmen do sometimes get caught in crossfire. It’s a false bifurcation to suggest this means the shooting was unprofessional.
“Your argument seems to be 'so what ... shoot away'.”
I have not and do not suggest what you assert of me. That’s your strawman.
“And anyone who imagines the police are 100% squeeky clean and trustworthy is a complete imbecile IMO.”
I agree. And, with your words above you’ve gone completely off the rail with a red herring.
Discussions go much better when people respond to what’s actually said.
Marvin Shilmer