---

Subject: let's argue about Awlaki

Bart,

I'm sorry but you completely ignored what the writer said and you put words in his mouth. 

I would be surprised if you had some evidence to back that up.

He never said cops don't shoot people, he clearly stated that they are restricted in when they can. 
Then he said that when they are facing a dangerous situation with themselves or someone else they are authorized to use force.

Instead of characterizing what Jack said, why not quote him?  His exact words were: 
"Your assertion that cops are allowed “to take a life if
 they think it needs taking” is not only incorrect, it’s ludicrous."

He just said Cops are NOT allowed to take a life if they think it needs taking, which to me is
a madman running at a cop with a knife.  What part of that do we disagree on?

"Cops are only allowed to shoot at people in direct defense of armed attacks against themselves or others."
Which is exactly the situation you gave when you said if a person comes at a cop with a knife he can and will shoot them. 

Please don't make stuff up. 

I do not understand the charges you are making.
I wish you had made your case because these quote-each-other deals only work a few times.

Bottom line:
Cops are allowed to shoot if they're trying to save a life - do you agree or disagree?
Are we arguing about the meaning of the word "imminent?"

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just didn't read or understand
what he said and not that you misrepresented what he said on purpose.

Well, that's might white of you, granting that's it's possible I'm not a lying fraud.

Why do my opponents often fall into the personal-insult style of debate?
Would your argument lose strength if you had just stayed with the facts?

Nobody's arguing with you that in situations of imminent danger to cops or civilians the use of deadly force is okay. 

Really?
Then why are so many people angry with Officer Obama for "shooting the madman with a knife?"

They are saying that the extra judicial killing of an American citizen is wrong whether a cop does it or the President does it. 

That's your hang-up?  The phrase "extra judicial?"
You say it's wrong when a cop takes a life - I say it depends on the circumstances.

If you believe the President or cops can kill on their whim, that's just your opinion. 

Actually, that's my opinion, and Obama's opinion and his Justice Department's opinion and I dare say
it's the opinion of 70-80 percent of America.  You're trying to make ME the odd guy out when it's pretty
obvious that most of America is glad the bastard is dead.   I'm sorry most Americans disagree with you.

I daresay, most people would be against cops doing that, but, alas, it seems they don't mind the President doing it.

You would be wrong.
Nobody is against a cop shooting an advancing madman with a knife.

You will probably come back with the threat of airplane bombings, again. 

Bill, what you're saying is so wildly off-the-mark, again, I must wonder what you meant to say.

Saying Awalki has not directly killed anyone YET is tantamount to saying,
"Granted, the sniper is firing at us, be he hasn't actually hit anyone yet so why are we attacking him?"

You're saying we should've waited until after Awlaki brought down a plane to take him out?
Did you read this e-mail to yourself before you hit "Send?"

As far as evidence, surely you're not suggesting that the White House publish a list of our
intelligence-gathering operatives in Yemen.  You must have meant something else, right?

If you're going to debate me, please have a clear point of view and clearly state what that is.
I still have no idea what you object to - you were all over the place.

And notice that I didn't attack you, I attacked your willingness to give the murdering terrorists a break.

 Share|

Send e-mail to Bart

  Back to Bartcop.com

---

 

Send e-mail to Bart

  Back to Bartcop.com