---

Subject: let's argue about Awlaki
 
Bart –

A thesis cannot produce a valid conclusion if its premise is invalid, and invalid analogies prove nothing.
Your assertion that cops are allowed “to take a life if they think it needs taking” is not only incorrect, it’s ludicrous.

Really?
Did you just say, "Cops don't shoot people?"

It that were true, half the cops on Wall Street would be gunning down protesters, as they definitely "need killing" in the eyes of many cops.

That seems like an invalid analogy.
Those protestors aren't threatening to kill anybody.

A cop’s privilege to shoot at people is seriously restricted. Department rules vary, but in general
cops are only allowed to shoot at people in direct defense of armed attacks against themselves or others.

And as you well know, cops are definitely NOT permitted to act as judge, jury and executioner.

You must be talking about something with which I am not familiar.

If you approach a cop with a Swiss Army Knife and he says, "Drop that knife,"
and you take another step towards him, he will most certainly shoot you AND he'll shoot to kill.

Accused persons arrested by police  

(Excuse me, but NOBODY is talking about that. I'm talking about stopping someone
who is determined to kill - not somebody handcuffed in the back seat of a cop car.

...are turned over to the judicial system for trial, and for sentence IF convicted.

Cops are NOT allowed to execute suspects without trial.
If they were, YOU would most likely be dead.

Please re-read that paragraph that starts with the red If.
I find it astonishing that you think cops don't shoot people.

The Federal government is likewise restricted; the Constitution requires that:
“No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
That law is spelled out in the Constitution as well, and it definitely does NOT say
"just get approval from somebody in the Justice Department."

So, it's your position that a cop, with his gun drawn, WILL NOT FIRE if the "combatant" comes closer
without dropping the knife.    What city do you live in where the cops don't shoot armed, advancing suspects?

BTW, Amadou Diallo and Oscar Grant disagree with you 100%.

Your quarrel is not with those who are attempting to educate you on constitutional law;
your quarrel is with the Constitution itelf, and you are demonstrating the same contempt
for that document as did George W. Bush.

You seem to be having a quarrel with reality.

Because I realize the obvious fact that cops often shoot people, I'm just like Bush?

Why do you think every police department in America issues guns to their cops?
So they can bluff an armed attacker coming at them?

Either we follow the laws contained in the Constitution or we do not;
do you agree that the Constitution’s provisions should be followed, or do you,
like George Bush, just think we should just crap on it?
  Jack in Salem, Oregon

Jack, you have taken leave of your mental acuity.
If a man is approaching with a knife, you think a cop is going to call for a Constitution Convention?

No, he's going to drop the knife-weilding suspect in a New York heartbeat.

p.s. You've been using a lot of invalid analogies lately. That's usually the sign of someone
who knows he's wrong (or at least strongly suspects he's wrong), but just can't bring himself to admit it.

I'm saying cops regularly shoot armed attackers.  It's called "law enforcement."
To suggest they don't means you and I can't have a meaningful conversation on the subject.

And your PS suggests that you're pretty damn certain you can't be wrong on this.
You are the first person I've ever met to suggest cops don't shoot people ...and you're cocky about it.

I suspect alcohol is involved.

 

  Share|

Send e-mail to Bart

  Back to Bartcop.com

---

 

Send e-mail to Bart

  Back to Bartcop.com