Subject: let's argue about Awlaki
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.
Did you just say, "Cops don't shoot
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
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.
must be talking about something with which I am not familiar.
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
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
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
Because I realize the obvious
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
like George Bush, just think we should just crap on it?
Jack, you have taken leave of
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.
saying cops regularly shoot armed attackers. It's called "law
To suggest they don't means
you and I can't have a meaningful conversation on the subject.
your PS suggests that you're pretty damn certain you can't be wrong on
You are the first person I've ever met to suggest cops don't shoot
people ...and you're cocky about it.
suspect alcohol is involved.
e-mail to Bart
Back to Bartcop.com
e-mail to Bart
Back to Bartcop.com