Utah HP tasers John Gardner

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You are ASSUMING there is no threat to the cop!!!

And again, why does the cop have a right to defend himself if his life is inherently less valuable than that of the criminal shooting? That IS what you said.

Sigh. It most certainly is not what I said, and only a deliberate misinterpretation could have given you that impression.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Sigh. It most certainly is not what I said, and only a deliberate misinterpretation could have given you that impression.

Whose safety is more important?

According to Woot:

"Your argument would make sense if the safety of the cop was more important than the safety of the other guy. It's not."

If the safety of the other guy is more important, then what should the cop do if the guy hits him? What if the guy shoots at him? What if the guy puts his hand in his pocket (where he could have a weapon) and walks away from the cop?

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Whose safety is more important?

According to Woot:

"Your argument would make sense if the safety of the cop was more important than the safety of the other guy. It's not."

If the safety of the other guy is more important, then what should the cop do if the guy hits him? What if the guy shoots at him? What if the guy puts his hand in his pocket (where he could have a weapon) and walks away from the cop?

Again, read it more closely. I refuse to believe your reading comprehension is that poor.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Again, read it more closely. I refuse to believe your reading comprehension is that poor.

Sounds like you are bailing out with the familiar "you must be dumb for not understanding me" rhetoric.

I don't blame you for being unable to answer the questions. You have put yourself in an impossible situation here.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Sounds like you are bailing out with the familiar "you must be dumb for not understanding me" rhetoric.

I don't blame you for being unable to answer the questions. You have put yourself in an impossible situation here.

Well, I guess I must conclude that you really are that poor of a reader. Here's a hint: "less than" doesn't exclude "equal to."

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Well, I guess I must conclude that you really are that poor of a reader. Here's a hint: "less than" doesn't exclude "equal to."

How is that helpful? If the safety of the cop is equally important to the safety of the suspect, then what? You are speaking abstractly. Try to convert your abstract thoughts into a concrete practical application (and try to avoid saying something equally unhelpful like "he should have just arrested him").

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

How is that helpful? If the safety of the cop is equally important to the safety of the suspect, then what? You are speaking abstractly. Try to convert your abstract thoughts into a concrete practical application (and try to avoid saying something equally unhelpful like "he should have just arrested him").

It should be obvious, so I'll let you figure it out. It's funny how easily you brush off your hilarious overreaction due to your poor reading comprehension.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

It should be obvious, so I'll let you figure it out. It's funny how easily you brush off your hilarious overreaction due to your poor reading comprehension.

Is it as obvious as "he should just arrest him?" If so, I can't wait to hear about it.

I have a hard time believing you meant to say that the safety of the policeman was equal in importance to the safety of the suspect. First of all, you didn't even attempt to contest my reading of your statement in the post following mine. Rather, you took issue with my analogy of the situation. Second, if you are now arguing that you view their safety as being of equal value, then why wouldn't the officer have a right to protect himself if he felt threatened? It is just as important that he be safe as the suspect. Why can't he take appropriate measures to be safe?

Sounds like you are engaging in a little post hoc rationalization to me. Don't you know that lying is against the 10 commandments? You should.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Is it as obvious as "he should just arrest him?" If so, I can't wait to hear about it.

I have a hard time believing you meant to say that the safety of the policeman was equal in importance to the safety of the suspect. First of all, you didn't even attempt to contest my reading of your statement in the post following mine. Rather, you took issue with my analogy of the situation. Second, if you are now arguing that you view their safety as being of equal value, then why wouldn't the officer have a right to protect himself if he felt threatened? It is just as important that he be safe as the suspect. Why can't he take appropriate measures to be safe?

Sounds like you are engaging in a little post hoc rationalization to me. Don't you know that lying is against the 10 commandments? You should.

Oh come on. You're just trying to justify your ridiculous misreading and subsequent overreaction. I thought it would have been obvious what I meant, which is why I didn't immediately clarify. I obviously don't think that any human life is more valuable than another's. You didn't even recognize the possibility that that is what I meant, which is pretty sad.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by woot

Oh come on. You're just trying to justify your ridiculous misreading and subsequent overreaction. I thought it would have been obvious what I meant, which is why I didn't immediately clarify. I obviously don't think that any human life is more valuable than another's. You didn't even recognize the possibility that that is what I meant, which is pretty sad.

So your argument is that it is obvious what you meant (even though it is obvious that isn't how it was being interpreted), so you felt no need to clarify (despite the obvious "misinterpretation" of your quote). Right...

I will note that what you are doing now is a common debate tactic- make the debate about you. It is Tex-style debating 101. Avoid the actual issues (where you are getting crushed) and focus on something else tangential. Well played.