Police in milwaukee shoot an armed suspect who was fleeing ftom them and people protest and riot against it

First topic message reminder :


Police say a Milwaukee officer has shot and killed an armed man during a foot chase.

Capt. Mark Stanmeyer says officers stopped a car with two people inside Saturday. He says the pair got out of the car and ran and that the officers chased them.

He says a 23-year-old man who was one of the people fleeing was armed with a handgun and was shot by an officer during the pursuit. The man's name wasn't immediately released.

Stanmeyer says the man died at the scene. He says the handgun was determined to be stolen.



http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-milwaukee-officer-hit-brick-shooting-aftermath-41367976



Looks like the protesters like having armed criminals on the streets and don't want the police to do anything about it.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Tommy, it's obvious that you think the threat of being shot by a "good guy with a gun" would lower crime and gun deaths. But you completely contradicted yourself when you recommended that people not use their guns and instead call the police.

Guns aren't criminal kryptonite -- their mere presence doesn't prevent crime. Your scenario depends upon not only a lot of people owning guns, but being proficient in using them to kill or cripple criminals -- like the police generally are.

You're getting desperate now...

You deliberately misrepresent what I've said to make the straw man contridiction argument above...

Stop with the navel watching narrative, tommy.  You are just like one who is seeing an optical illusion for the first time, and can't believe it:

Tommy Monk wrote:I said from the start that if more law abiding citizens had guns then it would be much less likely that a criminal would try anything... and I said people should not go rushing in were they don't know what's happening but should seek safe cover and call police...

Both Ben and I caught your contradiction.  When the guy (Majors) turns out bad, or the trainor goes and gets his gun, you say they should have called the police. But, you're the one who's arguing that guns are the answer.  Why the contradiction?  Discard the guns, and call the police in the first place.  Guns make criminals, not stop them.  

Your contradictions is, when you say guns are the answer, but then you say 'call the police' when your first option goes wrong.  You can't see that?

The fact is, you are describing an event that has the opposite result than you expect.  You can't believe it.  I understand the confusion, but it's time for you to see the other picture.

Again desperately misrepresenting what I said to create a straw man argument...

Tommy Monk wrote:Again desperately misrepresenting what I said to create a straw man argument...

Don't think so. You just don't recognize the optics.

If you have to twist what I say to fabricate an argument... then you show you have no real arguments...!

Tommy Monk wrote:If you have to twist what I say to fabricate an argument... then you show you have no real arguments...!

I showed you it wasn't a twist. Give it up, tommy. You just don't have the mental stretch to realize what's going on.

No you have shown how far you will go to twist... desperate and pathetic...!

Tommy Monk wrote:No you have shown how far you will go to twist... desperate and pathetic...!

This is what comes from being schooled in jingos and dog whistles.  You lose touch with the ability to build metaphors, work with ideas and apply logic to compel the consistent and methodical outcome of reasoning.

Do you remember records, tommy?  Do you remember when they got a scratch in them and the needle jumped back and repeated the same line or musical passage over and over.  You build to a point of drawing the right conclusion, but just when you reach the crescendo you retreat and repeat the quiet calando, going over and over and over the same theme.

It's too bad that the RW doesn't breed more thinkers...people like Friedrich Hayek.  It would be fun to explore and discuss ideas.  I guess it's a Darwinian, natural selection thing: in order to nurture illogical ideas, you need a strain of non-thinkers.  

Why are illogical ideas necessary?  How else can some people fool others into giving them all their wealth...and their vote?  It's the conservative wet-dream.

And there we have the usual waffle after being exposed...

Tommy Monk wrote:

And there we have the usual waffle after being exposed...

Tommy, it's boring and pointless going over and over the same ideas with you.  I've stated all the arguments, you can't respond, so it becomes a useless, broken record.

I've run you all over this thread... you lost on the op then you tried to twist it into an argument about why law abiding citizens shouldn't have guns... and you lost on that too!!!


Then you revert waffle...


Most amusing!!!

Nah, nah, nah....I'm not listening...

La...la...la...We are the champions, of the worrrrrld...

Even more silly now...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Even more silly now...

What else can one do with you?  You are a silly subject.

You started it...!