Quote:
Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher
Why bring up humans? We're clearing talking about dogs here. Stay on topic.
|
To use a parallel situation that shows how ridiculous your argument is.
If a person should be willing to suffer an assualt or injury from an animal, just to make sure it really is intent on attacking, then logically they should do the same when faced with a human attacker, no?
Human, animal, doesnt matter. If you feel that you are in imminent danger of injury or death, you have the right to defend yourself. In the case of a cop, he has the right to shoot whatever is attacking him.
Quote:
|
And let's face it, you're making as many assumptions as anyone here. You're arguing hard against anyone who thinks it might have not been justified which means you're assuming the shooting was justified. Hypocrite.
|
Said the pot to the kettle. One sentence after telling me not to put words in your mouth, you try to do the same to me. Tell me, what assumptions have I made about this case?
Take a hard look in the mirror, FDW. You are the biggest hypocrite here.
I'm arguing hard against people who are convicting this man of unjustifiable use of force despite having no idea what actually happened. Nothing more, nothing less.
I've stated twice now that I dont know if it was justified, or if he overreacted, or if he misinterpreted the dog's actions. I'm just not willing to condemn a man's actions until I have a better idea what happened. If you want, I can go back and bold, red type and giant font those comments, seeing as how you seem to have great difficulty seeing anything that proves your arguments wrong.