Daniel Shaver police shooting

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

by post better you man agree with popular opinion.

You're the lone defender of someone many of us consider a murderer. You shouldn't be shocked by the way people are responding to you, especially when you ignore everything but the split second that the shooting occurred.

[Flames_Gimp]

lmfao Now I defend dirty cops and I'm a boot-licker, is that all you sheeple got? keep piling on, let's see how big we can get the dog pile.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

lmfao Now I defend dirty cops and I'm a boot-licker, is that all you sheeple got? keep piling on, let's see how big we can get the dog pile.

dude have you considered you might just be on the wrong side of this one here?

[nik-]

Wouldn't the blatant, unquestioning kowtow to authority be the position of a sheep here?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

lmfao Now I defend dirty cops and I'm a boot-licker, is that all you sheeple got? keep piling on, let's see how big we can get the dog pile.

Are there any of the recent police shootings where you side with the person who was killed?

You understand that by going into victim mode that you are now baiting a pile on. Argue the merits and you will get a merit based argument back.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

dude have you considered you might just be on the wrong side of this one here?

Have you considered most of you are wrong?

"The perceived threat was apparently enough, based on existing legal standards for police use of force, for Brailsford’s acquittal. By reasonably perceiving a threat when Shaver reached for his waistband, even if Shaver did not actually have a gun, that was enough for Brailsford to legally justify the shooting."

"existing legal standards for police use of force"

My argument is right

[Flames_Gimp]

at least my argument is line with actual legal standards and not emotion fueled opinions

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

Have you considered most of you are wrong?

"The perceived threat was apparently enough, based on existing legal standards for police use of force, for Brailsford’s acquittal. By reasonably perceiving a threat when Shaver reached for his waistband, even if Shaver did not actually have a gun, that was enough for Brailsford to legally justify the shooting."

"existing legal standards for police use of force"

My argument is right

Legally your argument may be right, from a civil society and humanity standpoint your argument is horrific and sad. Not guilty doesn't mean innocent.

Again, I feel bad for you for your apparent willingness to live in a society where this is ok because we shouldn't question police officers. Coupled with an apparent inability to weigh context? Geez, that's rough.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

at least my argument is line with actual legal standards and not emotion fueled opinions

Legal standards are changed all the time. In this case, this standard should change.

Also, a jury exonerated the cop, not 'the courts'. Just because someone gets away with something in a jury trial doesn't make it right.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by nik-

Wouldn't the blatant, unquestioning kowtow to authority be the position of a sheep here?

yeah ok, Because I believe this one case isn't murder, I blatantly unquestioned all authority.. or just maybe people on cp love to pile on with herd mentality ?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

yeah ok, Because I believe this one case isn't murder, I blatantly unquestioned all authority.. or just maybe people on cp love to pile on with herd mentality ?

Well what am I supposed to call a webbed foot, two legged, billed animal that is quacking?

[Flames_Gimp]

A lot of straw man arguments in here.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by nik-

Well what am I supposed to call a webbed foot, two legged, billed animal that is quacking?

maybe not use straw man in every post?

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by nik-

Legally your argument may be right, from a civil society and humanity standpoint your argument is horrific and sad. Not guilty doesn't mean innocent.

Again, I feel bad for you for your apparent willingness to live in a society where this is ok because we shouldn't question police officers. Coupled with an apparent inability to weigh context? Geez, that's rough.

more straw man. nice try.

[Agamemnon]

I feel like this is almost getting to, "I know you are but what am I".

I guess some people think it was a bad shooting and some think it was a good one. We all have to live with ourselves at the end of the day.

[nik-]

I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.

Do you mean ad hominem? Do you know what you mean anymore? Or have you dug yourself into this position so deeply that you can't gracefully step back?

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by nik-

I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.

Do you mean ad hominem? Do you know what you mean anymore? Or have you dug yourself into this position so deeply that you can't gracefully step back?

Yeah, he's thinking ad hominem. Kinda like calling us sheeple.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by nik-

I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.

Do you mean ad hominem? Do you know what you mean anymore? Or have you dug yourself into this position so deeply that you can't gracefully step back?

lol show me where by saying reaching for something could be a gun I said I blindly follow authority?

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Yeah, he's thinking ad hominem. Kinda like calling us sheeple.

nope I'm not.

[Flames_Gimp]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Yeah, he's thinking ad hominem. Kinda like calling us sheeple.

well you do herd together like sheep on cp once you've identified a non popular opinion