http://news.yahoo.com/miami-police-kill-naked-man-bit-off-victims-161203612.html

 

"The guy just stood, his head up... with pieces of flesh in his mouth and growled," Vega said, and would not stop eating the victim's face.

 

It has begun!

@Xenindal you are clearly are missing my point as well as everyone else's because he was out of his mind and was maliciously harming another man he shot to stop him from harming others and the victim. You by your own admission said you would not enter a physical altercation had you been in the same position. So explain to me what other alternative he might have had.

If I was the victim or I was close to the victim then yes, in the moment then maybe I would have wanted to see the attacker dead. That still doesn't make it right to kill him, and that was my point. That is killing him out of revenge, anger, whatever... that is not justice. That is murder in itself.

As for "the victim would have died if the attacker was not shot"... I've already addressed that. (To clarify, my point is that if the police had removed the attacker from the victim in any way at all (shooting him and killing him, shooting him with a taser and not killing him, or physically removing him from his victim) then it would have ended the same way for the victim)

 

Yeah, but a wolf cannot be compared to a human life...

 

 

Umm... no. Telling a guy who is high on drugs with his perception of reality that distorted to stop when he cannot comprehend a word you are saying is the same thing as verbally telling a deaf man to stop and then open firing on him when he does not. Or telling a person who does not understand any English to stop doing something (in English). Even if the police officer had said "STOP OR I'LL SHOOT!!!" then that is not at all fair warning when the guy does not understand a word of it.

 

 

Are you illiterate or not able to comprehend what has been spelled out to you several times by everyone?. NO ONE SAID HE WAS SUPPOSE TO BE SHOT AS PUNISHMENT .NOT ONE . We are saying that if the victim being eaten is you or a loved one you would want the attacker shot to save your life or the loved ones life .

His life isnt worth more than the person being attacked, more than the polices' life , or more than the publics life . He put himself in this position thus the consequence... Quit posting while you are behind . Seriously .Also , once again drugs aren't the PROVEN cause .Just speculation. He also could just be criminally insane. Even on drugs, hes still responsible . He put himself in that position , just like a drunk driver killing himself and others in an accident..It's his own fault he's dead by his own actions .Period...THAT IS MURDER. Use some common sense FFS .Finally , If he wasnt stopping after being shot MULTIPLE TIMES, he wasnt gonna stop by restraint or taser ...

 

@Xenindal you are clearly are missing my point as well as everyone else's because he was out of his mind and was maliciously harming another man he shot to stop him from harming others and the victim. You by your own admission said you would not enter a physical altercation had you been in the same position. So explain to me what other alternative he might have had.

 

This too

Thers been a Dog walking around the area where i live leaveing bloody paw prints im not lieing..........

Edited May 30, 201213 yr by venquaerra

O.O I'm not clicking that link. http://kh13.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/smiley-cry.png I don't want a zombie apocalypse.

@Xenindal you are clearly are missing my point as well as everyone else's because he was out of his mind and was maliciously harming another man he shot to stop him from harming others and the victim. You by your own admission said you would not enter a physical altercation had you been in the same position. So explain to me what other alternative he might have had.

 

He was not "maliciously" harming anyone. How can he have acted with malice when he was not even aware of what was going on at the time?

And I never said that I would not have "ented a physical altercation" if I was in the SAME position. I said that if I was in my CURRENT position (not being a police officer, not having any sort of background / training in restraining violent people or people larger than myself, not having a taser at my disposal, not being able to call for backup, etc.) then I would not have been able to stop him.

I've already explained the alternatives. He could have restrained the guy himself, if he couldn't do that then he could have restrained the guy with the help of another officer / officers (since it seems the article indicates more than 1 officer being present at the time), he could have used his taser on the guy, and there's probably other alternatives that I don't even know about since I have never been trained on arresting people who resist arrest or restraining people, etc.

 

Are you illiterate or not able to comprehend what has been spelled out to you several times by everyone?. NO ONE SAID HE WAS SUPPOSE TO BE SHOT AS PUNISHMENT .NOT ONE . We are saying that if the victim being eaten is you or a loved one you would want the attacker shot to save your life or the loved ones life .

I was referring to this:

If someone was gnawing on my face, I would be very upset if he wasn't shot outright.

 

The guy couldn't obey/refused to obey instructions and was putting his victim and the officers in immediate danger. He had to be shot.

As in, shoot him because I am very upset and I feel that he should be shot. Not shoot him because I am in danger (even though it would kill two birds with one stone...)

Moreover, you keep making statements on the premise that shooting and killing the guy was the ONLY option.

And you keep saying that he was a threat to the police and practically everyone else around. There is absolutely no indication that that was the case. The attacker was feasting on his victim's face and showed no signs of even attempting to go after a second victim. Even if he was shot in the victim's defense then that is far from "self defense" and "protecting everyone at the scene".

His life isnt worth more than the person being attacked, more than the polices' life , or more than the publics life .

I never said anything about the value of anyone's life.

And as I have said before, his life was not worth more than his victim's life, more than the police officers's lives, or more than the public's lives. But neither was it worth less. It is not my place to judge the value of anyone's life in the first place (and even if it was, there is absolutely no information in the article that indicates who's lives are worth more or less than others's...)

Why does "the value of his life" make a difference anyway? You say that he should be shot, not as punishment, but to "save" the lives of others. So does it really matter if he was evil, worthless to society, your best friend, someone who helps the homeless, a man who has discovered the cure for AIDS or cancer, whatever? If he has to be stopped then he has to be stopped, end of story. The value of his life is completely irrelevant.

He put himself in this position thus the consequence...

. . .

Even on drugs, hes still responsible . He put himself in that position , just like a drunk driver killing himself and others in an accident..It's his own fault he's dead by his own actions .Period...

Yeah, he put himself in that position. That doesn't give anyone the right to kill him. Do people have the right to rape a drunk just because he / she ended up drunk and in the position to be raped? Does anyone have the right to steal money from the wallet of a drunk who has passed out even though it was entirely his fault that he passed out? As I said before, of course he should have been held responsible for his actions while high. That doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want to him simply because he ended up in that position in the first place.

And to use your drunk driver example... when is it ever legal to kill a drunk who intends on driving a vehicle, even if that drunk will surely crash and kill several people?

THAT IS MURDER. Use some common sense FFS .Finally , If he wasnt stopping after being shot MULTIPLE TIMES, he wasnt gonna stop by restraint or taser ...

Killing someone with no intent on killing the person is not "murder" in the eyes of the law -- it's manslaughter. And as I've already said, manslaughter is not a crime punishable by death.

And do you even know what "restrain" means or what a "taser" does?

If you restrain the guy then he literally cannot continue the attack because he has been COMPLETELY REMOVED from the victim.

If you use a taser on him then he physically cannot move. People don't stop moving when they are shot by a taser simply "because it hurts"... they stop because the electrical current locks up their muscles and they physically CANNOT move.

Also , once again drugs aren't the PROVEN cause .Just speculation. He also could just be criminally insane.

I find it highly unlikely that drugs (or insanity) was not the cause. Even if this man was not high on drugs, the police believed him to be. If they believe he's on drugs and kill him then their actions are no different than if they kill a man who actually is on drugs, regardless of whether or not he actually was. That's like... if I'm taking a multiple choice test and think the answer is B but accidentally circle A and the answer really was A and get the question marked as "correct"... I am still wrong. I just made a lucky mistake...

As for the possibility of insanity, I don't know where you're going with that. You do realize that any crime commited by someone who is proven to be insane never results in the death penalty or any jail time whatsoever, but instead the criminal is sent to an asylum where he will no longer be a risk to society and where he can be treated for his illness? Insane people have little or no control over their actions (depending on the severity of their illness) and it is through no fault of their own (unlike being high on drugs where the person chose to get high). Killing his man while he is insane is probably even worse than killing him if he was simply high on drugs...

Quit posting while you are behind . Seriously .

Behind? I'm not the one who cannot form a logical argument, the one who resorts to insults, cursing, constantly using strange abbreviation such as "FFS" (which I have no idea what that even means), the one who does not address my points which you cannot logically counter, or the one who continues to repeat himself over and over again on points which I have already addressed without even offering any argument as to why my statement is wrong.

Edited May 30, 201213 yr by Xenidal

He was not "maliciously" harming anyone. How can he have acted with malice when he was not even aware of what was going on at the time?

And I never said that I would not have "ented a physical altercation" if I was in the SAME position. I said that if I was in my CURRENT position (not being a police officer, not having any sort of background / training in restraining violent people or people larger than myself, not having a taser at my disposal, not being able to call for backup, etc.) then I would not have been able to stop him.

I've already explained the alternatives. He could have restrained the guy himself, if he couldn't do that then he could have restrained the guy with the help of another officer / officers (since it seems the article indicates more than 1 officer being present at the time), he could have used his taser on the guy, and there's probably other alternatives that I don't even know about since I have never been trained on arresting people who resist arrest or restraining people, etc.

 

 

I was referring to this:

As in, shoot him because I am very upset and I feel that he should be shot. Not shoot him because I am in danger (even though it would kill two birds with one stone...)

Moreover, you keep making statements on the premise that shooting and killing the guy was the ONLY option.

And you keep saying that he was a threat to the police and practically everyone else around. There is absolutely no indication that that was the case. The attacker was feasting on his victim's face and showed no signs of even attempting to go after a second victim. Even if he was shot in the victim's defense then that is far from "self defense" and "protecting everyone at the scene".

 

I never said anything about the value of anyone's life.

And as I have said before, his life was not worth more than his victim's life, more than the police officers's lives, or more than the public's lives. But neither was it worth less. It is not my place to judge the value of anyone's life in the first place (and even if it was, there is absolutely no information in the article that indicates who's lives are worth more or less than others's...)

Why does "the value of his life" make a difference anyway? You say that he should be shot, not as punishment, but to "save" the lives of others. So does it really matter if he was evil, worthless to society, your best friend, someone who helps the homeless, a man who has discovered the cure for AIDS or cancer, whatever? If he has to be stopped then he has to be stopped, end of story. The value of his life is completely irrelevant.

 

Yeah, he put himself in that position. That doesn't give anyone the right to kill him. Do people have the right to rape a drunk just because he / she ended up drunk and in the position to be raped? Does anyone have the right to steal money from the wallet of a drunk who has passed out even though it was entirely his fault that he passed out? As I said before, of course he should have been held responsible for his actions while high. That doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want to him simply because he ended up in that position in the first place.

And to use your drunk driver example... when is it ever legal to kill a drunk who intends on driving a vehicle, even if that drunk will surely crash and kill several people?

Killing someone with no intent on killing the person is not "murder" in the eyes of the law -- it's manslaughter. And as I've already said, manslaughter is not a crime punishable by death.

And do you even know what "restrain" means or what a "taser" does?

If you restrain the guy then he literally cannot continue the attack because he has been COMPLETELY REMOVED from the victim.

If you use a taser on him then he physically cannot move. People don't stop moving when they are shot by a taser simply "because it hurts"... they stop because the electrical current locks up their muscles and they physically CANNOT move.

 

I find it highly unlikely that drugs (or insanity) was not the cause. Even if this man was not high on drugs, the police believed him to be. If they believe he's on drugs and kill him then their actions are no different than if they kill a man who actually is on drugs, regardless of whether or not he actually was. That's like... if I'm taking a multiple choice test and think the answer is B but accidentally circle A and the answer really was A and get the question marked as "correct"... I am still wrong. I just made a lucky mistake...

As for the possibility of insanity, I don't know where you're going with that. You do realize that any crime commited by someone who is proven to be insane never results in the death penalty or any jail time whatsoever, but instead the criminal is sent to an asylum where he will no longer be a risk to society and where he can be treated for his illness? Insane people have little or no control over their actions (depending on the severity of their illness) and it is through no fault of their own (unlike being high on drugs where the person chose to get high). Killing his man while he is insane is probably even worse than killing him if he was simply high on drugs...

 

Behind? I'm not the one who cannot form a logical argument, the one who resorts to insults, cursing, constantly using strange abbreviation such as "FFS" (which I have no idea what that even means), the one who does not address my points which you cannot logically counter, or the one who continues to repeat himself over and over again on points which I have already addressed without even offering any argument as to why my statement is wrong.

 

 

 

First off you are the one who hasnt argued your point with feasible logical answers. You are the one who TWISTS peoples answers to suit yourself or outright ignores peoples points. You yourself have been arguing in circles . Once again you cant compare raping a drunk girl with a drugged out psycho eating someones face . This is uncomparable . A Drunk girl getting raped for being drunk is the victim . This guy eating someone wasnt a victim of crime , he was the person committing the crime .How the firetruck do you compare this? This right here proves my point and shows your lack of logic and valid arguement . What the firetruck is wrong with you ? Also FredFred's comment STILL WASNT REFERING TO PUNISHMENT . HE WAS STILL SAYING THAT THE VICTIM HAS A RIGHT TO EXPECT THE ATTACKER SHOT TO SAVE HIS LIFE .You arent using valid arguement . You twist and contort facts . .I have logically countered you soo many times and you have chosen to ignore altogether or twist what was said. Example , You cant logically say tasering or physically restraining would work on someone who is that violently out of their minds. Approaching them would cause them to see you as a threat and will proceed to attack you . Therefore,the police couldnt use that approach without risking injury to themselves. If he wasnt gonna stop after being shot multiple times, tasering sure as hell wont work .LOGIC.

 

If hes insane , hes not LESS CULPABLE .If hes drugged hes not less culpable . People have murdered people high and are still convicted of murder. Not manslaughter.Murder. My point is that drugs and insanity make it even harder and more dangerous to get the situation under control .Period. Both make the aggressor harder to control and more violent .What about that dont you get? .Just bc you dont understand my point doesnt mean i dont have one ..

 

 

The fact you are soo ignorant and asinine to use a drunk girl getting raped as an example against a drugged psycho eating a person alive proves my points entirely. Thanks .Also i use internet slang and abbreviations to save time . This doesnt nullify my arguement. Your logic nullifies yours bc you have none . You blindly defend a person who was eating someone alive and then say they werent a threat . There is NO LOGIC in this alone.

Edited May 30, 201213 yr by Flaming Lea

@Xenidal you obviously have an issue grasping what people were trying to say. You say he did not commit a maliscous act.The dude was eating his friggen face off I can't even think of a better analogy for the word. There is no way that the attacker would have been restrained in that state of mind and tazing him would have escalated a already critical situation. The cop did his job and protected the victim. You have ignored LOGIC and REASON which is why you have lost this arguement.

@Xenidal you obviously have an issue grasping what people were trying to say. You say he did not commit a maliscous act.The dude was eating his friggen face off I can't even think of a better analogy for the word. There is no way that the attacker would have been restrained in that state of mind and tazing him would have escalated a already critical situation. The cop did his job and protected the victim. You have ignored LOGIC and REASON which is why you have lost this arguement.

 

Exactly ! He makes invalid posts and then says no one counters his points when thats all people have done . Hes the one with no valid arguement or counter.He ignores all logic and reason presented and then says no one presented it !

furthermore you can't compare a drunk rape victim to this guy it makes no sense. One is a victim of the crime and the other is the perpertrator of the crime. You have not used logic once in any of your arguements otherwise we wouldn't be debating this. Notice that no one has agreed with your doesn't that tell you something.Btw my dad was a cop for over 50 years so I know a hell of a lot more about police protocol then you do. Baised on the information we have been given the cop did nothing wrong

Ok, alright devereauxr and Flaming Lea. That's enough. No need to drag this argument further. Its pretty much the same crap I've been reading the past 3 pages. No need to drag it further you guys. =/

 

Xenidal. Don't be a smart-ass. I'm very sorry to be very direct to you but don't be that guy. Let me tell you the most simplest thing I can tell you from a police's perspective:

 

- No one has ever experience that incident and from looking at someone devouring a person's face is obviously horrifying to anyone in this world.

- The attacker had already been warned by the policeman and is trying to avoid an even more serious incident. You don't want to get involved in an even more serious situation right? Of course not.

- What would you do when you're in that police's position? will you personally tackle him and hold him off while he is obviously dangerous? Obviously not when he was growling at you while eating a human flesh and can possibly rush to you and hurt you unguard.

- Don't bloody expect all policeman to be professional.

- Policeman are humans too.

 

Think before you say anything.

He was not "maliciously" harming anyone. How can he have acted with malice when he was not even aware of what was going on at the time?

And I never said that I would not have "ented a physical altercation" if I was in the SAME position. I said that if I was in my CURRENT position (not being a police officer, not having any sort of background / training in restraining violent people or people larger than myself, not having a taser at my disposal, not being able to call for backup, etc.) then I would not have been able to stop him.

I've already explained the alternatives. He could have restrained the guy himself, if he couldn't do that then he could have restrained the guy with the help of another officer / officers (since it seems the article indicates more than 1 officer being present at the time), he could have used his taser on the guy, and there's probably other alternatives that I don't even know about since I have never been trained on arresting people who resist arrest or restraining people, etc.

 

 

I was referring to this:

As in, shoot him because I am very upset and I feel that he should be shot. Not shoot him because I am in danger (even though it would kill two birds with one stone...)

Moreover, you keep making statements on the premise that shooting and killing the guy was the ONLY option.

And you keep saying that he was a threat to the police and practically everyone else around. There is absolutely no indication that that was the case. The attacker was feasting on his victim's face and showed no signs of even attempting to go after a second victim. Even if he was shot in the victim's defense then that is far from "self defense" and "protecting everyone at the scene".

 

I never said anything about the value of anyone's life.

And as I have said before, his life was not worth more than his victim's life, more than the police officers's lives, or more than the public's lives. But neither was it worth less. It is not my place to judge the value of anyone's life in the first place (and even if it was, there is absolutely no information in the article that indicates who's lives are worth more or less than others's...)

Why does "the value of his life" make a difference anyway? You say that he should be shot, not as punishment, but to "save" the lives of others. So does it really matter if he was evil, worthless to society, your best friend, someone who helps the homeless, a man who has discovered the cure for AIDS or cancer, whatever? If he has to be stopped then he has to be stopped, end of story. The value of his life is completely irrelevant.

 

Yeah, he put himself in that position. That doesn't give anyone the right to kill him. Do people have the right to rape a drunk just because he / she ended up drunk and in the position to be raped? Does anyone have the right to steal money from the wallet of a drunk who has passed out even though it was entirely his fault that he passed out? As I said before, of course he should have been held responsible for his actions while high. That doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want to him simply because he ended up in that position in the first place.

And to use your drunk driver example... when is it ever legal to kill a drunk who intends on driving a vehicle, even if that drunk will surely crash and kill several people?

Killing someone with no intent on killing the person is not "murder" in the eyes of the law -- it's manslaughter. And as I've already said, manslaughter is not a crime punishable by death.

And do you even know what "restrain" means or what a "taser" does?

If you restrain the guy then he literally cannot continue the attack because he has been COMPLETELY REMOVED from the victim.

If you use a taser on him then he physically cannot move. People don't stop moving when they are shot by a taser simply "because it hurts"... they stop because the electrical current locks up their muscles and they physically CANNOT move.

 

I find it highly unlikely that drugs (or insanity) was not the cause. Even if this man was not high on drugs, the police believed him to be. If they believe he's on drugs and kill him then their actions are no different than if they kill a man who actually is on drugs, regardless of whether or not he actually was. That's like... if I'm taking a multiple choice test and think the answer is B but accidentally circle A and the answer really was A and get the question marked as "correct"... I am still wrong. I just made a lucky mistake...

As for the possibility of insanity, I don't know where you're going with that. You do realize that any crime commited by someone who is proven to be insane never results in the death penalty or any jail time whatsoever, but instead the criminal is sent to an asylum where he will no longer be a risk to society and where he can be treated for his illness? Insane people have little or no control over their actions (depending on the severity of their illness) and it is through no fault of their own (unlike being high on drugs where the person chose to get high). Killing his man while he is insane is probably even worse than killing him if he was simply high on drugs...

 

Behind? I'm not the one who cannot form a logical argument, the one who resorts to insults, cursing, constantly using strange abbreviation such as "FFS" (which I have no idea what that even means), the one who does not address my points which you cannot logically counter, or the one who continues to repeat himself over and over again on points which I have already addressed without even offering any argument as to why my statement is wrong.

 

 

Edited May 30, 201213 yr by Fredfredbug4

First off you are the one who hasnt argued your point with feasible logical answers. You are the one who TWISTS peoples answers to suit yourself or outright ignores peoples points. You yourself have been arguing in circles .

I have not. I have been replying to you and other people who obviously do not understand my point and need it to be repeated for clarity or to re-explain why your statements are incorrect. You are the one who keeps making me repeat myself. Besides replying to specific points of yours which you cannot grasp, I have not once repeated myself in this discussion. On the other hand, you keep saying the same things over and over and I'm not even bringing them up... and when you do repeat yourself you have never elaborated on any point past what I have already addressed. That is a fallacy right there... repeating yourself over and over again does not make what you're saying true (and since you are not repeating yourself for any particular reason it isn't adding anything to the discussion either...)

Once again you cant compare raping a drunk girl with a drugged out psycho eating someones face . This is uncomparable . A Drunk girl getting raped for being drunk is the victim . This guy eating someone wasnt a victim of crime , he was the person committing the crime .How the firetruck do you compare this? This right here proves my point and shows your lack of logic and valid arguement .

And when did I ever compare the two? I was replying to your statement that "if someone ends up in a position such as being drunk then anything bad that happens to him as a result of ending up in that position is his own fault and therefore not unjust toward him." This applies to everyone. The attacker himself was shot, if the shooting was unjust, then he was just as much a victim as any other unjust action against anyone else in a similar situation. How is any of that illogical or invalid?

What the firetruck is wrong with you ? Also FredFred's comment STILL WASNT REFERING TO PUNISHEMENT . HE WAS STILL SAYING THAT THE VICTIM HAS A RIGHT TO EXPECT THE ATTACKER SHOT TO SAVE HIS LIFE .You arent using valid arguement . You twist and contort facts . .

Sounded a lot like punishment to me. If not then I misread that. Still, I never twisted or contorted anything...

I have logically countered you soo many times and you have chosen to ignore altogether or twist what was said. Example , You cant logically say tasering or physically restraining would work on someone who is that violently out of their minds. Approaching them would cause them to see you as a threat and will proceed to attack you . Therefore,the police couldnt use that approach without risking injury to themselves. If he wasnt gonna stop after being shot multiple times, tasering sure as hell wont work .LOGIC.

First off, you have not logically countered me at all (and your example is not an example of that since this is the first time that you've even made such a remark...)

The closest thing you've had to a good argument was the stance that "since I don't know the details of the situation then I cannot say for sure that the police officer did anything wrong"... but you blew that argument by also taking the position that the police officer was definitely in the right (which is contradictory... if you cannot know if what he did was wrong then you also cannot know that it was right).

Now about the restraining not working... possibly. But your argument about the taser not working is completely wrong. Get your facts straight, a taser immobilizes whoever is hit by it due to the way that a taser works. Unless you are implying that this attacker was moving around without the use of his muscles or that he was somehow magically resistant to electricty then that argument itself is invalid (and even if you are implying such nonesense then your argument is invalid on the basis of having false premises)

If hes insane , hes not LESS CULPABLE .

Not true at all. Ever heard of "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty but insane"? If found guilty and insane then the criminal's sentence is entirely different, and rightly so.

If hes drugged hes not less culpable . People have murdered people high and are still convicted of murder. Not manslaughter.Murder.

Then those were either cases where person was high but still in control of his actions (and killing with malice, since "murder" requires malicious intent) or those were bad verdicts (which should have been corrected through the appeals system). I never said our court systems are perfect. What I said is that killing while high (and without malicious intent) is not murder,

My point is that drugs and insanity make it even harder and more dangerous to get the situation under control .Period. Both make the aggressor harder to control and more violent .What about that dont you get? .Just bc you dont understand my point doesnt mean i dont have one ..

The could potentially make the person more agressive (which is what happened in this case). I've never denied that and never said that you don't have a point...

The fact you are soo ignorant and asinine to use a drunk girl getting raped as an example against a drugged psycho eating a person alive proves my points entirely. Thanks .Also i use internet slang and abbreviations to save time . This doesnt nullify my arguement. Your logic nullifies yours bc you have none . You blindly defend a person who was eating someone alive and then say they werent a threat . There is NO LOGIC in this alone.

Using swears and insults if a fallacy in itself. Using obscure abbreviations does not in any way help your argument (how can you make a point when I have no idea what you're even saying?!)

 

@Xenidal you obviously have an issue grasping what people were trying to say. You say he did not commit a maliscous act.The dude was eating his friggen face off I can't even think of a better analogy for the word. There is no way that the attacker would have been restrained in that state of mind and tazing him would have escalated a already critical situation. The cop did his job and protected the victim. You have ignored LOGIC and REASON which is why you have lost this arguement.

 

Analogy or not, the act was not "malicious". Probably just poor word usage but there is a huge difference, and considering that malice is one of the key factors in distinguishing "murder" from "manslaughter" then making that incorrect statement changes the entire meaning of the statement.

 

- Don't bloody expect all policeman to be professional.

- Policeman are humans too.

 

These last two things were sort of my point. Police are not always "professional" (although they are obligated to be, considering it's part of their job) and they are human... they can make mistakes, break the law, etc. just as much as anyone else can.

Excessive force has happened before.

There have also been cases of police not following proper procedure as well as corrupt police. It is extremely common for police to break the law, for example, almost every time I see a cop driving down the highway then he is speeding (even when not in pursuit of anyone). Police are not above the law... if they break the law then they have to be held accountable, legally. If they break proper procedure then they have to be dealt with, job-wise (otherwise the police in general would gain a bad reputation and no one would respect them or take them seriously...)

I have not. I have been replying to you and other people who obviously do not understand my point and need it to be repeated for clarity or to re-explain why your statements are incorrect. You are the one who keeps making me repeat myself. Besides replying to specific points of yours which you cannot grasp, I have not once repeated myself in this discussion. On the other hand, you keep saying the same things over and over and I'm not even bringing them up... and when you do repeat yourself you have never elaborated on any point past what I have already addressed. That is a fallacy right there... repeating yourself over and over again does not make what you're saying true (and since you are not repeating yourself for any particular reason it isn't adding anything to the discussion either...)

 

And when did I ever compare the two? I was replying to your statement that "if someone ends up in a position such as being drunk then anything bad that happens to him as a result of ending up in that position is his own fault and therefore not unjust toward him." This applies to everyone. The attacker himself was shot, if the shooting was unjust, then he was just as much a victim as any other unjust action against anyone else in a similar situation. How is any of that illogical or invalid?

 

Sounded a lot like punishment to me. If not then I misread that. Still, I never twisted or contorted anything...

 

First off, you have not logically countered me at all (and your example is not an example of that since this is the first time that you've even made such a remark...)

The closest thing you've had to a good argument was the stance that "since I don't know the details of the situation then I cannot say for sure that the police officer did anything wrong"... but you blew that argument by also taking the position that the police officer was definitely in the right (which is contradictory... if you cannot know if what he did was wrong then you also cannot know that it was right).

Now about the restraining not working... possibly. But your argument about the taser not working is completely wrong. Get your facts straight, a taser immobilizes whoever is hit by it due to the way that a taser works. Unless you are implying that this attacker was moving around without the use of his muscles or that he was somehow magically resistant to electricty then that argument itself is invalid (and even if you are implying such nonesense then your argument is invalid on the basis of having false premises)

 

Not true at all. Ever heard of "not guilty by reason of insanity" or "guilty but insane"? If found guilty and insane then the criminal's sentence is entirely different, and rightly so.

 

Then those were either cases where person was high but still in control of his actions (and killing with malice, since "murder" requires malicious intent) or those were bad verdicts (which should have been corrected through the appeals system). I never said our court systems are perfect. What I said is that killing while high (and without malicious intent) is not murder,

 

The could potentially make the person more agressive (which is what happened in this case). I've never denied that and never said that you don't have a point...

 

Using swears and insults if a fallacy in itself. Using obscure abbreviations does not in any way help your argument (how can you make a point when I have no idea what you're even saying?!)

 

 

Analogy or not, the act was not "malicious". Probably just poor word usage but there is a huge difference, and considering that malice is one of the key factors in distinguishing "murder" from "manslaughter" then making that incorrect statement changes the entire meaning of the statement.

 

These last two things were sort of my point. Police are not always "professional" (although they are obligated to be, considering it's part of their job) and they are human... they can make mistakes, break the law, etc. just as much as anyone else can.

Excessive force has happened before.

There have also been cases of police not following proper procedure as well as corrupt police. It is extremely common for police to break the law, for example, almost every time I see a cop driving down the highway then he is speeding (even when not in pursuit of anyone). Police are not above the law... if they break the law then they have to be held accountable, legally. If they break proper procedure then they have to be dealt with, job-wise (otherwise the police in general would gain a bad reputation and no one would respect them or take them seriously...)

 

Seriously.Dont bother .. If you read everyones posts on here ,they have all disagreed with you . You have yet to prove yourself correct . I have been forced to repeat myself bc YOU REFUSE TO EITHER AKNOWLEDGE IT OR JUST PLAIN OUT DONT UNDERSTAND . Its like arguing with someone who is refuses to hear anyone else side . No matter how correct you are the person cant and wont hear you .You are either trolling or really that stupid . I HAVE EXPLAINED MYSELF AND DONE IT QUITE WELL> YOU JUST DONT GET IT . Why is it that not one person agrees with you? Not one ? That says a lot . You havent used logic once , just EXCUSES. . You DID compare the act of rape of a drunk person with the actions of a drunk person committing a crime .. That shows the total lack of intelligence and logic. You go in circles and dont say anything of relevance except to say something even more offensive like the rape comparison . Ive backed myself up plenty , you just refuse to comprehend so im not gonna repeat myself yet again .

Edited May 30, 201213 yr by Flaming Lea

Seriously.Dont bother .. If you read everyones posts on here ,they have all disagreed with you . You have yet to prove yourself correct . I have been forced to repeat myself bc YOU REFUSE TO EITHER AKNOWLEDGE IT OR JUST PLAIN OUT DONT UNDERSTAND . Its like arguing with someone who is refuses to hear anyone else side . No matter how correct you are the person cant and wont hear you .You are either trolling or really that stupid . I HAVE EXPLAINED MYSELF AND DONE IT QUITE WELL> YOU JUST DONT GET IT . Why is it that not one person agrees with you? Not one ? That says a lot . You havent used logic once , just EXCUSES. . You DID compare the act of rape of a drunk person with the actions of a drunk person committing a crime .. That shows the total lack of intelligence and logic. You go in circles and dont say anything of relevance except to say something even more offensive like the rape comparison . Ive backed myself up plenty , you just refuse to comprehend so im not gonna repeat myself yet again .

 

Logic and debates are not a popularity contest... even if no one else agreed with a point then the point is still valid if it's uses sound logic. And that's another fallacy... the appeal to popularity / ad populum. LOOK IT UP!

You did not explain myself at all. Exampl, I say "the police could use a taser", you say "it would not work", I explain why it would work, you say again "it would not work". Repeating yourself does not make you right.

And I never said that a drunk rape victim's actions are the same as a drunken criminal's actions. Your straw man arguments have no relevance.

Edited May 30, 201213 yr by Xenidal

Logic and debates are not a popularity contest... even if no one else agreed with a point then the point is still valid if it's uses sound logic. And that's another fallacy... the appeal to popularity / ad populum. LOOK IT UP!

You did not explain myself at all. Exampl, I say "the police could use a taser", you say "it would not work", I explain why it would work, you say again "it would not work". Repeating yourself does not make you right.

And I never said that a drunk rape victim's actions are the same as a drunken criminal's actions. Your straw man arguments have no relevance.

 

No your illogical statements dont work . They dont make sense .YOU dont make sense . I have argued my points , you just refuse to get it . Everyone else sees my points . therefore i must be understandable . My point is that you said i didnt have logic or points. This proves otherwise. You are the only one saying i make no sense . You telling yourself i dont make sense doesnt make it true . It makes you look in denial..And i did explain MULTIPLE TIMES WHY TASERING WONT WORK.. Really, now you look even more full of shit . I said if it took shooting a guy 4 xs to get him to stop, tasering wasnt gonna .( especially if hes on drugs !) .and YES YOU DID COMPARE THE RAPE OF A DRUNK PERSON TO THE SHOOTING OF A DRUNK PERSON COMMITTING A VIOLENT CRIME You cant compare a crime being committed against a drunk person who did nothing wrong to a drunk/ drugged person who is obviously committing a violent crime . ..This in itself proves my point .Quit trying to argue with me bc nothing you say after this will matter . Ive written this nonsense off.

Edited May 30, 201213 yr by Flaming Lea

Logic and debates are not a popularity contest... even if no one else agreed with a point then the point is still valid if it's uses sound logic. And that's another fallacy... the appeal to popularity / ad populum. LOOK IT UP!

You did not explain myself at all. Exampl, I say "the police could use a taser", you say "it would not work", I explain why it would work, you say again "it would not work". Repeating yourself does not make you right.

And I never said that a drunk rape victim's actions are the same as a drunken criminal's actions. Your straw man arguments have no relevance.

 

She's explained her point multiple times not too mentione proved you wrong multiple times but you have refused to acknowledge anyones points even though they hold solid truths. Nothing you have said makes sense and you keep contradicting yourself.

@kalnet if you have been reading this whole thread you can see where it's frustrating

Logic and debates are not a popularity contest... even if no one else agreed with a point then the point is still valid if it's uses sound logic. And that's another fallacy... the appeal to popularity / ad populum. LOOK IT UP!

You did not explain myself at all. Exampl, I say "the police could use a taser", you say "it would not work", I explain why it would work, you say again "it would not work". Repeating yourself does not make you right.

And I never said that a drunk rape victim's actions are the same as a drunken criminal's actions. Your straw man arguments have no relevance.

 

well your not supposed to be taking drugs in the first place and eating a guy's face is just wrong

Edited May 30, 201213 yr by Roxas-FTW

Logic and debates are not a popularity contest... even if no one else agreed with a point then the point is still valid if it's uses sound logic. And that's another fallacy... the appeal to popularity / ad populum. LOOK IT UP!

You did not explain myself at all. Exampl, I say "the police could use a taser", you say "it would not work", I explain why it would work, you say again "it would not work". Repeating yourself does not make you right.

And I never said that a drunk rape victim's actions are the same as a drunken criminal's actions. Your straw man arguments have no relevance.

 

Acts like he knows everything about arguing...

 

...looses argument.

Weeeeh weeh

Okay everyone is done arguing I'm closing this