No, Farm Boy, it was a stupid and ridiculous comparison. Aelf specifically chose to use the words "victim blaming" as though the victim of a rape was somehow asking for it and that's just repulsive as hell. It is in no way comparable to someone wielding a deadly weapon and confronting police in an aggressive manner and I will not entertain that it is in any way similar.
11 cops vs. teen with a knife. You know where this is going.
- Thread starter Puck Nutty
- Start date
With a crapload of backstory of how the government was screwing with the Weavers from day 1, of how they sent a fake court date (error, sure, but they chose not to correct it), etc etc that is known and the fact that they were on their own property where the federalies were the aggressors. Now, if you can provide some backstory to this, I'll adjust my view. I'm just going on what I read in the OP.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Man was wielding a knife on an empty public transit railcar, nobody in range of said weapon unless we assume ninja knife throwing skills. No evidence the car was either soon to be or ever to be in motion under this man's control. Man refuses to put down knife, man called the police a slur for female genitalia. No peaceful or non-lethal attempt at subduing him is made, he's put down. Guess you really shouldn't call a cop a p***y. Some serious samurai mentality goin' on here.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Not to mention clearly engaging in hyperbole regarding the facts of the Weaver incident.
It seems to perpetually be the same double standard with "law and order" authoritarians. They claim that the government chronically oversteps its bounds when someone they think is innocent is brought before the law, but they even frequently blame the victim when they agree with the draconian "justice" meted out even without the benefit of a trial.
It seems to perpetually be the same double standard with "law and order" authoritarians. They claim that the government chronically oversteps its bounds when someone they think is innocent is brought before the law, but they even frequently blame the victim when they agree with the draconian "justice" meted out even without the benefit of a trial.
That's just like, your opinion, man.
No seriously though, the ruby ridge people were asking for it. And they're proof the 2nd amendment doesnt do against a properly pissed government.
It's because they sit in a position where they feel they are the final arbiter of justice and they lack a moral framework that incorporates other people. They are Judge Dredd in their own minds.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
If you were disagreeing with GW here, I might agree with you. Seeing as the most recent exchange was with VR and this could seem to plausibly be addressing him, this is over-harsh. VR's a fairer man than that, credit where it's due even if you don't necessarily agree.
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
Who says it does? Except for recluse anti-government wackos?
Randy Weaver should not have worn that miniskirt. Good thing he that crazy liberal guy as his defense lawyer.
I agree once a guy comes at a cop with a knife, lethal force is justified. Without the benefit of hindsight, I'm willing to generally accept a cop's judgement about what he or she perceives in the moment.
That said, it would have not taken much on the part of the cops for this event to have ended completely differently. I don't blame the cops for the shooting, but I question if they had to be on the tram in the first place.
As for your original comment:
You can't apply rational thinking to irrational actions. It sounds as if the kid was not in his right mind. I could easily say cops shouldn't move to arrest deranged people unless there's a threat. Sure, there ended up being a threat to the cops lives, but that didn't have to be the case.
Rumor is the kid brandished the knife at a helpless donut that was hussied up in pink glaze and sprinkles.
I don't think Timmies sells such a donut.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
The first paragraph is clearly addressed solely at him while the second part obviously is not, even though I think it does pertain to him as well as many others.
So basically...
1) Man armed with knife is on trolley. SOMETHING is going on before he even stands up that causes the conductor to bail. So now he's standing and brandishing a deadly weapon at cops.
2) Said man is in a trolley car that the videotaper SAYS is empty, but he cannot know that. Did the police know for certain it was empty? Could there have been fear of a hostage aboard that wasn't visible? Perhaps on the floor of the trolley? Come on, hindsighters, be honest and ask yourself if that is a possibility.
3) Police repeatedly tell him not to move
4) He moves
5) Police shoot
Do you guys really hate the police so much that you expect them to walk onto the trolley and try to disarm him without deadly force, most likely getting stabbed in the gut in the process?
EDIT: @Forma: Your second paragraph I just totally dismissed. You are pulling the same "victim" crap that Aelf pulled. He wasn't the victim, he was the aggressor.
1) Man armed with knife is on trolley. SOMETHING is going on before he even stands up that causes the conductor to bail. So now he's standing and brandishing a deadly weapon at cops.
2) Said man is in a trolley car that the videotaper SAYS is empty, but he cannot know that. Did the police know for certain it was empty? Could there have been fear of a hostage aboard that wasn't visible? Perhaps on the floor of the trolley? Come on, hindsighters, be honest and ask yourself if that is a possibility.
3) Police repeatedly tell him not to move
4) He moves
5) Police shoot
Do you guys really hate the police so much that you expect them to walk onto the trolley and try to disarm him without deadly force, most likely getting stabbed in the gut in the process?
EDIT: @Forma: Your second paragraph I just totally dismissed. You are pulling the same "victim" crap that Aelf pulled. He wasn't the victim, he was the aggressor.
Based on his work in the Randy Weaver case, the man in pic 3 could convince a jury to see pics 1 & 2.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Exactly why did they have to enter the tram and try to "disarm" him instead of calling for a police negotiator to talk to thim?
And no "what ifs". This is based on the facts as we know them. That is everybody else had left the tram long before the driver did, and the guy with the knife was not capable of actually hurting anybody with the possible exception of himself.
Someone who is dead when he didn't have to be is a victim.
Similar threads
