Sweet dreams.

If you don't think they put their spins on it to get reactions you're crazy. Outrage equals ratings. People can read between the lines. You don't have to vocalize intentions for them to be your intentions.

 

I asked a direct question. A simple "yes" or "no" or one of those two with a qualifier will suffice. The above is nothing more than a generalization that doesn't support YOUR claim.

 

Do you believe their A#1 priority is to incite violence that leads to destruction of property and/or death?

 

Again, you made the claim. I'm just trying to see if you really believe what you originally said.

The media doesn't report unbiasedly. They serve 1 purpose, and that's to incite more violence, because that gives more news. Period.

 

This is what I said.

You've lost your mind. You don't think the sharing of Michael Browns pictures of him in middle school, instead of the violent person he was, wasn't to incite rage?

 

They report it in a manner to inflame emotions. That directly leads to violence and chaos. You can claim they don't do it all you want, but that doesn't make you right.

 

You're making my point! They show conflict! What makes conflict? Portraying violent felons as good kids by only showing pics from years before they started being criminals.

 

Yup I said this stuff and UKMF said this and I'm in complete agreement with him. Clyde, you can try and talk down on me all you want and try to talk to me like I'm stupid, and that's ok as well. I don't agree with you and I've not seen anyone else agree with you. And I'm fine with your attempts to talk down to me. Have a nice night.

I asked a direct question. A simple "yes" or "no" or one of those two with a qualifier will suffice. The above is nothing more than a generalization that doesn't support YOUR claim.

 

Do you believe their A#1 priority is to incite violence that leads to destruction of property and/or death?

 

Again, you made the claim. I'm just trying to see if you really believe what you originally said.

 

I've got no clue what you do in real life and don't care for that matter. You're not in court or a cross examining attorney with me, so stop trying to put words in my mouth. Doesn't work on me in everyday life and won't work on me here :lol2:

We agree wholeheartedly.

 

Question in this case is in regards to him being "still a threat." That one is going to be tough to justify since he had no gun and was on foot running away from the officer.

 

He is a threat toll detained or eliminated its pretty cut and dry.

 

Then again many on here take the stance of the cincy homless coalition guy who said he would rather the officer be stabbed first before using force on the suspect.

I don't think officers legally can use that as justification. My guess (key) is that courts have already made rulings in this area and your scenario wouldn't pass the test of "threat."

 

So we let the suspect commit more violent acts before acting. Makes sense in todays world.

So we let the suspect commit more violent acts before acting. Makes sense in todays world.

 

So if you try to hit me with your car, I can shoot you after you leave the scene until you're either dead or arrested?

He is a threat toll detained or eliminated its pretty cut and dry.

 

Then again many on here take the stance of the cincy homless coalition guy who said he would rather the officer be stabbed first before using force on the suspect.

 

So we let the suspect commit more violent acts before acting. Makes sense in todays world.

 

So what you're saying is that a guy who has committed a violent act is fair game. If he's standing there encircled by police with his hands in the air, you feel it should be their discretion whether they want to shoot him or simply arrest him? Is that a fair interpretation of your feelings on this?

So if you try to hit me with your car, I can shoot you after you leave the scene until you're either dead or arrested?

 

Of course in that case you would have every right to defend yourself.

So what you're saying is that a guy who has committed a violent act is fair game. If he's standing there encircled by police with his hands in the air, you feel it should be their discretion whether they want to shoot him or simply arrest him? Is that a fair interpretation of your feelings on this?

 

No would he not be detained if he is encircled by police, the threat would be over would it not?

Of course in that case you would have every right to defend yourself.

 

If you shoot them after they have left the scene you wouldn't be defending yourself, would you?

If you shoot them after they have left the scene you wouldn't be defending yourself, would you?

 

In his world you have carte blanche to kill someone who has committed a violent act at some point.

If you shoot them after they have left the scene you wouldn't be defending yourself, would you?

 

He clearly doesn't understand that.

So if you try to hit me with your car, I can shoot you after you leave the scene until you're either dead or arrested?

 

I don't know why, but this made me laugh.