Posted on 11/06/2013 8:32:18 AM PST by Rusty0604
When the only response someone has is personal abuse, that means he is out of convincing arguments for his opinion.
It does not matter if he knew or not. The question is: was he killing himself for no reason?
Yes, tasering an innocent citizen three times is assault.
Assault, as a crime, requires intent to do harm.
Who was now?
I hope you’re having fun.
An excellent point. Actions have consequences.
AKA something you made up in your head. Got it.
Please restrain yourself from lecturing me or anyone else about facts in the future.
What does fun have to do with trying to analyze an event rationally rather than hysterically?
I’ve wasted enough time on your posts.
I appreciate the compliment, but I assure you that I did not invent deductive reasoning.
Please restrain yourself from lecturing me or anyone else about facts in the future.
You said that the facts of the matter were sophistry, that the only thing that matters are abstract theories about individual rights.
Neither of us have an exhaustive picture of the facts - my point is that the facts actually matter.
Using the facts we actually do have at our disposal, I think my analysis is more plausible than your assumptions.
Perhaps.
You've certainly wasted FR's bandwidth on yours.
From what I gathered it seemed as though the firemen weren’t there yet, so I agree with you, it looks as though this is on the police.
I didn`t tase your father three times and watch you burn.
What assumptions on my part? I have made none. I read the same story you did and accept it verbatim. The difference is that you have invented a detail to strengthen your “analysis”.
REally? The Father was a government employee?
Please.
We’re friends.
Slow down and think about what you are trying to influence me to think.
The firemen were, in fact on site, when the “Step Dad” made a decision to rescue the child.
That the boy was found a mere 12 feet from the door gives rise to the nobleness of man.
The “Step Dad” ran past that kid and only upon running around the house to the front, decided to save the kid.
Was he truly overcome with emotion?
Dunno. However, two deaths don’t make ......
I get it.
I support your position and emotional imperative.
Still, think the badger made the right decision.
Wrong-olla.
Not trying to argue with you.
I am standing on the side of life, not some decisions of authority or moral righteousness.
According to the local CBS affiliate, little Riley Miller was found in the bedroom where the fire began - he never made it into the front room from which his mother and stepfather fled.
Also, according to their report the police and firemen arrived on the scene at the same time, and firemen in full gear were forced to retreat from the front door of the home because of the heat.
While the consensus of the thread may ultimately be that the firemen were cowards or slackers, just as the consensus seems to be that the police were cowards and brutes, to me this suggests that the situation was already out of hand before the stepfather tried to run in.
The main one is this: that the cop was interfering in the stepfather saving his stepson.
What we know from the press accounts so far is that there was no hope of saving the child and that the man was rushing to certain death for no reason.
The difference is that you have invented a detail to strengthen your “analysis”.
According to the underlying article, it seems the stepfather attempted to enter the house at the same time that the firemen had decided that it was pointless to enter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.