Quote:
Originally Posted by Slon
I see no proof in your post. So I guess it is your position that is based on ignorance. It sure as hell isn't substantiated by anything else!
Look, Steve, you'll have to figure out the English language sooner or later. Generally, in the English language (whether written or spoken), it is necessary to take into account ALL of the words present in the sentences in order to understand it. It's especially important to take into accounts words that are EMPHASIZED.
"Neither did I. I said you consider them to be, BY AND LARGE, infallible IN THAT SITUATION (determining threats), when clearly they were already wrong in thinking the guy had a gun."
Let me explain further. Here is what you said:
"By and large, cops won;t point there weapon at someone without due cause."
You're saying that generally (by and large), cops will not point their weapon at someone without due cause. Now, pointing one's weapon at someone WITHOUT such cause would be a mistake, correct? Thus, what you said was that generally, in that situation and in that field (of determining whether or not a threat is worthy of having a gun pointed at it), cops are infallible.
|
Slon, I've been trained in the use of deadly force. I carried a sidearm in the performance of my duties from 1996 until 2001. I had to undergo regularly scheduled requalification to continue to carry a sidearm.
I know what deadly force is, and I know what it isn't.
You don't.
Continue to argue from your position of ignorance if you truly feel the need, but do so knowing that it
is ignorance.
You can blather on about how
you think
we think cops are "infallible" (which no one has ever suggested) all you want; we'll just laugh. We'll laugh because we'll be reading the words of someone who's putting so much effort into arguing about something of which he has not an
iota of understanding...