How the hell do you know? You haven't posted anything yet.Look, Steve, why don't you just turn off your computer and argue with yourself about the reasons not to argue with me. It's clear that you REALLY don't want to have a debate, so why put me through the effort of replying to your incessant bullshit?Google is not a source, but a search engine. Now, can you please substantiate the claims I asked you to substantiate?

NYPD officers acquitted of all charges in shooting of Sean Bell
Oh, I'm sure there is. Unfortunately, linking to google does not substantiate your claim. YOU have to do that. Since you clearly are out of the loop on this one, google, in the way you posted the link, is NOT a source, but rather a search engine.You got that half right. I won't accept it because "google it" replies do not substantiate claims. They are excuses that people who don't like backing up their claims use.Then link to it.I'll make a counter-offer. Put your computer up for auction on eBay, and when someone buys it, unplug it and ship it to them. You clearly don't know the first thing about having a logical debate (one would be the knowledge of how to properly substantiate claims as opposed to linking to google), so just save yourself some time and maybe earn some money.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

You need to read. You need to be educated, because you're not. I gave you the means for you to help you educate yourself. That obviously presents a level of challenge you're ill-prepared for.

I've read every page linked on the first three pages of that Google listing, Slon. As you won't accept anything anyone says on the issue, if you're really interested in learning, you need to read them, too.

I suspect that you actually have no desire to learn about the complex concepts surrounding the topic, and just want to argue. That's what you always do. Well, not today, lad. The information is there; presented in such volume that reproducing those pages would cause an undue burden here. So, go read it.

If you read them, I'll acknowledge that you're interested in debating the subject.

If you don't read them, you'll be acknowledging that you wish to remain ignorant on the subject...

Slon, quick question: Is it your position that deadly force was not justified?

All that needs to be done is for you to put up or shut up. So far, you've not done either.Yes, thank you for linking to google! I would have never found my way there without your generous assistance!

The fact remains that it is not up to me to substantiate your claims. This is basic "burden of proof" stuff here. You should try to understand it.Good for you.Uh, Steve, I'm not interested in proving your claims for you. That's your homework. Go do it or shut the hell up. You're starting to sound like a broken record.It's actually painfully hilarious to watch you as you continuously demonstrate just how little you know about debating.I don't need your approval, Stevo. All I ask is that you substantiate your claims or shut the hell up.No, I'll be acknowledging that I have an understanding of the burden of proof and that I don't wish to do your homework for you. Now, put up or shut up.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Slon, you are not in a position to demand that another poster "shut up".

Discuss the topic, and not one another.

Matt

__________________
De duobus malis, minus est semper eligendum

My argument does not deal with deadly force. I am arguing about whether the cops had or had not the justification to point their guns at Bell.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

According to the laws of NYC and the State of New York, and according to the courts, the police acted fully and completely within the scope of their authority.

That my friend is a fact. You may not LIKE it, but it is a fact nonetheless.

In addition, whether you realize it or not, your argument DOES deal with deadly force. If you're asking if they had the justification to point their guns at Bell, you are asking if they were justified in using deadly force. Since you do not understand the concept, you are unable to comprehend why this is the case.

Simply put, if a gun is drawn, deadly force is being employed - even if it is never fired. The threat of using one is just as serious as actual use, from a legal perspective.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Quote:

All I ask is that you substantiate your claims or shut the hell up.

Quote:

Now, put up or shut up.

You know, in all the times we've locked horns, I've never resorted to the childish, baiting tactic of "shut up".

But you've hit the trifecta, and your post has been reported...

When a weapon has been drawn, the decision to use deadly force has been made; drawing the weapon is simply preparation. It's simply a matter of whether or not the trigger gets pulled, and that's entirely up to the suspect.

I'll just add that to the long list of things you don't know...

So if the decision to use deadly force has been made, that means it is "deadly force" even if the trigger is not pulled? Doesn't seem so deadly to me.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

Neither have I. I've resorted to "put up or shut up."So I take it you WON'T substantiate any of your claims? Okay.

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

While one may legally be obligated to follow such regulations, the fact of the matter is that pointing a gun at someone does not mean you WILL pull the trigger. Or are you saying that you feel the cops had the justification to use deadly force because someone made a joke about a gun and got into a car?From a legal perspective, perhaps. However, the fact of the matter is that pointing a gun at someone is not deadly and does not require the gun pointer to fire (practically speaking).

__________________
If a neocon whines about big government wealth redistribution, just ask him what he thinks about the portion of that big government that sends aid to Israel.

And that would be due to the fact that you you're suffering a from a profound lack of understanding of the topic.

Were you aware that if you lift up a baseball bat and threaten to hit someone with it, you can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon?

No, I didn't figure you did...

Sory, but that hardly removes it from the "childish" category...

Your being reported has nothing to do with any claims of mine....

Well, suffice it to say you'll try to argue this until you're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is that the "legal perspective" is the only thing that matters. Your opinion matters not.

If I draw my weapon on someone who's joked that he had a gun, I have no reason to believe he doesn't actually have one. If he then makes a sudden movement, he'll could bet his last dollar that he's going to be shot...