You have a positive talent for missing the meat of every statement.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

You're not questioning the actions of the officers, but rather lamenting the fact that they didn't find (or "find") a gun in the car, correct?

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

Why do you say that?Then we are in agreement. So, either both of us don't know anything about deadly force, or not.And I didn't say it was. I did not even mention deadly force. I simply said it was possible to shoot someone in the leg.Again, how did you reach that conclusion?I did not mention "deadly force" in post #45.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

Equivocate all you want, but the simple fact that you even made that statement indicates you don't know what you're talking about.

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

In other words, you agree that cops are a special class of citizens given a special set of rights. And other citizens are treated as inferior to them.When I said threatening, I meant a realistic threat, not the cops' overactive imagination. In any case, should I be allowed to point guns at people who get into their cars? Or do you accept that cops SHOULD be given special class status along with special rights?Of course. And he could be getting ready set off a nuke in his trunk. Should we let cops kill everyone getting into their cars?Did he commit ANY crime prior to the point where the cops pointed their guns at him? Because his following actions appear to be a result of being threatened with firearms (a legitimate threat).Once again, the cops pointed their guns at him BEFORE he ran, according to the articles.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

If I recall correctly, cops aim for center mass, not the leg. Don't get carried away with my statement. It makes you look like an incompetent debater grasping at straws. I didn't say it was what cops did or should do, I said it was theoretically possible to shoot someone in the leg, with which you agreed.Well, Bell was killed, whether or not it has anything to do with the technical definition "deadly force."

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

How does it do that? Saying that it is POSSIBLE to shoot someone in the leg proves that? Sounds like bullshit to me.

Look, I know that the police regulation buffs get a hard-on to lecture at even the mention of shooting someone in the leg, but the fact of the matter remains that all I said was it is possible to shoot someone in the leg, not that it is what cops do or should do. So your point is total bullshit.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

No.
In answer to the claim that "getting into a vehicle that may have a gun in it I would equate that to a threat"
I said
"It's too bad no gun was found. Anybody can claim they thought there was a gun after the shooting is over. It doesn't mean there was a reasonable suspicion - reasonable enough to justify firing 50 unanswered shots."

I am questioning the claim that there was a threat which justified the firing of 50 unanswered shots.

__________________
The most important political office is that of private citizen.
Louis D. Brandeis - First Jewish Supreme Court Justice

And I'm question how the cops thought it would be justified to point their gun at someone merely for getting into their car. Getting into one's car is not a crime. Therefore, if someone believes cops can point their guns at someone for doing it, it logically follows that they believe cops can point their guns at anyone they want.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

Because shooting someone in the leg is deadly force.

If you possessed even the most basic understanding of deadly force, you'd know that...

By and large, cops won;t point there weapon at someone without due cause.

If they felt compelled to draw their sidearms, I'm willing to bet that it wasn't because he was getting in his car...

Okay. In that case, I didn't say it was NOT deadly force, either, by virtue of not mentioning "deadly force." Have any other bullshit to add?

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

I don't really give a shit what you're willing to bet or if you're willing to bet it. As of right now, I have not read anywhere that, prior to having a gun pointed at him, Bell did anything threatening and illegal.

__________________
A federal judge ruled today that graphic pictures of detainee abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison must be released over government claims that they could damage America's image.

Someone should tell them that bad press can be prevented by not abusing prisoners in the first place. Censorship is only needed to preserve the good reputation of those who have tortured and/or murdered already.

Well, then if that's all you need to believe that there was no justification, at all, for them drawing their weapons, and that they just did it because they felt like it, well, it'd be futile to try to sway you from such an ignorant belief...

No, you've pretty much pegged out the "Bullshit Meter" today, Slon...