• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

For those of you wondering why cops are trained to fire 7+ rounds if necessary...

I know you think it was clever to quote me out of context, but what I actually wrote is right above your comment.

:doh

I didn't quote you out of context at all...

The standard for self defense is not whether someone is actually a threat.

It's absolutely textbook that if a suspect is reaching for something when at gunpoint, whether that's in his clothing or a car, a cop is justified in shooting.

There is no justification for shooting a person that is not a threat...

If a person is not a threat then nobody should be shooting them....

If you don't like your words being used against you then use them better....
 
I didn't quote you out of context at all...

Sure you did. You quoted less than half of what I said. The part you deliberately left out was part of the context of my point. Don't backpeddle now. See, I can take words you wrote, and leave some out to change the meaning:

There is ... justification for shooting a person that is not a threat


There is no justification for shooting a person that is not a threat...

If a person is not a threat then nobody should be shooting them....

If you don't like your words being used against you then use them better....

You're just using word games to make a misleading point. Reaching for your waistband when a cop has you at gun point is almost always sufficient justification for the cop to shoot. It doesn't matter if you have a gun or curling iron or nothing. Reaching into a car in circumstances like those that happened in Kenosha is no different.
 
Sure you did. You quoted less than half of what I said. The part you deliberately left out was part of the context of my point. Don't backpeddle now. See, I can take words you wrote, and leave some out to change the meaning:

Wrong. You said that it the standard for self defense is not whether someone is actually a threat.

That is what I addressed.

The second part actually reinforced your first part. A person reaching for something is not a threat if they are not a threat.

Shooting that person is murder.


You're just using word games to make a misleading point. Reaching for your waistband when a cop has you at gun point is almost always sufficient justification for the cop to shoot. It doesn't matter if you have a gun or curling iron or nothing. Reaching into a car in circumstances like those that happened in Kenosha is no different.

The problem is that it shouldn't be sufficient justification to shoot a person. You can say that it is all you want... that does not make it so.
 
...this is why:



Sometimes 6 is not enough to stop a threat.


And they only hit what they're shooting at like 17% of the time too, right? Something like that. Lots of unassigned lead flying around when the cops open fire.
 
It isn't a coincidence he chose "seven" as the number of rounds.

And you wonder why we say you're easily manipulated. No real thinking skills.

I chose 7 because that's the topic of discussion, which is how many rounds it can take to stop a threat. It doesn't mean that I think the two situations are equivalent.

It's a useful coincidence that the video I posted involved an officer firing 7 shots that probably hit, but with almost no effect.
 
Back
Top Bottom