SkyDekker

There is one thing worse than a communist. A woman in power.

And wasn't the primary face of that enemy the Soviet Union? They exported "socialist revolution" all over the world. And while the Soviet Union has dissolved, the current Russian government is very similar in most ways (at least most ways that matter). They are actively trying to re-acquire the former Soviet states. And Trump appears to be supporting them And is financially backed by them. Do you have any sort of issue with Trump's close ties with Russia? Not at this juncture. He said Sunday night that he has no ties with Russia. Of course, I realize this is politics and take that comment lightly. I don't think you should. I mean Trump has clearly shown that whatever he says is the truth...

Which of course would be a significant benefit to his children.

Except they aren't. 90% of their strikes are against US backed rebels. Did you notice in the last debate how HRC mentioned our growing problem with Russia? I think she will go to war much quicker than DT. However, it is possible with either one. I think Trump has too much money to lose in Russia to do anything but what Putin tells him to do.

I think Russia is betting on the opposite. True, but Trump has shown throughout his adult life that he only will do what is best for Trump. Why do you think that he is going to change that now? Secondly, do you really think that what is best for one billionaire is best for the country?

That is a very valid question. I was married to a devoted Christian for 24 yrs. And her mother was even more 'devoted.' I learned a lot about 'selective Commandments.' Jerry Baumchen Twenty-four years and you consistently refused to accept the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ. That reads like you had a total disregard for your wife and mother-in-law. Why were you married to her? I know, the proper conservative Christian thing to do is grab her by the pussy and tell her how it is going to be...

Except they aren't. 90% of their strikes are against US backed rebels.

What does that even mean? Checking the source to see what type of bias might be present is Marxist?

Yes discussing police conduct in our homes is absolutely ridiculous. Simply believing police at their word in the past is quite frankly a major part of the current distrust. From your article: I personally give more credence to that paragraph and the links it contains than the top cop in Chicago claiming that their officers can't do their job if they are going actions are going to be reviewed. Well, they can only be reviewed by fellow officers and we don't really ever hand out any discipline. Basically he is arguing that his officers can't do their job if they are going to be held responsible.

Not sure why you would accuse me of trolling. I asked you to substantiate your claims like you asked of me. Something you haven't done I might ask.

I haven't set goalposts, so I can't move them either. I asked a questions. The inferences made are yours and Skycop's. All I have said is that from my experience the use of deadly force is set at different points along the risk continuum in different parts of the world. You and skycop have had a very hard time with that.

That isn't farcical, that is simply the numbers changing. Up until the weekend annualized numbers were trending down. An unusually violent weekend changed the numbers. Again nothing farcical. Just another one of your unsubstantiated claims. Exactly which could easily bring down the total number of murders by end of year, considering we are entering the cooler months. Which would not support your original hypothesis, nor your magically broadened hypothesis. An hypothesis supported by only an increase given for knife murders. Just check your own post. Now you are broadening your hypothesis without any further supporting documentation. I didn't put a label on the knife murders. Another one of your unsubstantiated claims. You claimed the increase in knife murders supported your hypothesis that reducing guns would follow a shift to a different murder weapon. If total murders are down, then that shift would still prove to be beneficial. If total murders go down, that is beneficial even if there are more knife murders. Since you are the only one making claims, that is indeed true.

That is a reasonable explanation, thanks. Don't fully agree, but understand the reasoning.

You keep giving examples of when shootings are justified based on actions taken by the perpetrator. I agree with your opinion on those. But that wasn't the question. The question was if a shooting is justified if a perpetrator is doing nothing but holding a firearm and not responding to police. Scenario: Guy is holding a gun. Police tells guy to drop gun. Guy doesn't move. Police tells him to drop the gun. Guy doesn't move. Police tells him to drop the gun. Guy doesn't move. Police shoots guy. How does the risk change from beginning to end? The risk of him suddenly moving exists throughout the whole scenario. Shooting him immediately is presumably not justifiable? So what is then the reasoning that makes the shooting justifiable at the end of the scenario? Only the fact that he is not responding? Or do you think that without movement there is no justification for the shooting? I am not getting why this question is so upsetting?

So in your mind it is a justified shooting because of what could happen? Shouldn't it be based on what is happening?

I think that is part of the issue we are now seeing with the prevalence of video evidence.

The question was: You say the answer is yes. But then you add: Which would mean the answer to the question asked is really no. I agree with your second statement. If he is holding a gun and then starts to raise the gun or flinches with the gun deadly force is warranted. However, if he holds the gun and doesn't flinch/raise etc, then IMHO deadly force isn't warranted.

That might be an answer but it wasn't the answer to the question asked.

Do numbers change depending on the city you live in? You have said some stupid stuff, but that one takes the cake. How was it farcical? Was simply a calculation based on total number of murders to date divided by number of days to date multiplied by total number of days in the year. Compared that number to total number of murders last year. It shows a decrease overall. (Never mind that of the 4 murders you just linked to, 3 were gun shots. Which doesn't support your assertion that knife murders are taking the place of gun murders in San Francisco)

Cite and backup? Making stuff up to suit your argument?

Sky, if someone is doing something that neither increases nor decreases the threat to police officers, in this case arms to sides with gun in hand, is there a reason to kill him? I have a feeling that the answer from their side is that the more some one doesn't listen, the threat increases.

Japan has a long standing cultural affinity with suicide which is very well documented. Comparing your suicide rate to Japan is therefor disingenuous, assuming you were aware of it.

That's not what you did. You stated it must be made up/lie/ bullshit. I didn't present it as fact, I clearly indicated where the information came from. So we went from you claiming it was bullshit to now correctly stating it was hearsay. Took you a while.

As noted before, this is made up bullshit. Murders are trending down significantly compared to 2015. Stop making up shit to support your argument.

Except you didn't offer any ideas. Just your usual one liner comment. No, that is simply not true. That would assume some unending linear correlation. Nobody is claiming that. If a million gallons of rain causes the flooding of 1,000 homes and then an additional 2,000 gallons doesn't cause any further houses to flood, one cannot claim that rain water had nothing to do with flooding.