Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CommerceComet
The man who you seem so determined to defend can't keep his story straight. To respond to your question, I reread the story and noted that first he claimed that one cop fired three shots and then in the next sentence he claimed that "they" wouldn't stop shooting. Which is it?

Huh?

I don't respond to incoherent babble. WTF are you trying to say? Get back with me when you figure it out, eh? I see no contradiction in the guy's statements -- especially, given, as they were, in the context of having just had his world rocked to bits by some trigger-happy nutcase who invaded his home to execute his dog (and almost kill him in the process).

I would suggest that three shots is evidence that the dog was aggressive.

LOL!

So, if you come to my house, and I don't like the look on your face, can I take three shots at you, and then claim that the fact that I fired three times is proof that you were aggressive?

LOL!

Good f'n grief. If anything, it's evidence that the shooter was aggressive.

First, if there were three shooters, each made an assessment that the dog was attacking. Second, if there was only one shooter, the dog was not deterred by the earlier shots. If the dog was only being friendly, such a hostile response would have immediately backed the dog off unless it had aggressive intentions.

You missed one. The obvious one. You missed, "if the ONE shooter zoned out, and fired three times in rapid succession, in "keep firing until the target is neutralized" mode -- according to current paramiltary police indoctrination doctrine.

Why do I get the funny feeling that the neighbors are happy that the dog was shot?

Because you're delusional? Or because your argument is so entirely bereft of merit, that you've resorted to Democrat-debate-points, making up stuff as you go?

Oh, that's right, our man in the story said that the dog wasn't mean. Gee, how many times has we heard that in the dog mauling stories?

Cute. I guess no one wins with you, eh? Damned if he did, damned if he didn't. If he said "the dog bites", you'd have said "ahah!", and if he says "the dog doesn't bite", you'd go "yeah, right, tell me another one".

You've just argued yourself right out of the argument. I don't debate with people who play those type of routines.

I'm not trying to defend the police but I am amazed how quickly people give credence to this sob story.

I'm wondering exactly how much sympathy you'll get if you somehow encounter a similar situation in your own life.

I'm putting my money on a hearty round of "LMAO!" if YOU come crawling in with "a sob story" of your own.

158 posted on 05/03/2004 4:45:21 PM PDT by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies ]


To: Don Joe
You claim that my responses are "incoherent babble" to which you will not respond. Next time, I trust that you will be true to your word.

I don't respond to people with bad attitudes.

So I guess that we don't have anything to say to one another. This will work out well.

163 posted on 05/03/2004 5:29:36 PM PDT by CommerceComet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson