Replies

Her question is an effort to get a plain answer; if you don't like HOW they are doing it, how would YOU do it.

Of course, the absence of a better way would do nothing to legitimize this way of doing things.

BTW, my response is posted way back in #168.

Of course, the absence of a better way would do nothing to legitimize this way of doing things.

Well, let's get theoretical then...

For the sake of arguement, let us say there is no better method available, you will argue then that pulling white vans over randomly and checking them at gun point without probable cause is a greater crime (against our rights, perpetrated by the government, in this instance) than the murders of these 9 (maybe 10), and the attempted murder of the 2 who have survived.

That is how I understand your case: It is better to let the killers continue killing than to engage in this kind of police action.

OK. I'll accept your position at face value (though, I must note, I don't agree with it.

In your consideration, does there come a point where your position changes regarding this method (of police work)? Say the killer(s) continued on in this pattern 4 more months and 50 people have been killed. Does that change your mind?

What if this kind of sniper pops up in five more states with similar success, so now there are 250 people dead. Does that make a difference?

Are there any number of deaths, is there a limit (in theory), any amount of disruption that would move you off your current position?