You don't really know what your kid knows. And believe me, you don't have the slightest idea how she'll think when she's 14.
Nice of you to call for an arbitrary number of reasons, let's give you an arbitrary number of answers:
1.- The fact that those people aren't supposed to respond with lethal force to non-lethal force (As was this case).
2.- Distracting them so someone else can get to safety from being brutalized by said armed people.
3.- Pure and simple self-defense.
4.- Defending your own land from an occupying country which just happens to have one of the best-equipped armies in the world and funding out the wazoo from the US (Of course, this one is purely hypothetical and has never happened *Wink wink*).
5.- Symbolic meaning (Like throwing a shoe at GWB's head. Certain kinds or projectiles have specific significance, specially when used against armed forces of an oppressive cast).
6.- In one demonstrated historic instance, making said armed people think you're lobbing a grenade their way so they dive for cover and you can retreat when you're out of "real" ammo.
7.- In another demonstrated historic instance, being a Balearic slinger, which means the Romans are paying you good money for braining their enemies.
In short, there are as many reasons to throw rocks at armed people as there are reasons to -attack- armed people (i.e. Many. Lots, even. Tons, one could say using a common hyperbole).
Using a rock instead of anything else is usually a matter of two factors: Intention and opportunity. Sometimes you just want to send a message, not start a firefight. Sometimes it's just that you only have a rock at hand, and since they are going to shoot you dead anyway (As they should and is their right, according to yourself), well, a rock is better than spitting at them.
I asked for GOOD reasons, not excuses. Those kids were not in any way under attack. They were out for fun, and being violent. Actions have consequences. You may not thing that the consequences are proportionate, but they are consequences none the less.
First of all, capitalizing "good" won't make your opinion of what's a good reason the truth. Dismissing self-defense as an "excuse" is classy, too. No, wait, it's stupid and disingenuous and depending of the circumstances outright monstrous.
Now this next point I'm going to make in simple words and sentences, since you seem to have some problem with reading comprehension (of your own posts, no less). You asked for good reasons to throw stones at armed people, never mentioned anything about these kids specifically. I gave you generic reasons to throw stones at armed people, as you requested. Now you are either trying to move the goalposts or just being stupid by implying those reasons don't apply to this case. Honestly with your antecedents it's very hard to tell which is true.
Actually, I'm going to go with the former, not because I don't think you can be stupid, but because your bad faith shows in your assuming the kids were "out for fun" and being violent just because... Which means either you suffer a severe lack of reading comprehension or are just being selectively ignorant of much of the FBI-provided information in the article.
Knowing your track record in this and other posts, I know what option is more probable.
Oh, and finally, since I already told you I was more direct with this kind of thing, FUCK YOU. Let's make a bullet-point list of your apparent position based on your last sentence.
.- Consequences are consequences no matter how disproportionate.
.- Apparently that makes an armed officer of the law killing a kid the kid's fault.
.- Hence being ran over by a drunken driver the very moment you step out of your home is your fault for stepping out, not the drunken driver's.
.- Nice victim-blaming, BTW.
Based on this premise, I sincerely hope you step out sometime soon.
That's the incident, caught in cellphone video. See the distance? How many 15-year olds do you know that can throw anything large enough to cause real damage across that distance BY HAND?
Nice of you to call for an arbitrary number of reasons, let's give you an arbitrary number of answers:
1.- The fact that those people aren't supposed to respond with lethal force to non-lethal force (As was this case).
2.- Distracting them so someone else can get to safety from being brutalized by said armed people.
3.- Pure and simple self-defense.
4.- Defending your own land from an occupying country which just happens to have one of the best-equipped armies in the world and funding out the wazoo from the US (Of course, this one is purely hypothetical and has never happened *Wink wink*).
5.- Symbolic meaning (Like throwing a shoe at GWB's head. Certain kinds or projectiles have specific significance, specially when used against armed forces of an oppressive cast).
6.- In one demonstrated historic instance, making said armed people think you're lobbing a grenade their way so they dive for cover and you can retreat when you're out of "real" ammo.
7.- In another demonstrated historic instance, being a Balearic slinger, which means the Romans are paying you good money for braining their enemies.
In short, there are as many reasons to throw rocks at armed people as there are reasons to -attack- armed people (i.e. Many. Lots, even. Tons, one could say using a common hyperbole).
Using a rock instead of anything else is usually a matter of two factors: Intention and opportunity. Sometimes you just want to send a message, not start a firefight. Sometimes it's just that you only have a rock at hand, and since they are going to shoot you dead anyway (As they should and is their right, according to yourself), well, a rock is better than spitting at them.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Now this next point I'm going to make in simple words and sentences, since you seem to have some problem with reading comprehension (of your own posts, no less). You asked for good reasons to throw stones at armed people, never mentioned anything about these kids specifically. I gave you generic reasons to throw stones at armed people, as you requested. Now you are either trying to move the goalposts or just being stupid by implying those reasons don't apply to this case. Honestly with your antecedents it's very hard to tell which is true.
Actually, I'm going to go with the former, not because I don't think you can be stupid, but because your bad faith shows in your assuming the kids were "out for fun" and being violent just because... Which means either you suffer a severe lack of reading comprehension or are just being selectively ignorant of much of the FBI-provided information in the article.
Knowing your track record in this and other posts, I know what option is more probable.
Oh, and finally, since I already told you I was more direct with this kind of thing, FUCK YOU. Let's make a bullet-point list of your apparent position based on your last sentence.
.- Consequences are consequences no matter how disproportionate.
.- Apparently that makes an armed officer of the law killing a kid the kid's fault.
.- Hence being ran over by a drunken driver the very moment you step out of your home is your fault for stepping out, not the drunken driver's.
.- Nice victim-blaming, BTW.
Based on this premise, I sincerely hope you step out sometime soon.
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCh-9sMkVPU&
That's the incident, caught in cellphone video. See the distance? How many 15-year olds do you know that can throw anything large enough to cause real damage across that distance BY HAND?
Reply
Leave a comment