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.
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
Leave a comment