witness23
Veteran Expediter
Your comment was in the context of the police, in riot gear, having bricks thrown at them. My "bullsh*t" comment was because you wouldn't have shot anyone in that context.
Baltimore Rioting, Looting OK According to Mayor
- Thread starter Pilgrim
- Start date
Your comment was in the context of the police, in riot gear, having bricks thrown at them. My "bullsh*t" comment was because you wouldn't have shot anyone in that context.
Actually, what you said was, "...if someone tries to attack me with a brick they're gonna get shot." That's big talk and sounds good, and in an ideal world that's how it would happen. But you're just as likely to piss your pants and shoot yourself in the foot in a panic as you are to shoot an assailant.
Well, I never claimed that bricks couldn't be used as a deadly weapon. Bricks obviously can be used as a deadly weapon. So can a #2 pencil. In the case of police during a riot, bricks never have been used as a deadly weapon. And in the example you listed above to prove just how deadly bricks are, the girl ain't dead.
That's because in fine logical fallacy fashion your question attempts to create a straw man argument in the general context of self-defense to prove the specific context of police in riot gear and deadly bricks argument as false.
I think one would suffice in order to call something deadly in riot situations. Calling something a dangerous weapon, even a potentially deadly weapon is one thing, but flatly stating that something is deadly when it never has been is unnecessary hyperbole.
Of course they have a right to defend themselves. I nor anyone else never said any different. Nor is anyone trivializing the anarchy of riots.
People can look at statistics and draw whatever conclusions they like. I've seen facts that support blacks commit more crime and I've seen the same facts support just the opposite.
As with any discussion of a complex issue, there are many facets that to be discussed.
It's not really about who posted what or keeping score, it's about the issues themselves.
Posting silly memes and self-portraits doesn't really help, though.
Posting silly memes and self-portraits doesn't really help, though.
But we know that some officers involved in the brick melee didn't have riot gear on and were under assault . An assault, which showed at one point ,kids moving toward the officers,(some without riot gear )and throwing bricks. We also know that two of the fifteen officers sustained a head injury and a shattered knee cap, spending time in a trauma center.
The injured officers could have easily found themselves immobilized and sustained life threatening injuries from the advancing riot. The only other recourse at that point would be to use their gun to defend themselves. It could have easily turned deadly.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
Please share this info. It would be interesting to see another side because I have never seen any statistics or studies showing anything different.
From 15 yards away you're right. It's likely you can't throw one that far anyway and even in that case I've probably got time and distance to get away or take cover. On the other hand, if you're throwing bricks at me from a 5 yard distance you're gonna have a problem. First of all you're guilty of a number of felonies, not the least of which is assault with a deadly weapon, and I COULD and WOULD shoot you from a position of self defense.
It might be a good idea to make yourself familiar with the statutes of your state regarding one's self defense.
witness23
Veteran Expediter
That might indeed be the case for someone unfamiliar with firearms and who has very little or no training with handguns. I'm still waiting to hear how others - especially BS Boy - would defend themselves from threats of serious personal injury or death.
There's really no point. Conclusions drawn from statistics are opinions. If I post something that states the opposite of what you believe the statistics to mean, you'll either dismiss it or find some fault with it. But when you see the raw statistics of the crime rates in poor back neighborhoods versus poor white neighborhoods, and see they're virtually the same, traditional conclusions must be questioned. Factor in the white bias of already believing that blacks commit a much higher percentage of crime than they actually commit, and that will influence the conclusions drawn from statistics. Further factor in the biased policing that goes on in black neighborhoods and the statistics begin to show something other than the traditional conclusions. But here's a study from The Ohio State University for you to discredit or dismiss.
As is noted in this piece, "There is no way in this country to discuss crime statistics without including in that discussion the myriad ways in which those statistics are informed and influenced by the systemic effects of racial distortion." And that's hard to do when 70% of white Americans believe the criminal justice system is color blind, and that there are no racial biases whatysoever in law enforcement, much less any kind of systemic bias.
My point exactly. A lady across the street did not think so but she eventually came around.
