On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:41:10 -0800 (PST), RangersSuck
wrote:

On Feb 21, 5:59*am, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 07:43:25 -0800 (PST), RangersSuck

wrote:

You and I agree that shooting an unarmed man in the back is a bad
idea. Gunner, on the other hand, appears to think it's OK, as long as
there's a good backstop to keep bystanders safe. Sheesh.

I see your reading comprehension sucks as badly as St..pids does.

Pity

Gunner

"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""

OK, then suppose you take a couple of minutes and explain things to
me. My understanding is that you don't have a problem with shooting at
the guy who, after dropping his gun, tried to run away from the scene
of the crime. Further, you don't think this puts bystanders in danger,
as long as there's a suitable backstop.

That is, at least, what I thought you wrote. Please correct me if I'm
wrong.

First of all...several of the reports claim the perp was STILL holding
the firearm when he was shot at.

Secondly...you havent proven to us that there were 1. Bystanders, 2. An
unsafe backstop.

In fact...as I mentioned in my original post..you have given us few if
any details of any kind. Just your opinion.

And thirdly...you have as yet failed to clarify when and when its not
proper to shoot a fleeing felon. I made mention that its largely a
state issue and depends on various circumstances. You as yet have
refused to refute that in any meaningful way, attacking me, rather than
that I stated clearly.

So I ask again, are you normally this stupid or do you have to work at
it?

Gunner

"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""