"Unquestionably Confused" wrote in message
...
On 8/23/2014 5:45 PM, Davej wrote:
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 3:20:10 PM UTC-5, Oren wrote:
[...]

Actually there is little evidence to show that "the Missouri cop was
badly beaten." He does have a facial injury. Does that equate to "badly
beaten?"



Good question...

Dave, why don't we set you in a car seat to restrict your mobility a bit,
I'll smack you in the eye, fracturing your orbit, and you tell me if you
think it's a bad beating.

Granted I'm not going to have quite the impact that "kid" did since I'm
over 65, 6'3" and only about 260lbs, but I'll bet I can still ring your
bell. After all the "kid" was closer to 6'4" and 280+ lbs.

We can solicit volunteers to make the second rush, because I don't want to
do it. I know damn well that if you have a gun or some way of fending me
off, other than your fists, you'll damn sure use it.

You're not stupid, just ignorant or naive. The first smack I gave you -
the fracture - was your learning curve. That should have cured your
ignorance.g

Why is it that every idiot that wants to play Monday Morning QB regarding
a situation that they probably have never been in, hopefully never will be
in, and don't have the first clue... always expect the police to play by
Marquis of Queensbury rules?

You come at a cop with fists, he can use a club or better. You bring a
club, bottle, knife he brings out - at a minimum a taser if it's just a
knife of club, but a gun is perfectly fine by the "real life" rules. If
he brings a knife into play and approaches the 7 yard line, he should be
shot before he can cross it.

Certainly there are exceptions but this idea of "Well, he ONLY hit him
with his fists, the cop didn't have to beat him with a stick. He should
have fought him and kicked him in the nuts and then beat hims soft..." is
bull****.




But I thought Al Sharpton said . . .