@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Robert, look up the statistics if you please, but they are utterly without relevance. Do you mean to suggest that someone in a life threatening situation should base his or her actions on statistical probabilities?
No, I am suggesting that the statistics are relevant for observers in accessing the probability of the notion that this shooting was justified based on the threat posed.
Quote:I simply do not believe that such a brief account of a highly complex incident is enough to reach the conclusion which have been expressed in this thread.
That's your prerogative, but I'm not just using this one article. There have been others and though nothing establishes whether or not the shooting was justified in them they paint enough of a picture for me to come to speculate about it.
Other articles indicate that the restaurant was full, and that as the shooting commenced people started "pouring" out of the place and running for their lives. This does not indicate whether or not the threat legitimately merited the response but it does at least indicate that others were present and felt that the shooting put them in danger.
The articles also say that this man began to argue with the robber, and this suggests very strongly to me that even if the intervention
was justified he set about doing it in a way that put himself and others in additional danger (if he needed to intervene, he should have sought cover and a quick position of tactical advantage instead of an argument, maybe he wouldn't have been shot).
Yes, based on the information at hand I can't
know this. But that's what it strongly suggests to me.
Quote:I have no idea what your opinion is on gun control, but I do know edgars, and I do know david's.
It seems to me, at least in their cases, that their bias on the issue has strongly influenced their assessment of the case in point.
I don't think gun control has a snowball's chance in hell of working in America, and do not advocate gun control for America. But at the same time, the arguments that American gun nuts use are extra stupid so I like to argue against them.
Yesterday I saw this story about 4 times on different forums as a supporting argument against gun control. I think it's a pretty idiotic supporting argument regardless of how you feel about guns and am pointing out here that it's possible (and I argue that it's even probable) that this person didn't "defend" anyone, and as such was more of a threat to the public than a hero.
MR.Gentel:
If I may most respectfully call your attention
to your post quoted above,
u will see that it includes 3 nested quotes.
In my own personal opinion,
this is
NOT ugly.
It is well oriented to meticulously clear examination
of the quoted material for the poster 's question or comment, on a
seriatim basis.
To my mind,
it seemed that u were very adroit in choosing to set it forth that way.
The alternative is to set forth many assertions together
and for a poster to address them all as one clump of text,
which I deem more awkward n difficult to handle with precision of elucidation.
I only exemplify this post insofar as it shows your nesting of quotes,
not as to any use of large fonts.
I had inferred (perhaps in error) from
the availability
of these additional features for the management of text on this website
that this was part of the generosity that u offer your guests.
Out of respect for your property rights, as a good guest,
if u demand that I
STOP using larger fonts,
I will be docile in complying with your wishes.
I have not failed to comply with my host 's demands
since 1954 (at which time, I simply left the premises).
I ask only that u make your requirements clear for my understanding.
To
MY mind, it is helpful to lay greater stress on some words
or frases than on others, tho I know that many dissent from this point of vu.
David
