• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fla. Deputies Shoot and Kill Man After Knocking On Wrong Door. ‎

Ikari said:
Nope, and that goes for a lot of things, from domestic abuse to sexual abuse. A man was shot. That we know. The people and his friends claim it is justified, that we know too.

Let me ask you this. Say some gang banger punk is at the scene of a crime, him and his gang banger friends see a dude and they shoot him dead. Dead dude had a gun. Cops show up. Gang banger kid says "yeah I shot him, but he pointed his gun at me", his gang banger friends say "yeah, he shot him, but the other dude was pointing a gun". What happens?
Click to expand...

police will investigate and if no evidence or witness statements emerge to the contrary he will not be charged.

You answered NOPE. You do not think a person should be arrested or imprisoned without evidence of a crime. Self defense is not a crime, niether is killing a person necasarily. So in this case where there is no evidence of a crime being committed do you think this officer should be arrested or imprisoned?
 
Last edited:
muciti said:
police will investigate and if no evidence or witness statements emerge to the contrary he will not be charged.
Click to expand...

So gang banger who pulled the trigger, not handcuffed? Not put into the back of a police car? Not taken to the jail? Not booked? Not possibly released on bond? There's no one else around, yes? Just the gang banger and the gang banger friend. None of that other stuff happens to them? Cops tip their hat and tell them to have a good day? Is that your final answer?
 
Ikari said:
So....you cannot show evidence of my "faulty logic"? Yes of course I can

It's already written down, yes? yes it is

I've already committed it, yes? yes you have

It requires no further input. Can you demonstrate my faulty logic? sure

Or were you making absurd claims based on planned future posts? nope just read below to get your answer
Click to expand...

Dodge of Question: 4

you are correct it was already committed and i dont need MORE proof it was just fun exposing your dishonesty and pointing out the fact you dodge the question because you knew it would further expose you LMAO

ok here is your original post
Ikari said:
As fact we know that the cops did not announce themselves and that they shot the man dead. We do not know if he pointed a gun at the cops.
Click to expand...

ok you used your "logic" above to determine the following:

its a fact cops did not announce themselves
its a fact they shot a man dead.
its not a fact the man pointed a gun at them.

this is clearly broken logic because this info comes from the same source, the two cops, who you deemed unreliable. So you deemed the parts you like as fact and part you dont like as not fact LMAO

so when I ask how you come to that "absurd" claim you TRY to clean it up and correct it by saying"

Ikari said:
OK, so fact is that the cops shot someone dead and all we currently have is excuse by them for their own behavior and no proof that they acted properly in the least.
Click to expand...


you assume I just meant the point part vs announce part but I meant it all and again based on the logic YOU are using this is still broken logic. Bcause all this info comes form the source that YOU deem unreliable but some how you say some of its fact and some of it isnt.

so I again point out by YOUR logic none of it can be fact because it could all be lies and unreliable based on the your belief of the source, the cops

theres all the proof anybody objective needs, that is in fact broken logic and no amount of back pedal or spin will fix it. :shrug:

remind me of that cool line you said about "making absurd claims based on planned future posts" :laughat:

now wipe the egg off your face
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
No, he said I have used faulty logic. I asked him to demonstrate such, and that has been forever dodged to this point. That's all.
Click to expand...

"forever dodged":lamo

wow I knew at times you were dishonest when being proved wrong but jeeeeez

forever dodged, thats rich. I did answer by the way and proved it.

you used broken logic and thats a fact, thats all ;)
 
Objective-J said:
Dodge of Question: 4

you are correct it was already committed and i dont need MORE proof it was just fun exposing your dishonesty and pointing out the fact you dodge the question because you knew it would further expose you LMAO

ok here is your original post


ok you used your "logic" above to determine the following:

its a fact cops did not announce themselves
its a fact they shot a man dead.
its not a fact the man pointed a gun at them.

this is clearly broken logic because this info comes from the same source, the two cops, who you deemed unreliable. So you deemed the parts you like as fact and part you dont like as not fact LMAO

so when I ask how you come to that "absurd" claim you TRY to clean it up and correct it by saying"




you assume I just meant the point part vs announce part but I meant it all and again based on the logic YOU are using this is still broken logic. Bcause all this info comes form the source that YOU deem unreliable but some how you say some of its fact and some of it isnt.

so I again point out by YOUR logic none of it can be fact because it could all be lies and unreliable based on the your belief of the source, the cops

theres all the proof anybody objective need, that is in fact broken logic and no amount of back pedal or spin will fix it. :shrug:

remind me of that cool line you said about "making absurd claims based on planned future posts" :laughat:

now wipe the egg off your face
Click to expand...

Well you answered the question finally, so I'll give you that much. But that is not faulty logic, that was refinement based on the definition you were giving out. I was appeasing your argument.
 
Objective-J said:
"forever dodged":lamo

wow I knew at times you were dishonest when being proved wrong but jeeeeez

forever dodged, thats rich. I did answer by the way and proved it.

you used broken logic and thats a fact, thats all ;)
Click to expand...

Psssst....it says "to this point". Thanks for playing.
 
UtahBill said:
so much for the facts....
Click to expand...

Well now, his assumptions ain't faulty logic. Because they were his assumptions and you can't hold yourself to your own definitions after all.
 
Ikari said:
Well you answered the question finally, so I'll give you that much. But that is not faulty logic, that was refinement based on the definition you were giving out. I was appeasing your argument.
Click to expand...

nice try but its broken logic because theres no rational reason m=based on your own words to deam part of the story fact and part of it not factual.

your "refinement" was a failed attempt to back pedal through the BS you were stating with no logical support so I exposed it.

Now since you claim I dodged your question, which I didnt not would you stop dodging mine

Question dodge: 5

currently using your logic what are the facts of this case?
 
UtahBill said:
so much for the facts....
Click to expand...

I agree so much for the current facts his statements were accurate :shrug:

which part dont you get :laughat:
 
Ikari said:
Psssst....it says "to this point". Thanks for playing.
Click to expand...

nobdoy objective buys that bull you tried to make an issue where there wasnt one and got called on it not once but twice, more BS to hide you dodging my questions LMAO
 
Objective-J said:
currently using your logic what are the facts of this case?
Click to expand...

Man is shot dead.

Cops are on the scene (dash board cams would show them entering parking lot)

Cops claimed to have shot them (forensics can later confirm if bullet was from said cop's gun)

Cops claimed they did not announce

Cops claimed the individual pointed a gun at them
 
Ikari said:
Well now, his assumptions ain't faulty logic. Because they were his assumptions and you can't hold yourself to your own definitions after all.
Click to expand...

what assumptions?

I havent made any?

I said IF the story is true the cops arent at fault thats been my stance the whole time

whooops. LMAO another fail by you, man you are slipping
 
Objective-J said:
nobdoy objective buys that bull you tried to make an issue where there wasnt one and got called on it not once but twice, more BS to hide you dodging my questions LMAO
Click to expand...

Nope, I was merely trying to get you to respond before I did. As you can see above, after you did finally respond, I have answered your question. Tit for tat as it may be.
 
Ikari said:
Man is shot dead.

Cops are on the scene (dash board cams would show them entering parking lot)

Cops claimed to have shot them (forensics can later confirm if bullet was from said cop's gun)

Cops claimed they did not announce

Cops claimed the individual pointed a gun at them
Click to expand...

now by the logic you presented earlier this would be true, weird its different from some of your original statements but at least that shows you learned from your mistake of broken logic. GOOD JOB!
 
Objective-J said:
what assumptions?

I havent made any?

I said IF the story is true the cops arent at fault thats been my stance the whole time

whooops. LMAO another fail by you, man you are slipping
Click to expand...

Interesting.

Objective-J said:
yep, per the info we have so far this is accurate as it gets.
Click to expand...

Which is an assumption. You assume the man wanted to die and wanted to do so through use of the police. Wherein the more simpler answer is that the guy is woken early in the morning by aggresive, violent banging, grabs his gun and goes to investigate, and gets shot for the effort. Ockham's razor being as it is.....


Oh noes....did you just run your mouth and got shown the door. So sad.
 
Ikari said:
Nope, I was merely trying to get you to respond before I did. As you can see above, after you did finally respond, I have answered your question. Tit for tat as it may be.
Click to expand...

if you say so :shrug:
 
Objective-J said:
now by the logic you presented earlier this would be true, weird its different from some of your original statements but at least that shows you learned from your mistake of broken logic. GOOD JOB!
Click to expand...

All arguments may be refined to reach the equilibrium of the argument at hand. It is no indication of "faulty logic".
 
Objective-J said:
I agree so much for the current facts his statements were accurate :shrug:

which part dont you get :laughat:
Click to expand...

you blithely agree that the victim wanted to die of "suicide by cop"//

here are the facts....the cops made several mistakes, victim made some mistakes...cops are supposed to get training, citizens would like to believe cops are competent, but sometimes they are not...sometimes the cops pay the price, sometimes an innocent bystander pays the price....did I miss any?
 
Ikari said:
Interesting.



Which is an assumption. You assume the man wanted to die and wanted to do so through use of the police. Wherein the more simpler answer is that the guy is woken early in the morning by aggresive, violent banging, grabs his gun and goes to investigate, and gets shot for the effort. Ockham's razor being as it is.....


Oh noes....did you just run your mouth and got shown the door. So sad.
Click to expand...

:laughat: uhm no "suicide by police" is a slang expression to mean somebody did something dumb that got them killed by police, it does not have to mean a planned suicide. LMAO

HENCE THE DARWIN AWARD REFERENCE :laughat:

WOW, simply WOW
 
Objective-J said:
:laughat: uhm no "suicide by police" is a slang expression to mean somebody did something dumb that got them killed by police, it does not have to mean a planned suicide. LMAO

HENCE THE DARWIN AWARD REFERENCE :laughat:

WOW, simply WOW
Click to expand...

No...that's actually a real thing wherein it's not stupidity which gets one dead, but conscientious effort to force police to fire upon them because they are suicidal and a *****.

"Suicide by cop is a suicide method in which a suicidal individual deliberately acts in a threatening way, with the goal of provoking a lethal response from a law enforcement officer or other armed individual, such as being shot to death"

Thanks for playing

Hmmm, now should I claim your ignorance of this phenomenon is "faulty logic"?
 
Objective-J said:
:laughat: uhm no "suicide by police" is a slang expression to mean somebody did something dumb that got them killed by police, it does not have to mean a planned suicide. LMAO

HENCE THE DARWIN AWARD REFERENCE :laughat:

WOW, simply WOW
Click to expand...

you should get an updated Funk and Wagnalls...
 
UtahBill said:
1.)you blithely agree that the victim wanted to die of "suicide by cop"//

here are the facts....2.)the cops made several mistakes, 3.)victim made some mistakes...4.)cops are supposed to get training, 5.)citizens would like to believe cops are competent, but sometimes they are not...6.)sometimes the cops pay the price, sometimes an innocent bystander pays the price....7.)did I miss any?
Click to expand...

1.)see post 321, this expression does not have to mean a planned suicide , so no i did not, false
2.) no this is you opinion NOT fact, false
3.) If the story is true Yes he did, true
4.) yes they are and theres no proof they didnt, none!
5.) this is true
6.) this is also true
7.) yes a bunch because most of that was not a fact

its seems you have a serious issue differentiating fact from opinion
 
UtahBill said:
you should get an updated Funk and Wagnalls...
Click to expand...

Well these days it is tough to keep up on pop terms such as "suicide by cop" which isn't a stupidity thing, but an actual method of "suicide".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom