Sheriff's deputy dies after being shot by suspect

[jgraz]

http://www.kansas.com/news/featured/story/989954.html

If only he had been allowed to carry a weapon for self-defense.

Oh wait...

[HardWorkingDem]

1. Can't tell if....

You are being flippant or what, if you are, it's disgusting.

What a terrible story and incident.

[jgraz]

4. Just making a point that many on this board never seem to understand

Carrying a weapon is no guarantee of safety.

[TheWraith]

6. No, it's not. But at least an armed person has the chance of fighting back.

An unarmed person is completely at the mercy of an armed attacker. There's a reason police in major cities don't send their units out unarmed. And statistics bear out the fact that an armed person is much less likely to to be injured or killed while resisting a crime than an unarmed person.

[jgraz]

10. No, statistics don't bear that out.

Unless you're talking about cooked, pro-gun statistics.

Even the question is ridiculous. The deputy had no chance of fighting back. If the pro-gun fantasy of a fully-armed public ever were to come true, it would just mean that "criminals" would learn to shoot first.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

21. Says the consultant from the Joyce Foundation. The hypocrisy is priceless.

[jgraz]

25. For someone who gets his panties in a twist about DU rules, you sure violate them a lot.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. When do I complain about the rules?

[jgraz]

33. You do know this site has a search facility, don't you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=250846&mesg_id=250856
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=239813&mesg_id=240271
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=227828&mesg_id=227911
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=224856&mesg_id=224875
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=216769&mesg_id=217485
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=216769&mesg_id=216840
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=212345&mesg_id=212426
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=212345&mesg_id=212587
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=212345&mesg_id=212586
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=210518&mesg_id=211122

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. Reading is fundamental. There are reading classes for adult learners, most are free.

[jgraz]

47. Typical. You get pwned so you turn back to insults.

And weak, overused insults to boot. Sad, really.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

51. Your links aren't about me complaining about the rules. See reading is fundamental.

[jgraz]

56. Oh god. Sorry, sometimes I forget how dense you pretend to be

Your silly schtick of intentionally misinterpreting every post is getting old. I'll be explicit: you get your metaphorical panties in a twist whenever you think someone has broken DU rules, yet you freely break them yourself.

Notice I said "metaphorical" panties. That's so you don't next demand that I provide proof that you actually are wearing twisted panties.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

61. Informing people of the rules is a service that hopefully keeps them from getting banned prematurely

[jgraz]

And yet you continue to violate them yourself.

Are you saying you want to get banned?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

64. I'm still not aware of what rule you are speaking of.

[jgraz]

69. If you're going to be the Hermione of the gun group, you really should read the rules at least once.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. It's good that I never did any of those things.

[jgraz]

74. OK, Dave. It's not like I actually want to help you avoid a tombstone.

You just keep going like you're going.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. I never called you any of those things or said you weren't welcome here.

[Hoopla Phil]

83. LOL, funny post.

[Hoopla Phil]

72. You know, the made up ones in ones own mind. How silly of you.

[Hoopla Phil]

57. Ye, somehow, relevant. LOL

[TheWraith]

31. No, I'm talking about FBI statistics.

People attempting to defend themselves from a crime unarmed have a slightly over 40% chance of being killed or injured. Attempting to defend yourself with a knife isn't much better, just a few points lower--but that may be deceptive because it's easy for an inexperienced person to injure themselves with a knife. Of people attempting to defend themselves from a crime using a firearm, only about 12% end up killed or injured.

Out of curiousity, what do you imagine an unarmed public does, other than guarantee assailants that they're unchallenged?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

32. Now you went and used facts and he ran off.

[jgraz]

34. No, you're talking nonsense

People attempting to defend themselves unarmed? How about people who decide their lives are more valuable than a couple of dollars? How do they fare?

And how well do people do when they're attacked by an armed assailant? What are the stats on that?

Let's see this mythical FBI study you refer to. I can't believe it's as stupid as you're making it out to be.

[Hoopla Phil]

44. So FBI stats are nonsense? Is that only when they do not agree with you?

Or your pre-conceived ideas?

[jgraz]

50. Still waiting for that link...

I'm saying your interpretation of the study is nonsense. Unless you can provide a link to the source material, I'm going to assume you agree with me.

[Hoopla Phil]

60. No mater. You state that FBI stats are nonsense. Why bother?? Or would you

willingly accept them if provided?

[jgraz]

66. Ha. Couldn't find a link to your bullshit "study", could you?

You are so transparent.

Hey, did you know the FBI has statistics showing gun owners tend to be sexually dysfunctional? How can you dispute that? It's statistics from the Eff Bee Eye!!!

[Hoopla Phil]

67. Will you accept it if given? I've got it ready but waiting on you. . . .

[Hoopla Phil]

68. Speaking of waiting, care to take a gander down on post 68? LOL.

[Euromutt]

97. The statistics can be found here

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff_table7.html

TheWraith did make one error: they're not FBI statistics, but rather, statistics from the National Crime Victims Survey (NCVS) run by the Dept. of Justice. So he attributed the stats to a specific agency, rather than to the department that governs that agency. I'm sure that completely invalidates the raw data, and any findings derived from the data.

[TheWraith]

114. If I recall correctly, the FBI is responsible for compiling crime statistics for the DOJ.

If I'm mistaken about that, or if this particular project is under a different wing of the DOJ, then I'm mistaken.

[Euromutt]

115. The FBI compiles the Uniform Crime Reports; the NCVS is done by the Bureau of Justice Statistics

Well, technically, the survey is done by the Census Bureau on behalf of the DoJ, but the BJS processes the data.

You're right in that the FBI does compile crime statistics from crimes reported to local, state and federal agencies into the UCR. But the NCVS tries to estimate--among other things--how many crimes go unreported, so they survey a sample of the population and extrapolate from there.

[TheWraith]

82. Not all crimes against the person are over "a couple dollars."

Would you advise a woman who was about to be raped not to resist, because it might be dangerous? Fact is that the number of women seriously injured during a rape is 2.5 times higher for women who DON'T resist, compared to those who do. How about someone who's about to be beaten? Or murdered? Should they not resist? The idea that any criminal will go away if you just meekly surrender your wallet is simple myth. Few people are stupid enough to get killed over a hundred bucks in their wallet.

It's not an FBI study, it's FBI/DOJ numbers researched by an FSU criminologist named Gary Kleck. He published a book, in fact, called "Point blank: Guns and Violence in America."

Edited to fix the Google Books link: http://tinyurl.com/yd6u22a

One of the things Kleck is fast to note is that his research actually changed around the way he thought about guns--he originally hailed from suburbia, and still is a card carrying member of the ACLU, Amnesty International, and a Democrat. From an interview he did for FSU's research newsletter, in an article about his work:

"Landing on this side of the issue is the most unnatural thing in the world to me. I didn't come to this stance through my social background—I grew up in the wilds of suburbia, where guns are scarce. I'm a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, and I'm a lifelong Democrat," he says, pausing briefly in this recitation. "I'm not now and have never been a member of the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc., and I've never received a penny in funding for research from any such organization."

Kleck makes the simple but important point that his way into this pro-handgun position is evidenced-based. "I'm boringly scholarly, having studied this issue for nearly 30 years." The result of this research is impressive by any standards: three books, 50 published articles in journals and in newspapers such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, 10 book chapters, and 40 presented papers. Kleck has published more articles on the defensive use of guns than anyone else on the planet.

http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/cover01_b.asp

[TheWraith]

113. Holy crickets, Batman. I present a link and suddenly there's no snarky followup. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

107. Self-defense isn't about the money, it is about the violence.

Routinely, whenever there is a discussion about an incident in which a person uses a gun to defend themselves, some of the anti-RKBA crowd will complain that the death penalty was dished out over a small amount of money. They say that over a TV, or over the small pain of a hangnail, we are ready to kill. They claim that for the crimes of assault, burglary, auto theft, etc. we are ready to kill.

That is not true. In each case, we are responding to a threat of deadly force with deadly force. When a robber pulls a knife and demands my money, he is displaying an instrument of deadly force with an announced intention to use it on me. Depending upon the disparity of force involved, even his fists may be deadly weapons. If a burglar is breaking into my residence, I have no way of knowing what he intends to do and I can't wait around to find out. When I am faced with a serious threat of deadly violence against myself, I am justified in using deadly force to repel the attacks. As soon as the threat is over, so is my justification for using or displaying deadly force of my own. If, in the event of stopping an attack upon myself or innocent others, the attacker dies, that is his bad luck. I did not shoot intending to kill him, but to render him incapable of further violence. If the medical system can save him so that he can be charged and tried for his crime, that is good.

It would be nice is the anti-RKBA crowd would actually discuss the issue instead of hurling insults, calling names, and making personal attacks. But I am not holding my breath. I might turn blue if I did.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

7. Can you quote many on this board making that statement? I didn't think so.

[jgraz]

12. Once again, Dave, your inability to think abstractly bites you in the ass

You clearly imply that every time you post some heroic Rambo story about an innocent "victim" gunning down a wanton "criminal". Why else would you so lovingly post these adolescent snuff tales?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

15. Once again challenged you can't back anything up.

[jgraz]

19. Answer the question.

Why post your little shoot-em-up vignettes unless you're trying to advocate for citizens carrying weapons?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. As soon as I see those quotes saying carrying a weapon is a guarantee of safety.

[jgraz]

24. Abstract thinking, Dave. It's what separates us from the monkeys.

Really, there are courses you can take on this.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. So you admit it was a straw man? Okay. Now what was your question?

[jgraz]

35. The question was: why do you continually post these shoot-em-up stories?

Why, by your own admission, did you post them enough that you were threatened with banning if you continued? You seem to LOVE these stories. What's your point in posting them?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

You are mistaken as usual. I was asked to stop posting them in GD, not to stop posting them.

[jgraz]

43. And you still don't answer the question.

You really don't have an answer, do you?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

49. I post them to clear up some common misconceptions. I hope that satisfies your curiosity.

[jgraz]

52. And which misconceptions would those be?

Evasive to the last, I see.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

58. Why do stories of innocent people defending themselves bother you so much?

[jgraz]

59. And still he runs from the question

What are you afraid of? Why can't you give a simple answer to a simple question?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. I've answered several of yours go ahead and answer mine.

[Hoopla Phil]

65. Don't hold your breath. Although I'd like to see him/her try. HaHaHaHa.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. The common misconceptions here are......

Guns are rarely used for self defense.

Gun owners delight in the death of criminals.

Accidental deaths from firearms are on the rise.

Homicides committed with firearms are at all time highs.

There are numerous others, far too many to list here tonight.

[jgraz]

73. Except your pew-pew posts disprove none of those

See evidence, anecdotal.

[Hoopla Phil]

75. Still waiting on post 68. LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. I never said I was trying to disprove them, just clear them up a bit, anecdotally of course..

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. Now why do stories of innocent people defending themselves bother you so much?

[Hoopla Phil]

88. Now THAT'S a good question.

[proteus_lives]

111. I'd like to see him answer that as well.

My guess is because he's a very passive person in real life. So seeing men and women defend themselves shames him.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. LOL. Run off to bed without answering and you complain about others evading questions.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

30. I don't carry a firearm. I don't advocate for or against state CCW laws.

[Euromutt]

96. Aaaand we have a violation of Arnold's Law

http://www.bullshido.org/Arnold's_Law

And honestly, jgraz, how is it possible to keep so much hypocrisy in one brain without said brain melting down from the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance and oozing out of your ear?

It doesn't occur to your own supposedly oh so wonderfully developed ability to think abstractly that while possessing a means of self-defense is not the same same as the ability to wield that means effectively 100% of the time (in concrete terms: having a gun does not in and of itself provide a guarantee of safety), not having that means available certainly limits one's options when faced with the need to defend oneself?

Not that it really matters, because your blather about "thinking abstractly" is simply a red herring to distract readers from the fact that you can't cite an example of anyone saying that possession of a firearm does provide a guarantee of safety. And that brings me to another example of your rather breath-taking hypocrisy, namely that elsewhere in this thread you accuse someone of resorting to insults in the wake of being pwned, when in the post above, you are doing exactly that. And for someone who belittles other posters for supposedly pretending that words don't have meanings, your claim of "abstract thinking" is a fabulous cop-out to allow you to pretend that words have whatever meaning you choose them to have to conveniently suit your argument.

To get back to the nuts and bolts, I can find posts indicating that many of the usual pro-RKBA suspects on this forum are familiar with the writings of Massad Ayoob, among others, to the extent that benEzra has quoted almost verbatim Ayoob's line (which Ayoob has repeated in almost every book he's written, and which has been quoted extensively) that "a gun is NOT a talisman, a magic charm to ward off evil." What's that if not an acknowledgment--indeed, a caution--that merely having a firearm is no guarantee of safety?

Incidentally, Dave's tendency to post news media reports of private citizens successfully using firearms to defend themselves against threats to life and limb can be fairly readily explained if you see it as a counterweight to the various media reports opponents of private firearms ownership post concerning situations where a firearm was--intentionally or otherwise--used to do ill.

The question of private ownership (and carrying) of firearms is not a question of black or white, a question of wholly positive or wholly negative. To quote Gary Kleck from 2000 (http://www.independent.org/events/transcript.asp?eventID=24#2):

So, for example, many issues in the debate over guns and violence, they’re not so much are they’re certain effects of having guns, it’s a matter of how much. It boils down to a quantitative issue. All but the most fanatical advocates of one position or another will concede that guns both help criminals do crime and help victims defend against it. It’s just a matter of how often that happens.

So, sure, every story Dave posts is anecdotal evidence. But so is this story. Hell, it's not like cops don't get shot in other countries, including ones with much more stringent firearms laws than the U.S.

Which brings up another aspect of the gun control debate, which is the question to which extent restricting or prohibiting private ownership of firearms will actually reduce violent crime. Because lacking in nuance as the NRA slogan that "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" may be, empirical evidence from western Europe indicates that is, broadly speaking, true. Anyone who feels the need to acquire a firearm and is prepared to break the law by illegally possessing one doesn't seem to have problem getting hold of one. Folkert van der Graaf, who committed the first political assassination in the Netherlands in over 400 years (by shooting populist politician Pim Fortuyn in 2002) bought the gun off some guy in a bar in a provincial town. In 2007, a 16 year-old gang member in Croxteth (Merseyside, England) tried to perform a "bicycle-by" shooting on a rival gang member, but ended up hitting an 11 year-old named Rhys Jones, who had the misfortune to be in the line of fire. The fact that a 16 year-old kid was able to lay his hands on a handgun in a country that entirely prohibits private ownership of handguns does illustrate that gun control is of limited effectiveness in preventing violent crime; those intent upon committing violent crime will find the means to do so, and some unscrupulous individual will be willing to provide the means.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

8. Still waiting.

[Hoopla Phil]

38. I think you'll be waiting for a long, long time.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. Can we burn that straw man now?

[jgraz]

13. Triple post? You FAIL at Teh Internets.

:rofl:

[Treo]

54. It's no guarantee of mayhem either

I'll take my chances

[GreenStormCloud]

104. None of us claim it is a guarantee.

But it damn sure gives me a better chance against a mugger than just my fists would.

[JonQ]

109. Guarantee? No

And I don't think anyone has ever said it is a 100% guarantee of anything. But obviously it does help.

Otherwise, why would cops carry guns at all? If they are useless in protecting you in dangerous situations why go armed at all?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. What great news for you, I bet this has absolutely made your day!!!

[jgraz]

3. Oh come on, Dave. There was cool gunfire! pew pew!

And a CRIMINAL got killed, too. You should be having to change your shorts right about now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. Only you would take so much joy in an Officers death. Despicable.

I doubt the Joyce Foundation would approve of this behavior.

[jgraz]

16. Spare me. The pro-gun policies you support gave that shooter his weapon.

Sucks when you can't pretend that only the bad guys get shot, don't it?

[Name removed]

18. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

98. "GAVE that shooter his weapon"?

I love your wording there: "the pro-gun policies you support gave that shooter his weapon." That's right, the gun just dropped into his lap like a lawn dart (to use Iverglas' beloved simile), and exerted its mind control powers over him to turn him from a productive member of society, who normally wouldn't have hurt a fly, into a hardened cop-killer.

It's not like he might have been a convicted felon, already prohibited from possessing a firearm by federal and state law, who acquired the weapon illegally for the premeditated purpose of committing the most serious crime in any state criminal code. It's not like, in the absence of widespread private ownership of firearms, he might have turned (of his own accord) to a black market in firearms smuggled into the country like those which already exist in western Europe. No, hell no; the guy only wanted some food to feed his family, so when the gun just dropped into his lap (courtesy of Dave and the other pro-RKBA posters, myself presumably included), the only obvious thing to do with it was not to sell it, but to kill a cop for the coffee and donuts that would surely be present in his squad car!

Yessir, no way would this have happened if it weren't for the availability of firearms to any private citizen willing to submit to a federal background check and fill out an ATF form 4473.

[Hoopla Phil]

9. What a horrible occurrence. Your flippant remarks however, speak volumes. That's despicable!

[jgraz]

14. Oh, save the fauxtrage for someone who hasn't seen your other posts.

This is the flipside of your pro-gun fantasy. Don't like facing reality, do you?

[Hoopla Phil]

17. I don't like your revelry in someones tragedy. I find it repugnant.

Hummmm. . . rep-gnant. That reminds me of something. . . .

[jgraz]

20. OK, I'll let you guys go back to celebrating the dead purse snatcher

That feels so much better, doesn't it?

[Hoopla Phil]

22. Do you, or do you not find the death of an innocent abhorrent? After all

your started this thread. I'd like to know.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

29. That is not an answer but a dodge of the question. I'll assume you're not as stupid as your post

implies and give you the opportunity to respond again.

[jgraz]

36. I don't answer bullshit questions

Why don't you tell us when you stopped beating your wife?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

39. You sure are good at asking them.

[Hoopla Phil]

42. Typical of his sort.

[Hoopla Phil]

40. Ha, Ha, Ha. Faced with reality you dodge the question. How typical. LOL.

[Hoopla Phil]

41. Do you, or do you not find the death of an innocent abhorrent? After all

you started this thread.

[jgraz]

45. Do you, or do you not find your sister sexually attractive?

You asked the question to be insulting, not because you wanted an answer. I'm not going to play your game.

[Hoopla Phil]

48. Ha Ha Ha. Won't play your own game humm??? You tell volumes about yourself.

[Hoopla Phil]

53. Really, it's not a hard question: Do you, or do you not find the death of an innocent abhorrent?

Why you consider it a game is beyond me? Apparently it is beyond you as well. LOL.

[Hoopla Phil]

46. You just don't answer questions that are "inconvenient". Or do you care to answer up? LMFAO!!!

[Hoopla Phil]

55. Do you, or do you not find the death of an innocent abhorrent?

[Hoopla Phil]

63. To quote you from post 63: "And still he runs from the question" LMFAO!!!

You really should get some sleep cause you NEED that day job or yours. LOL

[SteveM]

77. Is he on the rag again? Seems vaguely familiar to other posts (nt)

[jgraz]

80. OK, that's enough time on the DU short bus for me this evening

Enjoy your circle-jerk, boys. I'm off to bed.

[Hoopla Phil]

89. Without answering the question?! Do you, or do you not find the death of an innocent abhorrent?

[Hoopla Phil]

94. Still waiting: Do you, or do you not find the death of an innocent abhorrent?

[Euromutt]

110. I think I've just had an epiphany

For the longest time, whenever some Republican-aligned troglodyte rails on about "liberal elites," I've wondered "how did 'elite' become a dirty word?" And now it suddenly dawns on me: they're talking about you, jgraz, and you know what? I'm starting to understand where they're coming from.

Imagine that: here I am, a university-educated, socially liberal, atheist immigrant with several generations of forebears who voted for actual socialists (not what ignorant American right-wingers think constitutes "socialists") and an English Home Counties accent; in short, the only thing required to make your average Tancredo or Huckabee voter hate me more would be for me to not have white skin, a penis and a wife.

And yet, it's fast getting to where I'd rather consort with someone like them than with someone like you.

[Hoopla Phil]

81. Apparently so. LOL.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. He left for a while after he outed himself as a former consultant for the Joyce Foundation.

jgraz (1000+ posts)
100. Ignorance is temporary. But thick is forever.
But in this case, I'm neither. I not only know who the Joyce Foundation is, I did some consulting for them back in Chicago. Nice group of folks. Tue Jul-21-09 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #90

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

87. Sure you did. You just happened to leave the gungeon for almost 2 months on July 22nd.

[Hoopla Phil]

92. And what a wonderful vacation from ignorance that was. LOL

[jgraz]

95. You captured my thoughts perfectly

It was also my vacation from fake outrage, from feigned misunderstanding and from little-boy macho posturing. It was nice.

[friendly_iconoclast]

100. iverglas does the "I'm superior to you stupid and dangerous gun nuts" bit WAY better

And she has some serious (if wasted) research chops to go with it.

We know iverglas. And you, sir, are no iverglas.

Wannabe.

[spin]

108. And she has a sense of humor. (n/t)

[Hoopla Phil]

91. Hey jraze, Do you, or do you not find the death of an innocent abhorrent?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

93. Put some ice on that it will take the sting out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

99. You should have brushed up on your research and fisking skills. Pity

Pure snark and invective will only carry you far, sooner or later one must have some, well, references and citations and
sources.

I've seen high school kids with better investigative and rhetorical skills.

[Hoopla Phil]

90. That alone speaks volumes. Even though he/she will not answer a simple question.

[HardWorkingDem]

103. No, you just post bullshit OPs and follow ups...

What is your point in all of this junk?

[jeepnstein]

101. He stepped into an ambush.

It happens. There are people who hate the police enough to do things like this and somehow justify their actions. Once someone decides to step outside the law there's not much to stop them. The good news is the vast majority of citizens in our country wouldn't do something like this under any circumstance.

A cop answering a call takes certain precautions that a typical citizen wouldn't. When someone decides to take your life like this suspect did, there's very little to stop them. There are no guarantees in life. This is especially true when you make a living wearing a badge.

[Remmah2]

105. Who stepped into an ambush?

The sheriff of jgraz?

[HardWorkingDem]

102. I'm curious...just what is your point in the OP?

To be upfront, I only read about ten of your replies. You seem to be pushing a fake facade of "tough on crime" while being flippant about the death of a police officer in one of the worse ways - an ambush.

Then your further answers are childish and insulting.

So, just what is your point of the start of this thread and your follow up replies?


From what I've read you have posted a flippant remark and added sarcastic replies that have served no purpose.

[spin]

106. A weapon is not a force field which protects you from all harm...

it is, however, a tool that offers the opportunity to fight back against an attack and have a reasonable chance.

You may seriously believe that resisting an attack by a violent criminal intent on harming you is futile and you should just kneel down and beg for your life. For you this might be the best approach and if you are attacked, I hope it works.

Others feel differently.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

112. Why do stories of innocent people defending themselves bother you so much?