Inner city minorities raised without a father=disrespect for authority=drugs=criminal behavior=guns=using guns on innocents.
??? The
majority of criminal activity occurs absent guns. Just as guns do not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) criminal behavior, criminal behavior does not "equal" (unavoidably and always involve) guns.
Topic is police shootings. Means the bad guy had a weapon, typically a gun.
First, if you are clarifying the remarks to which I replied, okay, I understand the clarification you've provided. If you are instead defending their factual accuracy, to the extent you responded to the single point about which I wrote -- that of criminal behavior = guns -- "typically = guns" isn't at all the same as "equaling guns." If you don't believe the things you wrote truly and always to be equivalences,
i.e., imbued with a 100% of the time causal correspondence, why did you present them that way? Seeing as what you wrote and what you meant apparently aren't precisely the same, perhaps you should have written what you meant. I cannot read your mind, only your words.
You are the one who wrote the post indicating equivalences -- each of which, except
perhaps the drugs = criminal behavior and that only because I took "drugs" to mean "illegal drugs," can easily be shown to not at all be so at the frequency of equivalence (100% of the time) -- I just happened to address the first one that had to do with guns and crime. I chose that one because criminal behavior is the one thing you noted that necessarily, rightly and always (sooner or later) involves police officers.
Because I know that it sometimes does, I'm not opposed to accepting the premise that criminal behavior involves guns, as well as the possible verity of the other relationships you noted, but that it does so as often as your remarks indicate (=) is not something I'll accept merely because you say so. You essentially wrote A=B=C=D=E. That means that every term in the equivalence is equal to equal to every other. And that's clearly not so. Alternatively, if I'm correct in thinking your equals signs meant "necessarily and unavoidably leads to," (A ==> B ==> C ==> D ==> E) well, that too just isn't something that I can accept absent evidence indicating as much. If you were to have presented the idea as A --> B --> C --> D --> E, the issue there is that you're still asserting that "inner city minorities [being] raised without a father leads to using guns on innocents." That too isn't at all likely to be even "most of the time" so. (BTW, what does one's being a minority child have to do with it? Do inner city non-minorities being raised without a father lead routinely not disrespect authority?)
Second, the "bad guy" is an alleged bad guy, a suspect, not a person convicted of that for which the cops seek to apprehend them, and whether s/he is thus a "bad guy" remains in question. You may indeed ascribe to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," but the tone of your remarks here don't suggest that. They have a tone of "if cops think you are guilty, you are."
Third, it really doesn't matter, as go police shootings, if the suspect merely has possession of a weapon. What matters, especially with regard to the theme of the topic the OP presented for this thread, is the prudence cops exercise in using theirs, particularly their gun(s). A seminal 1985 Supreme Court case,
Tennessee vs. Garner held that the police may not shoot at a fleeing person unless the officer reasonably believes that the individual poses a significant physical danger to the officer or others in the community. That means officers are expected to take other, less-deadly action during a foot or car pursuit unless the person being chased is seen as an immediate safety risk. In the Court's opinion, written by Justice White:
This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Fourth, though in incidents of cops shooting suspects one would expect that the suspect also had a weapon. I see nowhere that you or anyone else has established that to be so in cases where cops shoot suspects. Moreover, I don't see you establishing that the weapon the suspects have, when they have one, is always or even most often, a gun, which given that most crime occurs absent a gun, would be an important thing to show in light of the "axioms" you presented.
