CDR: Re: And you thought Nazi agitprop was controversial?

[Reese]

At 11:42 PM 9/14/2000 -0400, Harmon Seaver wrote:
 >Reese wrote:
 >
 >> Still crossposting liberally, I see.
 >>
 >> At 10:05 AM 14/09/00 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
 >>
 >>  >Tim is guilty of statistics abuse, because it never happens to
 >>  >Tim he assumes it can never happen to anyone who is passing
 >>  >the local Nazi encampment.
 >>
 >> My own differences with Tim aside, what proof do you have that Tim
 >> drives past Nazi encampments?  Decry his "statistics abuse" while an
 >> equally underhanded conjecture emerges from your addled backside?
 >>
 >>  >What Tim does not explain is why sending a truck full of thugs
 >>  >off to beat up someone carrying a loaded, recently fired weapon
 >>  >is a reasonable or even a sensible response.
 >>
 >> Defending racism?  Please show where the defendants in the lawsuit
 >> were shown to possess such an implement.  It wasn't mentioned in
 >> this thread, nor do
 >>
 >
 >     I think you are misunderstanding what he wrote -- and then you
 >further confuse the issue with this "defendants....shown to possess"
 >statement. The AN were the defendants,

Oops, you are correct.  The AN are the defendants, the occupants of the
vehicle that backfired are the plaintiffs.  Brainfart.

 >they clearly did have guns.
 >However, what I understood Phil to be saying is that the defendants
 >story about them thinking they were being fired upon, and then chasing
 >after the car, doesn't make a lot of sense. Would you chase after a car
 >carrying unkown number of enemy with unkown firepower who had just done
 >a driveby shooting with you as the target?

You assume they should act, think rationally, by your definition of the word.

 >       Shoot back at them from behind a safe position, yes, and maybe
 >chase them if you had an APC, but you'd have to be pretty stupid to run
 >after them otherwise. And Phil isn't saying that the woman and her kid
 >had a gun at all, but just that the AN tried to BS everyone with that
 >story.

Aye, noted.  Please take note of the US Army response to sudden machinegun 
fire from a bunker, and the US Marine response to it.  Marines have a lower 
life-expectancy in the field for a damn good reason, and while I have no 
way of knowing what prior .mil experience any of those AN members might 
have, I'm not about to assume they would not go charging after a vehicle, 
guns blazing, should they think the occupants of that vehicle had been 
shooting at them.