In the meantime, back at its hideout, the wind is wringing its hands, menacingly, knowing that no one suspects its hand in burning of the Michael Brown memorial.
Dude obviously went to the academy so he had marksmanship training. But if your target stops moving (i.e. when Brown dropped to his knees) then head shots aren’t as difficult. What’s so hard to believe about that?
Prone with a rifle and sights? Or standing with a glock, squeezing off multiple shots? I have shot with active police and they didnt really hit anything. I dont know how far we were, but I dont think 100ft is easy.
Hint: did any layer of the government defend the democratic rights of the people in Ferguson? (No).
Pushing all of the adjectives and such aside, no, it’s not “abstract.” You made a claim that directly implies an idealist philosophy; I targeted that directly.
You answered “no” (assuming you answered the first question), but you followed up with some sort of vitriol against things I didn’t state. I’ll remind you of what you implied here with a question: are you defending the notion that merely thinking a certain way will change the material conditions?
Additionally, I assure you I’m not “arguing for the sake.” This is related to the topic of the thread for a very specific reason. Military-police repression of social opposition is a damning situation to be in.
Standing with handgun. I know I’ve done it with a .22 and a 9mm during quals in the navy. Although my vision is worse now than ever, I am near certian that the indoor range was 100ft. Believe me, I’m not mr. sureshot either. I never did get to use a rifle, but I’m sure that with sights I could’ve done better. Easy? No, but Not impossible though.