I usually try to leave commenters alone, both on this web site and others.  Occasionally one surfaces that warrants a reply.  David Codrea linked my piece on the continued shootings by cop in Wichita, and this comment was proffered by FedUp.

Smith frequently makes the mistake of presuming the facts of any matter are exactly what the LEOs say they are.

Like this:

Second, the officer went into the domicile with the dog unsecured. The dog did what he’s supposed to do, what he is bred to do, and what he is expected to do. He defended the home from invaders.

Who, besides the shooter, says the dog did a damn thing?

Frequently, says he.  Frequently.  This comment does raise interesting questions on how you formulate good arguments though.

First of all, it’s my intention not only to convey my own thoughts, but to do so in a manner that causes you to think, as well as ponder how you might engage people in conversation on these matters in a manner that is compelling.

It’s rarely wise to concede any point.  So for instance, while I once argued for open carry by simply saying that I hate concealed carry because it’s uncomfortable and it sweats my weapon (and all of that is still true), I now add to it by saying that I open carry “For the peace, good and dignity of the country and the welfare of its people.”  After serious thought about it and being persuaded by other writers, I don’t want to concede the point that the only reason I open carry is because I hate concealed carry.  There are other very legitimate reasons to open carry, the First Amendment being one of them.

I’ve argued in a similar manner with mental health and gun ownership.  Mental health doesn’t have any bearing at all on disposition to violence as we’ve seen from mental health professionals.  But I’m unwilling to concede the point that if it could somehow be proven that it does, I’m willing to use mental health assessments as criteria for gun ownership.

Likewise, in the subject article on the Wichita police home invasion, I wanted to point out two things.  Let’s first assume that the cop is telling the truth since the shooting was what happened chronologically first.  Let’s assume that the dog attacked him.  I’m unwilling to concede the point that the cop was justified in shooting at the dog if the dog attacked him.  That’s why I said he should have taken the bite.  He was a goober for not asking that the dog be secured before entering the home, and thus he should have suffered the consequences for his stupid decisions.  I will not concede that it is justified for cops to shoot dogs.

Only then did I address the possibility that the cop was lying, when I said this: “Finally, it seems questionable to me how much danger he was in anyway, since apparently there was no bite forthcoming.  The report doesn’t say that the officer was taken the hospital to suture wounds.  Remember, he missed.  What happened to that threatening dog?”

The cop probably panicked, and carelessly deployed and discharged his weapon.  He shouldn’t be a cop.  He doesn’t have the disposition for it, and he was likely never in the danger he said he was.

Capisce?  Is that clear enough now?  There is a method to my argument[s], and it’s usually set up the way it is in order to prevent having to concede important points.

But then again, I try to write on something other than a fifth grade level anyway.  I want my readers to have to think when they read my prose.  Perhaps this will help FedUp.