Pretty sure your "counter" is on the same side of the argument. People have a visceral reaction to sharks that means they see them as the danger in swimming at the beach, when rip tides, box jellyfish (at least in QLD), and submerged rocks etc are far more dangerous.Winnow wrote: What kind of logic is that? We're discussing a single case with well known recent events leading up to it.
With your lame argument, I could counter that people like to swim in the ocean even though it's not safe but after a shark attack, there are many less people in the water for awhile and it's probably not in a shark's best interest to be swimming around shore for the next few days.
Hunting down a "man killer" shark, or dog, it's considered acceptible to kill quite a few innocent animals in an effort to remove the danger, they're just animals. I don't see how that relates at all to the "collateral damage" of executing human beings on the street based solely on a profile and a puffy jacket.
Despite all the howling that this guy should have known better, it's a far cry between this incident and the Reservior Dogs story about the uniformed cop nearly blowing away the driver for reaching into the glove box for his registration instead of just doing what the cop that was telling him. And even in that case, you can see how an innocent could not realise how stupid he's being.
Nooooo Masteen
