> This is just a blatant straw-man argument

No, it's not. OP said "Precisely why the "feared for my life" defense of police execution has to be ended".

It's difficult to have a reasoned discussion when you don't read.

It is rather ironic that you should write that, when the poster had already clarified his meaning (for those who had not realized it from the context in which it was originally made) and in the very post to which you were replying, no less.

It's not "clarifying" when it's inconsistent with what he first said.

And it doesn't make your strawman accusation any less incorrect.

If someone finds that what they wrote did not express precisely what they meant, then making it clear is perfectly reasonable. It happens all the time in reasoned discussions.

You might have had an arguably tendentious point if you had made your comment immediately, but once aswanson had clarified his position, it became a straw man. Rational discussion moves along, and flogging a dead horse that's left the station has no part in it.