- Joined
- Aug 1, 2009
- Messages
- 27,482
- Reaction score
- 6,506
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063629027 said:Maybe he's trying to find a pair of pants that fit.
That is a pair of pants that fit, to him.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1063629027 said:Maybe he's trying to find a pair of pants that fit.
I have seen too many bad shoots to take a cops version at face value.
If they have the vodka, why do they need the rest of it?
I went through 4 pages of pictures and I don't see this made up thug in Michael Brown.
Hey I got a challenge for you.
Find something about his character that was negative.... I mean this shouldn't be hard for a thug right?
WOW, you must live in a bad neighborhood.
There are 2 aspects to this story.
1) It appears that the police officer committed a homicide, and the police are attempting to cover it up. Every single eyewitness statement contradicts the official story from the police department. The FBI is now investigating this as a civil rights violation, and I suspect that at least one officer is going to end up in prison. People have a right to be angry here.
2) However, that does not justify looting and burning your own neighborhood down. That is just plain idiotic, except to those who are criminals and see an opportunity to get themselves some free stuff. They should also be going to prison.
Can you fathom what a day's work in that neighborhood must be like for a police officer? It'd be like wandering the desert in Afghanistan.
There are 2 aspects to this story.
1) It appears that the police officer committed a homicide, and the police are attempting to cover it up. Every single eyewitness statement contradicts the official story from the police department. The FBI is now investigating this as a civil rights violation, and I suspect that at least one officer is going to end up in prison. People have a right to be angry here.
2) However, that does not justify looting and burning your own neighborhood down. That is just plain idiotic, except to those who are criminals and see an opportunity to get themselves some free stuff. They should also be going to prison.
That's no excuse to be toasting civilians.
No, but I understand the skittishness.
No dana, the eyewitnesses were drinking codeine and are thugs. This obviously means the young man had to have gone for the officers gun. :lol:
Maybe he did go for the cop's gun, but then he broke away and began running from the cop. I would be interested to find out where the youth was shot at, in the back, or the front?
As a side note here, no, burning and looting doesn't help the community at all, most probably wanted to torch the police station, but couldn't reach it or overpower the cops to get close to it.
There's a lot to this story we don't know yet, the cops are being tight lipped.
I assume that the people in here disparaging law enforcement, calling them "murderers", would never think of calling them if they were in a pinch.....
So because police services exist, I'm not allowed to criticize a police officer (allegedly) shooting an unarmed fleeing person in the back.
Interesting. What other aspects of authority am I never, ever allowed to question?
You've criticized the government before. I assume that you'd never interact with any government agency ever, right?
I'm sure J-mac has criticized Catholic priests who molest children. So he wouldn't ever think to go into a church or get married in one.
HSBC laundered money for terrorists and drug cartels, so nobody should ever use a bank if they would criticize such a thing.
As usual, your examples are extreme....Not meant to debate anything....Have fun with that.
Really? And what about your point? That wasn't extreme?
Cop shoots person in the back, I'm not allowed to criticize it because I also want cops to exist?
American soldier commits a war crime, do you criticize it? Or do you let it slide because you want the military to protect the nation?
His friend says it was his back.
Probably why no person on an official level is speaking about it. Except they're protecting the cop's identity.
It's not self defence if I start it or if I go to them. It is self-defence if they come to me. I'll even post warning signs for 'no trespassing' & trespassers will be shot'.
Right. They have to also be comitting a feloney. Burning cars & buildings & looting are felonies. As with a any fist fight, I'll let them do a little damage first so my case looks better in court.
Oh I'm still in the service, but reservists are civilians, strictly speaking. Anyone not on active duty orders is a civilian.
Rioters don't loiter. They riot. If they just lotered then they wouldn't be called rioters. They would be loiterers. I wouldn't fire on loiterers but it would be nice if civilians could buy tear gas. Strange that we can have the means to kill but not lesser non-lethal tools which might avoid killing at all. One tazer isn't going to disperse a bar fight. One lil can of OC isn't going to stop that mob from beating the crap out of that guy. A tear gas grenade or two, however, could....but civilians can't own that, but we have rifles. Go figure.
I think I'll start shopping for the most AWB compliant rifle I can find just for this aplication. Lets see, it'll need to have a nice soft wood stock. A brushed or blued metal finish, nothing black. Lever or bolt action. Fixed mag, not detachable. Holds 10 or fewer rounds. A modest scope. Registered with my insurence. I'll need to start buying a hunting license every year and take a few outdoorsy pics with this rifle somewhere in it. I'd like a real hunting rifle to have a suppressor & bipod but that brakes the AWB-compliant concept. Hmm what else....
That cop's family deserves to be safe.