Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Look around the forum, Willie. The anti-gun Left regularly and gleefully jumps into or starts threads of a gun-owner being shot. This thread is different. Why? 1) the victim is black and 2) the shooter was a cop.You a fucked up individual.
It always struck me as dysfunctional that LW anti-gunners want only police and military to have arms yet the LW is constantly bitching about the police and the military. Go figure.
Dude in car had gun few days earlier when he armed robbery carton of Newports and some cash? Reasonable suspicion.
many of you owe Danny an apology (or partial? ) I think he called it all early on but you don't like his choice of words always. When you all perfect, let us know.
I haven't tried anything. I proved you're full of shit. The conversation went like this:No, it's none of your business. It's like asking someone who they voted for. I'd tell you to go pound sand. Security guards aren't cops and no way 28 cops are going to be against the 2nd amendment, you're full of shit.Who are you to tell its none of my business? My company my rule. I also do NOT accommodate Muslim prayers but I allow them to pray during their breaks or lunch time and not during working time.
Why in the world they I will offend them by talking about 2nd amendment? I never said I ask them directly about 2nd amendment. We talked about arming civilians and self/home defense. But they do not agree in arming all civilians.
Are you saying that they will make financial decisions based on 2nd amendment? Are you saying just bc of 2nd amendment or guns I do not have a business? Do you realize how dumb you are talking to me?
And I don't give a flying fuck if you believe me or not.
You are putting words in my mouth. Let me repeat it again. Where in my post that I asked them directly about 2nd? I talked to them casually about guns and violence and based from their opinion. NO they do not like armed civilians in a situation like Dallas the other night. Try again.
ME
"Most cops are pro 2nd amendment, maybe the ones you know don't trust you. With modern equipment the police probably already know if the auto registered owner is licensed. But the narrative that the guy was shot for being black is exactly what led to the Dallas massacre. You are part of the problem."
YOU
"I have a total of 28 LEO working as a part time security guards. None of them will agree with you. They do NOT like armed civilians.........."
Idiot you did not prove me anything. And I told you repeatedly that last thing they want to see is an armed civilians running around in a situations like Dallas. How the hell they know you are a good guy or bad guy? SCREAM AT THEM......... HEY IM THE GOOD GUY......... Try again idiot.
They had guys in the march with slung rifles........and they didn't shoot them did they? An actual shooting, with a sniper, with civilians in the crowd with rifles....and the cops somehow knew they weren't the bad guys.....
Nothing you guys imagine in your heads is even remotely true about guns....
Yes, they'd be the ones who keep quoting "regulated militia" to mean the military. Now tell me you've never, ever seen anyone post that idea on this forum so I can know whether you are an honest person or a low-down, dirty partisan liar.Can you find a post showing any liberal on this forum, stating that they only want the police and military to have guns?
No, but thanks for proving you are.why are you lying about what i posted makes you look like a low life troll
is that what you are asshole
I haven't tried anything. I proved you're full of shit. The conversation went like this:No, it's none of your business. It's like asking someone who they voted for. I'd tell you to go pound sand. Security guards aren't cops and no way 28 cops are going to be against the 2nd amendment, you're full of shit.
You are putting words in my mouth. Let me repeat it again. Where in my post that I asked them directly about 2nd? I talked to them casually about guns and violence and based from their opinion. NO they do not like armed civilians in a situation like Dallas the other night. Try again.
ME
"Most cops are pro 2nd amendment, maybe the ones you know don't trust you. With modern equipment the police probably already know if the auto registered owner is licensed. But the narrative that the guy was shot for being black is exactly what led to the Dallas massacre. You are part of the problem."
YOU
"I have a total of 28 LEO working as a part time security guards. None of them will agree with you. They do NOT like armed civilians.........."
Idiot you did not prove me anything. And I told you repeatedly that last thing they want to see is an armed civilians running around in a situations like Dallas. How the hell they know you are a good guy or bad guy? SCREAM AT THEM......... HEY IM THE GOOD GUY......... Try again idiot.
They had guys in the march with slung rifles........and they didn't shoot them did they? An actual shooting, with a sniper, with civilians in the crowd with rifles....and the cops somehow knew they weren't the bad guys.....
Nothing you guys imagine in your heads is even remotely true about guns....
Show me in the video where people have rifles slung in their shoulder.
You are a rabid gun nuts......... Every scenario fits your agenda.
I haven't tried anything. I proved you're full of shit. The conversation went like this:No, it's none of your business. It's like asking someone who they voted for. I'd tell you to go pound sand. Security guards aren't cops and no way 28 cops are going to be against the 2nd amendment, you're full of shit.
You are putting words in my mouth. Let me repeat it again. Where in my post that I asked them directly about 2nd? I talked to them casually about guns and violence and based from their opinion. NO they do not like armed civilians in a situation like Dallas the other night. Try again.
ME
"Most cops are pro 2nd amendment, maybe the ones you know don't trust you. With modern equipment the police probably already know if the auto registered owner is licensed. But the narrative that the guy was shot for being black is exactly what led to the Dallas massacre. You are part of the problem."
YOU
"I have a total of 28 LEO working as a part time security guards. None of them will agree with you. They do NOT like armed civilians.........."
Idiot you did not prove me anything. And I told you repeatedly that last thing they want to see is an armed civilians running around in a situations like Dallas. How the hell they know you are a good guy or bad guy? SCREAM AT THEM......... HEY IM THE GOOD GUY......... Try again idiot.
They had guys in the march with slung rifles........and they didn't shoot them did they? An actual shooting, with a sniper, with civilians in the crowd with rifles....and the cops somehow knew they weren't the bad guys.....
Nothing you guys imagine in your heads is even remotely true about guns....
Show me in the video where people have rifles slung in their shoulder.
You are a rabid gun nuts......... Every scenario fits your agenda.
No, but thanks for proving you are.why are you lying about what i posted makes you look like a low life troll
is that what you are asshole
What did I lose, asshole? You claimed you hired 28 cops and they don't like armed civilians and I called it bullshit. Plus we are supposed to believe you happened to ask all 28 of them after the Dallas police shootings. You have zero credibility.That's not what you said, Dipshit. You're trying to walk it back, you should be in politics.It proves you're full of shit. You say one thing, then you pretend otherwise. Pretty stupid since it's still there.I quoted your post, asshole!
So? That doesn't mean you prove me your bullshit. Try again.
Read post #51 Sealybobo. He also have friends (with S ) that are cops and they don't like armed civilians. Is that a coincidence?
You are trying to justify your stupidity. Let me repeat again so you can stick to your thick skull. NONE of my 28 cops as security guard will agree with you that armed civilians during active an shootings is a bad idea.
Then you went to your 2nd A bullshit. Stupid fuck. You lost.
You lost. I never walk back...... And never changed any of my views. I just repeated it for you 3x so you stick to your thick skull.
I said we don't have the facts about the shooting, didn't say it was justified or not. You are smarmy lying cocksucker. II see I'm not the only one drawing that conclusion "divine wind". Go stink up another board.Point out where I haven't, weasel. You're the one with the psychic powers about who is guilty of robbery and who has a CCW permit and who doesn't.How about waiting for the facts instead of blessing us with your divine wind?
Post where I said I didn't post it. So that's two now. My challenge to you was simple. You claimed I called it a good shooting so I said post where I said that or be a little cvnt.Quit being such a weasel, grow a fucking spine and admit you posted this bullshit:Liar. I said we don't know what happened. I said to go ahead and post where I called it a good shooting. Posting your typical "divine wind" is a poor substitute, that won't work. Go find it and post it instead of being a little cvnt, OK?Looks like they were on the lookout for an armed robbery suspect, he matched the description, that's why he was pulled over. It also explains why his sidekick wasn't exactly surprised. No gun permit, she lied. And the liberals gobbled it up and cops were slaughtered.
Who said it was? How did you get to be such a gasbag?Agreed. Legal or not, permit or not, to be a lawful shooting, he had to produce a gun and the police officer had to have a reasonable fear he'd use it. Having an illegal gun without a permit is not a justifiable reason for killing someone.the gun was legal
that is actually still an unknown
Golly, really? You're a tower of brilliance.No idea whether he saw a gun or not which is why I'm not passing judgment on the officer nor the victim. All I'm saying are the circumstances required before deadly force can be used. In this case, he'd have had to see a gun before a shooting would be justified. Mere paranoia of seeing a black man reach under a seat isn't sufficient reason.Yes he would have had to see the gun of course. Now can you say if he did or didn't see the gun he might have reached for ? I can't, so it has to be fully investigated before have all the answers. There are some strange circumstances that open the door for investigative questions & answers to be pursued in the case, don't you agree ?
It is odd. That's because it occurs between your fucking ears. An odd place indeed. Thanks for the "divine wind". Now somebody open a window please.Doesn't it strike you as odd or funny that RWers bitch and moan about "state's rights" and "let each state decide" the jump back to a Federally mandated and controlled government when it suits them?
I think troll is an apt description for him/her. He regularly misrepresents what people say in order to try to appear above you. Since the words are still there it's either brain damage or trolling, I don't see another option.So you think a police officer can just shoot him for being black? Reaching under his seat?Agreed. Legal or not, permit or not, to be a lawful shooting, he had to produce a gun and the police officer had to have a reasonable fear he'd use it. Having an illegal gun without a permit is not a justifiable reason for killing someone.the gun was legal
that is actually still an unknown
to be a lawful shooting, he had to produce a gun
that actually is not true
609.066 - 2015 Minnesota Statutes
609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.
Subdivision 1.Deadly force defined.
For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.
Subd. 2.Use of deadly force.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when necessary:
(1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;
(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or
(3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.
why are you lying about what i posted makes you look like a low life troll
is that what you are asshole
you posted this to be a lawful shooting, he had to produce a gun
which is obviously incorrect
the perp does not have to produce a a gun or any other weapon
you didnt read 609.065 did ya
609.065
JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
in addition clause one of your link
(1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;
the cop said he saw his firearm
and was refusing lawful orders
oh btw it is looking like the pistol was exposed in his waistband
No idea whether he saw a gun or not which is why I'm not passing judgment on the officer nor the victim. All I'm saying are the circumstances required before deadly force can be used. In this case, he'd have had to see a gun before a shooting would be justified.Yes he would have had to see the gun of course. Now can you say if he did or didn't see the gun he might have reached for ? I can't, so it has to be fully investigated before have all the answers. There are some strange circumstances that open the door for investigative questions & answers to be pursued in the case, don't you agree ?
And that is where the logic breaks down. The officer told him not to move and he did, now doubt enters the picture cause the dude told him he had a gun. That's why the commands by a LEO are to be obeyed. Removes the doubt.No idea whether he saw a gun or not which is why I'm not passing judgment on the officer nor the victim. All I'm saying are the circumstances required before deadly force can be used. In this case, he'd have had to see a gun before a shooting would be justified. Mere paranoia of seeing a black man reach under a seat isn't sufficient reason.Yes he would have had to see the gun of course. Now can you say if he did or didn't see the gun he might have reached for ? I can't, so it has to be fully investigated before have all the answers. There are some strange circumstances that open the door for investigative questions & answers to be pursued in the case, don't you agree ?
So, if a schoolgirl says "I'm going to kill you" and reaches into her little pink pony backpack, you'd feel justified in blowing her fucking little head off? Interesting. Like the racists Asclepias and paulitician I'll be looking forward to reading about your adventures in the news....unless, of course, you're just all hat, no cattle.Wrong. The driver was told not to move. He moved. Under the circumstances the shooting is justified.
If it is not, you are going to see far fewer cops nationwide, because none of sound mind are going to accept that kind of risk.
