Cops get caught in a lie

[westwall]

You're like my 9 year old. Everything is about her. I didn't mention anyone by name asshat, so piss off.

You made this about me when you said Anyone who says that the public doesn't "need" certain types of weapons has already" That includes me. Now. back up your crap or admit your blanket statement was another lie.

Why bother. Every time you get yourself painted in to a corner you claim "victory" and run. You're not worth my time.

I'm not aware of any prize or scoreboard around here. The bottom line is that you made a false blanket statement, and you aren't man enough to admit it. I admit when I'm shown to be wrong, but then I try to maintain at least a minimal amount of integrity. If you try to hide from something this small, how would you behave on a big issue?

Wrong. I made a blanket statement that is my OPINION. Learn what OPINION means. Then you may kindly piss off!

I don't think the point is of the distinction between "opinion" and "fact"; rather, it's the blanket generalization fallacy you had to use to get there. As you just acknowledged. And to the extent that conclusion depends on that fallacy, it makes said conclusion worthless.

It's a blanket generalization that pokes fun at progressives inability to add two plus two. It pokes fun at your assertion that you can disarm a people and there will be no repercussions for that action. All the while ignoring factual history. It's a generalization that applies because you progressives are all either ignorant, or simply don't care about the eventual results of the realization of your dreams.

Basically I am saying you're either stupid, willfully ignorant, or actually desire to see the death and mayhem that those sorts of actions have always brought in their wake.

 

[Faun]

3 Sheriff's deputies get caught in a lie. They claimed a man assaulted them and they used appropriate force to subdue him, they then searched his house illegally. For a firearm he did not have.

Video clears Texas man of assaulting cop—did police commit perjury?

Fortunately for this man he had a video system set up and actually caught what happened. He still spent 10 days in jail. he is suing and they have a Federal case against the Sheriff's department.

Remind us Libs how only cops should be armed and that they only should enforce the law.

Are you suggesting Faulkenberry would have been better off had he been armed? How so?

And it seems to me, the camera was mightier than the gun, in this instance.

 

[Pogo]

It's a blanket generalization that pokes fun at progressives inability to add two plus two. It pokes fun at your assertion that you can disarm a people and there will be no repercussions for that action.

"My assertion" huh?

What "assertion would this be then?
Link?
Quote?

It's a generalization that applies because you progressives are all either ignorant, or simply don't care about the eventual results of the realization of your dreams.

How cute. He's playing with his little strawmen.

Basically I am saying you're either stupid, willfully ignorant, or actually desire to see the death and mayhem that those sorts of actions have always brought in their wake.

Basically you're communing with the fantasy voices in your own head.

 

[Agit8r]

3 Sheriff's deputies get caught in a lie. They claimed a man assaulted them and they used appropriate force to subdue him, they then searched his house illegally. For a firearm he did not have.

Video clears Texas man of assaulting cop—did police commit perjury?

Fortunately for this man he had a video system set up and actually caught what happened. He still spent 10 days in jail. he is suing and they have a Federal case against the Sheriff's department.

Remind us Libs how only cops should be armed and that they only should enforce the law.

Just so I'm clear on this, are you recommending shooting cops that come to your door?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The perp knew camera on. They said go down he did not, on purpose. He wanted a payday. Now he is going to try to get one. SETUP. They don't come at John Jones with three guns out every day? This guy had long history it would seem? sniff sniff.....

Again. something smells rotten in Denmark. your welcome for the cheese.

Regardless, if you read the article, the statements made by deputies are at variance with what actually happened. Clearly he didn't assault any officers.

Jesus is risen indeed!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

3 Sheriff's deputies get caught in a lie. They claimed a man assaulted them and they used appropriate force to subdue him, they then searched his house illegally. For a firearm he did not have.

Video clears Texas man of assaulting cop—did police commit perjury?

Fortunately for this man he had a video system set up and actually caught what happened. He still spent 10 days in jail. he is suing and they have a Federal case against the Sheriff's department.

Remind us Libs how only cops should be armed and that they only should enforce the law.

Just so I'm clear on this, are you recommending shooting cops that come to your door?

They didn't come to his door.

Jesus is risen indeed!

 

[shadow355]

3 Sheriff's deputies get caught in a lie. They claimed a man assaulted them and they used appropriate force to subdue him, they then searched his house illegally. For a firearm he did not have.

Video clears Texas man of assaulting cop—did police commit perjury?

Fortunately for this man he had a video system set up and actually caught what happened. He still spent 10 days in jail. he is suing and they have a Federal case against the Sheriff's department.

Remind us Libs how only cops should be armed and that they only should enforce the law.

"Remind"?

Doesn't somebody have to take the position first?

One of many arguments raised for why private citizens do not need weapons is because cops are there and trained to use them. If you have not made that argument that is fine others have.

The Supreme Court had ruled that police do not have a responsibility to protect the individual citizen.

Police have no responsibility to protect individuals (reference)

So..... Does this affirm the 2nd amendment ? Liberals want to chime in.

Shadow 355

 

[BULLDOG]

You made this about me when you said Anyone who says that the public doesn't "need" certain types of weapons has already" That includes me. Now. back up your crap or admit your blanket statement was another lie.

Why bother. Every time you get yourself painted in to a corner you claim "victory" and run. You're not worth my time.

I'm not aware of any prize or scoreboard around here. The bottom line is that you made a false blanket statement, and you aren't man enough to admit it. I admit when I'm shown to be wrong, but then I try to maintain at least a minimal amount of integrity. If you try to hide from something this small, how would you behave on a big issue?

Wrong. I made a blanket statement that is my OPINION. Learn what OPINION means. Then you may kindly piss off!

I don't think the point is of the distinction between "opinion" and "fact"; rather, it's the blanket generalization fallacy you had to use to get there. As you just acknowledged. And to the extent that conclusion depends on that fallacy, it makes said conclusion worthless.

It's a blanket generalization that pokes fun at progressives inability to add two plus two. It pokes fun at your assertion that you can disarm a people and there will be no repercussions for that action. All the while ignoring factual history. It's a generalization that applies because you progressives are all either ignorant, or simply don't care about the eventual results of the realization of your dreams.

Basically I am saying you're either stupid, willfully ignorant, or actually desire to see the death and mayhem that those sorts of actions have always brought in their wake.

If you say so, but it's actually just a blanket false statement like all the other right wing blanket false statements, because that is all you have . If your rhetoric could be supported by facts, you would be using them. They can't so all you have are lies.

 

[Agit8r]

3 Sheriff's deputies get caught in a lie. They claimed a man assaulted them and they used appropriate force to subdue him, they then searched his house illegally. For a firearm he did not have.

Video clears Texas man of assaulting cop—did police commit perjury?

Fortunately for this man he had a video system set up and actually caught what happened. He still spent 10 days in jail. he is suing and they have a Federal case against the Sheriff's department.

Remind us Libs how only cops should be armed and that they only should enforce the law.

Just so I'm clear on this, are you recommending shooting cops that come to your door?

They didn't come to his door.

Jesus is risen indeed!

I'm just trying to understand the OP non-sequitur. If you can explain it, be my guest.

 

[westwall]

Why bother. Every time you get yourself painted in to a corner you claim "victory" and run. You're not worth my time.

I'm not aware of any prize or scoreboard around here. The bottom line is that you made a false blanket statement, and you aren't man enough to admit it. I admit when I'm shown to be wrong, but then I try to maintain at least a minimal amount of integrity. If you try to hide from something this small, how would you behave on a big issue?

Wrong. I made a blanket statement that is my OPINION. Learn what OPINION means. Then you may kindly piss off!

I don't think the point is of the distinction between "opinion" and "fact"; rather, it's the blanket generalization fallacy you had to use to get there. As you just acknowledged. And to the extent that conclusion depends on that fallacy, it makes said conclusion worthless.

It's a blanket generalization that pokes fun at progressives inability to add two plus two. It pokes fun at your assertion that you can disarm a people and there will be no repercussions for that action. All the while ignoring factual history. It's a generalization that applies because you progressives are all either ignorant, or simply don't care about the eventual results of the realization of your dreams.

Basically I am saying you're either stupid, willfully ignorant, or actually desire to see the death and mayhem that those sorts of actions have always brought in their wake.

If you say so, but it's actually just a blanket false statement like all the other right wing blanket false statements, because that is all you have . If your rhetoric could be supported by facts, you would be using them. They can't so all you have are lies.

It's not a "false" statement. It is an opinion. Thus it can neither be false, or truthful. It can be an informed opinion, which mine is, or an uninformed one., which yours is, but your attempt to make a opinion, a lie, merely shows what an uneducated rube you are.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm not aware of any prize or scoreboard around here. The bottom line is that you made a false blanket statement, and you aren't man enough to admit it. I admit when I'm shown to be wrong, but then I try to maintain at least a minimal amount of integrity. If you try to hide from something this small, how would you behave on a big issue?

Wrong. I made a blanket statement that is my OPINION. Learn what OPINION means. Then you may kindly piss off!

I don't think the point is of the distinction between "opinion" and "fact"; rather, it's the blanket generalization fallacy you had to use to get there. As you just acknowledged. And to the extent that conclusion depends on that fallacy, it makes said conclusion worthless.

It's a blanket generalization that pokes fun at progressives inability to add two plus two. It pokes fun at your assertion that you can disarm a people and there will be no repercussions for that action. All the while ignoring factual history. It's a generalization that applies because you progressives are all either ignorant, or simply don't care about the eventual results of the realization of your dreams.

Basically I am saying you're either stupid, willfully ignorant, or actually desire to see the death and mayhem that those sorts of actions have always brought in their wake.

If you say so, but it's actually just a blanket false statement like all the other right wing blanket false statements, because that is all you have . If your rhetoric could be supported by facts, you would be using them. They can't so all you have are lies.

It's not a "false" statement. It is an opinion. Thus it can neither be false, or truthful. It can be an informed opinion, which mine is, or an uninformed one., which yours is, but your attempt to make a opinion, a lie, merely shows what an uneducated rube you are.

Of course your opinion can be wrong. I didn't say you weren't entitled to believe something that is wrong, just that this particular belief of yours has been proven to be wrong. You still have every right to ignore facts if you want to.

 

[westwall]

Wrong. I made a blanket statement that is my OPINION. Learn what OPINION means. Then you may kindly piss off!

I don't think the point is of the distinction between "opinion" and "fact"; rather, it's the blanket generalization fallacy you had to use to get there. As you just acknowledged. And to the extent that conclusion depends on that fallacy, it makes said conclusion worthless.

It's a blanket generalization that pokes fun at progressives inability to add two plus two. It pokes fun at your assertion that you can disarm a people and there will be no repercussions for that action. All the while ignoring factual history. It's a generalization that applies because you progressives are all either ignorant, or simply don't care about the eventual results of the realization of your dreams.

Basically I am saying you're either stupid, willfully ignorant, or actually desire to see the death and mayhem that those sorts of actions have always brought in their wake.

If you say so, but it's actually just a blanket false statement like all the other right wing blanket false statements, because that is all you have . If your rhetoric could be supported by facts, you would be using them. They can't so all you have are lies.

It's not a "false" statement. It is an opinion. Thus it can neither be false, or truthful. It can be an informed opinion, which mine is, or an uninformed one., which yours is, but your attempt to make a opinion, a lie, merely shows what an uneducated rube you are.

Of course your opinion can be wrong. I didn't say you weren't entitled to believe something that is wrong, just that this particular belief of yours has been proven to be wrong. You still have every right to ignore facts if you want to.

No, silly boy, your constant bleating that my opinion is a lie. That's where you lose the plot.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

3 Sheriff's deputies get caught in a lie. They claimed a man assaulted them and they used appropriate force to subdue him, they then searched his house illegally. For a firearm he did not have.

Video clears Texas man of assaulting cop—did police commit perjury?

Fortunately for this man he had a video system set up and actually caught what happened. He still spent 10 days in jail. he is suing and they have a Federal case against the Sheriff's department.

Remind us Libs how only cops should be armed and that they only should enforce the law.

Just so I'm clear on this, are you recommending shooting cops that come to your door?

They didn't come to his door.

Jesus is risen indeed!

I'm just trying to understand the OP non-sequitur. If you can explain it, be my guest.

I can't explain it because although I believe situations exist where force against cops is necessary, this wasn't one of them. But the simple fact remains, what the deputy put in his report is at variance with what happened in the video, hence cops lying and every indication from the article that this guy would have spent some serious prison time if the video hadn't surfaced. It makes me wonder just how many of my fellow citizens are set up this way and are serving time because cops lie.

 

[Agit8r]

3 Sheriff's deputies get caught in a lie. They claimed a man assaulted them and they used appropriate force to subdue him, they then searched his house illegally. For a firearm he did not have.

Video clears Texas man of assaulting cop—did police commit perjury?

Fortunately for this man he had a video system set up and actually caught what happened. He still spent 10 days in jail. he is suing and they have a Federal case against the Sheriff's department.

Remind us Libs how only cops should be armed and that they only should enforce the law.

Just so I'm clear on this, are you recommending shooting cops that come to your door?

They didn't come to his door.

Jesus is risen indeed!

I'm just trying to understand the OP non-sequitur. If you can explain it, be my guest.

I can't explain it because although I believe situations exist where force against cops is necessary, this wasn't one of them. But the simple fact remains, what the deputy put in his report is at variance with what happened in the video, hence cops lying and every indication from the article that this guy would have spent some serious prison time if the video hadn't surfaced. It makes me wonder just how many of my fellow citizens are set up this way and are serving time because cops lie.

Yeah, a lot of cops are liars. There certainly have been ones that I've been ticketed by. Slimy f~ckers. But taking aggressive action against them is not very practical.