Rewarding bad behavior

[ClosedCaption]

No, it's standard for any responsible parent to not let a child run the street carrying a pellet gun that looks like a real gun.

Obviously this is something that a gun-control desiring liberal regressive would not understand.

Its a toy gun that the cops never even saw. Try again loon

Do you have a cognitive disorder?

It was already established that the toy gun LOOKS like a real gun. It was already established that the cops saw the "weapon".

Gun control salivating regressive telling us that it's not a standard to carry gun looking objects in public. Now, this is interesting!

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have pictures of the gun. Are you blind on top of being mentally deficient?

Then again, liberal regressive living in this reality would be too good to be true.

The cop didnt see the gun nut ball. Why are you talking about pictures?

 

[Norman]

Obviously this is something that a gun-control desiring liberal regressive would not understand.

Its a toy gun that the cops never even saw. Try again loon

Do you have a cognitive disorder?

It was already established that the toy gun LOOKS like a real gun. It was already established that the cops saw the "weapon".

Gun control salivating regressive telling us that it's not a standard to carry gun looking objects in public. Now, this is interesting!

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have pictures of the gun. Are you blind on top of being mentally deficient?

Then again, liberal regressive living in this reality would be too good to be true.

The cop didnt see the gun nut ball. Why are you talking about pictures?

Could it be because you said that we haven't established that the gun looked real?

Too dumb...

As for your other claim, where is the proof that the cop didn't see the gun?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Its a toy gun that the cops never even saw. Try again loon

Do you have a cognitive disorder?

It was already established that the toy gun LOOKS like a real gun. It was already established that the cops saw the "weapon".

Gun control salivating regressive telling us that it's not a standard to carry gun looking objects in public. Now, this is interesting!

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have pictures of the gun. Are you blind on top of being mentally deficient?

Then again, liberal regressive living in this reality would be too good to be true.

The cop didnt see the gun nut ball. Why are you talking about pictures?

Could it be because you said that we haven't established that the gun looked real?

No I said the cop wouldnt have known if the gun was real, fake, nerf or Smith and Wesson since he NEVER SAW THE GUN. You keep talking about pictures AFTER THE SHOOTING.

Too dumb...

As for your other claim, where is the proof that the cop didn't see the gun?

Where is your proof he did see it within the 2 seconds it took him to shoot?

 

[Norman]

Do you have a cognitive disorder?

It was already established that the toy gun LOOKS like a real gun. It was already established that the cops saw the "weapon".

Gun control salivating regressive telling us that it's not a standard to carry gun looking objects in public. Now, this is interesting!

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have pictures of the gun. Are you blind on top of being mentally deficient?

Then again, liberal regressive living in this reality would be too good to be true.

The cop didnt see the gun nut ball. Why are you talking about pictures?

Could it be because you said that we haven't established that the gun looked real?

No I said the cop wouldnt have known if the gun was real, fake, nerf or Smith and Wesson since he NEVER SAW THE GUN. You keep talking about pictures AFTER THE SHOOTING.

Too dumb...

As for your other claim, where is the proof that the cop didn't see the gun?

Where is your proof he did see it within the 2 seconds it took him to shoot?

Well, that would be the null hypothesis given the person was walking with it. I doubt the cop is as blind as you...

So, can you supply the proof or not?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have pictures of the gun. Are you blind on top of being mentally deficient?

Then again, liberal regressive living in this reality would be too good to be true.

The cop didnt see the gun nut ball. Why are you talking about pictures?

Could it be because you said that we haven't established that the gun looked real?

No I said the cop wouldnt have known if the gun was real, fake, nerf or Smith and Wesson since he NEVER SAW THE GUN. You keep talking about pictures AFTER THE SHOOTING.

Too dumb...

As for your other claim, where is the proof that the cop didn't see the gun?

Where is your proof he did see it within the 2 seconds it took him to shoot?

Well, that would be the null hypothesis given the person was walking with it. I doubt the cop is as blind as you...

So, can you supply the proof or not?

Don't waste your time. It's true because he says so, that's his MO.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Because this new standard wasnt a standard until you just thought it up

No, it's standard for any responsible parent to not let a child run the street carrying a pellet gun that looks like a real gun.

Obviously this is something that a gun-control desiring liberal regressive would not understand.

Its a toy gun that the cops never even saw. Try again loon

Do you have a cognitive disorder?

It was already established that the toy gun LOOKS like a real gun. It was already established that the cops saw the "weapon".

Gun control salivating regressive telling us that it's not a standard to carry gun looking objects in public. Now, this is interesting!

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have pictures of the gun. Are you blind on top of being mentally deficient?

Then again, liberal regressive living in this reality would be too good to be true.

The cop didnt see the gun nut ball. Why are you talking about pictures?

Could it be because you said that we haven't established that the gun looked real?

No I said the cop wouldnt have known if the gun was real, fake, nerf or Smith and Wesson since he NEVER SAW THE GUN. You keep talking about pictures AFTER THE SHOOTING.

Too dumb...

As for your other claim, where is the proof that the cop didn't see the gun?

Where is your proof he did see it within the 2 seconds it took him to shoot?

Well, that would be the null hypothesis given the person was walking with it. I doubt the cop is as blind as you...

So, can you supply the proof or not?

So you just assume he saw it some other time with X-ray glasses?

 

[kaz]

It's political. You wouldn't understand.

Correct. It is political. Then people can't figure out why Trump is kicking ass in the primaries.

We are sick of political. This is the results.

You want to stop rewarding bad behavior but Trump winning is good...

You are obsessed. This is not a thread about Trump. It is a thread about how nutbags don't care that a little boy playing in the park got blown away by an idiot.

You've been quiet on Carly, by the way. What gives?

From the guy who only wants the cops to have guns ...

 

[ClosedCaption]

No, it's standard for any responsible parent to not let a child run the street carrying a pellet gun that looks like a real gun.

Obviously this is something that a gun-control desiring liberal regressive would not understand.

Its a toy gun that the cops never even saw. Try again loon

Do you have a cognitive disorder?

It was already established that the toy gun LOOKS like a real gun. It was already established that the cops saw the "weapon".

Gun control salivating regressive telling us that it's not a standard to carry gun looking objects in public. Now, this is interesting!

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Obviously this is something that a gun-control desiring liberal regressive would not understand.

Its a toy gun that the cops never even saw. Try again loon

Do you have a cognitive disorder?

It was already established that the toy gun LOOKS like a real gun. It was already established that the cops saw the "weapon".

Gun control salivating regressive telling us that it's not a standard to carry gun looking objects in public. Now, this is interesting!

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Its a toy gun that the cops never even saw. Try again loon

Do you have a cognitive disorder?

It was already established that the toy gun LOOKS like a real gun. It was already established that the cops saw the "weapon".

Gun control salivating regressive telling us that it's not a standard to carry gun looking objects in public. Now, this is interesting!

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Do you have a cognitive disorder?

It was already established that the toy gun LOOKS like a real gun. It was already established that the cops saw the "weapon".

Gun control salivating regressive telling us that it's not a standard to carry gun looking objects in public. Now, this is interesting!

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

The video is not HIS view of the incident, it's ONE view. That's first.\

Second, of COURSE people lie when they think the truth might get them in trouble, but our LEGAL system assumes they are telling the truth unless proven otherwise. Sorry , this is just one of those things you can't prove either way, so it is assumed he saw what he says he saw. It's not like he jumped out of the car screaming "die negro brat" as he opened fire and then denied saying that as witnesses and and audio both were saying he did.

Cops should be held to a higher standard, yes, but they shouldn't be stripped of their presumed innocence; which you have obviously done here; and I suspect in other similar cases.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do you have a cognitive disorder?

It was already established that the toy gun LOOKS like a real gun. It was already established that the cops saw the "weapon".

Gun control salivating regressive telling us that it's not a standard to carry gun looking objects in public. Now, this is interesting!

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

Do you know what what have happened to this cop if he shot a guy that didn't pull a gun on him? Police want to put the bad guys in jail--not themselves.

That's besides the fact that the police already knew he had a gun. That's why they were called out there in the first place.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Second, of COURSE people lie when they think the truth might get them in trouble, but our LEGAL system assumes they are telling the truth unless proven otherwise.

Heres the problem. I agree this is the process and people are innocent until proven guilty.

That wasnt done in this case. The cops submitted written statements and no one was allowed to question them to PROVE anything. So I agree people have to be proven guilty but when you remove the ability to even talk to them proving them to be a liar is impossible.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Do you have a cognitive disorder?

It was already established that the toy gun LOOKS like a real gun. It was already established that the cops saw the "weapon".

Gun control salivating regressive telling us that it's not a standard to carry gun looking objects in public. Now, this is interesting!

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

All you need to know is that a GJ of 12+ saw no cause to indict.

End of story. Your rantings about 2 seconds or your speculation about what the cop saw or didn't see mean squat.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Second, of COURSE people lie when they think the truth might get them in trouble, but our LEGAL system assumes they are telling the truth unless proven otherwise.

Heres the problem. I agree this is the process and people are innocent until proven guilty.

That wasnt done in this case. The cops submitted written statements and no one was allowed to question them to PROVE anything. So I agree people have to be proven guilty but when you remove the ability to even talk to them proving them to be a liar is impossible.

There is of course an established procedure where EVERY police shooting is reviewed. That the findings weren't to your satisfaction means nothing. I guarantee you that officer was grilled about the incident by other police who's job it is to arrest police who act wrongly.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

Do you know what what have happened to this cop if he shot a guy that didn't pull a gun on him?

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories

That's besides the fact that the police already knew he had a gun. That's why they were called out there in the first place.

They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Second, of COURSE people lie when they think the truth might get them in trouble, but our LEGAL system assumes they are telling the truth unless proven otherwise.

Heres the problem. I agree this is the process and people are innocent until proven guilty.

That wasnt done in this case. The cops submitted written statements and no one was allowed to question them to PROVE anything. So I agree people have to be proven guilty but when you remove the ability to even talk to them proving them to be a liar is impossible.

The case went in front of a GJ. They declined to indict.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

Do you know what what have happened to this cop if he shot a guy that didn't pull a gun on him?

Not interested in your storytime bullshit. We're talking facts not your stories

That's besides the fact that the police already knew he had a gun. That's why they were called out there in the first place.

They knew someone had a gun. Looks like they shot the right guy, this time. Next time he shoots within 2 seconds it might be different.

Oh wait, hes a mental case now on desk duty.

You find it amusing that having to shoot a little boy who wasn't taught that "put your hands up" doesn't mean "go for your gun" caused a guy mental anguish? Disgusting.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You can say it was established all you want but it wasnt. You cant establish a gun looks real before the cop even saw it fuck face

We have the officer's testimony that he saw the gun before shooting. Can you prove his testimony was false? No, then the rest of your bunk is bunk.

He said so? Thats all? So despite the shooting happening within 2 seconds and YOU SAW the video youre willing to deny your eyes saw it?

I'm not, but hey, some people will believe anything they are told.

Oh , so you're one of those "innocent until proven cop" assholes eh?

Are you looking at the video or believing anything a cop tells you?

Better yet, do you expect anyone involved in a shooting to admit they didnt see a gun? lol.

Where in the video did he see it? In the first second....Or the Second Second?

All you need to know is that a GJ of 12+ saw no cause to indict.

FOR CRIMINAL Charges. The Prosector himself said so many things went wrong and miscommunication that the cop wasnt CRIMINALLY liable. Not that he was innocent.

End of story. Your rantings about 2 seconds or your speculation about what the cop saw or didn't see mean squat.

yes end of story. Know the difference between CRIMINAL indictment and what the prosecutor called a MAJOR FUCK UP by the police