Rewarding bad behavior

[Fair&Balanced]

Who knew that in an open carry state you get shot within 2 seconds for carrying a gun?

He was shot for reaching for what looked like a gun when told to put his shit hooks in the air.

Why the need to be dishonest?

Thats a good question. Why are you lying as if he gave an order and the order was refused within 2 seconds with the window up? I literally showed you this like 5 pages ago and youre here lying again

OF COURSE YOU'LL IGNORE IT, WHY ADDRESS FACTS! And no you didn't, yiu just talked about COPS the TV show and how cops learn from mistakes.

Okay hot shot. Let's see YOUR facts. Let's see what the grand jury, investigators, the public and media didn't see that you did. Where is this fact that police didn't order Tamir to freeze or not reach for his weapon????

How long does it take to say those words? The entire incident was shorter than that.

Pick one:

NO evidence Cleveland officer ordered Tamir Rice to raise ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Boy-pellet-gun-warned-friend-police-...
Daily Mail
Jun 13, 2015 - NO evidence that Cleveland police officer ordered Tamir Rice, 12, .... The friend told sheriff's deputies he had given the airsoft-type gun to him ...
Tamir Rice Case: No Hard Evidence Found That Cop ...
www.nbcnews.com/.../tamir-rice-case-friend-warned-12-y...
NBCNews.com
Jun 13, 2015 - Tamir Rice Case: No Hard Evidence Found That Cop Ordered Boy to Raise ... A friend told deputies he had given the pellet gun to Tamir hours ...
Witnesses did not hear Cleveland police officer order Tamir ...
www.cleveland.com/.../witnesses_did_not_hear_clevela....
The Plain Dealer
Jun 13, 2015 - Witnesses did not hear Cleveland police officer order Tamir Rice to show his ... Police said Loehmann gave the orders from the ajar passenger door of the ... The investigative materials make no determination as to whether the ...
Tamir Rice report: No proof officer warned before shots ...
www.cnn.com/2015/06/13/us/tamir-rice-report/
CNN
Jun 13, 2015 - Tamir Rice report: No proof police officer shouted warning before shooting .... Documents: No clear evidence cop who shot Tamir Rice ordered him to ... The friend told investigators he'd taken the air pistol apart and couldn't ...



Also add, YOU STILL have not addressed one point she brought up. You're trying really hard to defend your higher tax bill there bud

Pick one.

Excuse me?


The ONLY thing I have said is that the cop claims he told him to put his hands up. I don't claim it as fact that he did. On the other hand , you claim it as fact that he wasn't ordered to do so.

Meaning , that not only have you lied about what did or did not happen in that situation, you have also lied in this thread about what I have said.

Why the lies? If you want to say your OPINION is that the cop lied, fine, but that is NOT what you said, you presented it as FACT that the cop lied, when you have zero evidence. NONE.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Who knew that in an open carry state you get shot within 2 seconds for carrying a gun?

He was shot for reaching for what looked like a gun when told to put his shit hooks in the air.

Why the need to be dishonest?

Thats a good question. Why are you lying as if he gave an order and the order was refused within 2 seconds with the window up? I literally showed you this like 5 pages ago and youre here lying again

OF COURSE YOU'LL IGNORE IT, WHY ADDRESS FACTS! And no you didn't, yiu just talked about COPS the TV show and how cops learn from mistakes.

Okay hot shot. Let's see YOUR facts. Let's see what the grand jury, investigators, the public and media didn't see that you did. Where is this fact that police didn't order Tamir to freeze or not reach for his weapon????

How long does it take to say those words? The entire incident was shorter than that.

Pick one:

NO evidence Cleveland officer ordered Tamir Rice to raise ...
www.dailymail.co.uk/.../Boy-pellet-gun-warned-friend-police-...
Daily Mail
Jun 13, 2015 - NO evidence that Cleveland police officer ordered Tamir Rice, 12, .... The friend told sheriff's deputies he had given the airsoft-type gun to him ...
Tamir Rice Case: No Hard Evidence Found That Cop ...
www.nbcnews.com/.../tamir-rice-case-friend-warned-12-y...
NBCNews.com
Jun 13, 2015 - Tamir Rice Case: No Hard Evidence Found That Cop Ordered Boy to Raise ... A friend told deputies he had given the pellet gun to Tamir hours ...
Witnesses did not hear Cleveland police officer order Tamir ...
www.cleveland.com/.../witnesses_did_not_hear_clevela....
The Plain Dealer
Jun 13, 2015 - Witnesses did not hear Cleveland police officer order Tamir Rice to show his ... Police said Loehmann gave the orders from the ajar passenger door of the ... The investigative materials make no determination as to whether the ...
Tamir Rice report: No proof officer warned before shots ...
www.cnn.com/2015/06/13/us/tamir-rice-report/
CNN
Jun 13, 2015 - Tamir Rice report: No proof police officer shouted warning before shooting .... Documents: No clear evidence cop who shot Tamir Rice ordered him to ... The friend told investigators he'd taken the air pistol apart and couldn't ...



Also add, YOU STILL have not addressed one point she brought up. You're trying really hard to defend your higher tax bill there bud

Pick one.

Excuse me?


The ONLY thing I have said is that the cop claims he told him to put his hands up. I don't claim it as fact that he did. On the other hand , you claim it as fact that he wasn't ordered to do so.

You didnt say the cop claimed anything. Here is your quote

Who knew that in an open carry state you get shot within 2 seconds for carrying a gun?

He was shot for reaching for what looked like a gun when told to put his shit hooks in the air.

Why the need to be dishonest?

Now youre saying you didnt claim he said it after claiming several times he did. Which is it? Both?

Meaning , that not only have you lied about what did or did not happen in that situation, you have also lied in this thread about what I have said.

Theres your quote above. Let me requote it for you

He was shot for reaching for what looked like a gun when told to put his shit hooks in the air.


Why the need to be dishonest?

Why the lies? If you want to say your OPINION is that the cop lied, fine, but that is NOT what you said, you presented it as FACT that the cop lied, when you have zero evidence. NONE.

Here is what you said again

He was shot for reaching for what looked like a gun when told to put his shit hooks in the air.


Why the need to be dishonest?

Now you're saying...

The ONLY thing I have said is that the cop claims he told him to put his hands up. I don't claim it as fact that he did. On the other hand , you claim it as fact that he wasn't ordered to do so.

 

[ClosedCaption]

He was shot for reaching for what looked like a gun when told to put his shit hooks in the air.
?

The ONLY thing I have said is that the cop claims he told him to put his hands up.

 

[kaz]

Wait, So NOLA didnt win like you said?

Sheesh, this dude stands by NOTHING he says

You guys said pictures can't be faked, so he won according to your k-k-klown rules. Here's your prize, it's a pie, lean a little more forward ...

So he didnt win after you said he did

AND you believe someone said pictures cant be faked and you decided that was a good debate to have with ME? LMAO Oh, ok...

My discussion was with lonelaugher, you joined his circle jerk, I all I ever did was respond to you

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Tamir's age is irrelevant. It really is.

What IS relevant is he shouldn't have reached for a realistic looking gun when told to put his hands up. And no, the officer in question should not have been required to say 'oh that looks like a real gun that guy is reaching for, but I better double check before I defend myself"

He was never told that. Only the CYA police made that claim.

You , of course, can't prove that he wasn't told that. So barring that , we will take the police officer's word for it, much as that chaps your ass.

OJ said he was innocent. Do you take his word for it?

Of course not. However, OJ was actually indicted and found not guilty. Therefore he is not guilty.

OJ was found liable in a wrongful death suit. Are you implying that was an injustice to OJ?

I never said nor implied any such thing. As I have stated repeatedly, burden of proof is far less in a civil trial.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

He was never told that. Only the CYA police made that claim.

You , of course, can't prove that he wasn't told that. So barring that , we will take the police officer's word for it, much as that chaps your ass.

OJ said he was innocent. Do you take his word for it?

Of course not. However, OJ was actually indicted and found not guilty. Therefore he is not guilty.

OJ was found liable in a wrongful death suit. Are you implying that was an injustice to OJ?

I never said nor implied any such thing. As I have stated repeatedly, burden of proof is far less in a civil trial.

I'll say it, How the hell can you force someone to pay for a crime they were found not guilty of? Now obviously that niggah cut his wife's head off. No doubt about that, BUT he was found not guilty, so how then does the family get a second bite with a civil suit?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You , of course, can't prove that he wasn't told that. So barring that , we will take the police officer's word for it, much as that chaps your ass.

OJ said he was innocent. Do you take his word for it?

Of course not. However, OJ was actually indicted and found not guilty. Therefore he is not guilty.

OJ was found liable in a wrongful death suit. Are you implying that was an injustice to OJ?

I never said nor implied any such thing. As I have stated repeatedly, burden of proof is far less in a civil trial.

I'll say it, How the hell can you force someone to pay for a crime they were found not guilty of? Now obviously that niggah cut his wife's head off. No doubt about that, BUT he was found not guilty, so how then does the family get a second bite with a civil suit?

I know, it makes little sense.. it is the whole burden of proof thing. Simply put, Civil courts make judgements based on a preponderance of the evidence. Criminal Court has a much higher standard of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore it is not too difficult to be found not guilty in criminal court, yet guilty in civil court.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

OJ said he was innocent. Do you take his word for it?

Of course not. However, OJ was actually indicted and found not guilty. Therefore he is not guilty.

OJ was found liable in a wrongful death suit. Are you implying that was an injustice to OJ?

I never said nor implied any such thing. As I have stated repeatedly, burden of proof is far less in a civil trial.

I'll say it, How the hell can you force someone to pay for a crime they were found not guilty of? Now obviously that niggah cut his wife's head off. No doubt about that, BUT he was found not guilty, so how then does the family get a second bite with a civil suit?

I know, it makes little sense.. it is the whole burden of proof thing. Simply put, Civil courts make judgements based on a preponderance of the evidence. Criminal Court has a much higher standard of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore it is not too difficult to be found not guilty in criminal court, yet guilty in civil court.

Right, of course. It just seems like double jeopardy. We couldn't get you in criminal court, so we're gonna take your money.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Of course not. However, OJ was actually indicted and found not guilty. Therefore he is not guilty.

OJ was found liable in a wrongful death suit. Are you implying that was an injustice to OJ?

I never said nor implied any such thing. As I have stated repeatedly, burden of proof is far less in a civil trial.

I'll say it, How the hell can you force someone to pay for a crime they were found not guilty of? Now obviously that niggah cut his wife's head off. No doubt about that, BUT he was found not guilty, so how then does the family get a second bite with a civil suit?

I know, it makes little sense.. it is the whole burden of proof thing. Simply put, Civil courts make judgements based on a preponderance of the evidence. Criminal Court has a much higher standard of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore it is not too difficult to be found not guilty in criminal court, yet guilty in civil court.

Right, of course. It just seems like double jeopardy. We couldn't get you in criminal court, so we're gonna take your money.

Understood, but it isn't. Two separate court proceedings. That is why the municipality here settled, they figured they would probably lose in civil court.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You , of course, can't prove that he wasn't told that. So barring that , we will take the police officer's word for it, much as that chaps your ass.

OJ said he was innocent. Do you take his word for it?

Of course not. However, OJ was actually indicted and found not guilty. Therefore he is not guilty.

OJ was found liable in a wrongful death suit. Are you implying that was an injustice to OJ?

I never said nor implied any such thing. As I have stated repeatedly, burden of proof is far less in a civil trial.

I'll say it, How the hell can you force someone to pay for a crime they were found not guilty of? Now obviously that niggah cut his wife's head off. No doubt about that, BUT he was found not guilty, so how then does the family get a second bite with a civil suit?

That's the injustice in our justice system.

We learned about this in our CCW class. If I am attacked let's say in an attempted robbery, and I shoot the attacker, I could be held liable for his injuries or death even if the police investigate and rule I was well within my rights to defend myself under our state law.

It's not just citizens either. This lowlife that got money for her sons death can sue the police officer who shot the kid even though she got a settlement with the city.

Even if sued, it's unlikely my attackers family would get money out of me, but I still have to pay a lawyer for defense and there is always that chance I will lose the case.

In the OJ case, anybody with a half of brain knew he killed those two people, and that's probably why the ruling went against him.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who knew that in an open carry state you get shot within 2 seconds for carrying a gun?

I'm a licensed concealed carrier and I can get shot by a cop if he believes I presented a threat to him.

 

[WillMunny]

Tamir Rice's death was clear-cut natural selection: if a 12-year-old (old enough to know better) is dumb enough to brandish what looks like a gun at cops, then that kid is too stupid to live and deserves to be dead. I'm glad the cops saved taxpayers from supporting what would have been a careeer criminal thug. Good riddance.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Who knew that in an open carry state you get shot within 2 seconds for carrying a gun?

I'm a licensed concealed carrier and I can get shot by a cop if he believes I presented a threat to him.

Yeah, because someone said you couldnt, right?

 

[Anathema]

Tamar Rice was just a kid, and the gun he was carrying was a only a toy gun. The cop who shot and killed Tamir Rice should've displayed much more foresight and checked Tamir's toy gun before resorting to the "shoot first-ask questions later" routine that's all too common among cops, especially nowadays.

Tamir Rice was more than old enough to know what a gun is and large enough to pull the 8-10 pound standard trigger on a handgun.

In a world where 12 year olds are getting jumped into gangs, there can be no assumption of innocence when a "child" has what appears to be a gun. Especially when they reach for or brandish it. In the moments it takes to determine the status of that gun, it can be emptied into the officers.

An officer's first responsibility is to keep himself and his partner safe. The fact that this officer acted in such a manner is a good thing in my mind.

 

[jc456]

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...

it is good. As Tony the Tiger said, "It's GREAT"

 

[ClosedCaption]

Tamar Rice was just a kid, and the gun he was carrying was a only a toy gun. The cop who shot and killed Tamir Rice should've displayed much more foresight and checked Tamir's toy gun before resorting to the "shoot first-ask questions later" routine that's all too common among cops, especially nowadays.

Tamir Rice was more than old enough to know what a gun is and large enough to pull the 8-10 pound standard trigger on a handgun.

In a world where 12 year olds are getting jumped into gangs, there can be no assumption of innocence when a "child" has what appears to be a gun. Especially when they reach for or brandish it. In the moments it takes to determine the status of that gun, it can be emptied into the officers.

An officer's first responsibility is to keep himself and his partner safe. The fact that this officer acted in such a manner is a good thing in my mind.

Its an open carry state.

The black guy who got shot in Walmart was in the same open carry state.

Between both of them they received about 4 seconds to stop the cops shooting them

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Tamar Rice was just a kid, and the gun he was carrying was a only a toy gun. The cop who shot and killed Tamir Rice should've displayed much more foresight and checked Tamir's toy gun before resorting to the "shoot first-ask questions later" routine that's all too common among cops, especially nowadays.

Tamir Rice was more than old enough to know what a gun is and large enough to pull the 8-10 pound standard trigger on a handgun.

In a world where 12 year olds are getting jumped into gangs, there can be no assumption of innocence when a "child" has what appears to be a gun. Especially when they reach for or brandish it. In the moments it takes to determine the status of that gun, it can be emptied into the officers.

An officer's first responsibility is to keep himself and his partner safe. The fact that this officer acted in such a manner is a good thing in my mind.

Its an open carry state.

The black guy who got shot in Walmart was in the same open carry state.

Between both of them they received about 4 seconds to stop the cops shooting them

It doesn't take much to stop a cop from shooting you. Just obey their commands and that will stop them right there.

 

[Anathema]

Its an open carry state.

The black guy who got shot in Walmart was in the same open carry state.

Between both of them they received about 4 seconds to stop the cops shooting them

Open carriers deserve to get shot. They're idiots. That's another tbread.

4 seconds is more than enough time to move your hands away from tbe gun and prove you pose no theeat.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who knew that in an open carry state you get shot within 2 seconds for carrying a gun?

I'm a licensed concealed carrier and I can get shot by a cop if he believes I presented a threat to him.

Yeah, because someone said you couldnt, right?

Let me tell you, even if you are not carrying a firearm, it's recommended that if you are pulled over by a cop, keep your hands on the steering wheel at all times until the officer tells you it's okay for you to take your hands off.

Chances are the cops call your license plate number in before they even get out of the car. They know you have a license and even though not armed, act like you are.

It's easy for an officer to misconstrue your movements, so don't give him any doubt.

I think the problem here is that people don't know our laws when it comes to firearms. It's the same problem people had in the George Zimmerman case. So here it goes:

"A licensed carrier can legally use deadly force if he or she believes they (or others) are in jeopardy of serious bodily harm or death."

This law applies to all CCW holders and police officers alike. It's written to the benefit of the shooter by the word "believes." Nobody can prove what I believed at the time I used a firearm. That's up to a court or jury to decide. But a jury or judge has to use our laws to incriminate me. If they can't prove what I believed, then they can't convict.

Also there is no legal definition of Serious Bodily Harm. What is serious bodily harm? A bruised arm, a black eye, a twisted ankle?

Much like Florida, our laws are written to give the defendant every benefit of the doubt.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Its an open carry state.

The black guy who got shot in Walmart was in the same open carry state.

Between both of them they received about 4 seconds to stop the cops shooting them

Open carriers deserve to get shot. They're idiots. That's another tbread.

4 seconds is more than enough time to move your hands away from tbe gun and prove you pose no theeat.

I said 4 seconds between the 2 people. Do the math.