So actually a shattered wall took out the Dallas Shooter

[koshergrl]

The objective is not to KILL suspects. Its to bring them into custody. You morons who think it's a good idea to let cops act as judge, jury, executioners arengoing tonseriiusly regret your stupidity in the very near future.

It would be an execution only if they plugged him after he was in custody, or had surrendered and was sitting there with his hands up. When you are still an active threat, there can be no execution.

You get your due process when you allow the process to start, i.e. you submit to lawful authority, not before.

Actually, no. That's not true.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The objective is not to KILL suspects. Its to bring them into custody. You morons who think it's a good idea to let cops act as judge, jury, executioners arengoing tonseriiusly regret your stupidity in the very near future.

It would be an execution only if they plugged him after he was in custody, or had surrendered and was sitting there with his hands up. When you are still an active threat, there can be no execution.

You get your due process when you allow the process to start, i.e. you submit to lawful authority, not before.

Actually, no. That's not true.

Actually it is.

 

[koshergrl]

The objective is not to KILL suspects. Its to bring them into custody. You morons who think it's a good idea to let cops act as judge, jury, executioners arengoing tonseriiusly regret your stupidity in the very near future.

It would be an execution only if they plugged him after he was in custody, or had surrendered and was sitting there with his hands up. When you are still an active threat, there can be no execution.

You get your due process when you allow the process to start, i.e. you submit to lawful authority, not before.

Actually, no. That's not true.

Actually it is.

Actually, no, it's not.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No death penalty before a trial. I know that LEO walk all over that, and say it's okay. But it's not, it never has been, and they should go to prison when they violate it. And stay there.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The objective is not to KILL suspects. Its to bring them into custody. You morons who think it's a good idea to let cops act as judge, jury, executioners arengoing tonseriiusly regret your stupidity in the very near future.

It would be an execution only if they plugged him after he was in custody, or had surrendered and was sitting there with his hands up. When you are still an active threat, there can be no execution.

You get your due process when you allow the process to start, i.e. you submit to lawful authority, not before.

Actually, no. That's not true.

Actually it is.

Actually, no, it's not.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No death penalty before a trial. I know that LEO walk all over that, and say it's okay. But it's not, it never has been, and they should go to prison when they violate it. And stay there.

Sorry, the courts don't agree and they think you're a little batty.

Ok, maybe that last part was an embellishment.

The rights contained therein apply after an arrest, not before the arrest when the suspect poses a continuing threat to life.

And you said you're a parent and grandparent.

So if the cops were your kids, how many of your kids do you think should die in a futile effort to take someone into custody who's determined not to be taken alive?

Just need a number, sweetie.

 

[koshergrl]

The objective is not to KILL suspects. Its to bring them into custody. You morons who think it's a good idea to let cops act as judge, jury, executioners arengoing tonseriiusly regret your stupidity in the very near future.

It would be an execution only if they plugged him after he was in custody, or had surrendered and was sitting there with his hands up. When you are still an active threat, there can be no execution.

You get your due process when you allow the process to start, i.e. you submit to lawful authority, not before.

Actually, no. That's not true.

Actually it is.

Actually, no, it's not.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No death penalty before a trial. I know that LEO walk all over that, and say it's okay. But it's not, it never has been, and they should go to prison when they violate it. And stay there.

Sorry, the courts don't agree and they think you're a little batty.

Ok, maybe that last part was an embellishment.

The rights contained therein apply after an arrest, not before the arrest when the suspect poses a continuing threat to life.

And you said you're a parent and grandparent.

So if the cops were your kids, how many of your kids do you think should die in a futile effort to take someone into custody who's determined not to be taken alive?

Just need a number, sweetie.

The courts not agreeing with the constitution, along with the cops violating the constitution, are the biggest problem this country faces right now.

And it's one thing to kill someone when you are exchanging gunfire with them. It's another to just exterminate someone who is holed up.

 

[koshergrl]

and why the FUCK do our LEO have robotic bombers?

That's bullshit. Disarm the fucking cops. I've had it with their garbage. Let the cities burn.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It would be an execution only if they plugged him after he was in custody, or had surrendered and was sitting there with his hands up. When you are still an active threat, there can be no execution.

You get your due process when you allow the process to start, i.e. you submit to lawful authority, not before.

Actually, no. That's not true.

Actually it is.

Actually, no, it's not.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No death penalty before a trial. I know that LEO walk all over that, and say it's okay. But it's not, it never has been, and they should go to prison when they violate it. And stay there.

Sorry, the courts don't agree and they think you're a little batty.

Ok, maybe that last part was an embellishment.

The rights contained therein apply after an arrest, not before the arrest when the suspect poses a continuing threat to life.

And you said you're a parent and grandparent.

So if the cops were your kids, how many of your kids do you think should die in a futile effort to take someone into custody who's determined not to be taken alive?

Just need a number, sweetie.

The courts not agreeing with the constitution, along with the cops violating the constitution, are the biggest problem this country faces right now.

And it's one thing to kill someone when you are exchanging gunfire with them. It's another to just exterminate someone who is holed up.

How many of your kids should die? That was the question and the answer is a number.

Is this getting too personal?

Well I can answer for my 4 kids and that answer is ZERO! Kill that fucker twice before he endangers any of my babies.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This will assure that deranged killers will keep hostages from now on.

Then they use flash bangs.

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, no. That's not true.

Actually it is.

Actually, no, it's not.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No death penalty before a trial. I know that LEO walk all over that, and say it's okay. But it's not, it never has been, and they should go to prison when they violate it. And stay there.

Sorry, the courts don't agree and they think you're a little batty.

Ok, maybe that last part was an embellishment.

The rights contained therein apply after an arrest, not before the arrest when the suspect poses a continuing threat to life.

And you said you're a parent and grandparent.

So if the cops were your kids, how many of your kids do you think should die in a futile effort to take someone into custody who's determined not to be taken alive?

Just need a number, sweetie.

The courts not agreeing with the constitution, along with the cops violating the constitution, are the biggest problem this country faces right now.

And it's one thing to kill someone when you are exchanging gunfire with them. It's another to just exterminate someone who is holed up.

How many of your kids should die? That was the question and the answer is a number.

Is this getting too personal?

Well I can answer for my 4 kids and that answer is ZERO! Kill that fucker twice before he endangers any of my babies.

My kids dying have nothing to do with anything, loser lol. My children were never in danger, and neither were yours.

I'm a LOT more concerned about my kids being targeted by pigs than I am about them being wiped out while mobbing in some city, or running crowd control on Americans who are pissed at the cops.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Actually it is.

Actually, no, it's not.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No death penalty before a trial. I know that LEO walk all over that, and say it's okay. But it's not, it never has been, and they should go to prison when they violate it. And stay there.

Sorry, the courts don't agree and they think you're a little batty.

Ok, maybe that last part was an embellishment.

The rights contained therein apply after an arrest, not before the arrest when the suspect poses a continuing threat to life.

And you said you're a parent and grandparent.

So if the cops were your kids, how many of your kids do you think should die in a futile effort to take someone into custody who's determined not to be taken alive?

Just need a number, sweetie.

The courts not agreeing with the constitution, along with the cops violating the constitution, are the biggest problem this country faces right now.

And it's one thing to kill someone when you are exchanging gunfire with them. It's another to just exterminate someone who is holed up.

How many of your kids should die? That was the question and the answer is a number.

Is this getting too personal?

Well I can answer for my 4 kids and that answer is ZERO! Kill that fucker twice before he endangers any of my babies.

My kids dying have nothing to do with anything, loser lol. My children were never in danger, and neither were yours.

So you're willing to put other people's kids in danger as long as it's not your own.

And you call me a "loser"?

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, no, it's not.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No death penalty before a trial. I know that LEO walk all over that, and say it's okay. But it's not, it never has been, and they should go to prison when they violate it. And stay there.

Sorry, the courts don't agree and they think you're a little batty.

Ok, maybe that last part was an embellishment.

The rights contained therein apply after an arrest, not before the arrest when the suspect poses a continuing threat to life.

And you said you're a parent and grandparent.

So if the cops were your kids, how many of your kids do you think should die in a futile effort to take someone into custody who's determined not to be taken alive?

Just need a number, sweetie.

The courts not agreeing with the constitution, along with the cops violating the constitution, are the biggest problem this country faces right now.

And it's one thing to kill someone when you are exchanging gunfire with them. It's another to just exterminate someone who is holed up.

How many of your kids should die? That was the question and the answer is a number.

Is this getting too personal?

Well I can answer for my 4 kids and that answer is ZERO! Kill that fucker twice before he endangers any of my babies.

My kids dying have nothing to do with anything, loser lol. My children were never in danger, and neither were yours.

So you're willing to put other people's kids in danger as long as it's not your own.

And you call me a "loser"?

How does limiting the firepower (specifically, robotic bombers) of cops "put kids in danger"?

I'll wait for that. It should be interesting. I'm pretty sure our cops here don't have any bomber robots and I don't feel my children are "in danger".

 

[blastoff]

Oh, gosh don't you just hate it when an exploding wall kills a murderous racist? Guess the puke was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh, gosh don't you just hate it when an exploding wall kills a murderous racist? Guess the puke was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is the problem with the patriot movement as well. You fucking yahoos are too stupid to realize that militarized, unconstitutional kill squads are still unconstitutional and still pose a threat, even when they accidentally kill the right people.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Sorry, the courts don't agree and they think you're a little batty.

Ok, maybe that last part was an embellishment.

The rights contained therein apply after an arrest, not before the arrest when the suspect poses a continuing threat to life.

And you said you're a parent and grandparent.

So if the cops were your kids, how many of your kids do you think should die in a futile effort to take someone into custody who's determined not to be taken alive?

Just need a number, sweetie.

The courts not agreeing with the constitution, along with the cops violating the constitution, are the biggest problem this country faces right now.

And it's one thing to kill someone when you are exchanging gunfire with them. It's another to just exterminate someone who is holed up.

How many of your kids should die? That was the question and the answer is a number.

Is this getting too personal?

Well I can answer for my 4 kids and that answer is ZERO! Kill that fucker twice before he endangers any of my babies.

My kids dying have nothing to do with anything, loser lol. My children were never in danger, and neither were yours.

So you're willing to put other people's kids in danger as long as it's not your own.

And you call me a "loser"?

How does limiting the firepower (specifically, robotic bombers) of cops "put kids in danger"?

I'll wait for that. It should be interesting. I'm pretty sure our cops here don't have any bomber robots and I don't feel my children are "in danger".

If there was a clear shot, the gentle giant would have died from hot, copper jacketed lead perforating his skull. It's the same difference. He was a threat and had to be neutralized. Had he surrendered, he would have had his day in court.

Yes, dear, you're a little looney on this, but you're still loved.

 

[koshergrl]

The courts not agreeing with the constitution, along with the cops violating the constitution, are the biggest problem this country faces right now.

And it's one thing to kill someone when you are exchanging gunfire with them. It's another to just exterminate someone who is holed up.

How many of your kids should die? That was the question and the answer is a number.

Is this getting too personal?

Well I can answer for my 4 kids and that answer is ZERO! Kill that fucker twice before he endangers any of my babies.

My kids dying have nothing to do with anything, loser lol. My children were never in danger, and neither were yours.

So you're willing to put other people's kids in danger as long as it's not your own.

And you call me a "loser"?

How does limiting the firepower (specifically, robotic bombers) of cops "put kids in danger"?

I'll wait for that. It should be interesting. I'm pretty sure our cops here don't have any bomber robots and I don't feel my children are "in danger".

If there was a clear shot, the gentle giant would have died from hot, copper jacketed lead perforating his skull. It's the same difference. He was a threat and had to be neutralized. Had he surrendered, he would have had his day in court.

Yes, dear, you're a little looney on this, but you're still loved.

You don't have to surrender in this country to get a day in court. Like I said, you morons don't understand the nature of the constitution in this country. Like all the pigs and politicians and judges that roll in corruption, you think there is one set of rules for people you don't like, and another for those of whom you approve.

It doesn't work that way. The rules apply to everybody, and they exist SPECIFICALLY to protect us from cops with bombs who don't think they have to pay any attention to the constitution.

 

[blastoff]

Oh, gosh don't you just hate it when an exploding wall kills a murderous racist? Guess the puke was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is the problem with the patriot movement as well. You fucking yahoos are too stupid to realize that militarized, unconstitutional kill squads are still unconstitutional and still pose a threat, even when they accidentally kill the right people.

No accident at all in Dallas. Well planned and - no pun intended - executed.

 

[Liberty777]

The objective is not to KILL suspects. Its to bring them into custody. You morons who think it's a good idea to let cops act as judge, jury, executioners arengoing tonseriiusly regret your stupidity in the very near future.

 

[koshergrl]

Oh, gosh don't you just hate it when an exploding wall kills a murderous racist? Guess the puke was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is the problem with the patriot movement as well. You fucking yahoos are too stupid to realize that militarized, unconstitutional kill squads are still unconstitutional and still pose a threat, even when they accidentally kill the right people.

No accident at all in Dallas. Well planned and - no pun intended - executed.

Yeah fuck the pigs. I don't care for heavily armed, out of control military police roaming our streets and thinking they have the right to blow people and shoot people just because the people deserve it. I guess that's the difference between being an American who values freedom, and being a mindless slave cop whore, like you.

 

[martybegan]

The objective is not to KILL suspects. Its to bring them into custody. You morons who think it's a good idea to let cops act as judge, jury, executioners arengoing tonseriiusly regret your stupidity in the very near future.

It would be an execution only if they plugged him after he was in custody, or had surrendered and was sitting there with his hands up. When you are still an active threat, there can be no execution.

You get your due process when you allow the process to start, i.e. you submit to lawful authority, not before.

Actually, no. That's not true.

Why not? If you go with that line of logic, than that idiot who says "you can't self defend yourself because it violates due process" has a point. Due process is when you are IN the system, and accept it's authority.

Hunkering down and taking pot shots at officers while screaming you are going to kill them is not entering the system.

 

[martybegan]

The objective is not to KILL suspects. Its to bring them into custody. You morons who think it's a good idea to let cops act as judge, jury, executioners arengoing tonseriiusly regret your stupidity in the very near future.

It would be an execution only if they plugged him after he was in custody, or had surrendered and was sitting there with his hands up. When you are still an active threat, there can be no execution.

You get your due process when you allow the process to start, i.e. you submit to lawful authority, not before.

Actually, no. That's not true.

Actually it is.

Actually, no, it's not.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

No death penalty before a trial. I know that LEO walk all over that, and say it's okay. But it's not, it never has been, and they should go to prison when they violate it. And stay there.

That creates an impossible situation for any law enforcement. When you resist lawful arrest, you put your life in your own hands. when you resist lawful arrest with deadly force, deadly force is coming right back at ya.