This is why more cops should be killed

Status
Not open for further replies.
This situation would have provided STY with something to bitch about regardless.

Situation #1 - the one we have - Those bastard cops murdered an innocent man.

Situation #2 - an armed man is pointing his gun at apartments. The cops think they are spotted when he holds his gun up in a two handed stance, and they duck for cover. The man then unloads his gun into apartment windows and kills 3 residents. STY would be screaming that those cowardly bastards let 3 people be murdered.

slight correction in your hugely mistaken assumption, is that this guy pointed a water nozzle. A WATER NOZZLE. and in case you didn't catch that..... A WATER NOZZLE!!!!!!!

get that? a water nozzle.

see, all along you morons have had this idea that cops are highly trained to make split second decisions, yet here is one of them. how did that work out for them?
 
cops are given certain privileges. this should be obvious. cops have the right to draw guns and point them at you. you do not have the same right. this should be obvious to anyone except the massively stupid.

here is where your sheeple attitude exudes.

police have POWERS, not privileges, and the these POWERS come from US. WE THE PEOPLE. They work for us, remember that shit?

and as an aside, WE THE PEOPLE have rights, the cops do not.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that STY masturbated all over his bathroom walls when he saw the story about the 4 Lakewood, WA police officers who were murdered in a cafe by a guy from AR who was pardoned by Huckabee.
 
STY, lets try again.

Let me ask you, if he had been pointing a gun at them, but we found out later that it had no bullets in it, what would YOU be saying now?

an actual gun??????, i'd be highly inclined to rule this justifiable. no matter that it was loaded or not. the issue is that the police are supposed to be this highly trained organization, yet they can't tell the difference between a water hose and a gun????????
 
slight correction in your hugely mistaken assumption, is that this guy pointed a water nozzle. A WATER NOZZLE. and in case you didn't catch that..... A WATER NOZZLE!!!!!!!

get that? a water nozzle.

see, all along you morons have had this idea that cops are highly trained to make split second decisions, yet here is one of them. how did that work out for them?

I get that it was a water nozzle. We found that out AFTER THE FACT.

But the cops and the witnesses THOUGHT it was a gun. Maybe he didn't hold it up so they could see? Or maybe, just maybe, they thought it was a small gun and when he held it in two hands they couldn't see much of it at all.




I see you are still not answering the question??

Let me ask you, if he had been pointing a gun at them, but we found out later that it had no bullets in it, what would YOU be saying now?
 
If I see a bunch of cops surround me, and they have guns drawn, I am dropping that motherfucking water hose. Because, I am not fucking stupid. This guy was fucking stupid, because he is a prole. And he was justly killed. Now he can't reproduce with his fucktard genes. A great justice has been done for all mankind. The day this man was shot dead should be a holiday.
 
here is where your sheeple attitude exudes.

police have POWERS, not privileges, and the these POWERS come from US. WE THE PEOPLE. They work for us, remember that shit?

and as an aside, WE THE PEOPLE have rights, the cops do not.

the police have the power to pull a gun on you. You do not have the power to pull a gun on a uniformed officer (or pretty much anyone). wake up sheeple.
 
an actual gun??????, i'd be highly inclined to rule this justifiable. no matter that it was loaded or not. the issue is that the police are supposed to be this highly trained organization, yet they can't tell the difference between a water hose and a gun????????

How close were they?? The cops may be trained, but they don't have X-ray vision and shouldn't be expected to be able to see thru the mans hands. The original report was of a small gun. Very little would stick out of his hand, especially in a two handed grip.

I expect cops to make split second decisions based on the information that they have. These cops did that. If they were not within 10 feet, there is no way they could be sure it was anything other than a gun. Especially considering the way the man was pointing it.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that STY masturbated all over his bathroom walls when he saw the story about the 4 Lakewood, WA police officers who were murdered in a cafe by a guy from AR who was pardoned by Huckabee.

you're not as smart as I thought you were. I was seriously pissed off about that incident because I wanted to know why the fuck nobody else in that coffee shop had a gun on them to hopefully prevent at least one or two more murders.

but i'm sure that i'm just an anti government serial killer while you're a government employee loyal to the man.
 
If the cop had been in a shooting stance with what appeared to be a weapon, I would say it was justified.

I am not backing them because they are cops. I am backing them because they acted properly based on what they knew.



Let me ask you, if he had been pointing a gun at them, but we found out later that it had no bullets in it, what would YOU be saying now?


If someone points something at me and I'm convinced it's a gun, I will shoot that person dead and I will more then likely empty the entire gun into them.
10 on the semi-auto or 6 from the wheel.
 
you're not as smart as I thought you were. I was seriously pissed off about that incident because I wanted to know why the fuck nobody else in that coffee shop had a gun on them to hopefully prevent at least one or two more murders.

but what if one of the police officers had a water hose?????
 
The cops were called because the civilians (wait for it....) THOUGHT THERE WAS AN ARMED MAN POINTING A GUN AT APARTMENTS.

The neighbors are apparently in on the conspiracy, because they called 911 just so those badass cops could get some target practice and earn their "I Busted A Cap In An Innocent Civilian" merit badge.

Forget it.
STY is an idiot and someday, we'll probably read about a Michigan Militia idiot shot dead by someone he thought was holding a waternozzle.
 
you're not as smart as I thought you were. I was seriously pissed off about that incident because I wanted to know why the fuck nobody else in that coffee shop had a gun on them to hopefully prevent at least one or two more murders.

but i'm sure that i'm just an anti government serial killer while you're a government employee loyal to the man.

Seeing as how it was a private venue, I'm sure guns would be prohibited inside, just like every other private venue in the US.

We actually do have concealed carry in WA, before anyone goes looking it up...
 
the police have the power to pull a gun on you. You do not have the power to pull a gun on a uniformed officer (or pretty much anyone). wake up sheeple.

you are wrong, lemming. You, as an american citizen, have the inalienable right to self defense, whether it's a cop or not.

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. If the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.


"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.


"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.


"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).


"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).


"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).


"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, 'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.


As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

care to test me on the law anymore?
 
how about kissing my ass you retard badge blower. or do I need to start posting dozens of more reports about misconduct by your brethren in blue?

STY, you have already said that it would be justified if it were a real gun, even if the gun were not loaded?

Why would it be justified? Because the cops THOUGHT he was armed and dangerous. There is no other assumption to make.

The same applies in this situation. Everyone involved, the cops on scene, the witnesses, the people who called 911, all thought this man had a gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top