The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie

@bobsal u1553115,

Quote:

The Ferguson police have characterized this as a “robbery” in spite of the fact that it was carried out without any brandishing of a weapon

Your knowledge (or lack thereof) of the law is staggering.

Taking ones property using force or threat of force IS robbery,a felony, any where in the USA...dumbass.

Quote:

I've never EVER said,"ALLcops are bad." EVER.

You disingenuos piece of ****...have you ever posted anything positive about the police??? The vast majority of police are dedicated public servants...you hightlight only a miniscule % of that whole in the effort to claim an epidemic sized problem...your agenda is clear...you are a LOWLIFE who hates the cops cause you feel you didnt get a fair shake from them when you were arrested.

0 Replies

I am absolutlely appalled at the militarization of the French Police. These two misguided muslims were only armed with simple rifles. But the French police had all mannor of military weapons including smoke and flash/bang grenades, helicopters and, radios (the muslims didnt have radios!) And they wore body armor!!! (the muslims didnt have body armor!)And the police had helmets!!! (again, not so the muslims) I also saw that they had armored vehicles!!! (the muslims had only sedans...and they had to steal those!!!)
And these jackbooted thugs never gave those muslims the chance to surrender they just shot them down like dogs!!! And in a busy city at that. What barbarians!
Yes I know that those muslims killed the 10 unarmed jouranlists and 3 police officers but they died knowing that they were civilized and didnt succumb to the temptation to arm themselcves like the military does...or the Police!

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote:

I am absolutlely appalled at the militarization of the French Police. These two misguided muslims were only armed with simple rifles.

+ 88,OOO military?

That is nuts. They are just as bad as we americans are at over reacting even after they have been so critical of us.

We play right into the hands of the islamic terrorists. We are idiots.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

How exactly do we play into their hands???

1 Reply

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

How exactly do we play into their hands???

Osama said that the whole point was to provoke us into spending tons of money thus bankrupting us ($2-4 trillion for our last wars plus about $1 trillion on extra homeland and NSA security is a good start) , and into curtailing the very freedom that the Western way of life is built upon....When we react to the threat with tons of expenditures on state security forces that are deployed into the infidel population we hand our islamic enemies (the muslims who have proclaimed to be out to end us) a double win.

Not that 98% of the American people think this far. I suspect that the Europeans do somewhat better with their history of the Muslims undeniably at times being out to over run them and subject them to Islam by force.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

So the way we win is to disarm, let them kill us and die rich?
Hawk, I think lately you've gone off the deep end...and you still havent apologized for that last tirade. Drunk

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote:

So the way we win is to disarm, let them kill us and die rich?

The way we win is to have superior ideas, and match the response with the threat

Quote:

and you still havent apologized for that last tirade.

Look, I have a restaurant to run, I dont see everything. What are you talking about?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

The thing you have to remember is that no matter what we do they will want to destroy us, period. And this is not marquess of queensberry rules. You dont match your opponent you overwhelm them. If we had taken that tact in WWII we'd be speaking German.

Also, what I was speaking of was when you said, "**** you" over the Bil lof Rights discussion.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote:

The thing you have to remember is that no matter what we do they will want to destroy us, period.

Right, and when the enemy is at your wall a smart response is an imperative.

Quote:

You dont match your opponent you overwhelm them.

That was fine when we were a very rich superpower, one of two. Now we are a deeply in debt failing superpower which is a large number of failed systems and a people who are largely ignorant. We need to adjust if we are to survive. BTW the current issue of Atlantic has a long very good piece one the long run of failures from the US military, and their failure to adjust. You might want to take a look, any optimism that we are in a position to beat our islamic enemies is misplaced after the failure of our wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya....all in the last decade.

Quote:

Also, what I was speaking of was when you said, "**** you" over the Bil lof Rights discussion.

would you kindly give a link? I recall that I have recently disagreed with you but I dont recall where.

1 Reply

fixed

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

hawkeye10

3
Replyreport Mon 5 Jan, 2015 04:40 am

@giujohn,

Quote:

ME: Also, while a right is not absolute, it may only be regulated when it infringes on the right of another to exercise his rights or by excercising said right would be a clear and present danger to the public as a whole, ie; possesing a nuclear device for self defense.

A right is like a muscle; it must be exercised or you will lose it. It is a slippery slope indeed when you let the camels nose in under the tent. (who desides how much to infringe a right...mob rule?) Remember, without the Second Amendment there is no way to protect the other 9...or yourself.

YOU:Oh **** you, you are feeding me the same bullshit that the liberals keep spooning out, talking all about rights, their rights, the rights of the people they feel sorry for without saying one damn thing about responsibilities, the other 50% of the equation.

When did gun owners get so ******* stupid is what I want to know. In the seventies when I hung around the gun people a little I heard a lot more about gun safety then I did about gun owner rights. People joined the NRA and went to NRA events, sent a few letters to the editor maybe, but day in and day out hanging out them was if going to get you a lecture then you knew it was probably going to be a gun safety lecture. It was the morally right thing to do, and it was about protecting gun owners from ridicule and likely loss of rights from being seen as irresponsible.

1 Reply

@giujohn,

That is an outburst that needs to be apologized for??

Perhaps you are not as smart as I thought you are. Rights and obligations must always be understood in relationship to each other, not in isolation. This is pretty basic stuff, you should have learned this by grade 8.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

BTW the current issue of Atlantic has a long very good piece one the long run of failures from the US military, and their failure to adjust. You might want to take a look, any optimism that we are in a position to beat our islamic enemies is misplaced after the failure of our wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya....all in the last decade.

Thanks I will...But from where I sit the only mistake we (politicians) make is not allowing the military to take care of business. (Viet Nam)Can you imagine what would have happened if Ike hadn't been in charge and the Congress was calling the shots?

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

Hawk: Its the **** YOU I want the apology for...not the discourse. I have never shown you ANY disrespect. You cant see this???

1 Reply

@giujohn,

Quote:

Thanks I will...But from where I sit the only mistake we (politicians) make is not allowing the military to take care of business. (Viet Nam)Can you imagine what would have happened if Ike hadn't been in charge and the Congress was calling the shots?

We have several reasons for our failure, near the top of the list is the failure of the officer class. The stars of McCrystal and Petraeus are notable primarily because of their rarity. Our officers have usually failed on the battlefield of our wars, failed on the battlefield of Washington, and failed to keep the American people properly informed.

When you start talking about throwing yet more of our vanishing treasure into the fight I say hold up. I want better people and a better plan before we give it another go. Insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting a different result.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

Quote:

Hawk: Its the **** YOU I want the apology for...not the discourse.

that was intended to be more flippant than anything else, however when this stupidity has been long one of my major complaints of the left I am less than pleased to see members of the Right making the same mistake. I would love to see one side or the other get things right.

But you are correct that it was not civil. It was intended to be more like the rude comment that guys say to each other at the bar, when they know that they are with reasonable people who can argue ideas without taking everything personally. If I over estimated you I am sorry, that would actually have been my fault for not understanding my listener.

No personal slight was intended. If I gave an impression of animosity towards you in error then I am sorry. I will as always continue to work to do better.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

I understand the reference...however that would only be appropriate in a private message to the email...but thanks for the apology

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Rights and obligations must always be understood in relationship to each other, not in isolation.

I would take exception to this in that each right stands on it's own. Thats why they are enumerated 1-10. If the framers had wanted them to be depaendant on each other they would have stated as much.
What you and others mistakingly try to do is interpret where no interpretation is required. The Bill of Rights is not a "living" document nor does it need any clarification. It was written in straight forward language.

0 Replies

@giujohn,

giujohn wrote:

Quote:

You mean besides the dead body of an unarmed young man and the number of shots fired by Wilson???

Please enlighten us how the number of shots are evidence and please do so in accordance with established rules of evidence...not Franks law

John, Tony asked, "The main question being what evidence is there against the officer who shot Brown, other than a bunch of cop haters who can't even tell the same story without contradicting each others details."

Are you telling me that the number of shots fired are not evidence???

We may disagree on what the evidence points to...and they may not be conclusive evidence in any particular direction...but they most assuredly are evidence...just as the dead body of the unarmed Brown is evidence.

If the number of shots fired had been 296...would you not agree that the number of shots fired would be evidence of something?

How about 295?

294?

Let me know when you get to a number you consider no longer constitutes "evidence."

My take...and "the established rules of evidence"...is that even a single shot fired...is evidence.

Please enlighten me as to why it would not be.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Are you telling me that the number of shots fired are not evidence???

Calm down Frank, I never said it wasnt evidence...I was asking you how it was evidence based on standard rules of evidence...still waiting for your explanation BTW

1 Reply

The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know