So if a deputy sheriff is a 'thug' and abuses the civilian population... and his buddy a state trooper is a very good cop, and also an OathKeeper, Anti Govt Crusader and card carrying member of the John Birch Society.... When that Trooper gets "gunned down on the side of the road", you will feel no remorse...
Even for you Henry... that makes no sense!
What makes no sense is you believe citizens have no right to protect themselves from the violent thug sheriff.
What makes no sense is you believe citizens have no right to protect themselves from the violent thug sheriff.
Duhhhh NO!
That Henry will feel no remorse if that Trooper gets "gunned down on the side of the road"... That makes no sense at all.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Do you believe it possible that the Vietnam vet that shot the cops felt his life was being threatened? Not by what I saw on the video... NO. If the cop shot the veteran before the veteran shot him, I imagine based on previous posts you would have felt it was justified because the cop felt his life was being threatened. Once the shooter pulled a gun, it was justified for the cop to shoot. But when a cop draws his gun on a citizen, the citizen is not supposed to feel his life is being threatened, regardless of the evidence there are "bad cops" that may use unwarranted lethal force. The shooter had no reason to feel his life was in jeopardy... until he pulled his own gun.
You can't admit that there a cops that will use excessive and lethal force, and then say citizens don't have the right to protect themselves from them. Cops rarely but the do occasionally use excessive force. Cops are often engaged in altercations with criminals that require force.
You can't have it both ways. Unless you believe citizens must be subjected to police violence administered by the "bad cops" and cannot defend their right to life. Did you see any violence in this particular video by the cop? There may have been, but I didn't see it on the video. Once the shooter went for his gun, the cop could reasonably expect that he was going to be shot. The cops problem was he didn't shoot soon enough, (or possibly straight enough). IMO the cop was trying not to shoot the out of control shooter.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
That Henry will feel no remorse if that Trooper gets "gunned down on the side of the road"... That makes no sense at all.
I would imagine it's the same remorse cops or you feel when they gun down an innocent citizen, and excuse it by calling it "excessive force".
Citizens are expected to perceive all cops as the "good guys" regardless if you know that there are "bad cops" among them. But cops approach ALL CITIZENS as potential threats and take all precautions to protect their own lives. And the minute they FEEL their lives are threatened, they will shoot.
What doesn't make sense, do you cry at night when you hear some gang member got killed in in LA, nope you don't. Do you get upset when an innocent person is killed, I hope so. Thugs choose their own paths and their actions will usually result how they end up, act like a thug you have a higher chance of being killed, treat people with respect and chances are you will live longer.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
The shooter had no reason to feel his life was in jeopardy... until he pulled his own gun.
Or maybe he seen the cop unsnapping his pistol while keeping his hand on it, going by what you said then the officer shouldn't have felt threated by the man with the gun. Why doesn't the citizen have a right to feel threatened with a man with a gun but the officer does, that makes no sense.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Once the shooter went for his gun, the cop could reasonably expect that he was going to be shot. The cops problem was he didn't shoot soon enough, (or possibly straight enough). IMO the cop was trying not to shoot the out of control shooter.
The cop drew and fired first box, but again to you the citizen shouldn't have felt threatened even though a man with a gun which he just unsnapped approached him. Did you even watch the 1st video yet, would you trust people who act like that coming towards you with a gun. If that video was gang members shooting and beating people I'm sure you would be crying about more gun control and how they should be locked up.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
What doesn't make sense, do you cry at night when you hear some gang member got killed in in LA, nope you don't. Do you get upset when an innocent person is killed, I hope so. Thugs choose their own paths and their actions will usually result how they end up, act like a thug you have a higher chance of being killed, treat people with respect and chances are you will live longer.
Henry, you missed the point... You profess to feel no remorse when a cop is killed... good cop, bad cop or otherwise... you judge all cops by the worst one. The trooper in my example was a good cop and an Oathkeeper... if you saw him dead on the side of the road, you say you'd feel no remorse. That makes no sense.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Henry, you missed the point... You profess to feel no remorse when a cop is killed... good cop, bad cop or otherwise... you judge all cops by the worst one. The trooper in my example was a good cop and an Oathkeeper... if you saw him dead on the side of the road, you say you'd feel no remorse. That makes no sense.
Here is what I wrote You can't have it both ways, if a citizen can't act like a thug neither can the police, if they do I feel no remorse for them when they get gunned down on the side of the road.
Notice I wrote if they do, that means act like a thug, THEN do I feel no remorse for them. I do feel remorse for good people who die NOT the thugs.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Once the shooter pulled a gun, it was justified for the cop to shoot. Though the cops was not in the view of the camera, I believe he had his gun trained on the veteran before he went for his gun. The cop pulled his gun first.
The shooter had no reason to feel his life was in jeopardy... until he pulled his own gun. Again, I assume the cop had the gun trained on the veteran before he went for his gun. I don't know how you can say there are "bad cops" and still say you should not feel in jeapordy when a cop has his gun drawn on you, but a cop can feel his life is in jeapordy when a citizen draws his gun on him.
Cops rarely but the do occasionally use excessive force. Cops are often engaged in altercations with criminals that require force. Most of the time, cops initiate contact with citizens. Many altercations are from the cops initiation of contact with a citizen. Detaining a citizen against his will is the first use of force. Giving orders is the second use of force, threats of ticketing and extorting money is the 3rd use of force, threatening to arrest is the 4th use of force.
Did you see any violence in this particular video by the cop? There may have been, but I didn't see it on the video. I believe out of the view of the cameras the cop had his gun drawn on the veteran. That is a threat of lethal force.
Once the shooter went for his gun, the cop could reasonably expect that he was going to be shot. I'm assuming the cop drew his gun first but it wasn't visible on camera. Unless he sat there with his gun holstered while the veteran ran at him and was being non compliant to his commands.
The society we live in is governed by laws. We elect our legislators to create those laws. We hire the police to enforce those laws. The Shooter in the video was driving 100MPH, endangering everyone he came in contact with. The cop who stopped him was doing his job. Part of his job is to risk his life when he deals with violent offenders like this shooter. To protect the cop, regulations are made that sets limits on if and when the cop can or should use his weapon. Once a suspect draws a gun, these regulations dictate that the cop's life is in danger, and as the video proved, his life was taken.
What system would you use? Everyone has a gun... the best shot survives? Everyone has the authority of a cop? Everyone is on their own and the strong survive???
We hire cops to "protect and serve". We do a pretty good job of screening out the crazies and the violent. They have a special responsibility to use force according to the regulations governing them... which some times increases the risk to their own life. They have set rules when they can or should draw their weapon and when it is justified to use that weapon.
The Anti Cop, anti Govt click on this board sees the police as the enemy. Your own words Henry show your contempt for this dead cop. IMO none of this had to happen. The Shooter brought this on himself and the cop... and for no reason... NONE.
[b] Putting a badge on a person turns them into a$$holes who think they're above the law, YOUR WORDS The Shooter considered himself above the law driving 100 mph... yet you support him and condemn the cop. The cop was within his rights to shoot when the shooter went for his gun. No one had to die in this video, not the shooter or the cop. The choice to kill was the shooters and for no reason.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Once the shooter pulled a gun, it was justified for the cop to shoot. Though the cops was not in the view of the camera, I believe he had his gun trained on the veteran before he went for his gun. The cop pulled his gun first.
The shooter had no reason to feel his life was in jeopardy... until he pulled his own gun. Again, I assume the cop had the gun trained on the veteran before he went for his gun. I don't know how you can say there are "bad cops" and still say you should not feel in jeapordy when a cop has his gun drawn on you, but a cop can feel his life is in jeapordy when a citizen draws his gun on him.
Cops rarely but the do occasionally use excessive force. Cops are often engaged in altercations with criminals that require force. Most of the time, cops initiate contact with citizens. Many altercations are from the cops initiation of contact with a citizen. Detaining a citizen against his will is the first use of force. Giving orders is the second use of force, threats of ticketing and extorting money is the 3rd use of force, threatening to arrest is the 4th use of force.
Did you see any violence in this particular video by the cop? There may have been, but I didn't see it on the video. I believe out of the view of the cameras the cop had his gun drawn on the veteran. That is a threat of lethal force.
Once the shooter went for his gun, the cop could reasonably expect that he was going to be shot. I'm assuming the cop drew his gun first but it wasn't visible on camera. Unless he sat there with his gun holstered while the veteran ran at him and was being non compliant to his commands.
In every instance, you post what you don't know, or can't see... but yet you assume the cop was at fault.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Yup, laws that call a person killed by police violence a perp, and the citizen that kills a "bad cop" a "cop killer". I have yet to read a news story where a bad cop is killed by a citizen defending himself, and the citizen being praised as a hero.
In every instance, you post what you don't know, or can't see... but yet you assume the cop was at fault.
Well, we know the cop was armed. He did fire shots, he did take the gun out of his holster. I guess it can be disputed whether he pulled the gun before or after the veteran started shooting.
Btw...I never assumed the cop was at fault. I just suggested that maybe the veteran felt his life was threatened by the actions of the cop. You were not able to see the cop either, but yet you assume he did nothing that caused the veteran to feel his life was threatened.
Just like there are supposedly a 'few radical terrorist muslims'.....the entire ethnic/religious bunch are singled out because of their 'dangerous, crazy, out of control, sick, twisted' behavior.....yes? Hell, Americans are all but strip searched at an airport cause of those crazy Muslims.....yes? The u.s. has actually transformed this nation based on the 'radical few'.....yes? The u.s. has actually engaged in illegal wars because of the 'radical few'.....yes?
So hell.....we as American citizens, where there are supposedly a 'few dangerous, crazy, out of control, sick, twisted cops....are just as distrustful......PERIOD!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Logged
