Total posts: 17,895
Posted in:
-->
@warren42
If scum mislynches today they win
It’s pretty clear cut if you just read posts 21, 24, and now 48
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's just too big.
+1000000000
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
but it does
If you were the cop you would’ve outed your guilty in the first post. You would’ve voted your guilty instantly. You haven’t done either of those lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
this obviously makes it seem like you wanted me to release the results dp2
No it doesn’t lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Read Post 21 and then 24. That’s all you need to realize WP is lying
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
bruh I really shouldn't even have to say anything to u to come to a speedy conclusion that water is scum. Seriously that's the most awkward "CC" ever.
Can’t even get his story straight lol
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
oh, i thought you meant the last dp. i didn't notice the ping at the beginning somehow and only found out it was actually dp3 from the bump ping that lunatic sent right before my post.
Lol the mental gymnastics you’re playing rn. I’m ded
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Support and disrupt are antonyms. Dictionary says your reasoning is wrong.
These people will do mental gymnastics when they know they’re wrong lol. Most common sign you’ve won
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
cause then scum would've killed me...? wouldn't it be a much better idea to release cop results once you've gotten a guilty?
You supposedly did get a guilty....thanks for playing scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WaterPhoenix
Ya I’m town af. Why didn’t you immediately release your results lmao. Just vote yourself dude you’ve been caught
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Bullish
Who the fuck vig'd croc when we had an even number of players
That would be Speed
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
why do you keep bringing up antifa? I have seen no evidence they are involved?
Lol he agrees with Establishment Jerry Nadler😂😂. I’m ded💀
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
those attacks started after the feds started using gestapo tactics on them. Again, you are using violence that happens now, to justify what accelerated that violence.
Nope. The Feds were already there. Rioters attacked first and the Feds requested backup to protect federal property.
I agree. Trump's feds attacking peaceful protesters in the street is like the gestapo.
Lmao the dude was arrested because they thought he was a rioter. What do you want them to do? Walk out in front of people with Molotov cocktails and then arrest them lmao.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
It’s also funny how HB still hasn’t answered how the violent rioters should be arrested if the rioters are assaulting them nonstop. When they do come out and arrest a person in a gang, it’s literally the Gestapo.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
People are being gaslit by the media to believe they have a constitutional duty to obstruct the police. It's absolute bullshit. If you walk up to a police officer while he is in the process of apprehending a criminal and you "peacefully" shove a phone in front of his face, you are 100% absolutely going to jail for choosing to engage in criminal behavior, namely, obstructing the police. It is a crime, not a constitutional right. Get it through your soft soy skull, or be prepared for more of the results of Chop, namely, what happens when the mob is allowed to obstruct the police.
It’s a disgrace. They’re also a bunch of pussies. Only attack in the night. During the day everything is perfectly fine.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so being the general vicinity of a criminal makes you a criminal? It should give federal thugs the right to shoot you because you happen to be somewhere near them? That is authoritarianism.
I never said that lol. If you are standing amidst violent rioters and the police can’t come out and arrest the rioters safely you’re going to be tear gassed. It’s not their fault you chose to stand in the middle of a bunch of rioters. What you’re advocating for is a meatshield so violent protestors can’t be confronted. Using your logic police shouldn’t do anything at all because peaceful protestors near the violent ones will get affected. How delusional are you
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
There is no constitutional right to sheild Antifa from a lawful arrest. If you obstuct the police, you are a criminal.
What type of peaceful protestor stands next to a person throwing a Molotov cocktail and protests lol. People are so delusional.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
the main problem is that the tactics used by the federal thugs is causing alot of the violence. If you need to shoot innocent people to catch a few guilty ones, those innocent people are much more likely to respond with resistance of violence in the future.
Why the fuck are they there in the first place. It’s stupidity to peacefully protest next to a person who’s throwing Molotov cocktails lol. At that point you’re asking for it.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
it isn't always going to be possible to arrest every rioters. It never is. But police can protect property without shooting and clubbing peaceful protesters. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of videos of police attacking people who are not attacking police.
So they should stand there and do nothing while Molotov cocktails shoot over their heads, lasers blind police officers, caustic liquid gets thrown at them, federal property gets broken into? What type of fantasy do you live in lol. How the hell do “protect” property lmao.
depends on context. The point of these tactics is to protect property and reduce violence. If firing tear gas at protesters is increasing violence, obviously doing so is stupid.
In what context should it be used? I’m really curious. If you attack federal agents they are going to reciprocate and they have the right to whether you like it or not. If you are in the vicinity of the rioter you are going to be hit by tear gas and other tactics, cause guess what? Cops can’t come out cause they’d be killed and your “peaceful protestors” would stand there and let it happen.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Lemme phrase it’s this way: should violent rioters be tear gassed?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
the same way anyone gets arrested. Police work. Not by mass assault on people engaging in their constitutionally protected rights.If stopping violence is the goal, then the gestapo tactics obviously failed. It didn't stop or even reduce the violence. It massively fueled it.
More detailed please. Do you want federal agents coming in front of the violent protestors and arresting them? They tried that. They were assaulted and injured lol. Not to mention you saying they’re arresting peaceful protestors lol.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You think the federal courthouse would still be there if federal marshals weren’t there? HB would lead you to believe yes. Any man with common sense after viewing the destruction would say no
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
it's not a dodge. there were a few violent rioters. Then trump sent in shock troops to attack everyone. Once you get attacked by police, you are much more likely to be ok with people attacking the police. You are much more likely to do so yourself.So sending in the shock troops to abuse peaceful protests has massively amplified the problem.
So how do you propose the violent protestors get arrested? I’m genuinely curious.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
This violence could be over immediately if these complicit "peaceful protesters" turned their phone cameras away from the police and started filming the bottle throwers and laser shiners, and arsonists, and then had them removed.
If I was near someone with a Molotov cocktail, I’d go somewhere far from that person. Once a protest goes violent it’s violent no matter how many peaceful people there are. It’s the job of the peaceful protestors to prevent the violence, but they just let it happen anyways and then gaslight the nation.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
what kind of police officer stands next to someone shooting innocent protesters in the head? Sadly, most of them are willing to do so.And being on the receiving end of violence from the police tends to make people very forgiving of violence against the police. You want protesters to condemn violence against the police? Then stop allowing the police to commit violence against protesters.
Nice dodge.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
What type of peaceful protestors willingly stands next to a person who’s throwing Molotov cocktails at a federal courthouse lol
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yep. And those peaceful protestors shielding a few radical Antifa from lawful arrest were not accessories to felony crimes.
Delusional😒
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is he seriously saying the Feds started the shitshow in Portland?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
RESISTING ARREST IS NOT A CAPITAL OFFENSE.I mean, do you understand what DRUNK means?
I never said it was. But him doing it lead to his death
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The District Attorney pressing charges against Atlanta Police Officer Garret Rolfe, who shot a suspect who tried to use a taser on him while attempting to escape, recently charged other officers with “aggravated assault” for using a Taser in another incident. [LINK]Notice they were not charged with "assault with a deadly weapon" or "attempted murder".
Garrett Rolfe is charged with felony murder lol. The DA is quoted saying that a taser was a deadly weapon in another case while simultaneously saying that it isn’t in this case. He’s a political hack who is in a runoff election.
They grabbed the taser after having it placed point-blank against their leg (I call that "self-defense").
After the dude assaulted the cops lol. The primary aggressor was Rayshard Brooks lol.
The gunshots were several seconds AFTER the taser fired it's ONLY cartridge.
Irrelevant. Rolfe was attacked by a deadly weapon and he responded properly even according to a Black Georgia Sheriff Alfonzo Williams.
Do you happen to know anyone who did something stupid while intoxicated?
I’ve seen countless intoxicated individuals get arrested peacefully on Cops and Live PD. Everything was going fine until Brooks decided to assault the cops. Even then the cops didn’t shoot him. They ran after him telling him to put the taser down. He turned and shot the taser at Rolfe after which Rolfe responded.
Why not give every citizen Qualified Immunity?
Does every citizen risk their life everyday by going to work to protect their neighborhoods?
Shooting someone who is running away from you is NOT self-defense.
Shooting someone who shoots at you with a taser is an act of self defense. The cops could’ve shot him before he turned around and fired the taser. Why didn’t they do that? He only shot after he was fired upon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Judges and juries almost always give police the benefit of the doubt.
They should because the burden of proof is on the prosecutor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
AT WHICH POINT THE TASER WAS JUST A USELESS LUMP OF PLASTIC.
It was an escalation of force and an active attack on the cops. What the cops did was an act of self-defense.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
In a famous "fleeing felon case" of Tennessee v. Garner, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer may not use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
Once again you price my point. A taser can cause serious physical injury. The man gave the cop a concussion for Christ’s sake lol.
NOT TO MENTION, the taser only had one cartridge, so after it was fired and missed, there was zero threat and therefore no longer a "deadly weapon" by any standard.
Him actively firing the taser was the threat. If the dude only had a single bullet in his gun he still would’ve been shot lol. The ammo is irrelevant to fact that Brooks shot a deadly weapon at a cop and injured the cops beforehand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
We shouldn't have to rely in the press and community outrage in order to hold police responsible for their errors in judgement.
You don’t. You rely on a court with a jury and a judge. That’s how the justice system works.
What you seem to be missing is that most cases are NOT broadcast on international news.And in these cases, the police are overwhelmingly awarded Qualified Immunity.
Then the prosecutor is at fault for not even bringing the case forward. Just because it’s not popularized doesn’t mean a cop can’t be convicted.
Can we at least agree that CIVIL RIGHTS should give domestic citizens MORE protection than foreigners in an active WARZONE?Isn't this just "common sense"?
I never disagreed with this lol. Rayshard Brooks got himself killed by resisting arrest, punching a cop, stealing a cop’s taser and shooting it at the cop. He would’ve been fine if he accepted arrest. There’s nothing more to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Qualified Immunity allows police to shoot anyone they "suspect". Officers regularly testify that they genuinely "feared for their lives" in order to be exonerated.
That’s defense isn’t going to work on George Floyd killer because it’s not absolute immunity.
Are you switching between police and soldiers now?
Rules of Engagement in a foreign nation are different depending on the nation. Domestically opinions of other nations don’t matter.
Brooks scuffled with the officers, got hold of Brosnan's taser, punched Rolfe, and ran. With Rolfe pursuing him, Brooks half-turned and fired the taser toward Rolfe, who then shot Brooks twice from behind while a third shot struck an occupied car. Brooks died after surgery.
Thanks for proving my point. Under Georgia state law a taser is classified as a deadly weapon. The officer had every right to shoot after he fired that weapon because it’s a split second decision.
In the EOF handbook, it's called "proportional force". You can't kill someone (by shooting them in the back while they're fleeing) who fires a (non lethal) taser at you.
They fired a deadly weapon under Georgia law. Escalation of Force began when Brooks scuffled with the cops and in doing so injured police officers. At that point he was a threat to police officers. Still the cops didn’t shoot him until after he turned and shot the taser. Like what more do you want lol. You can’t convince a jury that you weren’t fearing for your life lol. One of the cops had a concussion if I recall correctly.
Members of the NYPD’s anti-crime unit were reassigned to uniformed patrol duties on Monday — part of what Police Commissioner Dermot Shea called a “seismic” shift affecting some 600 cops.
And why did that happen? Defunding efforts by Mayor Bill de Blasio. Defunding doesn’t mean getting rid of cops, it means getting rid of their resources they need to fight crime which Bill de Blasio clearly did.
Judges are not objective arbitrators.
That’s why you have a jury and a judge. It’s the job of the prosecuter to prove that the cop was not fearful of his life. Prove that and you win which is what’s happening in the George Floyd case.
I'm stating a fact.American law is based on a collection of British Common Laws which were created as regional community standards.Laws change as community standards change.That's why we no longer follow Jim Crow.
Sure but as I said, it’s the law of the land right now. The Supreme Court recently announced they wouldn’t be hearing another qualified immunity case. Whether you like it or not it’s the law and it’s the obligation of the judges to follow it.
JUSTICE =/= "I WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME THING"
That’s how it works. It’s the burden of the prosecutor to prove and convince the jury why the cop wasn’t fearful of his life. There’s nothing more to it.
So is being a soldier.
Once again, I said that jurisdiction is different in foreign nations and there’s nothing stopping a soldier from shooting a member of the Taliban who shot at them and is not running from, if you want to create an analogy with the Rayshard Brooks case. If anything a soldier would’ve shot him the second he started to run because the Taliban attacked him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It's called supply and demand.Perhaps we should privatize them.
I already showed crime is increasing without them lol. Now you want to hire new cops who have zero experience and are more likely to be killed or kill?
And it does.
So what’s your point? Judges and the community can be swayed by anything if it’s persuadable.
Law is codified mob rule.
So you’re an anarchist? Makes sense lol
Clearly true because a lot of cops have had charges dropped by prosecutors who refuse to take cases against them or placed on "administrative leave" or received reduced or suspended sentences.The precious few who are actually held accountable are only in "trouble" because of community outrage.
You just proved my point. Qualified immunity isn’t absolute immunity. If you want to bring a case you Can but it’s your job to convince the jury that you yourself wouldn’t have done what that cop did if you were the cop in the scenario. Where ever the jury is convinced and cop gets convicted whether that be in the case of George Floyd or in the case of an Oklahoma cop. Being a cop is hard dude. You see stuff that you can’t forget. You go to work everyday knowing you May never Come back to see your wife and kids. It’s arguably one of the hardest jobs that even doesn’t pay as much.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
She probably doesn't get soy boys.
Fax bruh
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The quoted portion of the handbook that I provided made it perfectly clear that you can't shoot someone simply because they're running and carrying an AK-47.Carrying a loaded firearm is not illegal in the united states.Just because an officer thinks that someone might have a weapon, doesn't give them carte-blanche to kill them.
I never said they could. They can only shoot if the weapon moves if the perpetrator suddenly moves to grab it and point it at a soldier. Rayshard Brooks would’ve been fine if he never turned around aimed and fired the weapon.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The correct number.
Laughable. There are already cops mass retiring because of the lack of proper funding.
It certainly increased court costs. And judges are often swayed by community outrage.
This could be applied to any case lol.
I guess they're infallible, even if their conclusions are incoherent.
It’s the law of the land whether you like it or not.
Do you realize that "qualified immunity" is literally "if the perpetrator (cop) thought they were doing the right thing at the time, then they are immune to legal consequences".
Clearly not true because a lot of cops have been prosecuted and convicted in a court of law.
If that same standard were applied GENERALLY, nobody could ever be charged for a speeding ticket if "they didn't see the sign".It rewards incompetence (specifically ignorance). If you didn't know it was illegal, then you can't be charged. Imagine what a utopia that would be.I thought it was perfectly legal to shoot a woman through a locked living-room window, while she was sitting in her own home, playing video games with her family.CIVIL RIGHTS YOU SAY??
Being a cop is nothing like speeding. That’s a false equivalency fallacy. The job of a cop is difficult and they protect us day and night while you sleep peacefully at night. Unjustified killings are never ok. The death of George Floyd was not ok because he violated protocol even if he thought he was doing the right thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Citation please.
Police funding has gone up
Crime going up in NYC after police defunding
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Scenario #9Your convoy is on the outskirts of a city and approaching an overpass. A crowd isgathering in the area just beneath the overpass. You see a man running in an alleytoward the overpass with an AK-47. What do you do?Possible reaction points and EOF considerations:• Increase the aggressiveness of your posture.• Use EOF to negate the potential threat.• Remember that locals may legally have small arms for the protection oftheir homes.• Attempt to identify the individual with the weapon.• Do not engageunless there are further indications of hostile intent or ahostile act. [LINK]OPENING FIRE.a. You may open fire only if you, friendly forces or persons or property under yourprotection are threatened with deadly force. [LINK]
Where does it say anything about the back? Also what does this mean: “Use EOF to negate the potential threat.“
And how is this relevant at all? Rayshard Brooks turned around and aimed and shot a weapon at the officer, which any person in the military would’ve shot instantly.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Police are armed in order to deal with violent criminals.Police only face violent criminals on roughly 4% of their calls.Therefore, it stands to reason, the armed police should get roughly 4% of current police funding, with the rest (96%) distributed to unarmed civil servants.
That doesn’t answer my question. Crime has gone down but police funding has gone up. Crime is already up in cities because there are less police officers. And I mean violent crime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Which page? I’m not reading through all of that. Not to mention those rules of engagement are outdated now
Would you rather be shot in cold blood, or held in violation of the Geneva conventions?
That makes no sense lol. Americans have more rights than enemy combatants.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Katie Pavlich is hot af
Created: