We'll know for sure in Nov 2016.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Hands Up Don't Shooters!
- Thread starter Lumpy 1
- Start date
We'll know for sure in Nov 2016.
I still wonder how an Armed Nazi (White) manages to get taken alive, but a black kid gets shot for "Grand Theft Cigars"...
And that is precisely the same kinda lie "hands up, don't shoot" was. Brown did not die because he stole some cigars or because he roughed up the store owner.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
Now that this, " Hands up, don't shoot " liberal, "farce extravaganza" has come to light and found wanting on the facts
.. I laugh ..
This kind of reminds me of when Democrats thought Obama was God..( they had faith ) ..
Now that it was proven by the DoJ that the government of Ferguson has a history of racism, you people who defended them were proven wrong.
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
The PC Police got what they wanted.
The end always justifies the means for zealots.
I still wonder how an Armed Nazi (White) manages to get taken alive, but a black kid gets shot for "Grand Theft Cigars".
Holmes, Loughner white guys who shoot up a bunch of people, yet the police manage to take them alive, but man, Eric Garner was selling cigarettes, kill that fucker.
The problem is with a police force that sees blacks as less than human and more deserving of the use of deadly force disproportionate to their crimes.
Seems like context has a lot to do with things ....................
Maybe because Holmes was sitting out side the theater waiting to be arrested .......................he was a little mentally deranged you know.
Loughner was subdued by bystanders and most likely out of ammo, he too was a little loony toons, but never attempted to assault, batter or attempt to take an officers weapon.
The two you have pointed out were mentally deranged, is that what Michael Browns problems were??
No he was just a thug who miscalculated his actions, he placed the officer in a position in which he had no choice but to use deadly force to stop the thug ...............
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
When is it legal for a cop to kill you?
Updated by Dara Lind on December 3, 2014, 3:04 p.m. ET @DLind [email protected]
Even if this illustration were a photo, police might be found to be justified.
Grand juries in two recent, high-profile cases have declined to indict police officers for killing unarmed men. On November 24, a St. Louis County grand jury decided there wasn’t probable cause to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old. And on Wednesday, December 3, a grand jury in New York City decided not to indict Daniel Pantaleo for the death of Eric Garner, a Staten Island man who died after the officer put him in a chokehold.
The deaths of Brown and Garner have fueled nationwide demonstrations for months — with protesters arguing in part that the way police officers use force on the job, particularly against black men, crosses a line. In Garner's case, protesters are especially incensed because there's a cell-phone video showing Pantaleo putting Garner in a chokehold — proving that Pantaleo was responsible for Garner's death.
But what the public sees as crossing the line may not actually break the law — and even the most reliable video evidence might not show an officer actually committing a crime. There are plenty of guidelines for use of force by police, but it often boils down to what the officer believed when the force was used — something that is notoriously difficult to standardize — regardless of how much of a threat actually existed. We talked to two experts to break down the fraught issue.
"Hands up don't shoot" has become the motto of the Ferguson protests. (Scott Olson/Getty)
How do you determine if a police officer was justified in using deadly force?
When a police officer kills someone on the job, there's a two-track investigation. That's because there are actually two different sets of standards that govern when a police officer can use deadly force.
if a cop murders someone, he's not just breaking the law — he's violating his employee handbook
One set of standards is state law, informed by a couple of Supreme Court precedents that lay out the circumstances under which law enforcement officers are justified in using lethal force on suspects.
The other set of standards is the policy of the officer's police department, which tells its employees when it is and isn't appropriate for them to use force.
If a police officer were to murder someone in cold blood while on the job, he wouldn't just be breaking the law — he'd be violating his equivalent of an employee handbook. But something can be against a police department's policy without being against the law. The chokehold that Daniel Pantaleo used on Eric Garner, for example, violated the NYPD's policy on use of force — but there isn't a law on the books saying a police officer can't use a chokehold.
So when a cop uses deadly force in an officer-involved death, there's a standard criminal investigation: detectives collect evidence and present it to the local prosecutor. The prosecutor then determines whether the killing fits the standards in state law for permissible homicide. If it doesn't, then a crime has been committed, and the prosecutor's job becomes figuring out which crime it was and whether there's enough evidence to charge the officer with it.
But there's also an internal investigation within the cop's department to evaluate whether the incident violated their use-of-force policy. Many departments' policies are stricter than state law — but an officer can't be charged with a crime just for violating the policy. He or she can, however, be fired for it.
In Ferguson, the St. Louis County Police Department conducted the criminal investigation. After collecting the facts, they passed their report to St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch, who decided to ask a grand jury whether Wilson should be charged with a crime. The grand jury — after a very long and unusual process — decided there wasn't probable cause that Wilson had been unjustified in killing Brown.
Police were also conducting an internal investigation of Wilson. But Wilson resigned from the Ferguson Police Department shortly after the grand jury's ruling — making the investigation moot.
The legal standards governing justifiable force
Justifiable?
In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable. Those decisions have governed how state laws are applied. Furthermore, many agencies simply use identical standards to the Supreme Court's for their own use-of-force policies — though some departments don't let officers use deadly force even when the Court decisions say they'd be allowed to.
Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," says criminologist David Klinger of the University of Missouri-St. Louis. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" — what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect's committed a serious violent felony.
cops can't shoot every felon who tries to escape
The logic behind the second circumstance, says Klinger, comes from a Supreme Court decision called Tennessee vs. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He'd stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The Court ruled that cops couldn't shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger says, "they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you've got a violent person who's fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight."
Some police departments' policies only allow deadly force in the first circumstance: defense of life. Others have policies that also allow deadly force to prevent escape in certain cases, within the limits of the Supreme Court decision.
"Objectively reasonable"
It doesn't matter if a cop is threatened; it matters if his belief that he is is reasonable. (Scott Olson/Getty)
The key to both of the legal standards — defense-of-life and fleeing a violent felony — is that it doesn't matter whether there is an actual threat when force is used. Instead, what matters is the officer's"objectively reasonable"belief that there is a threat.
could a reasonable officer have believed there was a threat?
That standard comes from the other Supreme Court case that guides use-of-force decisions: Graham v. Connor. This was a civil lawsuit brought by a man who'd survived his encounter with police officers, but who'd been treated roughly, had his face shoved into the hood of a car, and broken his foot — all while he was suffering a diabetic attack. The Court didn't rule on whether the officers' treatment of him had been justified, but it did say that the officers couldn't justify their conduct just based on whether their intentions were good. They had to demonstrate that their actions were "objectively reasonable," given the circumstances and compared to what other police officers might do.
There are plenty of cases in which an officer might be legally justified in using deadly force because he feels threatened, even though there's no actual threat there. Klinger gives the example of a suspect who is carrying a realistic-looking toy gun. That example bears a resemblance to the shooting death ofJohn Crawford, an Ohio man who was killed by police in August 2014 while carrying a toy rifle in Walmart.
Hypothetically, if the gun looked real, Klinger says, "the officer's life was not in fact in jeopardy, but that would be an appropriate use of force. Because a reasonable officer could have believed that that was a real gun." In fact, toy gun manufacturers — including the maker of the air rifle Crawford had — have started using this standard to limit their liability, putting on a warning label that tells consumers police could mistake their products for real guns.
the time from a cop's decision to use deadly force to the moment he pulls the trigger: two seconds
Walter Katz, a California attorney who specializes in oversight of law enforcement agencies — particularly during use-of-force investigations — points out that it's hard to determine whether an officer's fear is reasonable because the decision to shoot is so fast.
"Officer-involved shootings happen extremely quickly. Usually, the point from where the officer believes he has to use deadly force to the point where he uses deadly force — where he pulls the trigger — is about two seconds." That can make it much harder for investigators to decide whether or not the officer was reasonable in thinking he had to shoot.
That puts a lot of weight on an officer's immediate instincts in judging who's dangerous. And those immediate instincts are where implicit bias could creep in — believing that a young black man is a threat, for example, even if he is unarmed.
But each use of deadly force does have to be evaluated separately to determine if it was justified. "The moment that you no longer present a threat, I need to stop shooting," said Klinger. However, he continues, "There's a difference between the moment you cease to be a threat and the moment I perceive that you ceased to be a threat," And Katz points out that if an officer has been assaulted and the suspect runs away, the officer's threat assessment is probably going to be shaped by having just been assaulted. But, Katz says, "one can't just say, 'Because I could use deadly force ten seconds ago, that means I can use deadly force again now.'"
Watch: why police officers are so rarely prosecuted
Card 2 of 15 Launch cards
Why was Michael Brown shot?
On August 9, 2014, Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old. It will never be perfectly clear what happened on that day. But the grand jury and US Department of Justice didn't believe there was enough evidence to file charges against Wilson for wrongdoing.
Wilson claimed Brown was violent throughout the encounter, even charging at the officer after gunshots were fired. Several eyewitnesses said Brown was trying to flee from Wilson and attempted to surrender — by raising his hands up — before he was killed.
After Wilson made contact with Brown and told the 18-year-old to not walk in the middle of the road, the officer reportedly realized Brown was a robbery suspect who stole cigarillos from a nearby convenience store. Wilson attempted to stop Brown, and both men had a physical altercation at the officer's SUV. Wilson then opened fire from his vehicle. Brown ran, turned around, and Wilson fired more shots, supposedly out of fear that Brown was charging at him.
An investigation from the Justice Department laid out a strong case in Wilson's favor
Brown died about 150 feet from Wilson's vehicle. He was shot six times. No gunshot was confirmed to hit Brown from behind, although two wounds had an undetermined trajectory.
An investigation from the Justice Department laid out a strong case in Wilson's favor. The physical evidence suggested Brown reached into Wilson's car during their physical altercation and, very likely, attempted to grab the officer's gun. The most credible witnesses agreed that Brown moved toward Wilson before the officer fired his final shots — and there simply wasn't enough evidence, especially given the struggle at the car, that Wilson wasn't justified in fearing for his life when he fired the shots that killed Brown. Although some credible witnesses suggested Brown raised his hands up before he died, witnesses who disputed major parts of Wilson's side of the story were discredited when they changed their accounts and by the physical evidence.
One of the major sources of confusion in this case is that a lot of the eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable, was contradictory. PBS NewsHour parsed through the eyewitness accounts, compiling them all in one chart:
Updated by Dara Lind on December 3, 2014, 3:04 p.m. ET @DLind [email protected]
Even if this illustration were a photo, police might be found to be justified.
Grand juries in two recent, high-profile cases have declined to indict police officers for killing unarmed men. On November 24, a St. Louis County grand jury decided there wasn’t probable cause to indict Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown, an unarmed 18-year-old. And on Wednesday, December 3, a grand jury in New York City decided not to indict Daniel Pantaleo for the death of Eric Garner, a Staten Island man who died after the officer put him in a chokehold.
The deaths of Brown and Garner have fueled nationwide demonstrations for months — with protesters arguing in part that the way police officers use force on the job, particularly against black men, crosses a line. In Garner's case, protesters are especially incensed because there's a cell-phone video showing Pantaleo putting Garner in a chokehold — proving that Pantaleo was responsible for Garner's death.
But what the public sees as crossing the line may not actually break the law — and even the most reliable video evidence might not show an officer actually committing a crime. There are plenty of guidelines for use of force by police, but it often boils down to what the officer believed when the force was used — something that is notoriously difficult to standardize — regardless of how much of a threat actually existed. We talked to two experts to break down the fraught issue.
"Hands up don't shoot" has become the motto of the Ferguson protests. (Scott Olson/Getty)
How do you determine if a police officer was justified in using deadly force?
When a police officer kills someone on the job, there's a two-track investigation. That's because there are actually two different sets of standards that govern when a police officer can use deadly force.
if a cop murders someone, he's not just breaking the law — he's violating his employee handbook
One set of standards is state law, informed by a couple of Supreme Court precedents that lay out the circumstances under which law enforcement officers are justified in using lethal force on suspects.
The other set of standards is the policy of the officer's police department, which tells its employees when it is and isn't appropriate for them to use force.
If a police officer were to murder someone in cold blood while on the job, he wouldn't just be breaking the law — he'd be violating his equivalent of an employee handbook. But something can be against a police department's policy without being against the law. The chokehold that Daniel Pantaleo used on Eric Garner, for example, violated the NYPD's policy on use of force — but there isn't a law on the books saying a police officer can't use a chokehold.
So when a cop uses deadly force in an officer-involved death, there's a standard criminal investigation: detectives collect evidence and present it to the local prosecutor. The prosecutor then determines whether the killing fits the standards in state law for permissible homicide. If it doesn't, then a crime has been committed, and the prosecutor's job becomes figuring out which crime it was and whether there's enough evidence to charge the officer with it.
But there's also an internal investigation within the cop's department to evaluate whether the incident violated their use-of-force policy. Many departments' policies are stricter than state law — but an officer can't be charged with a crime just for violating the policy. He or she can, however, be fired for it.
In Ferguson, the St. Louis County Police Department conducted the criminal investigation. After collecting the facts, they passed their report to St. Louis County prosecutor Bob McCulloch, who decided to ask a grand jury whether Wilson should be charged with a crime. The grand jury — after a very long and unusual process — decided there wasn't probable cause that Wilson had been unjustified in killing Brown.
Police were also conducting an internal investigation of Wilson. But Wilson resigned from the Ferguson Police Department shortly after the grand jury's ruling — making the investigation moot.
The legal standards governing justifiable force
Justifiable?
In the 1980s, a pair of Supreme Court decisions set up a framework for determining when deadly force by cops is reasonable. Those decisions have governed how state laws are applied. Furthermore, many agencies simply use identical standards to the Supreme Court's for their own use-of-force policies — though some departments don't let officers use deadly force even when the Court decisions say they'd be allowed to.
Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," says criminologist David Klinger of the University of Missouri-St. Louis. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" — what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect's committed a serious violent felony.
cops can't shoot every felon who tries to escape
The logic behind the second circumstance, says Klinger, comes from a Supreme Court decision called Tennessee vs. Garner. That case involved a pair of police officers who shot a 15-year-old boy as he fled from a burglary. (He'd stolen $10 and a purse from a house.) The Court ruled that cops couldn't shoot every felon who tried to escape. But, as Klinger says, "they basically say that the job of a cop is to protect people from violence, and if you've got a violent person who's fleeing, you can shoot them to stop their flight."
Some police departments' policies only allow deadly force in the first circumstance: defense of life. Others have policies that also allow deadly force to prevent escape in certain cases, within the limits of the Supreme Court decision.
"Objectively reasonable"
It doesn't matter if a cop is threatened; it matters if his belief that he is is reasonable. (Scott Olson/Getty)
The key to both of the legal standards — defense-of-life and fleeing a violent felony — is that it doesn't matter whether there is an actual threat when force is used. Instead, what matters is the officer's"objectively reasonable"belief that there is a threat.
could a reasonable officer have believed there was a threat?
That standard comes from the other Supreme Court case that guides use-of-force decisions: Graham v. Connor. This was a civil lawsuit brought by a man who'd survived his encounter with police officers, but who'd been treated roughly, had his face shoved into the hood of a car, and broken his foot — all while he was suffering a diabetic attack. The Court didn't rule on whether the officers' treatment of him had been justified, but it did say that the officers couldn't justify their conduct just based on whether their intentions were good. They had to demonstrate that their actions were "objectively reasonable," given the circumstances and compared to what other police officers might do.
There are plenty of cases in which an officer might be legally justified in using deadly force because he feels threatened, even though there's no actual threat there. Klinger gives the example of a suspect who is carrying a realistic-looking toy gun. That example bears a resemblance to the shooting death ofJohn Crawford, an Ohio man who was killed by police in August 2014 while carrying a toy rifle in Walmart.
Hypothetically, if the gun looked real, Klinger says, "the officer's life was not in fact in jeopardy, but that would be an appropriate use of force. Because a reasonable officer could have believed that that was a real gun." In fact, toy gun manufacturers — including the maker of the air rifle Crawford had — have started using this standard to limit their liability, putting on a warning label that tells consumers police could mistake their products for real guns.
the time from a cop's decision to use deadly force to the moment he pulls the trigger: two seconds
Walter Katz, a California attorney who specializes in oversight of law enforcement agencies — particularly during use-of-force investigations — points out that it's hard to determine whether an officer's fear is reasonable because the decision to shoot is so fast.
"Officer-involved shootings happen extremely quickly. Usually, the point from where the officer believes he has to use deadly force to the point where he uses deadly force — where he pulls the trigger — is about two seconds." That can make it much harder for investigators to decide whether or not the officer was reasonable in thinking he had to shoot.
That puts a lot of weight on an officer's immediate instincts in judging who's dangerous. And those immediate instincts are where implicit bias could creep in — believing that a young black man is a threat, for example, even if he is unarmed.
But each use of deadly force does have to be evaluated separately to determine if it was justified. "The moment that you no longer present a threat, I need to stop shooting," said Klinger. However, he continues, "There's a difference between the moment you cease to be a threat and the moment I perceive that you ceased to be a threat," And Katz points out that if an officer has been assaulted and the suspect runs away, the officer's threat assessment is probably going to be shaped by having just been assaulted. But, Katz says, "one can't just say, 'Because I could use deadly force ten seconds ago, that means I can use deadly force again now.'"
Watch: why police officers are so rarely prosecuted
Card 2 of 15 Launch cards
Why was Michael Brown shot?
On August 9, 2014, Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black 18-year-old. It will never be perfectly clear what happened on that day. But the grand jury and US Department of Justice didn't believe there was enough evidence to file charges against Wilson for wrongdoing.
Wilson claimed Brown was violent throughout the encounter, even charging at the officer after gunshots were fired. Several eyewitnesses said Brown was trying to flee from Wilson and attempted to surrender — by raising his hands up — before he was killed.
After Wilson made contact with Brown and told the 18-year-old to not walk in the middle of the road, the officer reportedly realized Brown was a robbery suspect who stole cigarillos from a nearby convenience store. Wilson attempted to stop Brown, and both men had a physical altercation at the officer's SUV. Wilson then opened fire from his vehicle. Brown ran, turned around, and Wilson fired more shots, supposedly out of fear that Brown was charging at him.
An investigation from the Justice Department laid out a strong case in Wilson's favor
Brown died about 150 feet from Wilson's vehicle. He was shot six times. No gunshot was confirmed to hit Brown from behind, although two wounds had an undetermined trajectory.
An investigation from the Justice Department laid out a strong case in Wilson's favor. The physical evidence suggested Brown reached into Wilson's car during their physical altercation and, very likely, attempted to grab the officer's gun. The most credible witnesses agreed that Brown moved toward Wilson before the officer fired his final shots — and there simply wasn't enough evidence, especially given the struggle at the car, that Wilson wasn't justified in fearing for his life when he fired the shots that killed Brown. Although some credible witnesses suggested Brown raised his hands up before he died, witnesses who disputed major parts of Wilson's side of the story were discredited when they changed their accounts and by the physical evidence.
One of the major sources of confusion in this case is that a lot of the eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously unreliable, was contradictory. PBS NewsHour parsed through the eyewitness accounts, compiling them all in one chart:
Attachments
After the 2010 mid-terms? (Obama's "shellacking")?
After the 2014 mid-terms?
With the ton of (rapidly increasing) baggage that Billary had (and is) accumulating?
With Obumble serving-up disaster after disaster after disaster after disaster?
That's a very good question.
Actually, it just shows that Midterms are counter-intuitive. They don't reflect where the country is because most people don't vote in them.
The same dynamics that got Obama elected in 2008 and 2012 will be there for Hillary in 2016, with the added bonus of potentially being the first woman president working in her favor.
If the Republicans nominate Jeb Bush, and this becomes an argument of Bush vs. Clinton, that makes things even worse for you guys.
Seems like context has a lot to do with things ....................
Maybe because Holmes was sitting out side the theater waiting to be arrested .......................he was a little mentally deranged you know.
Loughner was subdued by bystanders and most likely out of ammo, he too was a little loony toons, but never attempted to assault, batter or attempt to take an officers weapon.
The two you have pointed out were mentally deranged, is that what Michael Browns problems were??
No he was just a thug who miscalculated his actions, he placed the officer in a position in which he had no choice but to use deadly force to stop the thug ...............
So mentally deranged white people should be handled with care and compassion, but just shoot the ffuck out of those negro thugs.
Got it.
I still wonder how an Armed Nazi (White) manages to get taken alive, but a black kid gets shot for "Grand Theft Cigars"...
And that is precisely the same kinda lie "hands up, don't shoot" was. Brown did not die because he stole some cigars or because he roughed up the store owner.
Uh, no, the fact is that while blacks make up only 13% of the population, they make up a vast majority of those shot by police.
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Seems like context has a lot to do with things ....................
Maybe because Holmes was sitting out side the theater waiting to be arrested .......................he was a little mentally deranged you know.
Loughner was subdued by bystanders and most likely out of ammo, he too was a little loony toons, but never attempted to assault, batter or attempt to take an officers weapon.
The two you have pointed out were mentally deranged, is that what Michael Browns problems were??
No he was just a thug who miscalculated his actions, he placed the officer in a position in which he had no choice but to use deadly force to stop the thug ...............
So mentally deranged white people should be handled with care and compassion, but just shoot the ffuck out of those negro thugs.
Got it.
That is the talking points of an ignorant low class n*gger with reading comprehension skills ................
No you dumb fucking n*gger the two mentally deranged white people "posed no danger to police officers at the time of their apprehension" .............
Dumb n*ggers that assault police officers and fight to take their guns from them to avoid arrest after committing crimes deserve to die from violence .................
You seem to be confused as most dumb n*ggers are ................
Uh, no, the fact is that while blacks make up only 13% of the population, they make up a vast majority of those shot by police.
I'm shocked that one such as you would touch that third rail. According to the US Department of Justice, blacks - who are indeed "only 13%" of the gen pop - accounted for 52.5% of homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008 and the black males who are responsible for most of that carnage are only 6% of the gen pop. Perhaps it is the violence demonstrated by them which is at the root of the police shootings. I mean, how many black women are shot by police?
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
I still wonder how an Armed Nazi (White) manages to get taken alive, but a black kid gets shot for "Grand Theft Cigars"...
And that is precisely the same kinda lie "hands up, don't shoot" was. Brown did not die because he stole some cigars or because he roughed up the store owner.
Uh, no, the fact is that while blacks make up only 13% of the population, they make up a vast majority of those shot by police.
Joe you just want give up will you, most people shot by police are committing crimes or putting another human being's life in danger.
From all the facts and statistics looks like those nigga's just don't want to get with the program and follow societal rules / laws.
Are you really that fucking ignorant that you can not draw the inferences that while the whites make a larger % of the general population than blacks, they are much less likely to engage in activities in which the police would intervene.
Now you nigga's on the other hand tend to commit crimes that require intervention of the police.
Instead of trying to vilify the Police why not just address the root cause and plead with your fellow n*ggers to stop the criminal activities and conform to the law as us white folks have??
Like I have stated previously, just another dumb ****** with a stupid talking point .....................
Its sad to think that individuals sworn to serve and protect are viewed with such negativity and disrespect. Yes there are some bad apples, as in all segments of society, yet they are in the vast minority. Yet in the minds of the extremist they represent the enemy. Since when did enforcing laws passed by the people to protect the rights and freedoms of the people become so despised? My hat goes off to those that have the courage and conviction to serve and protect our rights and freedoms. God bless em!
Its sad to think that individuals sworn to serve and protect are viewed with such negativity and disrespect. Yes there are some bad apples, as in all segments of society, yet they are in the vast minority. Yet in the minds of the extremist they represent the enemy. Since when did enforcing laws passed by the people to protect the rights and freedoms of the people become so despised? My hat goes off to those that have the courage and conviction to serve and protect our rights and freedoms. God bless em!
I'm from a gritty American city and see the first hand what our cops are up against. it ain't pretty and it ain't easy and the sentiment of some elected officials as well as our media makes it tougher:
Nebraska State Senator Says He'd Shoot A Cop And Then Ask Questions Later
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...mIHADA&usg=AFQjCNHuTVgxfzRn6yZWjmV2Rsd3Ck6YsA
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Now that this, " Hands up, don't shoot " liberal, "farce extravaganza" has come to light and found wanting on the facts
.. I laugh ..
This kind of reminds me of when Democrats thought Obama was God..( they had faith ) ..
Now that it was proven by the DoJ that the government of Ferguson has a history of racism, you people who defended them were proven wrong.
Racism as viewed through the eyes of a little nigga boy who was unable to crucify Daren Wilson.
Let's be clear about this, that n*gger holder said before there was ever an investigation into the FACTS, that there WOULD BE a VIGOROUS PROSECUTION of DARREN WILSON.
Now the nigga come up empty handed, didn't happen, Wilson's shoot was good, one more dead nigga and Holder is clueless.
So when he came back and had to state Wilson was clean and "Hands up, Don't shoot" never happened, well then the only way the nigga could save face was by vilifying the department.
His statistics were skewed and his findings were politically driven lies that had absolutely nothing to do with the truth.
They found 4 racial emails out of 50,000 ............yeah sounds like the department was rife with racism.
Now that this, " Hands up, don't shoot " liberal, "farce extravaganza" has come to light and found wanting on the facts
.. I laugh ..
This kind of reminds me of when Democrats thought Obama was God..( they had faith ) ..
Now that it was proven by the DoJ that the government of Ferguson has a history of racism, you people who defended them were proven wrong.
Racism as viewed through the eyes of a little nigga boy who was unable to crucify Daren Wilson.
Let's be clear about this, that n*gger holder said before there was ever an investigation into the FACTS, that there WOULD BE a VIGOROUS PROSECUTION of DARREN WILSON.
Now the nigga come up empty handed, didn't happen, Wilson's shoot was good, one more dead nigga and Holder is clueless.
So when he came back and had to state Wilson was clean and "Hands up, Don't shoot" never happened, well then the only way the nigga could save face was by vilifying the department.
His statistics were skewed and his findings were politically driven lies that had absolutely nothing to do with the truth.
They found 4 racial emails out of 50,000 ............yeah sounds like the department was rife with racism.
Now that this, " Hands up, don't shoot " liberal, "farce extravaganza" has come to light and found wanting on the facts
.. I laugh ..
This kind of reminds me of when Democrats thought Obama was God..( they had faith ) ..
Now that it was proven by the DoJ that the government of Ferguson has a history of racism, you people who defended them were proven wrong.
Racism as viewed through the eyes of a little nigga boy who was unable to crucify Daren Wilson.
Let's be clear about this, that n*gger holder said before there was ever an investigation into the FACTS, that there WOULD BE a VIGOROUS PROSECUTION of DARREN WILSON.
Now the nigga come up empty handed, didn't happen, Wilson's shoot was good, one more dead nigga and Holder is clueless.
So when he came back and had to state Wilson was clean and "Hands up, Don't shoot" never happened, well then the only way the nigga could save face was by vilifying the department.
His statistics were skewed and his findings were politically driven lies that had absolutely nothing to do with the truth.
They found 4 racial emails out of 50,000 ............yeah sounds like the department was rife with racism.
Yanno, it's one thing to "nigga" in a humorous context and another to use it as you do.
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Now that this, " Hands up, don't shoot " liberal, "farce extravaganza" has come to light and found wanting on the facts
.. I laugh ..
This kind of reminds me of when Democrats thought Obama was God..( they had faith ) ..
Now that it was proven by the DoJ that the government of Ferguson has a history of racism, you people who defended them were proven wrong.
Racism as viewed through the eyes of a little nigga boy who was unable to crucify Daren Wilson.
Let's be clear about this, that n*gger holder said before there was ever an investigation into the FACTS, that there WOULD BE a VIGOROUS PROSECUTION of DARREN WILSON.
Now the nigga come up empty handed, didn't happen, Wilson's shoot was good, one more dead nigga and Holder is clueless.
So when he came back and had to state Wilson was clean and "Hands up, Don't shoot" never happened, well then the only way the nigga could save face was by vilifying the department.
His statistics were skewed and his findings were politically driven lies that had absolutely nothing to do with the truth.
They found 4 racial emails out of 50,000 ............yeah sounds like the department was rife with racism.
Now that this, " Hands up, don't shoot " liberal, "farce extravaganza" has come to light and found wanting on the facts
.. I laugh ..
This kind of reminds me of when Democrats thought Obama was God..( they had faith ) ..
Now that it was proven by the DoJ that the government of Ferguson has a history of racism, you people who defended them were proven wrong.
Racism as viewed through the eyes of a little nigga boy who was unable to crucify Daren Wilson.
Let's be clear about this, that n*gger holder said before there was ever an investigation into the FACTS, that there WOULD BE a VIGOROUS PROSECUTION of DARREN WILSON.
Now the nigga come up empty handed, didn't happen, Wilson's shoot was good, one more dead nigga and Holder is clueless.
So when he came back and had to state Wilson was clean and "Hands up, Don't shoot" never happened, well then the only way the nigga could save face was by vilifying the department.
His statistics were skewed and his findings were politically driven lies that had absolutely nothing to do with the truth.
They found 4 racial emails out of 50,000 ............yeah sounds like the department was rife with racism.
Yanno, it's one thing to "nigga" in a humorous context and another to use it as you do.
Get the fuck over it bitch ...............
Roadrunner
Roadrunner
Why do you think they gave up the senile old meat-beating porn addict?
Roadrunner
Roadrunner
You call burning down a community and shooting cops "non-violent".How many athletes or politicians have you seen or heard using the phrase "hands up, don't shoot" since the results of the full investigation were released?
That phrase worked. It promoted a non-violent response to injustice. The fact is that law enforcement in this nation is undergoing additional training and self evaluation.
Some of you nutters who are claiming that people saying "hands up, don't shoot" caused violence or the deaths of anyone......are fucking idiots.
I'm so glad, by the way that nutters would never take a phrase that doesn't carry the full weight of truth and use it to spur a political or social movement.
Biggest enemy blacks have is white libs like you treating them like children that cannot take care of themselves.
Roadrunner
Roadrunner
Gotta keep them on the Dem Plantation somehow.Oh, I don't know about that.Democrats/liberals don't seem to recognize that their trust level is caput...they're so desperate it's almost comical.You'll never see them admit it or apologize for it.It's a slogan based on a lie .. bottom lineity.
They're on a mission, they'll do or say anything.
.
Look at how divided this country is becoming, every little "group" leveraging its specific, narcissistic grievances to protect their little piece of turf.
"E Pluribus Unum" is dead.
That looks pretty effective to me.
.
It works.
Roadrunner
Roadrunner
Seems to be the only dish he can cook.After the 2010 mid-terms? (Obama's "shellacking")?The Democrats have played-out their hand in recent years, and it's a good bet that America has had enough of them for a while.
A good bet, huh? How good? What are you willing to bet on 2016?
After the 2014 mid-terms?
With the ton of (rapidly increasing) baggage that Billary had (and is) accumulating?
With Obumble serving-up disaster after disaster after disaster after disaster?
That's a very good question.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 123
- Replies
- 35
- Views
- 338
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 243
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 35
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 42
- Replies
- 934
- Views
- 20K
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 17
- Replies
- 231
- Views
- 1K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8087
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-