- Thread starter
- #21
So what would you do Mr. Fudd, let him call time-out to get a handle on it?If he was reaching for his firearm, he was unarmed by definition.
It's ill-informed peeps like you that get people killed.
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.
So what would you do Mr. Fudd, let him call time-out to get a handle on it?If he was reaching for his firearm, he was unarmed by definition.
No, this is too dumb to talk about because she did not have to shoot him again. He was unarmed. Had he reached his firearm then you could act all John Wayne and run out of ammo, but he is not a threat without a firearm and in this case there is proof the further use of deadly force was not required because no more shots fired and no further injury was done to anyone. No, it is you John Wayne wanna be wild wild west dumb asses that get people killed. I hope you do not carry a firearm. Or even own one. If you want to learn more about deadly force a good place to start is Massood Ayoob. Please read his short book, there are no big words in it.So what would you do Mr. Fudd, let him call time-out to get a handle on it?
It's ill-informed peeps like you that get people killed.
The guy who got shot was a trump supporter and the woman voted for Biden.
If he was reaching for his firearm, he was unarmed by definition.
I thought this made us all safer? Good guy with a gun, all that?All three had a gun.... does everyone in the inner city have guns now?.... good luck trying to take them away dems.....
It looks like a video game....
She was not the police, and factually another round was not required. So babble on, but try to educate yourself somehow besides westerns.Try reaching for a firearm after the police put you down, and see what happens. You'll more than likely be the recipient of an anchor shot to the head.
Biden talks about new gun regulation every chance he gets so what are you talking about?.... I bet there are more ghost guns in the minority community than anyone realizes....I thought this made us all safer? Good guy with a gun, all that?
No one is taking away anyone's guns, in fact, we are making it easier to buy one.
Nice little Fudd.No, this is too dumb to talk about because she did not have to shoot him again. He was unarmed. Had he reached his firearm then you could act all John Wayne and run out of ammo, but he is not a threat without a firearm and in this case there is proof the further use of deadly force was not required because no more shots fired and no further injury was done to anyone. No, it is you John Wayne wanna be wild wild west dumb asses that get people killed. I hope you do not carry a firearm. Or even own one. If you want to learn more about deadly force a good place to start is Massood Ayoob. Please read his short book, there are no big words in it.
Order the book, it is about 5 bucks on ebay. It might save your life or someone else and keep your dumb ass out of jail.Nice little Fudd.
I've managed a long time to stay out of jail....When I wasn't working at one.Order the book, it is about 5 bucks on ebay. It might save your life or someone else and keep your dumb ass out of jail.
She was not the police, and factually another round was not required. So babble on, but try to educate yourself somehow besides westerns.
If I have pants on, I have my firearm. At home I usually lock it up because grandkids, but still close at hand.
Last thing I put on when I leave my home...
Stop. Read what I said above. You are trying to change the circumstances and argue some other stupid point. We often talk about hypothetical s when discussing use of deadly force. In this case we do not, because we know what happened. So until you say something intelligent of funny I am pretty much done with this supidity.That doesn't make one fucks worth of difference, and you know dick about law-enforcement. Do you know why police officers carry guns? It sure as fuck isn't to protect you, because they actually have no constitutional duty to protect.
Police officers carry firearms to protect themselves, which was what she was doing. And seeing how neither of them were charged, they had every right to do what they did.
That's a good way to be... I have grandkids as well...If I have pants on, I have my firearm. At home I usually lock it up because grandkids, but still close at hand.
Last thing I put on when I leave my home...
Stop. Read what I said above. You are trying to change the circumstances and argue some other stupid point. We often talk about hypothetical s when discussing use of deadly force. In this case we do not, because we know what happened. So until you say something intelligent of funny I am pretty much done with this supidity.