Bill Maher slams Boston police

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Low info voters are called Republicans, obviously lol.

pub crap

Lol

Monday mornings suck. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[FJO]

"Liberals in lock step"??? How long have you been on this planet then?

"I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." -- Will Rogers, 1935
See also Cowman above.

The passage where you shut your ears and earned the icon was:


I even put it in bold for you. Do I have to write it real big?

Will Rogers 1935, he can't be talking about todays Democrats, remember the parties switched not long ago.

All they switched was who gets the racists. The left has never been "organized". If it were, it wouldn't be the left. That's why "liberals in lockstep" is a complete oxymoron.

I would say that when a liberal group votes 90% for the guy/party who has done nothing to help them, that's lockstep. Or when another group votes 70% the same way. Or when another group votes overwhelmingly for the same guy/party but uses that group's life style in a derogatory way to describe their political opponents, that's lockstep.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

OK, who took Maher off the DNC talking points memos?

Bill Maher called Boston police officers “unprofessional” on Friday for shooting at the boat where Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding even though it turned out he was unarmed.

“I agree that we shouldn’t have given the kid his Miranda rights because he probably had information. We wanted to take him alive. We all agree with that.… there could’ve been bombs out there, there could’ve been an accomplice. So we wanted to take him alive. If you agree with that then what the cops did there was unprofessional. That’s called contagious fire,” Maher said on HBO’s “Real Time.”


Read more: Bill Maher slams Boston police - Kevin Cirilli - POLITICO.com

Bill Maher has never followed talking points, you fucking retard.

If you weren't so naive, you would know that.

I agree. It would be like me coming on this board and making noises about Alex Jones being a noisome progressive.

 

[herry]

Did he not fire from the boat? If so they had every right and seeing how the questioning got cut short it is a shame they did not kill him. It is hard for me to believe that if they were trying to kill him that they couldn't. This boat would not have stopped many rounds.

The short answer, no he did not fire from the boat, it would have been hard to do so when the only gun the brothers had was recovered at the time the got the older one.

Any time you are told to take him alive you put all officers in an unfair amount of danger. They had the right to kill him and did not. That would seem to any reasonable person as having a lot of control as they could easily killed him. He put himself in that position not the police.

When police are shooting an unarmed person too far away to be any kind of threat to them, they are firing with the intent of killing. They were told to capture him alive. Orders are orders when you hold any kind of position that gives you a licence to kill for a government. They disobeyed theirs. As a police officer, you cannot allow your emotions to get in the way of your job. Plain and simple. Police are supposed to make clear-minded decisions and follow the orders given to them by whoever has authority. Same goes for the army, navy, air force, and seals.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the police disobeyed the orders to take him alive, how come he was taken alive? If Dzhokhar was unarmed, how did he exchange gunfire with the police?

Why do liberals lie?

 

[herry]

If the police disobeyed the orders to take him alive, how come he was taken alive? If Dzhokhar was unarmed, how did he exchange gunfire with the police?

Why do liberals lie?

I should define what I meant with them disobeying. If they had the intent to kill him, that is what I consider disobeying because if any of them had actually gotten a good shot on him he would have been a goner. They did get him alive but it doesn't eliminate the fact that they had the intent to disobey orders. That's what I would hold against them.
The gunfire exchange was before to boat scene. They got the gun when they got his brother.

Also, don't generalize liberals as liers. I'm not one but I'm friends with a few and as far as I'm concerned they don't lie to me about stuff. And I wouldn't hold getting political stuff wrong against some one too much. A lot of places people go to for sources get it wrong. As in right AND left wing parties get the details wrong sometimes. Kinda hard to get the cold truth unless you ask the people involved directly and they happen to not lie. :/

 

[bornright]

The short answer, no he did not fire from the boat, it would have been hard to do so when the only gun the brothers had was recovered at the time the got the older one.

Any time you are told to take him alive you put all officers in an unfair amount of danger. They had the right to kill him and did not. That would seem to any reasonable person as having a lot of control as they could easily killed him. He put himself in that position not the police.

When police are shooting an unarmed person too far away to be any kind of threat to them, they are firing with the intent of killing. They were told to capture him alive. Orders are orders when you hold any kind of position that gives you a licence to kill for a government. They disobeyed theirs. As a police officer, you cannot allow your emotions to get in the way of your job. Plain and simple. Police are supposed to make clear-minded decisions and follow the orders given to them by whoever has authority. Same goes for the army, navy, air force, and seals.

Nobody had the right to tell the police to take him alive. You take him alive if possible. If they had wanted to kill him they would have killed him. You can not believe that the police knew he was unarmed "if" in fact he was unarmed which I doubt. With the silence put on the bomber after his capture I wish they had killed him. I really think liberals think the police should line up and slowly walk toward this guy knowing he would eventually run out of ammo and he could be taken alive. You do realize that the police for the most part have families at home that depend on them for support. There is nothing in the job description that says you have to commit suicide in a situation like this.

 

[bornright]

Why do liberals lie?

Also, don't generalize liberals as liers.

Then they shouldn't lie.

 

[Freemason9]

I read the article.

And you also wrote, "OK, who took Maher off the DNC talking points memos?".
So you admit you don't know what you're talking about.

I can't in a million years imagine shutting some voice out because I might not agree with it, and then going on to write about what that voice does. Seems hypocritical. When your beliefs are secure, and when you're open enough to be unafraid of having them challenged (and maybe even changed), then you have no fear of that alternate view.

No, I admit you can't recognize sarcasm.

Where or who did I say someone should be shut out? I didn't. My point is that look at this board. Almost all, but not all, of the liberals have absolutely no problem with the police shooting through the boat without positive identification. Most, but not all, had no problem with the way the house to house search was conducted. Meher disagreed with both. The liberals are so in lock step one would think they get talking points from the DNC or Dailykos.

Where in the hell did you dig up this rubbish? "Liberals," as I understand it, are typically opposed to authoritarian police actions, whereas "conservatives" are all up in everybody's business in the name of "law and order."

You would undoubtedly call me a "liberal" (because I think Tea Partiers are ignorant), but I thought the actions of the police in Boston on that night were simply appalling.

 

[cereal_killer]

Any time you are told to take him alive you put all officers in an unfair amount of danger. They had the right to kill him and did not. That would seem to any reasonable person as having a lot of control as they could easily killed him. He put himself in that position not the police.

When police are shooting an unarmed person too far away to be any kind of threat to them, they are firing with the intent of killing. They were told to capture him alive. Orders are orders when you hold any kind of position that gives you a licence to kill for a government. They disobeyed theirs. As a police officer, you cannot allow your emotions to get in the way of your job. Plain and simple. Police are supposed to make clear-minded decisions and follow the orders given to them by whoever has authority. Same goes for the army, navy, air force, and seals.

Nobody had the right to tell the police to take him alive. You take him alive if possible. If they had wanted to kill him they would have killed him. You can not believe that the police knew he was unarmed "if" in fact he was unarmed which I doubt. With the silence put on the bomber after his capture I wish they had killed him. I really think liberals think the police should line up and slowly walk toward this guy knowing he would eventually run out of ammo and he could be taken alive. You do realize that the police for the most part have families at home that depend on them for support. There is nothing in the job description that says you have to commit suicide in a situation like this.

They had every intention of killing him but failed. They couldn't keep pouring rounds into that boat after the initial volley, but make no mistake about it they tried to kill him at first. That much is obvious.

Nobody said the officers had to close on foot but they had a ton of resources to avoid that and actually used those resources. Just the FLIR itself was a HUGE tactical advantage for them. That kid didn't move. They could have walked right up to that boat and taken him out by his hair if they wanted to.

 

[Pogo]

Uh... if you're on a boat, surrounded. and you don't have gills ........ where exactly can you go?
What am I missing here?

 

[Freewill]

And you also wrote, "OK, who took Maher off the DNC talking points memos?".
So you admit you don't know what you're talking about.

I can't in a million years imagine shutting some voice out because I might not agree with it, and then going on to write about what that voice does. Seems hypocritical. When your beliefs are secure, and when you're open enough to be unafraid of having them challenged (and maybe even changed), then you have no fear of that alternate view.

No, I admit you can't recognize sarcasm.

Where or who did I say someone should be shut out? I didn't. My point is that look at this board. Almost all, but not all, of the liberals have absolutely no problem with the police shooting through the boat without positive identification. Most, but not all, had no problem with the way the house to house search was conducted. Meher disagreed with both. The liberals are so in lock step one would think they get talking points from the DNC or Dailykos.

Where in the hell did you dig up this rubbish? "Liberals," as I understand it, are typically opposed to authoritarian police actions, whereas "conservatives" are all up in everybody's business in the name of "law and order."

You would undoubtedly call me a "liberal" (because I think Tea Partiers are ignorant), but I thought the actions of the police in Boston on that night were simply appalling.

What rubbish, have you been in the debate when I posted he was unarmed? Were you in the debate concerning Waco? Have you been in the debate concerning American drone program? If you have not noticed the left, since Obama and during Clinton, have become very defensive of police excesses. As I said, most, BUT NOT ALL have defended the police and this administration in spite of what you say. The liberal left has their blood lust up. They like killing in the ME from Arizona. They apparently like trial by Hellfire. I ain't making this up read some posts.

 

[Freemason9]

No, I admit you can't recognize sarcasm.

Where or who did I say someone should be shut out? I didn't. My point is that look at this board. Almost all, but not all, of the liberals have absolutely no problem with the police shooting through the boat without positive identification. Most, but not all, had no problem with the way the house to house search was conducted. Meher disagreed with both. The liberals are so in lock step one would think they get talking points from the DNC or Dailykos.

Where in the hell did you dig up this rubbish? "Liberals," as I understand it, are typically opposed to authoritarian police actions, whereas "conservatives" are all up in everybody's business in the name of "law and order."

You would undoubtedly call me a "liberal" (because I think Tea Partiers are ignorant), but I thought the actions of the police in Boston on that night were simply appalling.

What rubbish, have you been in the debate when I posted he was unarmed? Were you in the debate concerning Waco? Have you been in the debate concerning American drone program? If you have not noticed the left, since Obama and during Clinton, have become very defensive of police excesses. As I said, most, BUT NOT ALL have defended the police and this administration in spite of what you say. The liberal left has their blood lust up. They like killing in the ME from Arizona. They apparently like trial by Hellfire. I ain't making this up read some posts.

AGAIN, "Law and Order" is a right wing chant. You guys are all about big, controlling police states with giant prisons and huge inmate populations as a result of incredible sentences for nearly every crime.

This is on you.

 

[Freewill]

Where in the hell did you dig up this rubbish? "Liberals," as I understand it, are typically opposed to authoritarian police actions, whereas "conservatives" are all up in everybody's business in the name of "law and order."

You would undoubtedly call me a "liberal" (because I think Tea Partiers are ignorant), but I thought the actions of the police in Boston on that night were simply appalling.

What rubbish, have you been in the debate when I posted he was unarmed? Were you in the debate concerning Waco? Have you been in the debate concerning American drone program? If you have not noticed the left, since Obama and during Clinton, have become very defensive of police excesses. As I said, most, BUT NOT ALL have defended the police and this administration in spite of what you say. The liberal left has their blood lust up. They like killing in the ME from Arizona. They apparently like trial by Hellfire. I ain't making this up read some posts.

AGAIN, "Law and Order" is a right wing chant. You guys are all about big, controlling police states with giant prisons and huge inmate populations as a result of incredible sentences for nearly every crime.

This is on you.

More liberal BS story telling. We don't want people violating the law. You got a problem with that. Speak for yourself or STFU.

 

[bornright]

When police are shooting an unarmed person too far away to be any kind of threat to them, they are firing with the intent of killing. They were told to capture him alive. Orders are orders when you hold any kind of position that gives you a licence to kill for a government. They disobeyed theirs. As a police officer, you cannot allow your emotions to get in the way of your job. Plain and simple. Police are supposed to make clear-minded decisions and follow the orders given to them by whoever has authority. Same goes for the army, navy, air force, and seals.

Nobody had the right to tell the police to take him alive. You take him alive if possible. If they had wanted to kill him they would have killed him. You can not believe that the police knew he was unarmed "if" in fact he was unarmed which I doubt. With the silence put on the bomber after his capture I wish they had killed him. I really think liberals think the police should line up and slowly walk toward this guy knowing he would eventually run out of ammo and he could be taken alive. You do realize that the police for the most part have families at home that depend on them for support. There is nothing in the job description that says you have to commit suicide in a situation like this.

They had every intention of killing him but failed. They couldn't keep pouring rounds into that boat after the initial volley, but make no mistake about it they tried to kill him at first. That much is obvious.

Nobody said the officers had to close on foot but they had a ton of resources to avoid that and actually used those resources. Just the FLIR itself was a HUGE tactical advantage for them. That kid didn't move. They could have walked right up to that boat and taken him out by his hair if they wanted to.

If they intended to kill him they should all be fired. Not because they tried to kill him but because they can't shoot. They knew what they were doing and accomplished their goal. Law Enforcement definitely need people like you to join where you can just walk up an snatch people out of a boat such as this.

 

[Katzndogz]

If the police disobeyed the orders to take him alive, how come he was taken alive? If Dzhokhar was unarmed, how did he exchange gunfire with the police?

Why do liberals lie?

I should define what I meant with them disobeying. If they had the intent to kill him, that is what I consider disobeying because if any of them had actually gotten a good shot on him he would have been a goner. They did get him alive but it doesn't eliminate the fact that they had the intent to disobey orders. That's what I would hold against them.
The gunfire exchange was before to boat scene. They got the gun when they got his brother.

Also, don't generalize liberals as liers. I'm not one but I'm friends with a few and as far as I'm concerned they don't lie to me about stuff. And I wouldn't hold getting political stuff wrong against some one too much. A lot of places people go to for sources get it wrong. As in right AND left wing parties get the details wrong sometimes. Kinda hard to get the cold truth unless you ask the people involved directly and they happen to not lie. :/

No. The exchange of gunfire was when the kid was in the boat. There is never an order to take someone alive at all costs. It is always to take the person alive if possible. For all the good it is going to do, they should have blown the rest of his head off and saved the public the money of medical care and a trial.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Maher...........fascinating

Inquiring imbeciles want to know

 

[ScienceRocks]

The police did their job right. The terrorist were caught and the city is safe.

Not everything is clean or perfect.

 

[OKTexas]

If the police disobeyed the orders to take him alive, how come he was taken alive? If Dzhokhar was unarmed, how did he exchange gunfire with the police?

Why do liberals lie?

I should define what I meant with them disobeying. If they had the intent to kill him, that is what I consider disobeying because if any of them had actually gotten a good shot on him he would have been a goner. They did get him alive but it doesn't eliminate the fact that they had the intent to disobey orders. That's what I would hold against them.
The gunfire exchange was before to boat scene. They got the gun when they got his brother.

Also, don't generalize liberals as liers. I'm not one but I'm friends with a few and as far as I'm concerned they don't lie to me about stuff. And I wouldn't hold getting political stuff wrong against some one too much. A lot of places people go to for sources get it wrong. As in right AND left wing parties get the details wrong sometimes. Kinda hard to get the cold truth unless you ask the people involved directly and they happen to not lie. :/

No. The exchange of gunfire was when the kid was in the boat. There is never an order to take someone alive at all costs. It is always to take the person alive if possible. For all the good it is going to do, they should have blown the rest of his head off and saved the public the money of medical care and a trial.

There was no exchange of gunfire, the terrorist was unarmed, his only resistance was not to come out when initially ordered to do so.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Gunfire....no gunfire....

They should have tossed a couple of dozen grenades in the boat and been done with it.......