Cop shoots dead Licensed Conceal Carry holder (MN)

[Divine Wind]

Like you said, you have no evidence. And nobody claimed police have the right to shoot people for looking guilty, black, gay or anything else.

Yet you've repeatedly justified his shooting without evidence.

 

[Iceweasel]

Like you said, you have no evidence. And nobody claimed police have the right to shoot people for looking guilty, black, gay or anything else.

Yet you've repeatedly justified his shooting without evidence.

Liar. I repeatedly said we don't have all the facts.

 

[beagle9]

so did the dude have the conceal license or not? That seems really simple to produce if he had one, don't you think? Let's see it.

While it's an important piece of evidence being shot for not showing a gun isn't right no matter who you are or what your certification.

well I believe the cop over reacted, but the story should at least be accurate. If the dude did tell the cop he had a gun and he was licensed conceal and carry, then he ought to have his license with him. Was it? There was a gun. And if he didn't have a license on him and the gun was in the position for which he was reaching, then I think yes, it does change the severity of it all.

Again, just prove he had the conceal and carry license. PERIOD. If it was what was said to the cop, correct?

Whether he had a CC permit or not is irrelevant to the cop firing before a gun was produced. A trivial traffic stop with no reason to suspect the guy is a threat

. Trivial traffic stop or a stop based upon the people in the vehicle appearing to be suspects in a previous robbery ? If the latter is true, then the people in the vehicle are the ones who caused this tragic situation, and not the cop who was using extreme caution while dealing with a possible armed robbery suspect or suspects. The woman's demeanor when doing the video was very disturbing to me, because if this was her husband or boyfriend, and him being shot like that, then you would expect that this woman would be weeping and sobbing greatly (barely able to video anything), and also you would think that she would have been trying to make sure her kid in the back was being shielded from the carnage instead of so instructively going step be step in that video like she did. Some strange stuff going on in all of this.

Do you have proof they were suspected of armed robbery?

. Are you just reading my post ? Duh..

 

[beagle9]

They won't care. Many still think the Gentle Giant had his hands up when the racist monster gunned him down. Here, we are supposed to believe the cops saw a busted tail light and were delighted with the opportunity to murder a another negro.

Looks like they were on the lookout for an armed robbery suspect, he matched the description, that's why he was pulled over. It also explains why his sidekick wasn't exactly surprised. No gun permit, she lied. And the liberals gobbled it up and cops were slaughtered.

Agreed except for your declaration that the victim was not only the guilty armed robber but had no gun permit. I've seen no evidence either way.

Regardless, police can't shoot down American citizens based solely on suspicion no matter how guilty (black) they look.

. Your right, but if he was pulled over on suspicion of armed robbery, and this guy reached for his gun, then it moved beyond suspicion, and into a dangerous situation for the officer and the alledged robber.

 

[Divine Wind]

...Looks like they were on the lookout for an armed robbery suspect, he matched the description, that's why he was pulled over. It also explains why his sidekick wasn't exactly surprised. No gun permit, she lied. And the liberals gobbled it up and cops were slaughtered.

 

[Divine Wind]

Your right, but if he was pulled over on suspicion of armed robbery, and this guy reached for his gun, then it moved beyond suspicion, and into a dangerous situation for the officer and the alledged robber.

Is the cop psychic? How did he know the victim was reaching for a gun if he never saw one? Especially after, according to witnesses, he asked for ID?

 

[Iceweasel]

...Looks like they were on the lookout for an armed robbery suspect, he matched the description, that's why he was pulled over. It also explains why his sidekick wasn't exactly surprised. No gun permit, she lied. And the liberals gobbled it up and cops were slaughtered.

Yep, very good Einstein. Now show me where I said the shooting was good. Or bad. Try to remember your bullshit so you don't just come across as a gasbag.

 

[beagle9]

...Looks like they were on the lookout for an armed robbery suspect, he matched the description, that's why he was pulled over. It also explains why his sidekick wasn't exactly surprised. No gun permit, she lied. And the liberals gobbled it up and cops were slaughtered.

Was she his sidekick or his girlfriend who didn't know of his activities when away from her and the child ? The investigation is going to reveal some interesting things here, and if this guy put his girlfriend and the child in danger, then that is a shame that his crimes became their endangerment in it all. If she was knowledgeable of his criminal activities if true, then was she trying to cover for him after he was shot by the officer ? Did she lie or not ? Now the media who ran with a slanted story, should be held responsible for their yelling fire in a crowded theater in which resulted in the slaughtering of 5 innocent people, and the maiming of 7 others. People should be fired if find that they aided and abetted a lie or false narrative that got people killed.

 

[Iceweasel]

...Looks like they were on the lookout for an armed robbery suspect, he matched the description, that's why he was pulled over. It also explains why his sidekick wasn't exactly surprised. No gun permit, she lied. And the liberals gobbled it up and cops were slaughtered.

Was she his sidekick or his girlfriend who didn't know of his activities when away from her and the child ? The investigation is going to reveal some interesting things here, and if this guy put his girlfriend and the child in danger, then that is a shame his crimes became their endangerment in it all. If she was knowledgeable of his criminal activities if true, then was she trying to cover for him after he was shot by the officer ? Did she lie or not ? Now the media who ran with a slanted story, should be held responsible for their yelling fire in a crowded theater in which resulted in the slaughtering of 5 innocent people, and the maiming of 7 others. People should be fired if find that they aided and abetted a lie or false narrative that got people killed.

I just know there is way more to the story. She could be a whore, sidekick and a girlfriend all at the same time but the story makes no sense as represented and she was a bit detached considering what went down. The point is it's just another grab and run story to fit the narrative and it's causing great harm to the nation. And our fearless leader fans the flames instead of bringing people together.

 

[Witchit]

You gotta love liberals though

"we don't have all the facts here, but this cop is guilty of murder"

"the facts are in and Hillary not mishandled classified material, she also lied under oath about it, but there is no violation of the law here"

You morons truly are stupid.

The FBI said not guilty. Move on.

FBI didn't say she was not guilty. Wait until Attry General Christie indicts her. BTW? It will not be double jeopardy.

I'm sorry. I can't rectify your post and the thread title.

Toodles.

 

[beagle9]

Your right, but if he was pulled over on suspicion of armed robbery, and this guy reached for his gun, then it moved beyond suspicion, and into a dangerous situation for the officer and the alledged robber.

Is the cop psychic? How did he know the victim was reaching for a gun if he never saw one? Especially after, according to witnesses, he asked for ID?

. Yes he would have had to see the gun of course. Now can you say if he did or didn't see the gun he might have reached for ? I can't, so it has to be fully investigated before have all the answers. There are some strange circumstances that open the door for investigative questions & answers to be pursued in the case, don't you agree ?

 

[Papageorgio]

You gotta love liberals though

"we don't have all the facts here, but this cop is guilty of murder"

"the facts are in and Hillary not mishandled classified material, she also lied under oath about it, but there is no violation of the law here"

You morons truly are stupid.

The FBI said not guilty. Move on.

FBI didn't say she was not guilty. Wait until Attry General Christie indicts her. BTW? It will not be double jeopardy.

I'm sorry. I can't rectify your post and the thread title.

Toodles.

Because threads don't go off in tangents. Please tell me you are joking and not as dumb as you are appearing.

 

[Papageorgio]

so did the dude have the conceal license or not? That seems really simple to produce if he had one, don't you think? Let's see it.

While it's an important piece of evidence being shot for not showing a gun isn't right no matter who you are or what your certification.

well I believe the cop over reacted, but the story should at least be accurate. If the dude did tell the cop he had a gun and he was licensed conceal and carry, then he ought to have his license with him. Was it? There was a gun. And if he didn't have a license on him and the gun was in the position for which he was reaching, then I think yes, it does change the severity of it all.

Again, just prove he had the conceal and carry license. PERIOD. If it was what was said to the cop, correct?

Whether he had a CC permit or not is irrelevant to the cop firing before a gun was produced. A trivial traffic stop with no reason to suspect the guy is a threat

The whole story doesn't add up and it seems that other than the girlfriend's side we aren't hearing anything. Either the cop is inexperienced, had a vendetta, poor judgement or had reason to shoot. Not sure but the last reason doesn't seem plausible.

 

[sealybobo]

You gotta love liberals though

"we don't have all the facts here, but this cop is guilty of murder"

"the facts are in and Hillary not mishandled classified material, she also lied under oath about it, but there is no violation of the law here"

You morons truly are stupid.

The FBI said not guilty. Move on.

FBI didn't say she was not guilty. Wait until Attry General Christie indicts her. BTW? It will not be double jeopardy.

I'm sorry. I can't rectify your post and the thread title.

Toodles.

Because threads don't go off in tangents. Please tell me you are joking and not as dumb as you are appearing.

Dwayne Wade goes to the bulls?

 

[Witchit]

Because threads don't go off in tangents. Please tell me you are joking and not as dumb as you are appearing.

Know who goes off on tangents? Unmedicated crazy people.

And threads don't go off on tangents. Unmedicated crazy people post. Sort of like guns not killing people,- and just ignoring the bit about unmedicated crazy people.

 

[paulitician]

Two separate incidents. The cop who executed the innocent man in Minnesota has to be held accountable. And those who murdered the police will have to be as well. And btw, how much media time is being spent on the 5 dead officers? Quite a bit, no?

Once again you are spreading the hate and advocating violence.

You claim a cop executed an innocent man in Minnesota. This is a lie. We don't know all the facts. It looks bad, but at worst, an over-exuberant cop shot an innocent man. This is, at worst, second degree murder, definitely not the bullshit hate crime you are wailing about. You are a ******* liar and advocator of violence.

Yes we know, anytime someone criticizes your beloved Gestapo, they're 'advocating violence.' We get it.

 

[Papageorgio]

Because threads don't go off in tangents. Please tell me you are joking and not as dumb as you are appearing.

Know who goes off on tangents? Unmedicated crazy people.

And threads don't go off on tangents. Unmedicated crazy people post. Sort of like guns not killing people,- and just ignoring the bit about unmedicated crazy people.

BS they go off all the time. The rest of your rant is the inability to comprehend normal human behavior.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[paulitician]

Emotionless Killing Machines. That's what this Militarization has created. The Police now resort to violence as a first response. Unless the Militarization process is reversed, there will be much more violence.

The People are growing weary & angry from the abuse. They're beginning to realize that the U.S. now imprisons more Citizens than any other nation on earth. They feel they're being attacked and hunted. We have a Police State problem. That's the reality.

No one who saw the MN video could say tat cop was emotionless.
Hell the girlfriend was emotionless not the cop

Violence begets violence. A more violent Police Force will result in more violence being directed against it. It's a bloody vicious circle. This rapidly expanding Police State is creating a lot of anger and frustration.

Let's see. Thirteen percent of the population is negro with an average IQ in the low eighties.
They own illegal guns that may or may not fire.
The rest of the population own millions of finest quality guns and multi-million rounds of ammunition.
It is only going to take the smallest spark and if you are sitting in a cafe in Paris France you'll be able to smell the stench of hundreds of thousands of dead negroes wafting across the Atlantic.
FAIR WARNING!

Got a link to your IQ claim?

Here you are asshole!
race iq bell curve - Google Search
Now go crawl under a ******* rock where you belong.

Not a valid justification for executing them. We're not Nazi Germany.

 

[charwin95]

Yes LEO are sworn to to uphold the constitution .......... That doesn't mean all stupid people like you want to armed all civilian criminals. And you are a LEO board member?

Nobody wants criminals armed. You are spinning like a top. And you asked all 28 security cops what they thought about the 2nd amendment, why? I doubt any cop would work in such an environment. You might have security guards working for you but I doubt any cops.

You said cops protect 2nd amendment and I agreed. That doesn't mean they want to armed all civilians. You brought 2nd not me. Yes I talked to them about 2nd amendment and all gun issues and violence.
Actually they love working for me because it's peaceful and safe. Their wives know that they will come home alive. I also know and met their families. I also have waiting list who wants to work as back up when someone is sick or go on vacation.
Why would they stop them from working part time because of 2nd amendment?
Oh my boss is asking me about 2nd amendment I should not work for him....... Do you realize how dumb that is?

You said arm criminals, rights are reserved for those that haven't lost them through their own misdeeds. You are also mischaracterizing what I said. I said if you were asking them about rights they were sworn to uphold, that were absolutely none of your business I can't see a cop working there. I doubt you even have a business.

Who are you to tell its none of my business? My company my rule. I also do NOT accommodate Muslim prayers but I allow them to pray during their breaks or lunch time and not during working time.
Why in the world they I will offend them by talking about 2nd amendment? I never said I ask them directly about 2nd amendment. We talked about arming civilians and self/home defense. But they do not agree in arming all civilians.
Are you saying that they will make financial decisions based on 2nd amendment? Are you saying just bc of 2nd amendment or guns I do not have a business? Do you realize how dumb you are talking to me?
And I don't give a flying **** if you believe me or not.

No, it's none of your business. It's like asking someone who they voted for. I'd tell you to go pound sand. Security guards aren't cops and no way 28 cops are going to be against the 2nd amendment, you're full of shit.

You are putting words in my mouth. Let me repeat it again. Where in my post that I asked them directly about 2nd? I talked to them casually about guns and violence and based from their opinion. NO they do not like armed civilians in a situation like Dallas the other night. Try again.

 

[charwin95]

Emotionless Killing Machines. That's what this Militarization has created. The Police now resort to violence as a first response. Unless the Militarization process is reversed, there will be much more violence.

The People are growing weary & angry from the abuse. They're beginning to realize that the U.S. now imprisons more Citizens than any other nation on earth. They feel they're being attacked and hunted. We have a Police State problem. That's the reality.

No one who saw the MN video could say tat cop was emotionless.
Hell the girlfriend was emotionless not the cop

Violence begets violence. A more violent Police Force will result in more violence being directed against it. It's a bloody vicious circle. This rapidly expanding Police State is creating a lot of anger and frustration.

Let's see. Thirteen percent of the population is negro with an average IQ in the low eighties.
They own illegal guns that may or may not fire.
The rest of the population own millions of finest quality guns and multi-million rounds of ammunition.
It is only going to take the smallest spark and if you are sitting in a cafe in Paris France you'll be able to smell the stench of hundreds of thousands of dead negroes wafting across the Atlantic.
FAIR WARNING!

Got a link to your IQ claim?

Here you are asshole!
race iq bell curve - Google Search
Now go crawl under a ******* rock where you belong.

Do you realized how stupid idiot you are? Do you even understand where your link came from?
I'm not surprised that you are a member of hatred racist group. Dude your racist war is not going to happen.