Cop shoots dead Licensed Conceal Carry holder (MN)

[beagle9]

"Officer Mistook Philando Castile for a Robbery Suspect, Tapes Show"
Officer Mistook Philando Castile for a Robbery Suspect, Tapes Show
"'I'm going to stop a car,' one of the officers calmly begins, according to copies of radio transmissions obtained by KARE-11, an NBC affiliate in Minneapolis/St. Paul. Moments later, the officer reports that his reason to pull the car over was that 'the two occupants just look like people that were involved in a robbery.' He goes on to explain: 'The driver looks more like one of our suspects, just 'cause of the wide-set nose."

. Was Philando Castile involved in a robbery prior to the stop, and did the officer suspect him based upon his profile ? Did the officer actually use the term "wide set nose", and was an alledged robber known to have such a feature or was this a case of racial profiling of the victim who was innocent ? Did the victim have a ccp or not ? Was it strange in the way the girlfriend was so calm after such a tragic thing to have happened took place ? Were both in the car profiled ? Was this a racist cop shooting an innocent blackman ? Why was the media allowed to run with this prior to the investigation of all the facts ? Does the media have blood on it's hands ? What's wrong with the media withholding their findings until the investigation is over, and then compare it to what they have, and if they see something wrong with the investigation that took place, then release their information to counter a cover up ?

Anybody can be pulled over at any time as a suspect for anything.

And if you are dressed up like a hoodie then you even more likely to get pulled over.

So when you are pulled over because you are dressed up like a hoodie then it is most wise to do exactly what the cop tells you.

Castile was shot and died because he failed to comply.

. Pulled over because one might be dressed like a hoodie ? Kidding me right ? Best have a super good reason to pull someone over, and the way one is dressed best come with someone telling the cop what color the hood was when robbed the store, and not by the design of the hood itself.

 

[2aguy]

Did he actually have a permit...anyone find out yet?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Did he actually have a permit...anyone find out yet?

still no word

the only governmental comment

in regards to him having a CC permit

was from the sheriff department of the county he lived in Ramsey County

and they said they did not issue him a permit

 

[dannyboys]

Moron....I saw an interview with a BLM guy who stated they told the guys with slung rifles to put them down so the cops wouldn't think they were the shooter...moron.....

In fact, asshole...they showed the initial picture of the alleged shooter....a guy in a camo shirt and a slung rifle...moron.

Coming from you? Why would I believe anything you say?
Prove it............I'm waiting.
So the BLM that came to rally armed with rifles slung to their shoulders? What do you think the cops will do when they see armed civilians coming to the rally? Do you realized how stupid you are saying that? Idiot.

asswipe...from the Dallas morning news....notice...not one marcher with a rifle was shot by police...it is hard to shoot someone when your rifle is still hanging down from your sling.....moron....

Open carry creates confusion during Dallas police ambush, but supporters say law works

some of the demonstrators were also carrying rifles.

In the ensuing chaos, one of them was labeled a "person of interest" after police released a photo of him carrying an AR-15 rifle. Others were stopped and questioned by police.

. Question, if others were armed, then why was the shooter able to shoot so many officers without one of the armed citizens pinning his fire down by use of their own firepower if they were closest to the shooter when the shooting began ? The cops were ambushed, yet the citizens were not the ones being targeted, so they had a better opportunity to return cover fire for the police in the direction of the shooter, and this so the police could take cover from their vulnerable positions in which they were ambushed in. Why didn't the armed citizens recognize the situation going down, and take action against the shooter who could have been focused only on the cops, therefore leaving the armed citizens with the opportunity to help save lives by laying down cover fire against the shooter ?

Because they knew the cops were there.....they acted intelligently and let the cops, who were on the scene at the time of the attack do their job.

The problem is...in 98.8% of mass public shootings, they take place in gun free zones with no police presence....so there are no cops there to immediately engage the shooter........you can see the difference in body count where you have armed resistance immediately.......5 dead from a sniper firiing from a distance against mostly pistol armed police....vs. 49 dead in a crowded club with 300 unarmed people.....

The anti gun nuts always say that normal, law abiding people will act like rambos and then get shot by police.....and as this actual event shows.....that has no basis in reality.....law abiding people with actual guns....retreated and let the police do their jobs...just like we always tell them will happen when we have these debates...

not one concealed carrier or rifle carrying civilian was shot by police.......

law abiding people rely on police when they are available...the point made by myself and other 2nd Amendment supporters is that the normal response time of police to an active shooter is 5 minutes....Sandy Hook...the shooter murdered 26 children in under 5 minutes.....so armed response is important in gun free zones when cops are minutes away....

. When the cops were the ones that were being targeted, the armed citizens should have layed down fire in the direction of the shooter who was targeting the cops. I guarantee you that if an armed citizen was nearest to the shooter, and he would have opened fire on the shooter who was killing the police, then I think the police would have recognized immediately (at least I hope they would have), that the citizen would be trying to save their lives once seeing the citizen shooting in the direction of the shooter. If this ain't the case, then we are way away from being where we need to be in this nation, where as we would or should have trust between the good guy's & the police who are armed, and both then being on the same page in order to deal with the killer who is armed and killing people.

STOP with your ignorant bullshit!
The armed 'civilians'! were exercising their rights to carry LEGAL firearms.
Just because someone owns a gun does NOT mean they have LE/Military combat training.
Your "laying down fire" demand by CIVILIANS is ******* ludicrous!
You watch too many movies asshole!

 

[dannyboys]

Those are my opinions. I'm fully entitled to them. I also stand by them. But what you accused me of, crosses a line. I have never advocated violence against anyone. What you've done is libelous. You just went too far.

Disagreed. You are a rabble-rouser who has repeatedly posted heated rhetoric that all black men are in danger from the police and they need to do something. You've literally posted dozens of threads labeled "Police State". Your best bet in court is to plead stupidity or insanity.

POLICE STATE: A Public Execution In Baton Rouge?...

Police State: The Word Gestapo. They Are Watching...

Police State: 'Dangerous' Camera Boxes Mounted 'Without Authorization' On NY Streets

Police Brutality In 2015: NWO Police State...

Police State: Cops Show Up At Wrong Address, Execute Pregnant Dog...

Why don't you two shut the **** up!
You're both assholes and worse you're both boring.

 

[dannyboys]

The problem with these racist people is they are so used to it and don't even realize that they are racist. Maybe they were born that way.

Racism is cultural, not genetic. However, human beings are naturally xenophobic as a survival trait, but the human ability to reason can overcome that inclination.

As usual you are full of shit.
"Racism" is part of a human's DNA. YOU said it was a "survival trait". In that you are correct. "Survival traits are GENETIC!
Hundreds of studies have been done by social scientists and medical teams trying to determine if racism is cultural or genetic. EVERY study has proven racism is genetic.
For instance, four month old same sex White babies who had never seen same sex negro babies before reacted with negative facial expressions when shown photos of same sex negro babies. These same babies had neutral or positive facial expressions when shown photos of White babies.
When same sex negro babies were given the same test the results were the same as with the White babies.
That was only one of dozens of experiments which proved racism is genetic not cultural.

 

[Divine Wind]

Why don't you two shut the **** up!
You're both assholes and worse you're both boring.

Says the ITG with a flaming asshole for a mouth. BWA-HA-HA-HA-HAAA

 

[Divine Wind]

As usual you are full of shit.
"Racism" is part of a human's DNA. YOU said it was a "survival trait". In that you are correct. "Survival traits are GENETIC!
Hundreds of studies have been done by social scientists and medical teams trying to determine if racism is cultural or genetic. EVERY study has proven racism is genetic.
For instance, four month old same sex White babies who had never seen same sex negro babies before reacted with negative facial expressions when shown photos of same sex negro babies. These same babies had neutral or positive facial expressions when shown photos of White babies.
When same sex negro babies were given the same test the results were the same as with the White babies.
That was only one of dozens of experiments which proved racism is genetic not cultural.

Says the ITG racist who thinks "science" is purely a matter of opinion. $20 says you didn't read nor understand the link.

 

[dannyboys]

Why don't you two shut the **** up!
You're both assholes and worse you're both boring.

Says the ITG with a flaming asshole for a mouth. BWA-HA-HA-HA-HAAA

That's enough of your bullshit.
Permanent Ignore.

 

[Divine Wind]

That's enough of your bullshit.
Permanent Ignore.

Run away! Run away! That's what all the dimwit cowards do.

 

[beagle9]

Coming from you? Why would I believe anything you say?
Prove it............I'm waiting.
So the BLM that came to rally armed with rifles slung to their shoulders? What do you think the cops will do when they see armed civilians coming to the rally? Do you realized how stupid you are saying that? Idiot.

asswipe...from the Dallas morning news....notice...not one marcher with a rifle was shot by police...it is hard to shoot someone when your rifle is still hanging down from your sling.....moron....

Open carry creates confusion during Dallas police ambush, but supporters say law works

some of the demonstrators were also carrying rifles.

In the ensuing chaos, one of them was labeled a "person of interest" after police released a photo of him carrying an AR-15 rifle. Others were stopped and questioned by police.

. Question, if others were armed, then why was the shooter able to shoot so many officers without one of the armed citizens pinning his fire down by use of their own firepower if they were closest to the shooter when the shooting began ? The cops were ambushed, yet the citizens were not the ones being targeted, so they had a better opportunity to return cover fire for the police in the direction of the shooter, and this so the police could take cover from their vulnerable positions in which they were ambushed in. Why didn't the armed citizens recognize the situation going down, and take action against the shooter who could have been focused only on the cops, therefore leaving the armed citizens with the opportunity to help save lives by laying down cover fire against the shooter ?

Because they knew the cops were there.....they acted intelligently and let the cops, who were on the scene at the time of the attack do their job.

The problem is...in 98.8% of mass public shootings, they take place in gun free zones with no police presence....so there are no cops there to immediately engage the shooter........you can see the difference in body count where you have armed resistance immediately.......5 dead from a sniper firiing from a distance against mostly pistol armed police....vs. 49 dead in a crowded club with 300 unarmed people.....

The anti gun nuts always say that normal, law abiding people will act like rambos and then get shot by police.....and as this actual event shows.....that has no basis in reality.....law abiding people with actual guns....retreated and let the police do their jobs...just like we always tell them will happen when we have these debates...

not one concealed carrier or rifle carrying civilian was shot by police.......

law abiding people rely on police when they are available...the point made by myself and other 2nd Amendment supporters is that the normal response time of police to an active shooter is 5 minutes....Sandy Hook...the shooter murdered 26 children in under 5 minutes.....so armed response is important in gun free zones when cops are minutes away....

. When the cops were the ones that were being targeted, the armed citizens should have layed down fire in the direction of the shooter who was targeting the cops. I guarantee you that if an armed citizen was nearest to the shooter, and he would have opened fire on the shooter who was killing the police, then I think the police would have recognized immediately (at least I hope they would have), that the citizen would be trying to save their lives once seeing the citizen shooting in the direction of the shooter. If this ain't the case, then we are way away from being where we need to be in this nation, where as we would or should have trust between the good guy's & the police who are armed, and both then being on the same page in order to deal with the killer who is armed and killing people.

STOP with your ignorant bullshit!
The armed 'civilians'! were exercising their rights to carry LEGAL firearms.
Just because someone owns a gun does NOT mean they have LE/Military combat training.
Your "laying down fire" demand by CIVILIANS is ******* ludicrous!
You watch too many movies asshole!

Oh really now, then why is it that every time there is a terrorist attack, and people are shot to pieces, the big talk is always if someone would have had a gun, then less people would have gotten killed ? I guess that doesn't apply when cops are under attack, and there are civilians with guns who could help out but didn't eh ? What about all the talk about soft targets or gun free zones being targeted, and if someone with a gun would have been at the right place at the right time, then the situation would have been different ? If civilians are afraid to use their weapons in order to counter an attack if need be, then what good are they ? If citizens are going to carry weapons in the public or to public events, then they best have some kind of training, and the police need to be comfortable about who they are, and why they are open carrying in any public setting.

 

[2aguy]

Was Philando Castile involved in a robbery prior to the stop, and did the officer suspect him based upon his profile ? Did the officer actually use the term "wide set nose", and was an alledged robber known to have such a feature or was this a case of racial profiling of the victim who was innocent ?

On July 2nd a local store was robbed by a pair of black males who bore a striking resemblance to Philando. The officer who pulled him over was well aware of that. I'm not clear on where the "broken taillight came from, and, since the officer was not wearing a body camera/recorder, we'll probably never know for sure why he shot Philando.

. Body cams should be mandatory now, and there should be no stops without them. The cams should somehow work with a black box where the information is then stored somehow. The investigators would have access to the box, but not the officers. What about the police cruiser dash cam, does it have any valuable information recorded in the stop ?

Even more.....they should have a camera on a swivel on the roof of the car that tracks the officers when they leave the car.....that would also give us more video of the arrest.....

 

[beagle9]

Was Philando Castile involved in a robbery prior to the stop, and did the officer suspect him based upon his profile ? Did the officer actually use the term "wide set nose", and was an alledged robber known to have such a feature or was this a case of racial profiling of the victim who was innocent ?

On July 2nd a local store was robbed by a pair of black males who bore a striking resemblance to Philando. The officer who pulled him over was well aware of that. I'm not clear on where the "broken taillight came from, and, since the officer was not wearing a body camera/recorder, we'll probably never know for sure why he shot Philando.

. Body cams should be mandatory now, and there should be no stops without them. The cams should somehow work with a black box where the information is then stored somehow. The investigators would have access to the box, but not the officers. What about the police cruiser dash cam, does it have any valuable information recorded in the stop ?

Even more.....they should have a camera on a swivel on the roof of the car that tracks the officers when they leave the car.....that would also give us more video of the arrest.....

. Sounds robo-cop enough for me.

 

[2aguy]

asswipe...from the Dallas morning news....notice...not one marcher with a rifle was shot by police...it is hard to shoot someone when your rifle is still hanging down from your sling.....moron....

Open carry creates confusion during Dallas police ambush, but supporters say law works

some of the demonstrators were also carrying rifles.

In the ensuing chaos, one of them was labeled a "person of interest" after police released a photo of him carrying an AR-15 rifle. Others were stopped and questioned by police.

. Question, if others were armed, then why was the shooter able to shoot so many officers without one of the armed citizens pinning his fire down by use of their own firepower if they were closest to the shooter when the shooting began ? The cops were ambushed, yet the citizens were not the ones being targeted, so they had a better opportunity to return cover fire for the police in the direction of the shooter, and this so the police could take cover from their vulnerable positions in which they were ambushed in. Why didn't the armed citizens recognize the situation going down, and take action against the shooter who could have been focused only on the cops, therefore leaving the armed citizens with the opportunity to help save lives by laying down cover fire against the shooter ?

Because they knew the cops were there.....they acted intelligently and let the cops, who were on the scene at the time of the attack do their job.

The problem is...in 98.8% of mass public shootings, they take place in gun free zones with no police presence....so there are no cops there to immediately engage the shooter........you can see the difference in body count where you have armed resistance immediately.......5 dead from a sniper firiing from a distance against mostly pistol armed police....vs. 49 dead in a crowded club with 300 unarmed people.....

The anti gun nuts always say that normal, law abiding people will act like rambos and then get shot by police.....and as this actual event shows.....that has no basis in reality.....law abiding people with actual guns....retreated and let the police do their jobs...just like we always tell them will happen when we have these debates...

not one concealed carrier or rifle carrying civilian was shot by police.......

law abiding people rely on police when they are available...the point made by myself and other 2nd Amendment supporters is that the normal response time of police to an active shooter is 5 minutes....Sandy Hook...the shooter murdered 26 children in under 5 minutes.....so armed response is important in gun free zones when cops are minutes away....

. When the cops were the ones that were being targeted, the armed citizens should have layed down fire in the direction of the shooter who was targeting the cops. I guarantee you that if an armed citizen was nearest to the shooter, and he would have opened fire on the shooter who was killing the police, then I think the police would have recognized immediately (at least I hope they would have), that the citizen would be trying to save their lives once seeing the citizen shooting in the direction of the shooter. If this ain't the case, then we are way away from being where we need to be in this nation, where as we would or should have trust between the good guy's & the police who are armed, and both then being on the same page in order to deal with the killer who is armed and killing people.

STOP with your ignorant bullshit!
The armed 'civilians'! were exercising their rights to carry LEGAL firearms.
Just because someone owns a gun does NOT mean they have LE/Military combat training.
Your "laying down fire" demand by CIVILIANS is ******* ludicrous!
You watch too many movies asshole!

Oh really now, then why is it that every time there is a terrorist attack, and people are shot to pieces, the big talk is always if someone would have had a gun, then less people would have gotten killed ? I guess that doesn't apply when cops are under attack, and there are civilians with guns who could help out but didn't eh ? What about all the talk about soft targets or gun free zones being targeted, and if someone with a gun would have been at the right place at the right time, then the situation would have been different ? If civilians are afraid to use their weapons in order to counter an attack if need be, then what good are they ? If citizens are going to carry weapons in the public or to public events, then they best have some kind of training, and the police need to be comfortable about who they are, and why they are open carrying in any public setting.

Wrong...you are wrong on this.....

the guy wanted to murder police officers.....that is different than the nuts who want to kill unarmed civilians.....

There were cops at the scene of the attack....the normal, law abiding gun owners allowed the police to do their jobs and did not, in fact, get in the way. They did not turn into Rambo...which is what the anti gunners say they will do.....they were not shot by police, as the anti gunners say they will be.......

The police were right there, and took control of the situation....

What you don't understand is that in a gun free zone...the police are not at the scene when the attack happens.....they are about 5 minutes out....Sandy Hook shooter was done and committed suicide in under 5 minutes...he stopped shooting and killed himself as soon as he heard the sirens getting close......

Civilians with guns are useful when the cops are 5 minutes away and you have a shooter killing people.....they can and have stopped mass shooters......and saved lives doing it......

And again.......there were people there with rifles....and pistols...and nothing the anti gunners say would happen happened........they were wrong...

Anti gunners are wrong on every aspect of the gun debate in this country....

 

[Spare_change]

I watched the video earlier this morning. The girlfriend claims he has no criminal record and is licensed to carry, and if that proves to be true then it really was a senseless shooting. If he was legal to carry and had no warrants or record then he would have no reason to be reaching for his gun. Seeing as how the video starts after the shooting though all the facts may never come out.

Having a CCW permit does not authorize you to be stupid ....

 

[beagle9]

. Question, if others were armed, then why was the shooter able to shoot so many officers without one of the armed citizens pinning his fire down by use of their own firepower if they were closest to the shooter when the shooting began ? The cops were ambushed, yet the citizens were not the ones being targeted, so they had a better opportunity to return cover fire for the police in the direction of the shooter, and this so the police could take cover from their vulnerable positions in which they were ambushed in. Why didn't the armed citizens recognize the situation going down, and take action against the shooter who could have been focused only on the cops, therefore leaving the armed citizens with the opportunity to help save lives by laying down cover fire against the shooter ?

Because they knew the cops were there.....they acted intelligently and let the cops, who were on the scene at the time of the attack do their job.

The problem is...in 98.8% of mass public shootings, they take place in gun free zones with no police presence....so there are no cops there to immediately engage the shooter........you can see the difference in body count where you have armed resistance immediately.......5 dead from a sniper firiing from a distance against mostly pistol armed police....vs. 49 dead in a crowded club with 300 unarmed people.....

The anti gun nuts always say that normal, law abiding people will act like rambos and then get shot by police.....and as this actual event shows.....that has no basis in reality.....law abiding people with actual guns....retreated and let the police do their jobs...just like we always tell them will happen when we have these debates...

not one concealed carrier or rifle carrying civilian was shot by police.......

law abiding people rely on police when they are available...the point made by myself and other 2nd Amendment supporters is that the normal response time of police to an active shooter is 5 minutes....Sandy Hook...the shooter murdered 26 children in under 5 minutes.....so armed response is important in gun free zones when cops are minutes away....

. When the cops were the ones that were being targeted, the armed citizens should have layed down fire in the direction of the shooter who was targeting the cops. I guarantee you that if an armed citizen was nearest to the shooter, and he would have opened fire on the shooter who was killing the police, then I think the police would have recognized immediately (at least I hope they would have), that the citizen would be trying to save their lives once seeing the citizen shooting in the direction of the shooter. If this ain't the case, then we are way away from being where we need to be in this nation, where as we would or should have trust between the good guy's & the police who are armed, and both then being on the same page in order to deal with the killer who is armed and killing people.

STOP with your ignorant bullshit!
The armed 'civilians'! were exercising their rights to carry LEGAL firearms.
Just because someone owns a gun does NOT mean they have LE/Military combat training.
Your "laying down fire" demand by CIVILIANS is ******* ludicrous!
You watch too many movies asshole!

Oh really now, then why is it that every time there is a terrorist attack, and people are shot to pieces, the big talk is always if someone would have had a gun, then less people would have gotten killed ? I guess that doesn't apply when cops are under attack, and there are civilians with guns who could help out but didn't eh ? What about all the talk about soft targets or gun free zones being targeted, and if someone with a gun would have been at the right place at the right time, then the situation would have been different ? If civilians are afraid to use their weapons in order to counter an attack if need be, then what good are they ? If citizens are going to carry weapons in the public or to public events, then they best have some kind of training, and the police need to be comfortable about who they are, and why they are open carrying in any public setting.

Wrong...you are wrong on this.....

the guy wanted to murder police officers.....that is different than the nuts who want to kill unarmed civilians.....

There were cops at the scene of the attack....the normal, law abiding gun owners allowed the police to do their jobs and did not, in fact, get in the way. They did not turn into Rambo...which is what the anti gunners say they will do.....they were not shot by police, as the anti gunners say they will be.......

The police were right there, and took control of the situation....

What you don't understand is that in a gun free zone...the police are not at the scene when the attack happens.....they are about 5 minutes out....Sandy Hook shooter was done and committed suicide in under 5 minutes...he stopped shooting and killed himself as soon as he heard the sirens getting close......

Civilians with guns are useful when the cops are 5 minutes away and you have a shooter killing people.....they can and have stopped mass shooters......and saved lives doing it......

And again.......there were people there with rifles....and pistols...and nothing the anti gunners say would happen happened........they were wrong...

Anti gunners are wrong on every aspect of the gun debate in this country....

. Well this was one unique situation for sure, because yes the cops were there, and yes the civilians were there with open carry weapons for what ?????????? Then the hell breaks loose, and wouldn't you know it that the cops are the ones who become the target of the gunner/shooter. Ok, in this unique situation, wouldn't you think that the civilians with weapons would have the responsibility to go into protect mode in order to save the lives of the policeman who were being shot down right beside them if were the case, otherwise if they had become the only thing between the cops being killed, and the gunman doing the killing ?

 

[georgephillip]

Was Philando Castile involved in a robbery prior to the stop, and did the officer suspect him based upon his profile ? Did the officer actually use the term "wide set nose", and was an alledged robber known to have such a feature or was this a case of racial profiling of the victim who was innocent ?

On July 2nd a local store was robbed by a pair of black males who bore a striking resemblance to Philando. The officer who pulled him over was well aware of that. I'm not clear on where the "broken taillight came from, and, since the officer was not wearing a body camera/recorder, we'll probably never know for sure why he shot Philando.

. Body cams should be mandatory now, and there should be no stops without them. The cams should somehow work with a black box where the information is then stored somehow. The investigators would have access to the box, but not the officers. What about the police cruiser dash cam, does it have any valuable information recorded in the stop ?

Even more.....they should have a camera on a swivel on the roof of the car that tracks the officers when they leave the car.....that would also give us more video of the arrest.....

Cameras on the roofs of patrol cars would provide useful evidence IF the events they record are not susceptible to editing by political authorities.

Maybe ACLU drones come next?

 

[charwin95]

. Question, if others were armed, then why was the shooter able to shoot so many officers without one of the armed citizens pinning his fire down by use of their own firepower if they were closest to the shooter when the shooting began ? The cops were ambushed, yet the citizens were not the ones being targeted, so they had a better opportunity to return cover fire for the police in the direction of the shooter, and this so the police could take cover from their vulnerable positions in which they were ambushed in. Why didn't the armed citizens recognize the situation going down, and take action against the shooter who could have been focused only on the cops, therefore leaving the armed citizens with the opportunity to help save lives by laying down cover fire against the shooter ?

Because they knew the cops were there.....they acted intelligently and let the cops, who were on the scene at the time of the attack do their job.

The problem is...in 98.8% of mass public shootings, they take place in gun free zones with no police presence....so there are no cops there to immediately engage the shooter........you can see the difference in body count where you have armed resistance immediately.......5 dead from a sniper firiing from a distance against mostly pistol armed police....vs. 49 dead in a crowded club with 300 unarmed people.....

The anti gun nuts always say that normal, law abiding people will act like rambos and then get shot by police.....and as this actual event shows.....that has no basis in reality.....law abiding people with actual guns....retreated and let the police do their jobs...just like we always tell them will happen when we have these debates...

not one concealed carrier or rifle carrying civilian was shot by police.......

law abiding people rely on police when they are available...the point made by myself and other 2nd Amendment supporters is that the normal response time of police to an active shooter is 5 minutes....Sandy Hook...the shooter murdered 26 children in under 5 minutes.....so armed response is important in gun free zones when cops are minutes away....

. When the cops were the ones that were being targeted, the armed citizens should have layed down fire in the direction of the shooter who was targeting the cops. I guarantee you that if an armed citizen was nearest to the shooter, and he would have opened fire on the shooter who was killing the police, then I think the police would have recognized immediately (at least I hope they would have), that the citizen would be trying to save their lives once seeing the citizen shooting in the direction of the shooter. If this ain't the case, then we are way away from being where we need to be in this nation, where as we would or should have trust between the good guy's & the police who are armed, and both then being on the same page in order to deal with the killer who is armed and killing people.

STOP with your ignorant bullshit!
The armed 'civilians'! were exercising their rights to carry LEGAL firearms.
Just because someone owns a gun does NOT mean they have LE/Military combat training.
Your "laying down fire" demand by CIVILIANS is ******* ludicrous!
You watch too many movies asshole!

Oh really now, then why is it that every time there is a terrorist attack, and people are shot to pieces, the big talk is always if someone would have had a gun, then less people would have gotten killed ? I guess that doesn't apply when cops are under attack, and there are civilians with guns who could help out but didn't eh ? What about all the talk about soft targets or gun free zones being targeted, and if someone with a gun would have been at the right place at the right time, then the situation would have been different ? If civilians are afraid to use their weapons in order to counter an attack if need be, then what good are they ? If citizens are going to carry weapons in the public or to public events, then they best have some kind of training, and the police need to be comfortable about who they are, and why they are open carrying in any public setting.

Wrong...you are wrong on this.....

the guy wanted to murder police officers.....that is different than the nuts who want to kill unarmed civilians.....

There were cops at the scene of the attack....the normal, law abiding gun owners allowed the police to do their jobs and did not, in fact, get in the way. They did not turn into Rambo...which is what the anti gunners say they will do.....they were not shot by police, as the anti gunners say they will be.......

The police were right there, and took control of the situation....

What you don't understand is that in a gun free zone...the police are not at the scene when the attack happens.....they are about 5 minutes out....Sandy Hook shooter was done and committed suicide in under 5 minutes...he stopped shooting and killed himself as soon as he heard the sirens getting close......

Civilians with guns are useful when the cops are 5 minutes away and you have a shooter killing people.....they can and have stopped mass shooters......and saved lives doing it......

And again.......there were people there with rifles....and pistols...and nothing the anti gunners say would happen happened........they were wrong...

Anti gunners are wrong on every aspect of the gun debate in this country....

You are wrong...

Every shooting and killing perfectly fits your agenda just like in the movie. When BLM was protesting you know and they know that situation is always volatile and can get deadly. What is the purpose of these assholes with CC permits bringing their guns to a rally? What's the point? Are they supposed to mix in the crowd looking for the bad guy? Think what kind of headache is that for the cops. There is NO WAY NO WAY cops are happy seeing these assholes with guns strung to their shoulder. Stupid if you ask me.
Read Dallas Police Chief Brown comments see if he agree with you.He said they are suspects.
I previously mentioned to you many times when shooting start it's a panic and confusion people running all over. These people with CC permit ran for their life. They are part of the problem not part of the solution. We are asking too much for these cops to do their job on top of that they have to deal with these dude?

Friend or foe? Open-carry law poses challenge to police

PARIS, Texas (AP) — Gun-rights activists, some of them wearing camouflage and military-style gear and openly toting rifles and handguns, marched alongside the hundreds of people who flocked to downtown Dallas last week to protest police shootings of blacks.
Their presence was part of the new legal landscape in Texas, which earlier this year allowed people to openly carry firearms in public.
Moments later, when a sniper gunned down officers patrolling the peaceful march, killing five, the attack ignited panic and confusion. Who was shooting? Were the people with weapons friend or foe?

It was the same nightmare scenario that some law enforcement officials predicted when Texas approved the open-carry proposal.

Dallas Police Chief David Brown estimated that 20 to 30 open-carry activists attended the rally. He said some wore gas masks, bulletproof vests and fatigues. They ran when the shots rang out, but the presence of so many armed individuals at the scene of a sniper attack caused instant confusion.

"Doesn't make sense to us, but that's their right in Texas," Brown told CNN, adding: "For our officers, they were suspects. And I support that belief. Someone is shooting at you from a perched position, and people are running with AR-15s and camo gear and gas masks and bulletproof vests. They are suspects until we eliminate that."

 

[leftwinger]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/philando-c...ly-releases-copy-gun-permit/story?id=40555856



Found this. Letter dated about a year ago. Is it valid? Real? I don't know. I don't see how any traffic scofflaw (revoked? Warrants? Unpaid?) Can qualify. I suppose it could be real? Internet trick?

 

[jon_berzerk]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/philando-c...ly-releases-copy-gun-permit/story?id=40555856



Found this. Letter dated about a year ago. Is it valid? Real? I don't know. I don't see how any traffic scofflaw (revoked? Warrants? Unpaid?) Can qualify. I suppose it could be real? Internet trick?

Page Unavailable
The page you've requested either does not exist or is currently unavailable.

You may use the "Back" button on your browser to return to the previous page, visit the ABCNews.comHome Page, or view the Site Map. You can also search our site by using the search form below.

If you require further assistance, please contact us.