Shoot Them On Sight?

[Slag]

Lol! Okay. Well, when you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, then bring it because I'm here to debate.

I have responded in kind with yours. You have nothing but trollish ways to offer this very important discussion.

ChrisL has a different point of view but its not illegitimate. She is worried bout government having too much power

so do I but in the case of rioting, I want cops to do their job and that includes dealing with scum bag rioters. OF course in an ideal scenario, armed citizens would have pretty much eliminated the scummy urban utes engaging in rape and pillage before the cops would be able to intervene

ChrisL countered government intervention of self help. That only adds to the confusion and mayhem. That is as legitimate as a nun with a baby bump.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think if it will help restore order in a crime ridden area...then yes. Should give the cop that shot Brown a marksmanship medal. Scored a head shot while under attack. Of course it would be hard to miss the giant gourd on the perps shoulders.

You hate African-Americans, which you're entitled to do.

And you have the right to express your ignorance and hate, that you'd like to see African-Americans 'shot on sight.'

You do not have the right, however, to implement your ignorance and hate.

 

[Darkwind]

I suppose that most of the "do gooders" here have never ever stolen anything, not even a candy as a child?

Stealing is NOT a death penalty offense.

This isn't about a robbery, but you know that...right?

Try to take any cops gun and then refuse to stop attacking and see just how far you get.

Looting is essentially stealing, only on a larger scale. I already said that if an officer's life is on the line, then he should defend his life by whatever means available to him. AGAIN, I'm talking about the police showing up and just shooting at looters. For one thing, there could be all kinds of people around, bystanders and observers, reporters, kids who are poorly supervised, etc. Also, I don't agree with the government being able to kill citizens UNLESS lives are stake. The question in the OP was should the police be able to shoot and kill looters. It didn't ask if the police were under attack if they had the right to defend themselves. That is not the question.

What proof do you have that they are "Just shooting at looters?"

 

[turtledude]

I know you are not trained because you sound like a fool with a keyboard. No salient answers, no cogent responses, no solutions. All you have are your internet muscles and the bravado of someone who has never had to face this and make the hard decisions while dealing with a crazed bunch of looters.

Sure I have. Go back and look at all of my posts. Break them down and debate the points I made. I'll be waiting. FYI, I have shot guns before too. My father owned a couple and I went target shooting with him several times. It's a lot of fun too!

My father owned a couple of fishing poles, that does not make me an expert at fishing. You have fire a gun that does not make you prepared to handle this type of situation. Once again you add nothing to this discussion except a false sense of self importance.

Now I doubt many of you have as much firearms experience as I do but that is not the point. there are legitimate views on both sides. shooting skills really don't have much relevance here

 

[ChrisL]

Lol! Okay. Well, when you have something intelligent to add to the discussion, then bring it because I'm here to debate.

I have responded in kind with yours. You have nothing but trollish ways to offer this very important discussion.

ChrisL has a different point of view but its not illegitimate. She is worried bout government having too much power

so do I but in the case of rioting, I want cops to do their job and that includes dealing with scum bag rioters. OF course in an ideal scenario, armed citizens would have pretty much eliminated the scummy urban utes engaging in rape and pillage before the cops would be able to intervene

The police don't usually show up until after most of the damage is done anyway, so chances are your place was already looted by the time they get there. Only SOME lucky people would be saved.

 

[ChrisL]

I have responded in kind with yours. You have nothing but trollish ways to offer this very important discussion.

ChrisL has a different point of view but its not illegitimate. She is worried bout government having too much power

so do I but in the case of rioting, I want cops to do their job and that includes dealing with scum bag rioters. OF course in an ideal scenario, armed citizens would have pretty much eliminated the scummy urban utes engaging in rape and pillage before the cops would be able to intervene

ChrisL countered government intervention of self help. That only adds to the confusion and mayhem.

So then, you are anti 2nd amendment? You are against one of our most basic rights? The right to defend ourselves and our property? You want the police to baby sit you? Chances are, if a murderer comes after you, you are ALREADY dead by the time the cops arrive. It's a murder investigation at THAT point.

 

[turtledude]

Cops are historians and evidence gatherers with guns

 

[ChrisL]

This isn't about a robbery, but you know that...right?

Try to take any cops gun and then refuse to stop attacking and see just how far you get.

Looting is essentially stealing, only on a larger scale. I already said that if an officer's life is on the line, then he should defend his life by whatever means available to him. AGAIN, I'm talking about the police showing up and just shooting at looters. For one thing, there could be all kinds of people around, bystanders and observers, reporters, kids who are poorly supervised, etc. Also, I don't agree with the government being able to kill citizens UNLESS lives are stake. The question in the OP was should the police be able to shoot and kill looters. It didn't ask if the police were under attack if they had the right to defend themselves. That is not the question.

What proof do you have that they are "Just shooting at looters?"

What are you talking about? I'm addressing the OP question. Go back and read the original post. My answer is NO it is not okay.

 

[ChrisL]

Cops are historians and evidence gatherers with guns

Yup, most of the time that's exactly right. They usually show up after the fact. If I want to defend myself and my property with a firearm, no bitches are going to tell me that I have to rely on the police because THAT is my right as a United States citizen.

 

[turtledude]

Cops are historians and evidence gatherers with guns

Yup, most of the time that's exactly right. They usually show up after the fact. If I want to defend myself and my property with a firearm, no bitches are going to tell me that I have to rely on the police because THAT is my right as a United States citizen.

anti gun libtards really don't believe in choice

 

[Darkwind]

Looting is essentially stealing, only on a larger scale. I already said that if an officer's life is on the line, then he should defend his life by whatever means available to him. AGAIN, I'm talking about the police showing up and just shooting at looters. For one thing, there could be all kinds of people around, bystanders and observers, reporters, kids who are poorly supervised, etc. Also, I don't agree with the government being able to kill citizens UNLESS lives are stake. The question in the OP was should the police be able to shoot and kill looters. It didn't ask if the police were under attack if they had the right to defend themselves. That is not the question.

What proof do you have that they are "Just shooting at looters?"

What are you talking about? I'm addressing the OP question. Go back and read the original post. My answer is NO it is not okay.

Yes, and I asked him to provide the names of the people who at this forum who said that the cops should shoot looters on sight, and then I asked him to provide proof that they said to kill them on sight.

Shoot on sight does not mean kill on sight. Cops have many means of shooting that is not lethal and that can just debilitate enough for them to arrest the offenders.

Since you now claim to be following the OP exactly, I will ask you to provide that proof.

Show your evidence and name names.

 

[Slag]

ChrisL has a different point of view but its not illegitimate. She is worried bout government having too much power

so do I but in the case of rioting, I want cops to do their job and that includes dealing with scum bag rioters. OF course in an ideal scenario, armed citizens would have pretty much eliminated the scummy urban utes engaging in rape and pillage before the cops would be able to intervene

ChrisL countered government intervention of self help. That only adds to the confusion and mayhem.

So then, you are anti 2nd amendment? You are against one of our most basic rights? The right to defend ourselves and our property? You want the police to baby sit you? Chances are, if a murderer comes after you, you are ALREADY dead by the time the cops arrive. It's a murder investigation at THAT point.

I never said I was anti anything other than your reasoning and this last post of yours repackages the same illogical conclusions.

 

[skye]

ChrisL countered government intervention of self help. That only adds to the confusion and mayhem.

So then, you are anti 2nd amendment? You are against one of our most basic rights? The right to defend ourselves and our property? You want the police to baby sit you? Chances are, if a murderer comes after you, you are ALREADY dead by the time the cops arrive. It's a murder investigation at THAT point.

I never said I was anti anything other than your reasoning and this last post of yours repackages the same illogical conclusions.

Slag...its useless arguing with her with ChrisL .....she thinks that stealing candy when you are 5 years old is like looting and breaking the law like is happening now...

How can you argue with that kind of stupidity? bless her soull

 

[ChrisL]

What proof do you have that they are "Just shooting at looters?"

What are you talking about? I'm addressing the OP question. Go back and read the original post. My answer is NO it is not okay.

Yes, and I asked him to provide the names of the people who at this forum who said that the cops should shoot looters on sight, and then I asked him to provide proof that they said to kill them on sight.

Shoot on sight does not mean kill on sight. Cops have many means of shooting that is not lethal and that can just debilitate enough for them to arrest the offenders.

Since you now claim to be following the OP exactly, I will ask you to provide that proof.

Show your evidence and name names.

Lol! Whatever bud. I'm just answering the question on the OP because I thought it was interesting.

I was under the impression that he meant "shoot to kill," and I believe that was what he meant. He asked if anyone was okay with that, and I am not okay with that. I don't know anything about all of that other stuff you're talking about. That is not what I'm addressing, and that is between you and him.

 

[ChrisL]

So then, you are anti 2nd amendment? You are against one of our most basic rights? The right to defend ourselves and our property? You want the police to baby sit you? Chances are, if a murderer comes after you, you are ALREADY dead by the time the cops arrive. It's a murder investigation at THAT point.

I never said I was anti anything other than your reasoning and this last post of yours repackages the same illogical conclusions.

Slag...its useless arguing with her with ChrisL .....she thinks that stealing candy when you are 5 years old is like looting and breaking the law like is happening now...

How can you argue with that kind of stupidity? bless her soull

Yes, that's right. Looting is stealing on a larger scale. It is not killing or raping either.

Here you are . . . for your information. You're are very welcome!

l

oot
lo͞ot/Submit
verb
gerund or present participle: looting
steal goods from (a place), typically during a war or riot.
"police confronted the rioters who were looting shops"
synonyms: plunder, pillage, despoil, ransack, sack, raid, rifle, rob, burgle, burglarize
"troops looted the cathedral"
steal (goods) in a war, riot, etc.
"tons of food aid awaiting distribution had been looted"

 

[ChrisL]

ChrisL countered government intervention of self help. That only adds to the confusion and mayhem.

So then, you are anti 2nd amendment? You are against one of our most basic rights? The right to defend ourselves and our property? You want the police to baby sit you? Chances are, if a murderer comes after you, you are ALREADY dead by the time the cops arrive. It's a murder investigation at THAT point.

I never said I was anti anything other than your reasoning and this last post of yours repackages the same illogical conclusions.

Defending your shop or yourself and your family against rioters and/or looters is illogical, but police shooting into crowds of people is logical to you? Oooookaaayyy then. Lol! What if the shop owner is out there amongst the looters trying to protect his wife or children or shop and he gets shot and killed by the police because he was mistaken for a looter? Then what? That's okay? Rather than the shop owner defending himself? Sorry, I don't get your "logic" at all.

 

[Slag]

So then, you are anti 2nd amendment? You are against one of our most basic rights? The right to defend ourselves and our property? You want the police to baby sit you? Chances are, if a murderer comes after you, you are ALREADY dead by the time the cops arrive. It's a murder investigation at THAT point.

I never said I was anti anything other than your reasoning and this last post of yours repackages the same illogical conclusions.

Slag...its useless arguing with her with ChrisL .....she thinks that stealing candy when you are 5 years old is like looting and breaking the law like is happening now...

How can you argue with that kind of stupidity? bless her soull

Sadly I think you are correct. I will pray that she gains an ounce of sense through all this.

 

[Slag]

So then, you are anti 2nd amendment? You are against one of our most basic rights? The right to defend ourselves and our property? You want the police to baby sit you? Chances are, if a murderer comes after you, you are ALREADY dead by the time the cops arrive. It's a murder investigation at THAT point.

I never said I was anti anything other than your reasoning and this last post of yours repackages the same illogical conclusions.

Defending your shop or yourself and your family against rioters and/or looters is illogical, but police shooting into crowds of people is logical to you? Oooookaaayyy then. Lol! What if the shop owner is out there amongst the looters trying to protect his wife or children or shop and he gets shot and killed by the police because he was mistaken for a looter? Then what? That's okay? Rather than the shop owner defending himself? Sorry, I don't get your "logic" at all.

That is not what I said.

 

[Harry Dresden]

No, then? You say no to shooting curfew breakers and looters?

looters,they deserve to be shot,but no, mandatory prison time......curfew breakers?.....250.00 fine....if they dont go home than the fine plus a night in jail and a 500.00 bail for them to leave the next day.....

Really disturbing. Why not just adopt Sharia law then? As a matter of fact, I think according to Sharia law, they don't kill thieves, they just chop off their arms.

why is it disturbing?....people,if you can call them that,who take advantage of a disaster and start to loot are some of the lowest trash on the trash scale.....i suppose you think my mandatory prison time of 10 years is just to tough on the poor little basturds too right?.....

 

[ChrisL]

looters,they deserve to be shot,but no, mandatory prison time......curfew breakers?.....250.00 fine....if they dont go home than the fine plus a night in jail and a 500.00 bail for them to leave the next day.....

Really disturbing. Why not just adopt Sharia law then? As a matter of fact, I think according to Sharia law, they don't kill thieves, they just chop off their arms.

why is it disturbing?....people,if you can call them that,who take advantage of a disaster and start to loot are some of the lowest trash on the trash scale.....i suppose you think my mandatory prison time of 10 years is just to tough on the poor little basturds too right?.....

Like I said, I'm just answering the OP question with my own opinion. I never said you had to agree with me. I will NEVER agree to a police state though, and I wouldn't compromise my principals because you don't like it either. In other words, that's my opinion. Don't like it? Tough poop!