Two Police Officers Shot In The Head in Compton, California

[beagle9]

That woman got shot in the jaw. They released the radio chatter. You couldn't understand her when she keyed the mic and tried to talk because he shot a chunk of her jaw off.

That video of the officer and mother of a six year old child with blood from her jaw all over her while she was giving life support to the young officer made me cry.

She was so brave, and the shot of her arms that received when the assassin emptied his multiple shots made me wonder how she could carry on with the amount of blood she lost. She in my book deserves asilver star for her duty when severely wounded, putting all she had into getting emergency help and trying to keep him alive with a tournaquet while ignoring pain. I am praying a prayer for both of them as it is my vesper hour.

Bless all of you for your concern for our dear police who are in hsrd times right now.

Stop supporting police crime.

What crime did the cops commit sitting in their car together? The only crime I saw was, of course, committed by the black.

Don't even try it. Those 2 police are where they are because people like you all over America have supported crooked murdering cops in every department it happens in. Nearly 40 years ago the brutality of the CPD was chronicled:



And nothing has changed. Why do I say this? Because a couple of years ago a lifelong Compton resident said this:



And because of what cops have been doing, because turds like you cheer for each murder, 2 innocent peaceful cops got shot. The days of whites bullying us are over. It's been over for the last 55 years. So if you want to continue with your little fucked up white attitude, start to understand that either you change or this goes until hell freezes over. Your choice white man, tennis shoes or ice skates son.

So you support the killing of innocent white people in order to send a message that your type in character are fed up eh ???? That's the way it's gonna be ???

 

[GLASNOST]

Two police officers were shot in the head as they sat in their patrol car in Compton, California.

If everybody had a gun it never would have happened.

No, bad people would still do bad things. But there would be a lot less of it.

No, if everyone had a gun good people would still do bad things too and there would be a lot more of it.

 

[GLASNOST]

More Obama legacy.

Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one.

So you’re suggesting we should arrest the guns and let the shooters go free.

I repeat: Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one. What does your second-guessing statement have to with the invention of firearms and some stupid after-thought change in the U.S. constitution?

 

[Markle]

According to the majority of you disingenuous nuts on this board a person who has no criminal record BECOMES a criminal the minute he disagrees with a police office or resists arrest and deserves it if he gets shot & killed. Our laws do not work that way, it is only upon conviction that a person is deemed a "criminal". How often do charges of resisting arrest get thrown out once it's found out that the officer was the one in the wrong? Means the person's not a criminal after all, right?

I don't know, suppose you show us all how often charges get thrown out when the officer was the one in the wrong?

As you know, an officer must have probable cause before initiating a traffic stop. At that point, the driver must show their driver's license, proof of insurance, and their registration. If they do not have a driver's license they must show another form of photo ID. lf they do not, they cannot, or refuse, that individual can be held until they are identified.

How is that difficult to understand?

 

[Markle]

Get off your racist hobby horse and stop making excuses for police murders. Those police were shot because police are murdering unarmed people and getting away with it. This is not about what these 2 have done, it is about more than 100 years of police abuse of blacks. Those 2 are collateral damage and they are such because racists like you have excused and defended the right for police to murder unarmed blacks based on lies you believe about blacks. As harsh as this is going to sound the fact that 2 innocent cops got shot is karma for the police that killed unarmed innocent blacks. Take that as you want, but police are not going to get to keep killing unarmed blacks.

 

[Markle]

Depends on the situation, the cop's attitude, and my own mood at the time.
I may comply even if I'm not legally obligated to, I may tell the guy to go pound sand.... it's going to depend on a lot of different things including how he or she approaches me.

The officer had probable cause to initiate a stop, you are required to show a valid driver's license or other photo ID, proof of insurance, and your vehicle registration. What about that is difficult for you to comprehend?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

More Obama legacy.

Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one.

So you’re suggesting we should arrest the guns and let the shooters go free.

I repeat: Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one. What does your second-guessing statement have to with the invention of firearms and some stupid after-thought change in the U.S. constitution?

Follow this thread: I blame Obama for the police assassination culture; You shift the focus to guns; I insist that guns don’t kill, people do; You respond with a disjointed post.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

do have a right to resist an unlawful arrest. Before long everyone will understand that. Its why the founders incorporated the 2nd Amendment.

You’d better not take that advice. Resisting arrest is itself a crime. FU and your second amendment. It has no place when it comes to a cop performing his duty. You’d better not resist by producing a weapon. Terrible post. The time to resist any arrest is by filing a complaint or instituting a suit after the fact. You’re giving stupid advice.

Resisting an illegal arrest is not a crime. Yes forever the cops would arrest you for that but when we have proof that the arrest was not lawful the charges get dropped. We are going to stop that practice. The cops are going to learn what they can and what they can not do or they are going to continue to lose their jobs.

Poor people can not afford to file lawsuits. I have never understood those who believe that paying people millions and millions dollars a year in settlements is a better system than proper police training.

Animal---not bright enough to know that you are forcing the US to make a choice to either allow criminals and their supporters to terrorize cops and their communities as you suggest or to go back to common sense---if you resist arrest, you should expect to be shot.

Resisting arrest is a crime idgit-----and sorry but all of these cases that blm keep putting are up are cases of violent criminals resisting lawful arrests------think you have been unfairly arrested, tell it to the judge. Refuse to be arrested, get shot.

Who taught you (erroneously) that you can shoot someone for simply committing a crime or resisting arrest? Because neither is true.

If commit felony assault on another human being, and then try to run from the law after resisting arrest, then the officers is to assume by all the facts of the case that he has to make a quick decision, and that decision is to stop the perp before he gets away to hurt another innocent person just like he did prior to the officer attempting to arrest him for it. How many criminals have gotten away to only repeat offend again and again ?? Do you think that if a maximum security prison break occurs, that the posse is going to beg the rapist murderer to just walk on back to the prison if they give them cake and ice cream ???

The police are being set up in some cases, by those wanting to aid and abed crimals based upon a skin color now, and that's not working. Why not "all lives matter", and why not rally for all supposed innocent's regardless of skin color when they come in contact with the laws being upheld by the police ?? Where are all the smart phone camera's when people of other colors are being stopped by the law ??? Do black's only care about black lives ??? Oh there's plenty of pain to go around for people of all colors, because we aren't perfect, and we will come into contact with that good cop or not so good cop sooner or later. What should we do ?? Remain calm, and obey the officers commands in order to keep them and us safe. We all want to go home to our families including them.

If the person is running away they no longer are posing an imminent threat, therefore the threat to which one could claim self-defense no longer exists. To shoot them in the back as they are attempting to flee if the crime for which they were being arrested for is a misdemeanor and they are unarmed would not be lawful.

And just for the record most black people that I know are not only concerned about black lives, although for many that may be the main focus. If you don't insist that the laws be followed in regards to the rights of others then you have no right to be upset or demand that they are when it comes to your own rights.

If you're still talking about this tiny black demon that shot these 2 cops in at face, then running away or not, it is armed AND DANGEROUS. The rabid demon should have been shot and killed

 

[francoHFW]

So why are blacks four times as likely to be stopped and three times is likely to be arrested and put in prison although there is little evidence they are more criminal than whites. Black gangsters of course are very busy killing each other over who gets to sell drugs to whites from the suburbs and the sticks.

Are you sure it's black gangsters and not the Mexican cartels? Mexican cartels are responsible for the majority of drugs in this country.

Actually it’s our own drug industry and prescription drugs. Most addicts started out with this group of people.

And most start out with marijuana/weed/pot early on. It's sort of the primer before the paint. Some start out drinking because their parents drink, and they get hold to some wine, beer or liquor at some point. Millions started out smoking cigarettes because of their parents or friends smoking, and again so they have to try it all of course because of. Parents/adults are very impressionable on their children. Parents/adults, because they are adults, only have the laws in which to control them, but children rely mostly on their parents to teach and control them. Some things need to be heavily regulated or even outlawed if it causes a super problem in society. I think the country is slow to react in a lot of ways, because things get out of hand, and it then becomes a situation where there is way to much money at stake. Walking things back down through heavy regulatory actions or even outlawing some things is always a huge struggle once the supporting networks or groups form that support many things even if those things eventually kill us in the earliest of our lives.

Too bad your myths are just that . The problem is cops stop blacks four times as often and screw them four times as often.

 

[GLASNOST]

More Obama legacy.

Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one.

So you’re suggesting we should arrest the guns and let the shooters go free.

I repeat: Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one. What does your second-guessing statement have to with the invention of firearms and some stupid after-thought change in the U.S. constitution?

Follow this thread: I blame Obama for the police assassination culture; You shift the focus to guns; I insist that guns don’t kill, people do; You respond with a disjointed post.

I understand your confusion so let me ask if you are aware of the likely hood of someone being strangled to death as opposed to being shot dead? I mean I suppose that you can strangle someone with a rifle but I don't think it is very likely and even less likely with a pistol. It's a simple question but if you still feel I am twisting reality out of shape please let me know. Look, are you of the mindset that a total lack of guns (just for the sake of argument) would not diminish the number of murders?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

More Obama legacy.

Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one.

So you’re suggesting we should arrest the guns and let the shooters go free.

I repeat: Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one. What does your second-guessing statement have to with the invention of firearms and some stupid after-thought change in the U.S. constitution?

Follow this thread: I blame Obama for the police assassination culture; You shift the focus to guns; I insist that guns don’t kill, people do; You respond with a disjointed post.

I understand your confusion so let me ask if you are aware of the likely hood of someone being strangled to death as opposed to being shot dead? I mean I suppose that you can strangle someone with a rifle but I don't think it is very likely and even less likely with a pistol. It's a simple question but if you still feel I am twisting reality out of shape please let me know. Look, are you of the mindset that a total lack of guns (just for the sake of argument) would not diminish the number of murders?

No, you’d still have murder and crime. Because removing guns doesn’t address the culture.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Just heard on Fox News (with video)

Two police officers were shot in the head as they sat in their patrol car in Compton, California.

They are hospitalized and in surgery at this time.

The shooter fled on foot.

Two police officers in Compton, California have been shot in cold blood. - Politics Message Board - GameFAQs

On Politics, a GameFAQs message board topic titled "Two police officers in Compton, California have been shot in cold blood.".

gamefaqs.gamespot.com

2 Los Angeles County deputies are out of surgery after ambush shooting in Compton | CNN

The two Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department deputies who were shot and critically injured Saturday night are out of surgery, according to a LASD spokesperson.

www.cnn.com

If that's true, that is horrible news. But just so you know.

'There has to be retribution': Trump openly endorses extrajudicial killings of suspects by law enforcement

Discussing the recent police killing of a self-described anti-fascist suspected of fatally shooting a far-right activist in Portland, Oregon, President Donald Trump openly endorsed extrajudicial executions in a Fox News interview Saturday, declaring that "there has to be retribution.""I put out...

www.rawstory.com

Yes. He actually uttered those words. A lot of people are going to regret that. Have you not paid attention to what's been going on in Afghanistan for the last 20 years?

Of course there has to be retribution.
I support that. In fact, I think we should kill the criminals.

You would be begging for Trump to replace me, if I got into office. I'd have the military in the streets, with orders to shoot to kill.

Those police were shot because police are murdering unarmed people and getting away with it. Right wing psychosis doesn't allow you to understand that.

Those two Sheriff's Deputies were fourteen months out of the academy, of which, unless LASO has changed their policy in the last decade, twelve months were served in the jail acting as jailers. They haven't had time to shoot anyone. Get off your racist hobbyhorse and join the real world.

Get off your racist hobby horse and stop making excuses for police murders. Those police were shot because police are murdering unarmed people and getting away with it. This is not about what these 2 have done, it is about more than 100 years of police abuse of blacks. Those 2 are collateral damage and they are such because racists like you have excused and defended the right for police to murder unarmed blacks based on lies you believe about blacks. As harsh as this is going to sound the fact that 2 innocent cops got shot is karma for the police that killed unarmed innocent blacks. Take that as you want, but police are not going to get to keep killing unarmed blacks.

So I can shoot you because the Black Panthers murdered people?

 

[francoHFW]

According to the majority of you disingenuous nuts on this board a person who has no criminal record BECOMES a criminal the minute he disagrees with a police office or resists arrest and deserves it if he gets shot & killed. Our laws do not work that way, it is only upon conviction that a person is deemed a "criminal". How often do charges of resisting arrest get thrown out once it's found out that the officer was the one in the wrong? Means the person's not a criminal after all, right?

I don't know, suppose you show us all how often charges get thrown out when the officer was the one in the wrong?

As you know, an officer must have probable cause before initiating a traffic stop. At that point, the driver must show their driver's license, proof of insurance, and their registration. If they do not have a driver's license they must show another form of photo ID. lf they do not, they cannot, or refuse, that individual can be held until they are identified.

How is that difficult to understand?

Probable cause like driving while black. You are totally naive....

 

[Markle]

Too bad your myths are just that . The problem is cops stop blacks four times as often and screw them four times as often.

Could it be that, like other crimes, blacks commit four times as many traffic infractions as whites?

 

[GLASNOST]

More Obama legacy.

Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one.

So you’re suggesting we should arrest the guns and let the shooters go free.

I repeat: Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one. What does your second-guessing statement have to with the invention of firearms and some stupid after-thought change in the U.S. constitution?

Follow this thread: I blame Obama for the police assassination culture; You shift the focus to guns; I insist that guns don’t kill, people do; You respond with a disjointed post.

I understand your confusion so let me ask if you are aware of the likely hood of someone being strangled to death as opposed to being shot dead? I mean I suppose that you can strangle someone with a rifle but I don't think it is very likely and even less likely with a pistol. It's a simple question but if you still feel I am twisting reality out of shape please let me know. Look, are you of the mindset that a total lack of guns (just for the sake of argument) would not diminish the number of murders?

No, you’d still have murder and crime. Because removing guns doesn’t address the culture.

Fine but you are having difficulties separating the two issues.
1). Destitution in one form (degree) or another: Yes, this is the main issue and neither you nor I can deny it.
2). Murder: One way to acquire sustenance.

It ought to be obvious that the failed nation of the U.S. does not provide for its citizens. The reason for this - greed of those who want "everything" for themselves and a thoroughly corrupt government that not only allows it but actively takes part in it. But now you might be thinking, "Who's this azzhole who criticizes the American system?" You know as well as I do that the American system is rotten with corruption and has a twisted excuse for the destitution of a growing number of its citizens while the rich continue to get even wealthier and yet claiming that only the lazy do not succeed. Some people probably really believe that money grows on trees and it's only a matter of finding the tree, but it's not true.

Yeah, I agree with you when you say, "removing guns doesn’t address the culture". But American culture is just another word for corruption as long as it is allowed to continue 'as is'. Here's a question for you. Which one of these contributes most to crime?

1. Greed.
2. Destitution.

And if you could eliminate one of them which would be the best solution for the nation's population? I mean which one (feasibly) would go a long way to curing the other one?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

More Obama legacy.

Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one.

So you’re suggesting we should arrest the guns and let the shooters go free.

I repeat: Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one. What does your second-guessing statement have to with the invention of firearms and some stupid after-thought change in the U.S. constitution?

Follow this thread: I blame Obama for the police assassination culture; You shift the focus to guns; I insist that guns don’t kill, people do; You respond with a disjointed post.

I understand your confusion so let me ask if you are aware of the likely hood of someone being strangled to death as opposed to being shot dead? I mean I suppose that you can strangle someone with a rifle but I don't think it is very likely and even less likely with a pistol. It's a simple question but if you still feel I am twisting reality out of shape please let me know. Look, are you of the mindset that a total lack of guns (just for the sake of argument) would not diminish the number of murders?

No, you’d still have murder and crime. Because removing guns doesn’t address the culture.

Fine but you are having difficulties separating the two issues.
1). Destitution in one form (degree) or another: Yes, this is the main issue and neither you nor I can deny it.
2). Murder: One way to acquire sustenance.

It ought to be obvious that the failed nation of the U.S. does not provide for its citizens. The reason for this - greed of those who want "everything" for themselves and a thoroughly corrupt government that not only allows it but actively takes part in it. But now you might be thinking, "Who's this azzhole who criticizes the American system?" You know as well as I do that the American system is rotten with corruption and has a twisted excuse for the destitution of a growing number of its citizens while the rich continue to get even wealthier and yet claiming that only the lazy do not succeed. Some people probably really believe that money grows on trees and it's only a matter of finding the tree, but it's not true.

Yeah, I agree with you when you say, "removing guns doesn’t address the culture". But American culture is just another word for corruption as long as it is allowed to continue 'as is'. Here's a question for you. Which one of these contributes most to crime?

1. Greed.
2. Destitution.

And if you could eliminate one of them which would be the best solution for the nation's population? I mean which one (feasibly) would go a long way to curing the other one?

Destitution is a fucking lie. There is enough sustenance to go around in this country and then some.
That is an excuse for perpetuating a culture of dependence and victim mentality.
Fatherlessness is at the heart of gun violence just as it’s at the heart of most crime in this country.

 

[freyasman]

Depends on the situation, the cop's attitude, and my own mood at the time.
I may comply even if I'm not legally obligated to, I may tell the guy to go pound sand.... it's going to depend on a lot of different things including how he or she approaches me.

The officer had probable cause to initiate a stop, you are required to show a valid driver's license or other photo ID, proof of insurance, and your vehicle registration. What about that is difficult for you to comprehend?

If he does, then fine. If he's just fishing, then fuck him.

 

[GLASNOST]

More Obama legacy.

Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one.

So you’re suggesting we should arrest the guns and let the shooters go free.

I repeat: Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one. What does your second-guessing statement have to with the invention of firearms and some stupid after-thought change in the U.S. constitution?

Follow this thread: I blame Obama for the police assassination culture; You shift the focus to guns; I insist that guns don’t kill, people do; You respond with a disjointed post.

I understand your confusion so let me ask if you are aware of the likely hood of someone being strangled to death as opposed to being shot dead? I mean I suppose that you can strangle someone with a rifle but I don't think it is very likely and even less likely with a pistol. It's a simple question but if you still feel I am twisting reality out of shape please let me know. Look, are you of the mindset that a total lack of guns (just for the sake of argument) would not diminish the number of murders?

No, you’d still have murder and crime. Because removing guns doesn’t address the culture.

Fine but you are having difficulties separating the two issues.
1). Destitution in one form (degree) or another: Yes, this is the main issue and neither you nor I can deny it.
2). Murder: One way to acquire sustenance.

It ought to be obvious that the failed nation of the U.S. does not provide for its citizens. The reason for this - greed of those who want "everything" for themselves and a thoroughly corrupt government that not only allows it but actively takes part in it. But now you might be thinking, "Who's this azzhole who criticizes the American system?" You know as well as I do that the American system is rotten with corruption and has a twisted excuse for the destitution of a growing number of its citizens while the rich continue to get even wealthier and yet claiming that only the lazy do not succeed. Some people probably really believe that money grows on trees and it's only a matter of finding the tree, but it's not true.

Yeah, I agree with you when you say, "removing guns doesn’t address the culture". But American culture is just another word for corruption as long as it is allowed to continue 'as is'. Here's a question for you. Which one of these contributes most to crime?

1. Greed.
2. Destitution.

And if you could eliminate one of them which would be the best solution for the nation's population? I mean which one (feasibly) would go a long way to curing the other one?

Destitution is a fucking lie. There is enough sustenance to go around in this country and then some.
That is an excuse for perpetuating a culture of dependence and victim mentality.
Fatherlessness is at the heart of gun violence just as it’s at the heart of most crime in this country.

Allow me to quote your main argument,

"Destitution is a fucking lie. There is enough sustenance to go around in this country and then some."

If someone else in this thread has the patience to deal with such ignorance then let them do it.

 

[Likkmee]

Can this thread be closed ? No other cops shot since, or WHAT ?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

More Obama legacy.

Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one.

So you’re suggesting we should arrest the guns and let the shooters go free.

I repeat: Obama didn't invent the gun nor did he insist that Americans have a right to own one. What does your second-guessing statement have to with the invention of firearms and some stupid after-thought change in the U.S. constitution?

Follow this thread: I blame Obama for the police assassination culture; You shift the focus to guns; I insist that guns don’t kill, people do; You respond with a disjointed post.

I understand your confusion so let me ask if you are aware of the likely hood of someone being strangled to death as opposed to being shot dead? I mean I suppose that you can strangle someone with a rifle but I don't think it is very likely and even less likely with a pistol. It's a simple question but if you still feel I am twisting reality out of shape please let me know. Look, are you of the mindset that a total lack of guns (just for the sake of argument) would not diminish the number of murders?

No, you’d still have murder and crime. Because removing guns doesn’t address the culture.

Fine but you are having difficulties separating the two issues.
1). Destitution in one form (degree) or another: Yes, this is the main issue and neither you nor I can deny it.
2). Murder: One way to acquire sustenance.

It ought to be obvious that the failed nation of the U.S. does not provide for its citizens. The reason for this - greed of those who want "everything" for themselves and a thoroughly corrupt government that not only allows it but actively takes part in it. But now you might be thinking, "Who's this azzhole who criticizes the American system?" You know as well as I do that the American system is rotten with corruption and has a twisted excuse for the destitution of a growing number of its citizens while the rich continue to get even wealthier and yet claiming that only the lazy do not succeed. Some people probably really believe that money grows on trees and it's only a matter of finding the tree, but it's not true.

Yeah, I agree with you when you say, "removing guns doesn’t address the culture". But American culture is just another word for corruption as long as it is allowed to continue 'as is'. Here's a question for you. Which one of these contributes most to crime?

1. Greed.
2. Destitution.

And if you could eliminate one of them which would be the best solution for the nation's population? I mean which one (feasibly) would go a long way to curing the other one?

Destitution is a fucking lie. There is enough sustenance to go around in this country and then some.
That is an excuse for perpetuating a culture of dependence and victim mentality.
Fatherlessness is at the heart of gun violence just as it’s at the heart of most crime in this country.

Allow me to quote your main argument,

"Destitution is a fucking lie. There is enough sustenance to go around in this country and then some."

If someone else in this thread has the patience to deal with such ignorance then let them do it.

Do you live here? Do you live in the ghetto?
I live in 2 ghettos. One is middle class with a median income 30% above the national median and the other has 50% of the blacks on welfare.
But the culture is the same.
Respond to my previous post.