Posted on 06/10/2013 4:44:58 AM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin
Thank you so much for the information. When the time comes, we'll know where to start to set an example.
IMO, killing innocent citizens under color of law is murder.
LEO need to be held not just to the same standards as citizens but higher ones because they have been invested with the authority of the state.
As it stands, they are frequently held to no standards at all.
Wow, you certainly are a rational thinker! I guess you’re trying to say an armed individual is justified, in your mind, killing an unarmed individual because they have come within 21 feet of the armed individual?
Seriously, you should have given yourself the user name ‘Francis’ instead of Hulka. That way I’d feel better saying “Lighten Up Francis” to you.
I’m not sure why I’m seeing so many folks in this thread defending this shooting (without have all or even many of the facts). I’m guessing some are either cop/leather lovers or are the type of folks who feel road rage with regularity and thus can identify with the acting out of that type of rage.
Agreed. Now please post documentation that cops murder citizens and dogs everyday.
Have I defended the shoot or was I engaging in a discussion regarding the use of firearms for self defense?
Read my posts carefully.
Apology accepted.
Have a nice day.
Actually, I’m glad you brought that up, as I as going to but forgot. If you remember, George was NOT arrested after shooting and killing Martin. And even after a very careful re-inactment with the police department, he was still not charged.
It was only after Al Sharpton and others got involved, including Obama, that Zimmerman was arrested and charged. Trial by politics.
Seems like Walker was defending himself. At least from the article. The dead guy was aggressive toward Walker.
LOL
Have I defended the shoot or was I engaging in a discussion regarding the use of firearms for self defense?
Read my posts carefully.
Apology accepted.
Have a nice day.
******************************************************************
Well, I DID read your posts carefully and, yes, you were essentially defending the shooting.
You started in your post 35 where you described the deceased as an “enraged doofus” who you wouldn’t bet your life was unarmed.
You continued with post 36 where you asked if you had to wait until your head was being smashed on the ground (reference to the Zimmerman case?) before defending yourself with a firearm.
Upon being informed that the autopsy showed that none of the three shots the deceased had suffered was at “close range”, you came back and defined 21 feet as a “not closer than” range for engaging a target or it could be too late.
So yes, you can try to say you were not defending this likely unjustified killing of an unarmed man at a distance (by a likely enraged person likely not temperamentally suited to be carrying a firearm let alone being a law enforcement officer), but it’s clear that you were. If you are ashamed of defending the killer at this point, then perhaps you should delete your posts.
And, by the way, no apology was offered to you by me, so I’m not sure whose apology you were accepting. If you have a concealed carry permit, or if you carry open, I strongly recommend some remedial close combat firearms instruction and realistic training.
Congratulations, you just got the most ridiculous post of the day award!
Please explain why this is so.
Oh geezzzz...Well here goes..
Authorities tell MyFoxNY.com the two cars pulled over to the side of the interstate after the alleged road rage incident
Well, lets see here...You're having a road confrontation with someone and ya can't figure out it probably wouldn't be a good idea to pull over with the vehicle you're having a confrontation with as happened in this case?
wideawake? lol...
If the aggressive driver pulled over first and the threatened driver pulled over after he did, it would mean one thing.
If the reverse sequence occurred, it would mean another.
We also don't know if either car was damaged, in which case one would have to pull over.
Clearly, you have assumed a lot of information that is available only in your conjecture instead of in the record.
Congratulations, you just got the most ridiculous post of the day award!
Please explain why this is so.
Authorities tell MyFoxNY.com the two cars pulled over to the side of the interstate after the alleged road rage incident
Your quote doesn't have enough information.
What is the meaning of, "Two cars pulled over to the side of the road after the rage incident"??
Sounds like a deep complex mystery!
Bewahahahahaha...Babble and your way out of your own comment.....love it
You're wide awake and on the case!
It could mean that the killer pulled over first.
Or that the killee pulled over first.
Or that they both pulled over at the exact same time.
All we know from this quote is the result: both wound up parked on the side of the road.
If the the killer pulled over to get away from the killee and the killee followed him in order to challenge him, then the character of the situation is much different than the reverse.
All we know from this quote is the result: both wound up parked on the side of the road.
Ya think?
Thanks for all the humor...Watching you dance around this made my funny bone recoil...
I also know that you understand that your provided quote gave absolutely no insight at all as to what order the cars followed in pulling over
The order is an important distinction.
Knowing that you understand these distinctions and that you are deliberately feigning incomprehension, I will take your comments as a tacit admission of the accuracy of my statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.