Posted on 05/24/2011 1:55:37 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
“This is after they bust down your down with a Battering Ram immediately after whispering, ‘Police. Search Warrant. Open up.’”
This is too juvenile to be taken seriously.
LoL!
Yes “thank you”. Thanks for the laugh!
Please tell me you are 12 years old.
Thank you, it could be possible and we will have to wait for the investigation currently underway.
You might want to change your name to Mr.Pointless or Mr.Dopey.
LoL!
The question is, who is doing the investigating?
The, Chief, DA, courts and law enforcement all support each other, especially when faced with *major* civil and criminal liability.
I have started reading replies from the bottom up and after responding to the first 3 or 4 I have to say I am concerned about the amount of pure idiocy brought to this thread by cop haters. Concerned but not surprised, because cop haters are usually drug abusers and really, what can one expect from those types?
Seriously, I got better things to do then to continue responding to these types of freaks.
It's just a pity to witness such a level of stupidity on FR.
Maybe Code Pink?
Do you know an organization of drug abusing cop haters that could do it?
You’re an idiot. There are so many stories of those procedures being employed there wouldn’t be enough time to read them all. They are celebrated in numerous reality type shows with camera crews along for the ride to document exactly what we described. You are truly ignorant if you aren’t aware that this is happening on a routine basis and is considered standard procedure.
I have been wondering how some of the bullet holes ended up in a house across the street either behind the SWAT guys or to the left of the front door at the house across the other street. (the house is on a corner lot) Reportedly, the cops searched the house “across the street” because they saw bullet holes and needed to make sure no one was hit. Yet the house directly behind the victim’s house was never searched, and that house does have bullet holes in it.
That is the same old tired Saul Alinsky BS every half-wit who can't argue a point uses. On threads where I defend the cops I get called a 'bootlicker.' On threads where I condemn their actions I am called a 'cop hater.' It comes from the same lame-assed pathetic mindset either way.
The question is, who is doing the investigating?
The, Chief, DA, courts and law enforcement all support each other, especially when faced with *major* civil and criminal liability.
Maybe Code Pink?
You evaded the question.
Diversion and evasion are tools of deceit
The question is, who is doing the investigating?
The, Chief, DA, courts and law enforcement all support each other, especially when faced with *major* civil and criminal liability.
Would you like for the ACLU to investigate? Maybe Code Pink? Do you know an organization of drug abusing cop haters that could do it?
Since you evaded the question, I'll answer it for you:
The investigation is being conducted by all those involved, including the entry team, their very own police department, and the DA, all of which work to support each other. The dead guy has no say in this.
Based on the police Chiefs wild, inaccurate, baseless comments and accusations in the aftermath of the recent mass murder, which including wounding of the Congress woman in Tucson, I would say the Tuscon Police Department should be the last entity on earth to be allowed to investigate this event.
Tucson Police Department too!
Sheriff Dupnik is another Nifong. The cops have already been caught in at least one lie. This case needs a full investigation by an outside group.
Your post is based on conjecture.
conjecture: the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
Based on the above, I don't think you are the one to question the police Chief in this case. Something about throwing stones...
Besides which, there is an ultimate checks and balance in that some of these people, like the Pima County Attorney's Office who are doing the actual investigation, need to run for election. If the public did not have confidence then they would not be elected.
But as to your whine that I did not answer your "question"?
You posted that you do not like the people doing the investigation, I offered alternatives. So where is the "deceit"?
I mean really, come on now...
You bet, and my mistake, he’s the Sheriff of Pima county, not the police chief.
But again, based on the Sheriff’s history of making wild baseless accusatory comments involving other major events, such as the mass shooting involving the congress woman, directly challenges or impeaches his credibility.
Yes or no?
You you saying you want to press serious charges against people because the Sheriff has a problem with his mouth?
That would be like charging me with crimes because of your wild baseless, accusatory comments involving major events.
1. Do you deny the County Attorney and the County Sheriff work closely together and support each other?
2. Do you deny the County Attorney is not using alleged evidence provided directly from the County Sheriffs office?
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.