Wrongfully-arrested man considers lawsuit after marshals storm home

http://www.wlwt.com ^ | 9:37 PM EDT Apr 12, 2013 | unknown

[Enterprise]

Thanks. For the most part, the Marshalls were mostly prisoner transport. Something happened and they were given the additional responsibility of tracking down fugitives. I can’t remember who changed things or why.

[paristexas]

This is why many, if not most, of the police prefer an unarmed citizenry.

[Enterprise]

Your assertion is incorrect. The majority of the police support the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms. It is the criminals, and the Democrats, who want to disarm the citizens.

[Red in Blue PA]

Considers?????

[freedomfiter2]

So why aren’t the “good” police officers reporting on the bad ones.

That is the question. As long as the good ones cover for the others, they are all guilty of being tyrants and thugs.

[freedomfiter2]

An apology isn’t good enough for breaking and entering and kidnapping.

[bert]

i find Justified to be so interesting I generally watch it twice.

It is complex and I can’t absorb the small details in one sitting

[FreedomPoster]

We expect FReepers to have a clue about recent fairly high-profile, much-discussed events.

It is not an unreasonable expectation, in general.

[skepsel]

Channeling Dr. Johnson today are we?

[skepsel]

Ooops, my mistake, meant for post #30, Dr Samuel Johnson regarding colonial demands that English authorities respect their liberties said that the loudest yelps for liberty came from the drivers of slaves.

[Hugh the Scot]

That’s what paristexas said...

[Enterprise]

Spoken like a true comic book intellectual.

[Enterprise]

The statements are not the same. Explain please.

[Enterprise]

Just channeling Dr. Spoof.

[FreedomPoster]

Spoken like a comic. Keep your day job.

[Enterprise]

Too late. I already quit.

[jiggyboy]

"Fire Marshall Bill"'s schtick was to assume that each of two or three events of ever-increasing improbability (e.g. coughing fit near the gas range plus meteor shower) were all to happen sequentially in a short period of time, thus "proving" a safety hazard in a place that in fact had no danger whatsoever. His own dramatization of his imaginary scenario inevitably led to fiery disaster.

"what if the truck that was accidentally stopped contained wanted violent felons who were intent on killing a police officer?" is by itself a combination of two, and possibly three, low probability events, making it a poor rebuttal.

[Enterprise]

Fire Marshall Bill was television schtick. As was you post.

[EricT.]

Opening fire on the wrong people, especially those who were doing nothing wrong or threatening in any way to the officers, is not a “mistake.”

You are welcome to be at the receiving end of such a “mistake” and see if you are still sympathetic.

The incident I referred to involved the wrong make and color of truck, and the two women inside looked nothing like the suspect they sought. The police tried to kill them anyway.

[jiggyboy]

You outed yourself as a troll, and a poor one, in your #72 when you pretended to confuse “approach” and “response”.

My #97 was background for the benefit of those possessing at least a minimal ability to discuss the subject honestly at a high-school or better level of discourse — I shouldn’t have addressed it to you for that reason.