Shoot at a van full of kids, get a paid vacation!

[midnight rambler]

More thugs with badges -


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myqwv1xxkv4

[Cebu_4_2]

land of the free... 71 mph is worthy of death.

[Spectrism]

The shooting cop was wrong. Arriving on scene and not knowing anything other than a van fleeing after officers crash open a window.

BUT.... the black broad did wrong and fled from a legit traffic stop. And her savage son came around to attack the cop who was not doing anything wrong.

The attitude of these idiots is completely entitlement.

[7th trump]

The cop appears to be firing at the tires to maybe prevent a high speed chase involving onboard children.
Now I know it doesnt make sense to be firing at a vehicle with kids, but todays law enforcement use bullets that arent suppose to cause much collateral damage......but its iffy to really know for sure.

Secondly, I agree with Spec here in observing the entitlement attitude of the 14yr old savage.
The only thing I can say about this is a baby viper is just as poisonous and dangerous as any adult viper and the cop clearly understands this !
I would not hesitate to pull the trigger if that 14yr old came at me with any type of weapon; knife, rock, club anything thats being presented as a weapon. And these days these savages would kill you with a toothpick if thats all they had.......and I wouldnt shoot to slow them down either.
The savages, as a whole, did this to themselves...they deserve the treatment they get.
The world doesnt trust any americanized africans....they proven they are savagees even in this day and age of free entitlements.
These savages want to portray themselves as "manly and deserve respect"....well then....man up and take your respected speeding ticket.....you're no better than the next guy getting a speeding ticket.

[madfranks]

but todays law enforcement use bullets that arent suppose to cause much collateral damage......but its iffy to really know for sure.

I'm sure all the cops have this explained loud and clear to them, "don't worry if you have to shoot people, our bullets are designed to minimize collateral damage".

[mick silver]

i bet them bullets hurts like hell if you were hit by one

[7th trump]

I'm sure all the cops have this explained loud and clear to them, "don't worry if you have to shoot people, our bullets are designed to minimize collateral damage".
This situation is totally different than seeing cops taze a handcuffed suspent to death and I'm afraid you allowing your sensitivity to over rule judgement.

I dont know if you have ever taken a carry class, but the training in these classes is very important in understanding whats going on here.
I beleive the 40 cal. was designed to lose most of its potential after hitting its target (maybe in this case the rubber tire). So I highly doubt the bullet is going to even penetrate the steel body of the van. If anything the cop is putting his and the other cops life in danger of the bullet coming back and hitting one of them to stop this savage from a high speed chase endangering the kids. (i bet you didnt even think of that aspect).

When I took the carry class i was instructed that its the same class leo's are required to take. My instructor is the trainer for the local PD....ex special forces.
There is a lot of legality the cops are subject to.....and all this is going through their heads in a split second to assess, judge the danger and take the proper action.....without getting personal.
I wouldnt want to be in that situation....and so I avoid that situation.

Besides the savages already demonstrated aggressiveness in complying to authority and the young savage demonstrated a life threatening danger by attacking the cop. That savage would have taken the gun away and fired at the cop. At that point in time the cop is being attacked by the savage the cop is making some serious quick decisions. ....and yes they are trained to not fire a gun if not needed.....they can be sued!

[Serpo]

WTF is a savage.................

[iOWNme]

I love how the STATIST of GSUS come out on full swing when these vids are posted.

This one is my favorite:


a legitimate traffic stop

I have never heard of a more insane, irrational contradictory statement in all of my life. PLEASE explain to me what a 'legitimate traffic stop' is? Speeding is a crime? Who got injured? Did her tires get to hot? Did her engine rev too high? Im not sure we haven gotten to the point of tires and engines having rights, but we are well on our way im sure.....

But since this woman disobeyed the scribbles of a politician, the officer was well within his Rights to attempt to MURDER HER and her children.

TEAM AMERIKKKA FUK YEA!

[7th trump]

I love how the STATIST of GSUS come out on full swing when these vids are posted.

This one is my favorite:



I have never heard of a more insane, irrational contradictory statement in all of my life. PLEASE explain to me what a 'legitimate traffic stop' is? Speeding is a crime? Who got injured? Did her tires get to hot? Did her engine rev too high? Im not sure we haven gotten to the point of tires and engines having rights, but we are well on our way im sure.....

But since this woman disobeyed the scribbles of a politician, the officer was well within his Rights to attempt to MURDER HER and her children.

TEAM AMERIKKKA FUK YEA!

So you believe doing 50mph in a residential 35mph zone is ok to call Spec, or anyone, a statist?
Do you also beleive its "central government" to NOT be able to park a full 18 wheeler on a residential street in front of your house, for days on end, blocking traffic in one direction because its your 18 wheeler?

Speed limits aren't central governments control!.....they are a safety issue.
70mph was the national speed limit on highways until it was decided to lower the speed to reduce death rates and save on gas.
Reducing the speed limit to 1mph does not in any way stop any individual from traveling......where is the "central government control of traveling"?

Do think its too much "central government" to cross a bridge rated for a half a ton with a 30 ton semi?

[Santa]

So you believe doing 50mph in a residential 35mph zone is ok to call Spec, or anyone, a statist?

Calling Spec a statist is sort of mean. It should at least mandate an immediate death penalty, or 1000 years in a Corporate run State prison facility.

[iOWNme]

So you believe doing 50mph in a residential 35mph zone is ok to call Spec, or anyone, a statist?
Do you also beleive its "central government" to NOT be able to park a full 18 wheeler on a residential street in front of your house, for days on end, blocking traffic in one direction because its your 18 wheeler?

Speed limits aren't central governments control!.....they are a safety issue.
70mph was the national speed limit on highways until it was decided to lower the speed to reduce death rates and save on gas.
Reducing the speed limit to 1mph does not in any way stop any individual from traveling......where is the "central government control of traveling"?

Do think its too much "central government" to cross a bridge rated for a half a ton with a 30 ton semi?


Who is the injured party? I noticed you danced around that question.

The right for man to travel freely without being accosted is the basic of man's Rights. ANY attempt to steal this Right from man is an attempt to ENSLAVE him. If you think we need any type of 'traffic laws' YOU ARE A STATIST. It means you want some type of 'system' to guarantee your 'safety'. (Freedom much?) Who is going to pay the 'Cops' to enforce these 'traffic laws'? Where will the money come from to pay them?

Ill tell you where: From the VIOLENCE OF THE STATE.

Maybe you have spent to many years studying the scribbles of CRIMINALS to see the truth anymore?

[7th trump]

Who is the injured party? I noticed you danced around that question.

The right for man to travel freely without being accosted is the basic of man's Rights. ANY attempt to steal this Right from man is an attempt to ENSLAVE him. If you think we need any type of 'traffic laws' YOU ARE A STATIST. It means you want some type of 'system' to guarantee your 'safety'. (Freedom much?) Who is going to pay the 'Cops' to enforce these 'traffic laws'? Where will the money come from to pay them?

Ill tell you where: From the VIOLENCE OF THE STATE.

Maybe you have spent to many years studying the scribbles of CRIMINALS to see the truth anymore?

I didnt respond because the question is.....well a stupid one!
Where do you get the idea there must be an injured party?
Who told you there must be an injured party?

Let me guess ...you must think you are untouchable and unsueable in court.
Heres how I look at it...
Lets say you own a fine china shop full of the best china dishes money can buy. One day you are having a sidewalk sale.
I ride into town on my horse...stop and look around your sidewalk sale taking my horse along my side as I dont trust not seeing my horse from eye site. Your dog sees my horse next to a stand full of expensive china and starts nipping at my horse causing my horse kick and thrash at your dog destroying all of your precious fine china that money can buy.
I finally get the horse out on the street. Nobodies injured....the dog is fine and the horse is fine....not even a scratch, but all your fine china is destroyed laying on the sidewalk in pieces........but theres no injured parties.
Me, thinking like you, I just walk away thinking...man you have a mess to clean up.
Now you sue me in court for damages. I counter sue as your dog was nipping at my horse to cause the damages in the first place.
You lose in court!
You petition to set a law stipulating no animals allowed on the sidewalks to deter any more of YOUR loses.
Your dog is just as much at fault as was my horse....based on that both are animals!
The law passes and a stiff fine of $500.00 is imposed.

Along comes your wife, on horse, stopping buy to bring you lunch and the constable sees her on the horse on the sidewalk and issues a $500.00 citation.
You are furious at the $500.00 citation and claim there wasnt any injuried parties.....and cry........this is statist bullshit!!


I gotta ask....how far can you see past your nose?
How far out is it before it gets blurry?

I know....
You dont even have to say it.....
7th trump is a fucker.......right?

[iOWNme]

I didnt respond because the question is.....well a stupid one!
Where do you get the idea there must be an injured party?

My own conscience.


Who told you there must be an injured party? My own conscience, and my own common sense. Is that not good enough for a STATIST?


Let me guess ...you must think you are untouchable and unsueable in court.
Heres how I look at it...
Lets say you own a fine china shop full of the best china dishes money can buy. One day you are having a sidewalk sale.
I ride into town on my horse...stop and look around your sidewalk sale taking my horse along my side as I dont trust not seeing my horse from eye site. Your dog sees my horse next to a stand full of expensive china and starts nipping at my horse causing my horse kick and thrash at your dog destroying all of your precious fine china that money can buy.

So your horse destroyed my China? I wouldnt be very happy about that. I would try my best to resolve it with you being as fair as possible. Is this not good enough for a STATIST?


I finally get the horse out on the street. Nobodies injured.... Except for me and my China. Are you blind?


the dog is fine and the horse is fine....not even a scratch, but all your fine china is destroyed laying on the sidewalk in pieces........but theres no injured parties. I have been injured because my PROPERTY has been destroyed by YOUR horse. You really are a STATIST.


Me, thinking like you, I just walk away thinking...man you have a mess to clean up. NO. I wouldnt just 'walk away' if my horse destroyed your property. I would try and work things out with you like a decent man. YOU STATIST.



Now you sue me in court for damages. I counter sue as your dog was nipping at my horse to cause the damages in the first place.
You lose in court!

I would NEVER sue you. I would try my best to work it out with you peacefully and fairly. If you would not take on the responsibility of being a man, i would resort to other acts to compemsate myself for the damages YOU have done to me. And i would be in the moral right to do so.


You petition to set a law stipulating no animals allowed on the sidewalks to deter any more of YOUR loses.
Your dog is just as much at fault as was my horse....based on that both are animals!
The law passes and a stiff fine of $500.00 is imposed.

I would NEVER 'petition' any 'politican' to do ANYTHING for me. Do you understand this?


Along comes your wife, on horse, stopping buy to bring you lunch and the constable sees her on the horse on the sidewalk and issues a $500.00 citation.
You are furious at the $500.00 citation and claim there wasnt any injuried parties.....and cry........this is statist bullshit!!

There was no injured party, unless the sidewalk was a PRIVATELY owned sidewalk, then it would be tresspassing.



I gotta ask....how far can you see past your nose?
How far out is it before it gets blurry?

I know....
You dont even have to say it.....
7th trump is a fucker.......right?

I dont think you are a fucker. I think you are a smart well intentioned honest man who lets his good nature be the FUEL FOR EVIL.


I find it funny how complex and conviluted of an example you have to resort to in order to justify THE INITIATION OF VIOLENCE that you personally condone.

STATIST want a 'system' that relieves them from personal responsibility, just like the example you postulated. You went through an entire STATIST wet dream in your example. Dont worry i dont expect anyone like you (or Palani) who have studied the SCRIBBLES OF CRIMINALS your whole life, to ever even consider that you have been duped by your oppressor. But it is the truth.....

So we need a GANG OF VIOLENT CRIMINALS who are exempt from all human morality, so your horse's feet can be safe? Im really not even sure what your example was supposed to mean?

So 7th, could I as an individual accost you on the side of the road, threaten you with VIOLENCE and steal your money if you crossed over an imaginary 'speed'? You would accept me doing this to you as 'legitimate', right?

[7th trump]

Well then Sui Juis.....and you should know this.
Since you cant procure anything other than your personal conscious (beleif) that there must be an injured party you fail to make claim for which releif can be granted.

And no, I owe you nothing for the destruction of your fine china as a result of your dog attacking my horse.
You put the merchandice out on the sidewalk where there was no law saying I couldnt take my horse.
If your dog didnt attack my horse you'd still have your fine china intact.
Your fault you put the china on the sidewalk.
Your fault your dog attacked my horse.
Therefore why the law passed to keep horses off the sidewalks....much like passing speed limit laws.
It protects everyone to some degree. More protection for some than others.
If you want to travel in such a way as you believe then clean up your fine china off the sidewalk before someone else is accosted by your broken fine china.
You cannot have it both ways!

So whats the difference with vehicles on the road?
A law was passed over posted speed limits to protect property from negligence.
Lets say you were clocked at 100mph and lost control of your vehicle from a bump on the road. A small bump on the raod that doing 35mph wouldnt cause you to lose control of your vehicle.
You slam into yard breaking through the brick fense hitting a parked vehicle pushing it over a 4 year old girl......killing her!
Now if you were doing the speed limit of 35mph the girl would be still alive but your car is lodged in the brick fense stopping it from smashing into the parked car.

And speed limits are a problem for you huh?
Speed limits are statist right?
Pull your head out of your ass!



You cant have it both ways!
You want someone else to pay for your own negligence because you beleive you have a right to travel negligently.
Have a little respect for others around you and take responsibility like a mature individual.

[iOWNme]

Well then Sui Juis.....and you should know this.
Since you cant procure anything other than your personal conscious (beleif) that there must be an injured party you fail to make claim for which releif can be granted.


You put the merchandice out on the sidewalk where there was no law saying I couldnt take my horse.


Therefore why the law passed to keep horses off the sidewalks....much like passing speed limit laws.


A law was passed over posted speed limits to protect property from negligence.


I have finally figured out where our disagreement lies. You look to the scribbles of politicians to tell you what you can and cannot do. You need the scribbles of politicans to guide you in your choices in life. You look to the scribbles of politicians to judge right and wrong. You need pseudo-religious ceremonies with mythical scribbles from magical ink to show you how to be a human. I, on the other hand rely on my own conscience, my own free will and my own morals and values set. These are the things that tell me how to be a human. In my version of your scenario, i was kind to you, i tried to work things out with you rationally and logically. I made every single attempt that any decent man would to resolve the matter between us, like men. You INSTANTLY went to the 'sue' option. INSTANTLY!

And I'm the one who needs to 'take responsibility like an individual'? But aren't I taking the responsibility by CHOOSING FOR MYSELF AND DOING THE RIGHT THING? Thats the very fucking definition of responsibility.

While you allow the biggest GANG of violent thieves and murderers to show you how to behave? You follow their scribbles RELIGIOUSLY. And somehow THAT is acting like a responsible individual? By letting others choose for you?




Your fault you put the china on the sidewalk.


It protects everyone to some degree. More protection for some than others.

Typical STATIST mentality: Blame the victim.




Back on topic: Is it sane and rational for this Cop to literally draw his weapon and fire it into a moving van with multiple INNOCENT occupants inside? I say HELL NO.