This video clearly shows the mindset of today's cops

[midnight rambler]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVByrAm0bi8

[Ares]

Or how about this one where the cop can't even cite the law that he's using for his "lawful order".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u-bH5mwyORA

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u-bH5mwyORA

[7th trump]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVByrAm0bi8

What was it the guy did to get the attention of the police?

[7th trump]

Or how about this one where the cop can't even cite the law that he's using for his "lawful order".


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u-bH5mwyORA

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=u-bH5mwyORA

So she was speeding and then argues with the cops.....do you think thats smart?
For one thing, cops arent required to show anyone the law. They issue citations when seeing a violation of the law. You as an individual are suppose to know the law. Besides in todays world .....I wouldnt get out of a vehicle in the first place to avoid the cops from accidentally shooting me.
It appears she caused her own problems.
She's an idiot that doesnt want to be responsible for her actions.

[midnight rambler]

We know you love absolutely everything about the Death Cult, Donald Trump.

[Cebu_4_2]

What was it the guy did to get the attention of the police?

Fired a round into the air. I expected him so be suicided but not with that method.

[7th trump]

We know you love absolutely everything about the Death Cult, Donald Trump.

Ohh please tell me what I said that says I love the death cult..........oohhhhhh wise one?
I beleive what I said the total opposite and being unbiased at the same time with some sincere intelligence to not piss off the police even more.
What would you do?
A. Do what the stupid ass did and get arrested over a simple traffic ticket or.
B. Be responsible for your actions and accept the ticket without further trouble and expense. Seriously is it that big of a deal to get back in the vehicle?

From your pathetic response it appears you like being totally in love with not being responsible for individual actions......kinda like a dindu.

[7th trump]

Fired a round into the air. I expected him so be suicided but not with that method.

Yep...stupid move on his part.
Ego and temper is the number 1 killer of stupid people!

[Ares]

So she was speeding and then argues with the cops.....do you think thats smart?
For one thing, cops arent required to show anyone the law. They issue citations when seeing a violation of the law. You as an individual are suppose to know the law. Besides in todays world .....I wouldnt get out of a vehicle in the first place to avoid the cops from accidentally shooting me.
It appears she caused her own problems.
She's an idiot that doesnt want to be responsible for her actions.

Did you even watch the video? They were wanting to interrogate her son. Under what law does a cop have authority to interrogate a minor without the parents consent? When the passenger has committed no crime. Yet she's the idiot?

[7th trump]

Did you even watch the video? They were wanting to interrogate her son. Under what law does a cop have authority to interrogate a minor without the parents consent? When the passenger has committed no crime. Yet she's the idiot?

What I got out of the video was he got out of the vehicle for a traffic stop.
It would appear that gettig out indicates probable cause to run, get rid of illegal substance, ect.
You know theres a lot of police killed in traffic stops when the subject gets out of the car...seen many video's of this.....and the mother didnt make things better...she made it worse...and now more expensive and probably has to go in front of a judge.
If you want to beat the police you have to think like the police to out play them.

Play smart...not stupid!

[Ares]

What I got out of the video was he got out of the vehicle for a traffic stop.
It would appear that gettig out indicates probable cause to run, get rid of illegal substance, ect.
You know theres a lot of police killed in traffic stops when the subject gets out of the car...seen many video's of this.....and the mother didnt make things better...she made it worse...and now more expensive and probably has to go in front of a judge.
If you want to beat the police you have to think like the police to out play them.

Play smart...not stupid!

All conjecture as we do not see if they were ordered to get out of the vehicle or not.

[madfranks]

You as an individual are suppose to know the law.

What if I decide to make my own laws and then declare that you have the responsibility to know them, even if you never agreed to be bound by them, and further declare that if you resist my laws, I can kill you, does that make it right?

The ambiguous "state" is really made up of individuals. So, if you or I can't make our own law and bind others to it under threat of death, what gives them that right?

[7th trump]

What if I decide to make my own laws and then declare that you have the responsibility to know them, even if you never agreed to be bound by them, and further declare that if you resist my laws, I can kill you, does that make it right?

The ambiguous "state" is really made up of individuals. So, if you or I can't make our own law and bind others to it under threat of death, what gives them that right?


You have a drivers license dont you?
If you do then you agree to abide by the law relating to the privilege of driving. Getting out a vehicle during a traffic stop I'd suspect falls into "probable cause"....not related to the traffic laws, but more with criminal law.......cause and effect.

The ignorant trying to be intelligent about being ignorant....thats a special kind of stupid!

[7th trump]

All conjecture as we do not see if they were ordered to get out of the vehicle or not.

I highly doubt the cops would order them out and then try and arrest them for getting out.

Try again Ares.

This place is filled with paranoia.

[Heisenberg]

Ohh please tell me what I said that says I love the death cult..........oohhhhhh wise one?
I beleive what I said the total opposite and being unbiased at the same time with some sincere intelligence to not piss off the police even more.
What would you do?
A. Do what the stupid ass did and get arrested over a simple traffic ticket or.
B. Be responsible for your actions and accept the ticket without further trouble and expense. Seriously is it that big of a deal to get back in the vehicle?

From your pathetic response it appears you like being totally in love with not being responsible for individual actions......kinda like a dindu.A minor does not have the legal authority to sign a contract or enforce one. Therefore the minor is under the guardianship of the parent. You are wrong and the parent has absolute right as attorney in fact to block or object to the police.

[Shami-Amourae]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVByrAm0bi8

This video was taken out of context. The Amerindian guy had just stolen the rifle from a local store and was was pointing a gun at police and then shot it off into the air to intimidate them:

Watch at 2:15:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFcEMMZju7U

The police did the right thing.

[7th trump]

This was taken out of complex. The Amerindian guy had just committed armed robberies and was was pointing a gun at police and then shot it off into the air to intimidate them:

Watch at 2:15:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFcEMMZju7U

The police did the right thing.

If this is infact correct...then yes, I wouldnt take the chance of confronting the moron criminal at gun point.

[Shami-Amourae]

If this is infact correct...then yes, I wouldnt take the chance of confronting the moron criminal at gun point.

It's really frustrating since the media always shows police brutality when police are in the right, but never when they really are in the wrong. Usually that's because you'll see some Black cop execute a random White guy for the lulz and they wont show it since it doesn't fit the narrative.

[7th trump]

A minor does not have the legal authority to sign a contract or enforce one. Therefore the minor is under the guardianship of the parent. You are wrong and the parent has absolute right as attorney in fact to block or object to the police.

Ok.........so tell me grasshopper.......just what was the reason for bringing in the "contract" theory?
Did you read something from a conspiracy website that tickled your emotions which triggered your brain to beleive it must be true?

When I was 16 I got a drivers license........so tell me with all your innnocent intelligent wisdom that..........at 16 that I wasnt under any obligation (or contract as you mistakenly beleive) to follow the laws of privileged driving because at 16 I was still a minor.
I cant wait to hear this dribble.
The podium is yours!

[7th trump]

It's really frustrating since the media always shows police brutality when police where in the right but never when they really are in the wrong. Usually that's because you'll see some Black cop execute a random White guy for the lulz and they wont show it since it doesn't fit the narrative.

You make a very good point Shami.
Some members of this website are guilty of this exact thing....but you'll be labeled if you go against them.

Some people have a higher understanding....and then some are no better than the dindu's they make fun of.

[Glass]

Ok.........so tell me grasshopper.......just what was the reason for bringing in the "contract" theory?
Did you read something from a conspiracy website that tickled your emotions which triggered your brain to beleive it must be true?

When I was 16 I got a drivers license........so tell me with all your innnocent intelligent wisdom that..........at 16 that I wasnt under any obligation (or contract as you mistakenly beleive) to follow the laws of privileged driving because at 16 I was still a minor.
I cant wait to hear this dribble.
The podium is yours!

You can contract as a minor in only one respect. "You may not be held to the same performance as an adult in some situations". Otherwise you need to be 18. I was watching something on this recently. I'd have to go through a few videos to see if I can find the reference.

But you do have to reach the age of majority. This is why childrens courts are basically illegal. Children can't contract but are required to by the childrens court. But then the court probably takes implied guardianship of the child so I suppose it's how the contract is joined. The court does it as guardian in lieu of the biological or other appointed guardian.

The possibility could be that your driving privilege was a contract between the state and your guardian - parent Or the age of consent is lower than the age of majority. I know here we can license to drive from 17. I don't recall if one of my parents signed on min. At 16 we can license to control a non vehicle vehicle, being one that is less than 50CC capacity - basically a moped. Age of consent here is 16.

[Heisenberg]

Ok.........so tell me grasshopper.......just what was the reason for bringing in the "contract" theory?
Did you read something from a conspiracy website that tickled your emotions which triggered your brain to beleive it must be true?

When I was 16 I got a drivers license........so tell me with all your innnocent intelligent wisdom that..........at 16 that I wasnt under any obligation (or contract as you mistakenly beleive) to follow the laws of privileged driving because at 16 I was still a minor.
I cant wait to hear this dribble.
The podium is yours!
The minor in the car was not driving. As for you, if you drove without insurance at 16 and killed someone, your parents can be forced to pay, not the state that gave you the license. So yep, even at sixteen, if your parents take the car keys, you can not call the cops and demand the keys back, you're grounded.

[7th trump]

You can contract as a minor in only one respect. "You may not be held to the same performance as an adult in some situations". Otherwise you need to be 18. I was watching something on this recently. I'd have to go through a few videos to see if I can find the reference.

But you do have to reach the age of majority. This is why childrens courts are basically illegal. Children can't contract but are required to by the childrens court. But then the court probably takes implied guardianship of the child so I suppose it's how the contract is joined. The court does it as guardian in lieu of the biological or other appointed guardian.

The problem is a drivers license isnt a contract as some here beleive.
Theres no obligations.

[Glass]

The problem is a drivers license isnt a contract as some here beleive.
Theres no obligations.

Sorry I added to my post. I think there are obligations implied and overt in the agreement. There are usually conditions as well relating to capacity to operate a vehicle.

Driving is a commercial enterprise for remuneration. Traffic is the movement of persons and freight for a free using a vehicle. Again, it's a commercial activity. All commercial activity is contractual.

Travelling is not a commercial activity. By logic there is no requirement for permission to travel. Not being a privilege. However the body is tied to the politic and that is commercial so you face the prospect of being interdicted by actors on that plane even though you are traveling, in a non commercial way.

[Publico]

I have no problem with running down someone who is walking around with a loaded rifle firing it in the air and who the same day committed the felonies of robbing a store, burglary, arson, and stole the same rifle he's firing into the air. I would do the same thing.

[7th trump]

Sorry I added to my post. I think there are obligations implied and overt in the agreement. There are usually conditions as well relating to capacity to operate a vehicle.

Driving is a commercial enterprise for remuneration. Traffic is the movement of persons and freight for a free using a vehicle. Again, it's a commercial activity. All commercial activity is contractual.

Travelling is not a commercial activity. By logic there is no requirement for permission to travel. Not being a privilege. However the body is tied to the politic and that is commercial so you face the prospect of being interdicted by actors on that plane even though you are traveling, in a non commercial way.

Cut and pasted from a legal website


No a license is not a contract. It is a unilateral grant by the state of the privilege to operate a properly tagged motor vehicle on the State's roads. You have no right to drive, and there are no contractual elements that you can enforce against the State. Anything that you can enforce against the State would fall under your Constitutional Rights which is a social contract between the people that agrees upon how they will be ruled.

A license does not place any duty on the State. It is only a permissive grant of "license" to use the roadways within the restrictive covenants of the traffic laws.

Now if that answer is not as convoluted as your question I don't know what is, but it is true. Your license is not a contract with the state. You have nothing that you can enforce against the state.

[ximmy]

You make a very good point Shami.
Some members of this website are guilty of this exact thing....but you'll be labeled if you go against them.

Some people have a higher understanding....and then some are no better than the dindu's they make fun of.

7th trump. What are you labeled as?

[Cebu_4_2]

Looks like a friendly, kind and intelligent person...

https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/marana-pd-293x300.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=780


https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/pd-pinning-4.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=780&h=520

[ximmy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVByrAm0bi8

LOL... watched OP viddy. Definitely a rogue cop. Above the law, above any semblance of reason. A perfect state sponsored being, not to be questioned. Obey him or suffer the consequences.

[midnight rambler]

Cop was much too big of a coward to draw down on him and possibly get into a real fight, so he blindsides him (the equivalent of shooting him in the back and not confronting him/giving him the opportunity to SURRENDER - at this point he had NOT shot AT the cops) with his cruiser (and wrecks the cruiser along with someone's private property, a complete disregard for public and private property, not to mention the lives of ANYONE including the 'suspect').

[midnight rambler]

LOL... watched OP viddy. Definitely a rogue cop. Above the law, above any semblance of reason. A perfect state sponsored being, not to be questioned. Obey him or suffer the consequences.

Even his cop buddy was shocked by his behavior.


Oh!...Jesus Christ! Man down!

[Shami-Amourae]

LOL... watched OP viddy. Definitely a rogue cop. Above the law, above any semblance of reason. A perfect state sponsored being, not to be questioned. Obey him or suffer the consequences.

Did you see the video I posted? It shows the full context of what happened and makes the cop look more reasonable. There's also this:


Arizona cops run over rifle-toting suspect because they wanted to ‘save his life’

Police in Marana, Arizona released footage (from security camera) of an officer running a suspect over with his patrol car — which the department said it did to save his life, KOLD-TV reported.

The dashcam video shows Officer Michael Rapiejko maneuvering his vehicle onto a sidewalk and slamming into 36-year-old Mario Miranda Valencia on Feb. 19.

Footage from a separate vehicle shows Valencia walking down a street carrying a rifle, firing one round off into the air. The Arizona Daily Star reported at the time that Valencia allegedly stole the rifle from a local store and threatened to shoot himself in the head when approached by officers before being hit by Rapiejko.

According to KOLD, Police Chief Terry Rozema said that Rapiejko’s move saved the suspect’s life. Valencia was hospitalized for two days before being charged with aggravated assault on a police officer with a deadly weapon, discharging a firearm inside the city limits, and shoplifting involving a firearm.

“This was a dangerous felon who’d been on a crime spree throughout the morning,” Sgt. Chris Warren said to KOLD at the time of the arrest. “He’d just stolen a weapon, loaded it, was not obeying commands from officers and was walking toward occupied businesses. It’s a busy time of morning, a lot of employees at work, a lot getting ready to come out for breaks, he’s walking toward those businesses. So we had to take immediate action and make sure he didn’t get inside those businesses.”

Videos show Arizona police cruiser ramming armed robbery suspect

Dashcam videos released Tuesday show an Arizona police officer using his cruiser to slam into an armed robbery suspect who was walking down a street while holding a rifle and firing it in the air.

Police in Marana, Ariz., a suburb of Phoenix, are defending the officer's action, saying the suspect was a danger to himself and others. But the suspect's lawyer is arguing police used excessive force,

Police car slams into pedestrian suspect on dashcam

Police in the Tucson suburb of Marana released some disturbing police dashcam video on Tuesday from a February incident in which a police cruiser rammed a pedestrian suspect.

Police said the February 19 incident ended what they described as a "crosstown crime spree."

The video encompasses views from two cruisers. One cruiser was following a suspect, identified by police as Mario Valencia. According to police, Valencia was fleeing from a local Walmart store, where they said he stole a rifle.

Graphic dashcam footage shows Arizona police car ramming into suspect to detain him

Graphic dashcam footage obtained from a police officer’s car shows an officer following a suspect in his vehicle before mounting the pavement and running him over to detain him.

Police in Arizona released video footage from the incident on 19 February this week. The Marana police department claimed the suspect Mario Valencia was armed and had fired a gun into the air. The force insists it actually saved his life by hitting because he had threatened suicide.

Former NYPD cop disarms gunman by ramming with police cruiser to end Arizona crime spree. A former NYPD veteran who calls himself Robocop used his police cruiser to ram a rifle-toting suspect on a one-man crime spree, dramatic Arizona police video released Tuesday shows.

Marana Police officer Michael Rapiejko was hailed a hero by his chief after the department released the dramatic footage Tuesday highlighting the Feb. 19 incident.

Police released video that shows an Arizona officer running over an armed suspect last month, sparking a debate over whether the cop saved the man's life or used excessive force.

The video, released on Tuesday, was recorded on the dashboard cameras of two Marana police vehicles as they chased suspect Mario Valencia (hits him), who was on allegedly on a crime spree on February 19, CNN reports.

He points the rifle at the cop around 2:08 and then shoots into the air around 2:20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFcEMMZju7U

[7th trump]

Did you see the video I posted? It shows the full context of what happened and makes the cop look more reasonable. There's also this:



He points the rifle at the cop around 2:08 and then shoots into the air around 2:20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFcEMMZju7U

Shami....I doubt you'll talk any sense into these nitwit fools. They just hate authority of any kind.
They bitch and moan about a cop shooting an armed felon just as much as they bitch and moan about using a cruiser to disarm the criminal and not having to shoot him.
If it was a guy in the neighborhood who did it.............they'd praise the guy....but a cop.....never!


Hahahahahaha...in the article the suspects lawyer is saying using the cruiser was excessive force.........booo hoooo.........and a rifle in an armed robbery isnt excessive force?
Bahahahahahahahahahaha..........!
Now the suspect will get his day in court because the cops gave the criminal an opportunity to lawyer up
Gonna cost the taxpayers millions now!

[ximmy]

Did you see the video I posted? It shows the full context of what happened and makes the cop look more reasonable. There's also this:



He points the rifle at the cop around 2:08 and then shoots into the air around 2:20:


I will watch the second video, However:

Regardless of what suspect did previously (this is why there is arrest and trial); Murder, rape, hand gesture to cop.

1. suspect was walking away with back to cops.
2. cop used deadly weapon with intent to disable suspect by bodily injury. (same as a firearm would do)

Cops might as well have just shot him in the back, like they do anyway.
-----
The California crime of assault with a deadly weapon (sometimes called “ADW”) basically consists of a California assault (http://www.shouselaw.com/assault.html) that is committed either


with a so-called “deadly weapon,” OR
by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (http://www.shouselaw.com/gbi.html).1

Assault in California law, meanwhile, is defined as an unlawful attempt to commit a violent injury on someone else, when you have the ability to do so.2
----
You can be charged with Aggravated Assault as felony of the second degree if you either intentionally or knowing caused bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. Also you can be charged with Simple Assault as a misdemeanor of the second degree if you negligently cause bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon.

The Superior Court and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have both held that a car can be the deadly weapon for the purpose of a conviction for assault as stated above.

[ximmy]

Just watched second viddy. It confirms that pig cop is totally out of control.

God what a stupid pig.

I bet that rogue cop, when he heard "shot fired" assumed suspect was firing at cops, and went all Rambo on the suspect.

BTW looks like suspect was suicidal, he was pointing his rifle up at his own head.

[Neuro]

It looks like a suicide attempt by cop to me. If he survived he failed... They had two options, shoot him or run over him like they did.

[Dogman]

When the pigs want you, they will go to any length or way to get you no matter the cost of life, limb, or property!

That pig floor boarded his car balls to the walls, you can hear it in the vid, air cleaner howling sucking air right up to the hit.

Cop wanted to kill the perp!

4 wheel wack a perp!

[madfranks]

There is still a double standard. If you or I were legitimately threatened by this man, and did what that cop did, we'd be in hella trouble. The cop, thanks to his uniform, will not be in trouble.

[7th trump]

There is still a double standard. If you or I were legitimately threatened by this man, and did what that cop did, we'd be in hella trouble. The cop, thanks to his uniform, will not be in trouble.

That's not how the weapon laws work. If I were to see that guy rob a store at gun point I or anyone can open fire or run him down.
In Iowa anyway, a weapon can be anything brandished as a life threatening weapon and deadly force can be used to stop it.

[madfranks]

That's not how the weapon laws work. If I were to see that guy rob a store at gun point I or anyone can open fire or run him down.
In Iowa anyway, a weapon can be anything brandished as a life threatening weapon and deadly force can be used to stop it.

You're delusional if you think you're on equal footing as the cops when they kill someone.

[7th trump]

You're delusional if you think you're on equal footing as the cops when they kill someone.

No...its you who's delusional.....the law is the law is the law!
The law says I can stop someone who has a weapon and is brandishing it in a way that is threatening someones else.
He pointed it at a police officer and then fired it up in the air.
If he did the same to a civilian after robbery anyone can stop him from taking a life.

Sorry you lose...the law trumps your opinion.

[midnight rambler]

Cut and pasted from a legal website

I highlighted your problem, however I doubt you're bright enough to get it.

[ximmy]

No...its you who's delusional.....the law is the law is the law!
The law says I can stop someone who has a weapon and is brandishing it in a way that is threatening someones else.
He pointed it at a police officer and then fired it up in the air.
If he did the same to a civilian after robbery anyone can stop him from taking a life.

Sorry you lose...the law trumps your opinion.

I nullify your law, now you lose. http://www.azsolo.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/teasing.gif

[7th trump]

I highlighted your problem, however I doubt you're bright enough to get it.

Like I told you before...you wouldn't know the difference between your pie hole and your back side in legal land.
You shit from the same orifice you lick your lips.

[Half Sense]

The lady was a loudmouth. If Mom and Sonny simply shut their mouths they will be on their way in minutes.

[7th trump]

The lady was a loudmouth. If Mom and Sonny simply shut their mouths they will be on their way in minutes.

I agree....but don't let ximmy and midnight rambler hear you say that...you'll be marked and ridiculed for telling it the way it is.

[Shami-Amourae]

Just watched second viddy. It confirms that pig cop is totally out of control.

God what a stupid pig.

I bet that rogue cop, when he heard "shot fired" assumed suspect was firing at cops, and went all Rambo on the suspect.

BTW looks like suspect was suicidal, he was pointing his rifle up at his own head.

What do you think they should have done?

Personally I think cops should carry a short-barrel 12 gauge Remington 870 shotguns with a Red Dot on it with rubber slugs. If you get shot by one of those rubber slugs....ouch. You'll WISH you were shot.

The perp in the video most likely would have been executed by the police with guns which is standard procedure, and I think it's what the perp wanted. If that cop hadn't run the perp over he'd most likely be dead now.

[midnight rambler]

What do you think they should have done?

Personally I think cops should carry a short-barrel 12 gauge Remington 870 shotguns with a Red Dot on it with rubber slugs. If you get shot by one of those rubber slugs....ouch. You'll WISH you were shot.

The perp in the video most likely would have been executed by the police with guns which is standard procedure, and I think it's what the perp wanted. If that cop hadn't run the perp over he'd most likely be dead now.

So you think shooting the guy in the back would have been equally justifiable, huh?

[Shami-Amourae]

So you think shooting the guy in the back would have been equally justifiable, huh?

I think that can be an option but non-lethal measures should be attempted whenever possible. There's an armed bad guy who was already brandished the weapon and made his intent clear. He is on the lose and the police need to stop the threat. My solution is to first shoot them with rubber slugs to put them down. You can do this at short to medium ranges fairly easily with a Red Dot.

Running the perp over with a car is totally unorthodox, but it worked, and the perp is alive now to face "trial"/jail.

By the way I'm just LARPing here. The police will do pretty much whatever they want until the Jewish media convinces everyone they need to be completely Federalized to make them nice and friendly. That's the main reason all these "cops out of control" videos are being highlighted lately. The Elites/Jews want you to hate the police so they can get further control over them so they'll do much worse in the future.

[midnight rambler]

I think that can be an option

Do you REALLY think it's acceptable for cops to shoot someone in the back??!?! WTF is wrong with you?? ???


and made his intent clear

How can you say that when he never pointed the weapon at the cops?? It appeared to me that he was simply trying to prevent apprehension, NOT shoot at the cops/suicide by cop.

[Shami-Amourae]

Do you REALLY think it's acceptable for cops to shoot someone in the back??!?! WTF is wrong with you?? ???



How can you say that when he never pointed the weapon at the cops??

He points the rifle at the cop around 2:08 and then shoots into the air around 2:20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFcEMMZju7U

Shooting someone in the back is a grey area to me, but if someone is armed, points a fucking gun at cops, then shoots in the air that's then probable cause in my book. He's demonstrated he's ready to start some carnage, and wants a violent confrontation with police, so he should get it. If he had the rifle holstered over his shoulder like a normal person I would say shooting him in the back is unjustifiable. That's my opinion based on CCW training. When I took CCW classes our instructor made it clear if someone has a weapon and brandishes it in a threatening manner to yourself or someone around you, you legally can shoot them. If I can legally do it as a CCW permit holder, then a cop can legally do it too.

[cheka.]

all police need to be under federal control


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fO-usAlqak&feature=player_detailpage

[Jewboo]

He points the rifle at the cop around 2:08 and then shoots into the air around 2:20:



https://dn3pm25xmtlyu.cloudfront.net/photos/thumb/740887055.gif?1362577669&Expires=1429248572&Signature=sZaAE3J4DkMxigOC-MRuBoccoGuL8NWofOP8Q18u6KL8VYa0YHkbAeSgUyrJgacN388 o-0LoMGCblg0b0LqduWWghP7HjDdRufHxyjtAtkFhxQQXAk4-EH4timGJLP8lKt2C2BhdRXuXCsxW-SFbmptWt49tey3Iv8Y7-SxSMX4_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA
Grand Theft Auto Cop Car Driving Techniques


Cop did it perfectly. Bravo!

:D

[midnight rambler]

He points the rifle at the cop around 2:08 and then shoots into the air around 2:20:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFcEMMZju7U

Shooting someone in the back is a grey area to me, but if someone is armed, points a fucking gun at cops, then shoots in the air that's then probable cause in my book. He's demonstrated he's ready to start some carnage, and wants a violent confrontation with police, so he should get it. If he had the rifle holstered over his shoulder like a normal person I would say shooting him in the back is unjustifiable. That's my opinion based on CCW training. When I took CCW classes our instructor made it clear if someone has a weapon and brandishes it in a threatening manner to yourself or someone around you, you legally can shoot them. If I can legally do it as a CCW permit holder, then a cop can legally do it too.

When I was doing ride-alongs 25 or so years ago one of the cops I respected spelled it out for me: "The job of the police is to capture/apprehend; it's the job of the military to kill. The police should never cross that line (i.e. killing as the first option)."

If that's your *opinion* based on your 'training' then whomever trained you is fucked up in the head* - imo based on historical perspective (when things weren't '50 shades of gray'). Apparently what you are failing to appreciate is that he did NOT shoot AT the cops nor did he directly engage them**. Properly trained TEAM MEMBERS could likely have CAPTURED him without running over him with a patrol car (which IS deadly force).

*ANY self-defense instructor worth their salt teaches the judicious use of deadly force NOT(!) 'when is it legal for you students of mine to shoot someone' - that's a recipe for personal disaster

**had he shot at the cops or otherwise directly engaged them, then sure, running over him with a patrol car would be justifiable under THOSE circumstances

[midnight rambler]

all police need to be under federal control


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fO-usAlqak&feature=player_detailpage

And then Feds will set the standard for the continuum of force with respect to shooting unarmed people and shooting people in the back (or running over them with patrol cars)

[Jewboo]

When I was doing ride-alongs 25 or so years ago one of the cops I respected spelled it out for me: "The job of the police is to capture/apprehend; it's the job of the military to kill. The police should never cross that line (i.e. killing as the first option)."




https://dn3pm25xmtlyu.cloudfront.net/photos/thumb/740887055.gif?1362577669&Expires=1429248572&Signature=sZaAE3J4DkMxigOC-MRuBoccoGuL8NWofOP8Q18u6KL8VYa0YHkbAeSgUyrJgacN388 o-0LoMGCblg0b0LqduWWghP7HjDdRufHxyjtAtkFhxQQXAk4-EH4timGJLP8lKt2C2BhdRXuXCsxW-SFbmptWt49tey3Iv8Y7-SxSMX4_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA


Nonsense. One of my brothers is a retired cop and he said the first rule of the police is to go home to his family after the shift.


:rolleyes:

[midnight rambler]

https://dn3pm25xmtlyu.cloudfront.net/photos/thumb/740887055.gif?1362577669&Expires=1429248572&Signature=sZaAE3J4DkMxigOC-MRuBoccoGuL8NWofOP8Q18u6KL8VYa0YHkbAeSgUyrJgacN388 o-0LoMGCblg0b0LqduWWghP7HjDdRufHxyjtAtkFhxQQXAk4-EH4timGJLP8lKt2C2BhdRXuXCsxW-SFbmptWt49tey3Iv8Y7-SxSMX4_&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIYVGSUJFNRFZBBTA


Nonsense. One of my brothers is a retired cop and he said the first rule of the police is to go home to his family after the shift.


:rolleyes:

Yeah, and that's PRECISELY what's wrong with cops these days, they're TRAINED to be cowardly pussies.

That has to be one of the most asinine things you've ever posted Book. (i.e. unless you forgot the /sarc)

[Jewboo]

That has to be one of the most asinine things you've ever posted Book.




http://www.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/mugging_2169171b.jpg

http://40.media.tumblr.com/5756d589d7ee040ee4a8e3c18d8bcbae/tumblr_mhyytmOsMJ1s53vr2o1_500.jpg


I'd put police snipers on rooftops...lol.


:D

[Shami-Amourae]

Even Alex Jones is siding with the cops:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUZQ1DmZ8Vc

[7th trump]

When I was doing ride-alongs 25 or so years ago one of the cops I respected spelled it out for me: "The job of the police is to capture/apprehend; it's the job of the military to kill. The police should never cross that line (i.e. killing as the first option)."

If that's your *opinion* based on your 'training' then whomever trained you is fucked up in the head* - imo based on historical perspective (when things weren't '50 shades of gray'). Apparently what you are failing to appreciate is that he did NOT shoot AT the cops nor did he directly engage them**. Properly trained TEAM MEMBERS could likely have CAPTURED him without running over him with a patrol car (which IS deadly force).

*ANY self-defense instructor worth their salt teaches the judicious use of deadly force NOT(!) 'when is it legal for you students of mine to shoot someone' - that's a recipe for personal disaster

**had he shot at the cops or otherwise directly engaged them, then sure, running over him with a patrol car would be justifiable under THOSE circumstances

Bahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...................... ..........what a load of crap!

Likely captured him huh?
I suppose it doesnt bother you, being a communist, that the perp has to take hostages and killed them before the use of deadly force?
Thats not whats taught in gun courses.

Go hug a damn tree midnight.

7506

[midnight rambler]

Even Alex Jones is siding with the cops:


So now you hold AJ in high regard?? You ARE lost...

[ximmy]

Even Alex Jones is siding with the cops:


OH GOOD! (insert rolly eyes here)