I am with the gov't and here to help thread

[ExiledInIllinois]

On 3/31/2018 at 7:13 AM, Tiberius said:

So they just stood around looking at each other "I'm not going over there, call over to the guy who has been shot 8 times and ask him if he is going to hurt us" 

You simply don't understand SOPs and common practices!  

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Live. April 8th. 8:25 PM EST Boyst Pimphouse Productions presents:

 

Government Virus - nothing works on your system, but all your diagnostic software says everything is just fine.

 

Brought to you by LEO apologists.

[Azalin]

30 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

"It's great nations that have heros, it's sad nations that need heros."

 

 

The bottom line:

 

The police were from the gov't and said they were there to help.  They made matters worse as usually the gov't does. They did anything but help.  They failed miserably.  The government neutralized that situation in Sacremento, but their methods cost a lot more.  As with the government, the cost return is totally upside down.

 

Ronald Reagan was absolutely right.  Those are words one should be scared of:

 

"I'm with the gov't and here to help."

 

We simply as a society need to be more self-reliant and independent.  We don't need others to help us.  And if we do REALLY need some sort of assistance, we need to weigh that against the assistance others MAY need and let aid pass to them first.  We need to start living a humble existence.

 

If everybody did that... We'd be stronger induviduals, communities, nation, and world.  We would reduce our civil servants to the Maytag repairman.  Very much needed civil servants in certain situations, just not beholding to them.  The last thing people need is to beholden to a civil servant.  Recipe for disaster.

 

This in turn builds stronger more independent AND humble people.

 

I'm impressed. When did you become a libertarian?

[ExiledInIllinois]

4 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I'm impressed. When did you become a libertarian?

I have always been.  But, break left.  The most vulnerable in society need to be taken care of first.

Edited April 1, 2018 by ExiledInIllinois

[Sig1Hunter]

1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

At least he could have went down fighting, not die in vain.

 

Listen to guys like Boyst, /dev, and your routine gov't overlord Sig... Just submit.  Come on.  They are with the gov't and here to help!  You called them! Give in and die if you don't do everything perfect according to common practices and SOPs.

 

Hint:  You'll only get one crack at trying to figure out what those SOPs & common practices are or have a jack boot on your throat & eight slugs in your back.  You better learn quickly or shoot fast.

 

Oh... Try not to bleed out before the "medics" arrive.

 

Tax bill is due May 18th & Sept 21st, don't be late!

 

 

Oh... I have no doubt they will construct that Clark was the one breaking the windows, robbing.  No doubt.  Was the killing justifed?  The cops firing were still in question if he had a weapon.  Why I called them dimwits.  They shot the guy then asked if he had a weapon.  They had no idea.  They shot first and asked questions later.

 

And yes, it's OUR problem. This is what an armed populace brings.  We reap what we sow. And... It is coming home to roost first in the communities that carry the most drama, addiction, and logical capacity.

Promoted from Sergeant to Overlord? I hope that comes with a payraise commensurate with the presumed increase in responsibilities. 

 

Regarding "one crack at it": exactly,  how many cracks at it would you need if you were confronted by a police officer pointing a gun at you and speaking assertively in simple and direct phrases such as "POLICE! STOP!"? Would you have instead chosen to run around the corner of a house into a pitch black backyard and positioned yourself tightly against the wall of the house? If this is your answer,  you have just chosen an option that is a textbook ambush from a foot pursuit tactic, and have just put yourself in danger of dramatically, and needlessly escalating the confrontation.  If you chose to stop, as initially commanded,  you would very, very, very likely still be alive.  

 

Regarding "shoot first, ask questions later": have you watched the bodycam and helicopter videos? If not, I suggest you do.  The two cops that shot saw a gun (mistakenly, it seems). They communicated it to each other by saying "Gun!", followed by commands to "show your hands". Then "gun gun gun", then shots. The questions asked "later" were by another cop - a female - and the question wasn't whether he had a gun in as much as whether he STILL had a gun. 

 

 

[thebug]

1 minute ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Promoted from Sergeant to Overlord? I hope that comes with a payraise commensurate with the presumed increase in responsibilities. 

 

Regarding "one crack at it": exactly,  how many cracks at it would you need if you were confronted by a police officer pointing a gun at you and speaking assertively in simple and direct phrases such as "POLICE! STOP!"? Would you have instead chosen to run around the corner of a house into a pitch black backyard and positioned yourself tightly against the wall of the house? If this is your answer,  you have just chosen an option that is a textbook ambush from a foot pursuit tactic, and have just put yourself in danger of dramatically, and needlessly escalating the confrontation.  If you chose to stop, as initially commanded,  you would very, very, very likely still be alive.  

 

Regarding "shoot first, ask questions later": have you watched the bodycam and helicopter videos? If not, I suggest you do.  The two cops that shot saw a gun (mistakenly, it seems). They communicated it to each other by saying "Gun!", followed by commands to "show your hands". Then "gun gun gun", then shots. The questions asked "later" were by another cop - a female - and the question wasn't whether he had a gun in as much as whether he STILL had a gun. 

 

 

They did not see a gun because there was no gun. They suck at their jobs and are murderers. You stick up for them because they are cops. If it was a homeowner, you would probably want them to go to jail for their reckless actions. 

[row_33]

24 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

I have always been.  But, break left.  The most vulnerable in society need to be taken care of first.

 

Don't peg yourself into a definition.

 

Common sense and good judgement requires you to break out of your "political stance" every day, if you have a brain and a heart.

 

 

[thebug]

49 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

Live. April 8th. 8:25 PM EST Boyst Pimphouse Productions presents:

 

You will find a way to turn it into porn! 

[Sig1Hunter]

7 minutes ago, thebug said:

They did not see a gun because there was no gun. They suck at their jobs and are murderers. You stick up for them because they are cops. If it was a homeowner, you would probably want them to go to jail for their reckless actions. 

 You're right.  They made up seeing the gun,  hatched a plan to say they saw a gun,  danced around the cover of the corner of the house as if they felt a gun was being pointed at them...all in the heat of the moment,  full well knowing that the entire incident was being recorded by their bodycams and from above by a FLIR helicopter camera. All because they fully intended on killing an unarmed, innocent black man. 

 

Imagine,  all of that ability stored up inside a measly paid civil servant. 

 

BTW - I'm not "sticking up" for them.  If the investigation reveals that the events transpired as the giant conspiracy that you believe happened, by all means hang em high. I'm merely trying to point out another perspective. You are the one choosing not to give any credibility to it. 

Edited April 1, 2018 by Sig1Hunter

[thebug]

11 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

 You're right.  They made up seeing the gun,  hatched a plan to say they saw a gun,  danced around the cover of the corner of the house as if they felt a gun was being pointed at them...all in the heat of the moment,  full well knowing that the entire incident was being recorded by their bodycams and from above by a FLIR helicopter camera. All because they fully intended on killing an unarmed, innocent black man. 

 

Imagine,  all of that ability stored up inside a measly paid civil servant. 

 

BTW - I'm not "sticking up" for them.  If the investigation reveals that the events transpired as the giant conspiracy that you believe happened, by all means hang em high. I'm merely trying to point out another perspective. You are the one choosing not to give any credibility to it. 

So there was a gun? 

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, thebug said:

So there was a gun? 

Boyst was right about you. 

[thebug]

Just now, Sig1Hunter said:

Boyst was right about you. 

Was there a gun? 

[Sig1Hunter]

1 minute ago, thebug said:

Was there a gun? 

Canada must be so proud. 

[thebug]

1 minute ago, Sig1Hunter said:

Canada must be so proud. 

Are you sure your not a defense attorney? You seem to side with the criminals. 

 

 

[keepthefaith]

I think we've all learned by now not to judge such situations based upon articles and reports that only include a few hand picked facts. 

[row_33]

27 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

I think we've all learned by now not to judge such situations based upon articles and reports that only include a few hand picked facts. 

 

depends on how far you let it influence you...

 

 

 

[/dev/null]

53 minutes ago, thebug said:

You will find a way to turn it into porn! 

rule #34

[Sig1Hunter]

So, in EII's perfect world where someone steals his gun... does he call the cops to report it stolen? Does he embark on his own mission to investigate and then locate the perpetrator(s) that stole his gun using his own personal resources? In the real world,  a report was taken. In the real world,  a street cop just doing his job and needlessly harassing the American public by pulling them over for petty traffic offenses comes across EII's stolen gun after it is pointed at him.  The thief tries to kill the jackboot. Thanks to the jackboot's robot training and ability to recognize signs of imminent danger,  he saves his own life and kills the thief. Not so much as a thank you from EII for recovering his stolen gun either,  probably. 

 

Names in the above story have been changed to protect the innocent.  

 

 

[outsidethebox]

1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

I think we've all learned by now not to judge such situations based upon articles and reports that only include a few hand picked facts. 

The media wouldn't lie or make up stories? They are way too honest to do something like that! (sarcasm off)

I want to go on record, anything theknat says, I'll believe the opposite. He's nothing more than a pea brained **** stirrer. Not worth the trouble.

[ExiledInIllinois]

9 minutes ago, Sig1Hunter said:

So, in EII's perfect world where someone steals his gun... does he call the cops to report it stolen? Does he embark on his own mission to investigate and then locate the perpetrator(s) that stole his gun using his own personal resources? In the real world,  a report was taken. In the real world,  a street cop just doing his job and needlessly harassing the American public by pulling them over for petty traffic offenses comes across EII's stolen gun after it is pointed at him.  The thief tries to kill the jackboot. Thanks to the jackboot's robot training and ability to recognize signs of imminent danger,  he saves his own life and kills the thief. Not so much as a thank you from EII for recovering his stolen gun either,  probably. 

 

Names in the above story have been changed to protect the innocent.  

 

 

I would never have my weapon stolen.

 

I get it.

 

But do a cost analysis on the petty offenses vs. catching bad guys... It still doesn't justify the means.

 

Feel good story.  Yet, the money spent and damage done, mistrust created to have that feel good story is still upside down.

 

You sound like typical gov't... Doing more harm than it's worth.  Now, it's great that we get the one guy here and there @ the expense of the rest of the damage done.

 

The end simply doesn't justify the means. But, thanks for some return on the gov't money spent.  We aren't even scratching the surface to bring us back in the black.

[Sig1Hunter]

2 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

I would never have my weapon stolen.

 

I get it.

 

But do a cost analysis on the petty offenses vs. catching bad guys... It still doesn't justify the means.

 

Feel good story.  Yet, the money spent and damage done, mistrust created to have that feel good story is still upside down.

 

You sound like typical gov't... Doing more harm than it's worth.  Now, it's great that we get the one guy here and there @ the expense of the rest of the damage done.

 

The end simply doesn't justify the means. But, thanks for some return on the gov't money spent.  We aren't even scratching the surface to bring us back in the black.

Get one guy here and there?

 

You may, or may not, know this about me,  but my nightly duty is to remove impaired drivers from the roadways.  I'm pretty good at it.  Sometimes it takes just one stop, sometimes I have to make 10 stops, before I find my fish. Every stop I make is legal.  Do the ends justify the means,  here?  What happens when me,  and those like me,  aren't around? How are you going to take it upon yourself to prevent a drunk from crashing into you or your loved ones? Or,  will you stand on the firm,  sandy ground of "it won't happen to me"?