Domestic terrorist attack in Wisconsin

[Kemp]

20 hours ago, Gary M said:

 

Fire until the threat is neutralized.

 

I wasn't there and from the video can't see what the officer saw, but as long as he was trying to retrieve the weapon I would fire.

 

Maybe he should have obey the lawful command of the officer?

 

 

 

Remember all those great Westerns where the hero put 7 in the back of the bad guy?

It's refreshing that a Trump supporter would admit that it's okay for a member of the government to execute a citizen. All while decrying the government's intrusion ino the personal lives of citizens. 

 

When I was younger, I wondered how people accepted dictatorships so readily. Trump supporters have shown how it works. Declare a man above the law and follow him into your own self-destruction.
 

 
 

[Kemp]

20 hours ago, bilzfancy said:

I posted 1 shot, in the nuts, good to know you support sexual abusers, yet you mock a caregiver, tells me all I need to know about you

 

Someone accused of sexual  abuse deserves a bullet to the groin?

 

President Trump will not be happy with your opinion.

Are you so stupid that you don't understand the connection?

 

Do you believe that only some of the accused deserve it?

Bet you trhink you're a law and order guy, right?

People like you deserve to get what you think is justice.

20 hours ago, Gary M said:

 

When they ignore a lawful order from an officer and reach for a weapon, yes.

 

 

So, if you took 7 in the back and the cop said he felt in danger before doing it, you'd agree? 

Sure you would.

19 hours ago, Golden Goat said:

 

First, Hemp: Apologize to the disabled folks you disparaged.. ****ing hypocrite.

 

 

Didn't think you could. The mentally weak never can.

[Kemp]

18 hours ago, westside2 said:

One in the back of the head would be just fine.

 

Love when Trump supporters admit that the government should be allowed to execute people. Bring on the dictatorship. Won't it be fun?

 

Republicans used to the say the opposite. It's good that the truth is coming from the lips of those folks. Bad for the country, though. But who cares?

11 hours ago, aristocrat said:

Did I say he committed it? I said he was under arrest for it which is exactly what he was. Just cause he got shot doesn’t clear him of the arrest.  And I made no mention of the shooting.  My gf gets convicts as a nurse once in a while and you better believe I’d want some guy accused of sec assault handcuffed.  

 

Trump was accused multiple times. Should he be handcuffed?

 

Or should black people live under a different set of laws than orange people?

[Chef Jim]

11 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Someone accused of sexual  abuse deserves a bullet to the groin?

 

Of course not. That’s not why he was shot.  But you knew that. 

[SoCal Deek]

Justify to clarify before you all go off the rails today....like every day:

 

First, the President has zero jurisdictional authority over local police departments in this country. 
 

Second, in each of these cases the ‘victims’ were defying lawful and appropriate commands from peace officers who were simply responding to a call for assistance. 

[Kemp]

17 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

Of course not. That’s not why he was shot.  But you knew that. 

 

Tell me why he REALLY got shot 7 times in the back?

 

Why wasn't he tackled by the cops?

 

Tased?

 

Even shot just once, which would still be illegal?

 

Why 7 times?

 

You know that there is no legit answer, yet you don't care, because this isn't about justice, to you.

 

 

[snafu]

3 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

Tell me why he REALLY got shot 7 times in the back?

 

Why wasn't he tackled by the cops?

 

Tased?

 

Even shot just once, which would still be illegal?

 

Why 7 times?

 

You know that there is no legit answer, yet you don't care, because this isn't about justice, to you.

 

 

 

Just so you have your facts straight,  he fought with the cops and was tased.  Then he went to his car to apparently retrieve something.

Do you know this already, or are you arguing something without knowing what happened?

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Justify to clarify before you all go off the rails today....like every day:

 

First, the President has zero jurisdictional authority over local police departments in this country. 
 

Second, in each of these cases the ‘victims’ were defying lawful and appropriate commands from peace officers who were simply responding to a call for assistance. 

 

...he does have this at his disposal, but I'm sure his advisors advise against it as too heavy handed....MSM is already going crazy when he sends minimal Fed help....

 

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335; amended 2006, 2007) that empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.

 

The act provides a "statutory exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of military personnel under federal command for law enforcement purposes within the United States.^[1][2]

 

Before invoking the powers under the Act, 10 U.S.C. § 254 requires the President to first publish a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse.

Edited August 29, 2020 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[Kemp]

Just now, snafu said:

 

Just so you have your facts straight,  he fought with the cops and was tased.  Then he went to his car to apparently retrieve something.

Do you know this already, or are you arguing something without knowing what happened?

 

 

For the 20th or so time.

 

Should a cop be allowed to put 7 bullets in the back of someone other than in a case where that person poses a threat where he is pointing a loaded gun at people?

 

If you think yes, then you really don't even understand the concept of self-defense and you should have no complaints living under a police state.

 

How pathetic is that?

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...he does have this at his disposal, but I'm sure his advisors advise against it as too heavy handed.....

 

The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a United States federal law (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255; prior to 2016, 10 U.S.C. §§ 331–335; amended 2006, 2007) that empowers the President of the United States to deploy U.S. military and federalized National Guard troops within the United States in particular circumstances, such as to suppress civil disorder, insurrection and rebellion.

 

The act provides a "statutory exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which limits the use of military personnel under federal command for law enforcement purposes within the United States.^[1][2]

 

Before invoking the powers under the Act, 10 U.S.C. § 254 requires the President to first publish a proclamation ordering the insurgents to disperse.

That’s nice, but not really the point. Yes, the President can act in response in times of crisis. But he cannot proactively become, direct, or usurp the local government. 

[snafu]

5 minutes ago, Kemp said:

 

For the 20th or so time.

 

Should a cop be allowed to put 7 bullets in the back of someone other than in a case where that person poses a threat where he is pointing a loaded gun at people?

 

If you think yes, then you really don't even understand the concept of self-defense and you should have no complaints living under a police state.

 

How pathetic is that?

 

Angry Kemp...

I live in a State with Police, not a Police State.

You stated “why wasn’t he tackled by the cops?”  He was.  Didn’t stop him.

You asked why wasn’t he “tased”.  He was.  Kept going. 

You asked those things as though they are acceptable alternatives to shooting.  I agree with you.  However, there were tried, and they failed to subdue the guy.  

Do you know what happened next? It doesn’t seem so.  You seem ignorant of the actual facts. And you appear to think every cop-suspect situation is the same. And you appear to believe that cops shouldn’t act actual humans — they aren’t permitted to eff up.

 

I was just pointing out that you got your facts wrong and assumed that the cop just took out his gun and shot the guy without any events leading up to the incident.  Yes, I agree that seven shots is excessive.  I also believe that the guy should have been a lot more compliant and it would have never escalated to the point it did.  If you don’t agree with that, then (in your own words) you’re either stupid or evil.

 

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

19 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That’s nice, but not really the point. Yes, the President can act in response in times of crisis. But he cannot proactively become, direct, or usurp the local government. 

 

...my apology.....did not mean to contradict what you posted relative to local authorities.....thought I read (but probably wrong) that it is in individual State Charters to provide safety for its citizenry.......perhaps you can weigh in.....if, IF so, many states are in violation....

[Doc]

10 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Only in your demented eyes would that justify the death penalty administered by an armed child in a scenario completely unrelated to those allegations.  Pro-death penalty = fake Christian. 

 

It's not a justification.  But it explains why someone would be stupid (or if you prefer, unable to control his impulses) enough to assault a guy with a rifle. 

 

35 minutes ago, snafu said:

Just so you have your facts straight,  he fought with the cops and was tased.  Then he went to his car to apparently retrieve something.

Do you know this already, or are you arguing something without knowing what happened?

 

Most sane people would have emptied their clip into him as well.

[BillStime]

10 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It's not a justification.  But it explains why someone would be stupid (or if you prefer, unable to control his impulses) enough to assault a guy with a rifle. 

 

 

Most sane people would have emptied their clip into him as well.

[Doc]

That cartoon be Trump being a match and everyone listening being a gas can.  It's true: the left can't meme.

[SoCal Deek]

30 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...my apology.....did not mean to contradict what you posted relative to local authorities.....thought I read (but probably wrong) that it is in individual State Charters to provide safety for its citizenry.......perhaps you can weigh in.....if, IF so, many states are in violation....

You’re focused on the rioting. I’m focused on what touches off the rioting in the first place. Trump has no control over officers in Wisconsin. He doesn’t provide local police services. Nor does he have any idea where the next officer involved shooting will occur. I’ll bet a million dollars that no one guessed Kenosha Wisconsin.

[SectionC3]

18 minutes ago, Doc said:

Most sane people would have emptied their clip into him as well.

 

Yup.  Completely justified to do that.  Rule of law!

[BillStime]

19 minutes ago, Doc said:

That cartoon be Trump being a match and everyone listening being a gas can.  It's true: the left can't meme.

The right can’t write.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You’re focused on the rioting. I’m focused on what touches off the rioting in the first place. Trump has no control over officers in Wisconsin. He doesn’t provide local police services. Nor does he have any idea where the next officer involved shooting will occur. I’ll bet a million dollars that no one guessed Kenosha Wisconsin.

 

...I'd have to up that bet......and despite being trained, NO ONE knows who is the next police officer to erupt, the next alleged "peaceful demonstrator" to erupt, the next mass murderer to surface, your fine, cordial next door neighbor who murdered his family, a trained postal worker who "went postal in a killing spree", et al......we're talking about the predictability response of one's gray matter...good luck with that.............

[SectionC3]

2 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...I'd have to up that bet......and despite being trained, NO ONE knows who is the next police officer to erupt, the next alleged "peaceful demonstrator" to erupt, the next mass murderer to surface, your fine, cordial next door neighbor who murdered his family, a trained postal worker who "went postal in a killing spree", et al......we're talking about the predictability response of one's gray matter...good luck with that.............

Only solution: more guns for everyone.  And heavily armed children.