Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I can guarantee you it will be in places where the following phrase over police scanners, "shots fired... shots fired... 12th & George Floyd..."Nowhere hear any place I'm likely willing to live.
Although on second thought, virtue signalling often crops up on the d*mnedest places.
I'm absolutely the sort of person who will attack a post, and I think that's fair. It's unlikely we know each other well enough here to really make a realistic personal assessment. Assuming I'm a turd is fair though.Enough with the personal attacks guys, please stay on topic.
I'm absolutely the sort of person who will attack a post, and I think that's fair. It's unlikely we know each other well enough here to really make a realistic personal assessment. Assuming I'm a turd is fair though.
On topic, MN looks OK, but Portland seems to be wanting to Portland.
If she presented an articulable threat to the cops who want to get home to their families? Then the answer is yes.If she had warrants or tried to resist would you say that lethal force was an appropriate or viable option? Of course not.
If she presented an articulable threat to the cops who want to get home to their families? Then the answer is yes.
For your consideration: https://www.wvlt.tv/2021/03/15/grap...e-shootout-that-left-woman-dead-officer-hurt/ (GRAPHIC)
THIS IS WHY YOU COMPLY.
What moral basis would there be in the cases you have in mind for non-compliance?Hmmmmm, worked out pretty well for the Jews no?
What moral basis would there be in the cases you have in mind for non-compliance?
No need for the full Godwin
So when did that happen here?What I do know is not "complying" shouldn't be a death sentence unless lives are in jeopardy.
So when did that happen here?
I agree. Do you disagree with that assertion?Read up. I'm confused how you don't see it. Been suggested quite a few times here that the kid would be alive if he complied.
I agree. Do you disagree with that assertion?
To me, a phrase like "this is why we comply" isn't saying there is no circumstance where non-compliance is justified. It IS, to me, saying that in most cases in America today, fighting law enforcement at the time of initial contact rather than with a lawyer later is intrinsically risky, and a reasonable person in those circumstances will seek to minimize risk.
Non compliance does the following:
This is why we comply in America, in circumstances like these.
- Exposes the subject to risk of accidental injury
- Exposes the subject to risk of actual criminal charges
- Presents a situation that is easy for LEOs to misunderstand as life threatening.
- ....
I don't think anyone asserted this. Non-compliance MAY result in death, but it's not a sentence. It's an unfortunate but predictably possible outcome.Non-compliance shouldn't be assumed a possible death sentence.
I'll respond to your easily-defeatable straw man fallacy regarding "jews" in detail later on when I have time to adequately address the topic."THIS IS WHY YOU COMPLY"
Hmmmmm, worked out pretty well for the Jews no? I'm absolutely SHOCKED to read anyone on this site say something like that. Mandatory compliance with governments has failed the world so many times, yet in this shooting it's COMPLY COMPLY COMPLY.
I do NOT agree with resisting LE or otherwise, but I also do NOT agree that non compliance with an authority figure should be assumed a possible death sentence. Individual circumstances notwithstanding.
I'll respond to your easily-defeatable straw man fallacy regarding "jews" in detail later on when I have time to adequately address the topic.
In the mean time, here's another video. And a simple binary: Given police are authorized by law to issue lawful commands to citizens for their safety, was the citizen in the video in the right or in the wrong for refusing to comply with the officer's lawful orders?
(GRAPHIC)
This video does a poor job showing the reason for the attempted detainment. If it showed the guy committing a crime prior to him making this interaction I'd 100% agree with you. Otherwise it just shows a cop yelling at a guy to comply for ? reasons, then getting shot. So what was the lawful reason he attempted the stop? Because he could?I'll respond to your easily-defeatable straw man fallacy regarding "jews" in detail later on when I have time to adequately address the topic.
In the mean time, here's another video. And a simple binary: Given police are authorized by law to issue lawful commands to citizens for their safety, was the citizen in the video in the right or in the wrong for refusing to comply with the officer's lawful orders?
(GRAPHIC)