[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Also, they would be far less likely to use deadly force to resolve matters that could be resolved with fines or ostracision. [/quote]
You’re basing this on what?
Agreed; however, to outlaw a hierarchy would require a hierarchy…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Also, they would be far less likely to use deadly force to resolve matters that could be resolved with fines or ostracision. [/quote]
You’re basing this on what?
Agreed; however, to outlaw a hierarchy would require a hierarchy…
[/quote]
Unless we experience some sort of mass revolt against todays current economic and governmental institutions. However there would be a high probability of a hierarchy emerging out of it
You ever feel like you are pushing a boulder up a hill too ? 
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Also, they would be far less likely to use deadly force to resolve matters that could be resolved with fines or ostracision. [/quote]
You’re basing this on what?
Agreed; however, to outlaw a hierarchy would require a hierarchy…
[/quote]
Unless we experience some sort of mass revolt against todays current economic and governmental institutions. However there would be a high probability of a hierarchy emerging out of it
You ever feel like you are pushing a boulder up a hill too ? :D[/quote]
Even then I just think a new Hierarchy will emerge. It’s how we’re hard wired.
Lol, anytime you want to change the status quo it’s like pushing a boulder up a hill. It’s often worth it though and being slow to change isn’t necessarily a bad thing, imo. We were quick to change after 9/11 and in hindsight a lot (dare I say most) think it was the wrong direction to go.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Think about it this way. You’re a thief casing two house. Both are identical, same layout, same number of people living there, etc… Except the mother and father of one of the houses goes shooting every Saturday. Which house do you select?
[/quote]
I would wait until they leave for the range every Saturday like clockwork and rob their house because there is a good chance there will be valuable firearms inside for me to steal.
[quote]Will207 wrote:
I would wait until they leave for the range every Saturday like clockwork and rob their house because there is a good chance there will be valuable firearms inside for me to steal. [/quote]
This. Usmc, if a thief is taking the time to plan out his crimes, firearms aren’t much of a deterrent. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity(people who are obviously not present leaving their doors unlocked, windows open, etc.), or basically civil matters(one person owing another dope money and refusing to pay, and the person who is owed taking matters into his own hands). The number of “Wet Bandits”(professional burglars from Home Alone) out there is very small in real life.
Police officers’ homes are rarely burglarized, because they tend to be extremely careful to lock all of their doors, shut and lock their windows, and keep their properties lit up like a landing strip.
Some sick shit right here.
Cop who ‘loves playing with dead bodies’ accused of pulling toes, ‘tickling’ feet and yanking the head of man shot dead by fellow officers as he lay in a morgue.
Government in the form of tribute taking states has existed since we entered the Agricultural Era about 11,000 years ago. However, out of all of those Empires that have risen and fallen, only the United States of America gave it’s citizens - ALL of it’s citizens - such rights and powers as guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was fucking UNHEARD OF anywhere else, at any other time in history at the scale and for the duration that we enjoy it here.
The issue at hand is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is being ERODED. That is the reason we are all having this conversation. Now SOME folks WANT the citizens in our society to have less freedom and fewer liberties. These individuals lack the backbone to “make it” when society demands true CITIZENSHIP and RESPONSIBILITY. And unfortunately those individuals have just about reached a critical mass to where they will realistically UNDO EVERYTHING that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights stands for. For example, the Second Amendment is ONE FUCKING SENTENCE. It’s not a multi-paragraph college level opinion that requires a dictionary to understand. I mean what part of “SHALL NOT be infringed” is so hard to fucking understand? Yet we’ve ALLOWED our government, OUR tribute taking state, to do just that - our Second Amendment rights have been downright SODOMIZED. But we let it happen. We have ALLOWED special interest organizations to gain power and influence. There is actually an ACCEPTED career called “lobbyist”… I mean, WE HAVE ALLOWED THIS… We have LET an individual, representing a group, BRIBE the Representative that WE ELECTED and coerce/compel them to enact legislation that is NOT IN OUR INTEREST! LMFAO We allowed it! And now that genie is out of the fucking bottle…
Now don’t get it twisted, this has happened under the watch of REPUBLICANS as well as DEMOCRATS - we have all been hoodwinked into trading our freedom for “safety” at just about every opportunity. “Never let a good crisis go to waste”, right? Ben Franklin had something to say about that, if memory serves.
The reason this has happened is that the government has ceased being an accurate representation of the PEOPLE, and has turned into a self-fulfilling entity. The Republicans and the Democrats are two sides of the same coin (or loadstone, if you will - dragging us down). Most of the “laws” created are NOT passed by the legislative branch. They are passed by the various three letter entities that dictate what we are allowed to eat, what substances require a prescription to obtain, what carbon level our vehicle can produce - hell, even if we are ALLOWED to legally operate a vehicle. Most of these laws were not passed by CONGRESS… Congress FUNDS these agencies, but then turns them loose on US, the CITIZENS. No, my friends, these agencies (for the most part) fall squarely under the auspices of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. I would argue that the laws passed by this executive fiat are Unconstitutional. But since the Executive branch holds the power of ENFORCEMENT (police, military) at it’s command, my argument would be quickly met by a bullet if I attempted to press the issue. We lost our checks and balances, people. The balanced nature of our Constitutional Republic is now spinning off-kilter and veering off course. And picking up speed.
Here is a list of all the government departments and agencies: http://www.usa.gov/directory/federal/ It is fucking INSANE how much we are controlled. It is also FUCKING INSANE how the projects of these agencies are funded. I mean in 2012, did the US Agency for International Development really need to spend TWENTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS to teach fucking Moroccans how to make pottery? We ALLOW our tax dollars to be squandered this way! We ALLOW IT! We VOTE for the same muther fuckers passing and FUNDING this shit!
It was mentioned earlier in this thread something to the effect of, “if you don’t like it, LEAVE”. Well, the IRS might have something to say about that. Leaving simply isn’t a viable option for most people. Giving up your U.S. passport? It's going to cost you The “exit tax” alone would cripple your ability to live comfortably outside of the United States. No, my friends, “love it or leave it” is NOT a realistic option. Uncle Same will get his. In SPADES. Don’t even get me started on the IRS… (where exactly is that in the Constitution? Isn’t Congress AKA the LEGISLATIVE branch supposed to levy taxes and not the IRS AKA the EXECUTIVE branch? But I digress…)
In other words, our beautiful republic has been hijacked. And the power to take it back is quickly slipping through our fingers. I firmly believe there will come a time when those who would take and take and TAKE from us (in terms of treasure and liberty) will finally attempt to take too much. And when that happens, the might of the US military will be brought to bear on those have the testicular fortitude to stand up and cry “ENOUGH!”. It is my hope that the members of the US military will not obey those orders and remember that their oath is to uphold the Constitution and not the Government. However, I assume that some will just “follow orders”. And while “following orders” is a nice “safe” thing to do, history very rarely remembers those who “follow orders” very kindly. It will get worse before it gets better. But I have hope that it WILL get better. One way or another.
This conversation is FAR greater than good cops and bad cops. The root of the problem lies in the hijacking of the Constitution. It’s under OUR watch now. The question that we all have to ask ourselves is simple. It’s not EASY, but it’s SIMPLE. Do we lie down and take it in the ass, or do we stand up and fight for what we KNOW in our hearts is RIGHT. Do we fight for what our ancestors fought, bled and fucking DIED for? Or do we just post another meme saying “Buck Ofama” on our Facebook page?
The action steps are easy: when you see someone acting like an entitled piece of shit, call them out on it. Learn the Constitution and KNOW your rights so when the police try to infringe upon them, you can stand your ground. VOTE. We all make fun of Obama for being a “community organizer”, but guess what? That shit got his unqualified ass elected! Take a page from the “progressive” playbook and take a few risks. Get out there and use sound logic and reason to defeat these emotionally driven whining pansy pieces of whale shit. Embarrass them. Humiliate them so that they are afraid to open their activist mouth. It’s not hard. My brother is a college professor at a fairly liberal university. I’m just an ex felon without a high school diploma. The last family gathering we had, I handed him his ASS at the dinner table! He got so mad, he actually cussed in front of his kids! It was fucking beautiful!
Tolstoy wrote that the two most powerful warriors are Patience and Time… The Media would have us believe we are running out of both. I humbly disagree. We need to take our country back. The tide turned in 2014. Let’s bring it on in 2016. Let’s elect a TRUE conservative that will actually do what HE says HE will do. Yeah, I put HE in caps. I don’t think a woman has the fucking balls to do what needs to be done. We need to reduce the size of government and restore our freedoms guaranteed under the Bill of Rights. If we don’t do that, having the “first woman president in history” won’t matter - there won’t BE a fucking history…
It appears Scott used Officer Slager’s own Taser on him moments before the video started.
[quote]Will207 wrote:
It appears Scott used Officer Slager’s own Taser on him moments before the video started.
So I guess that justifies shooting a man in the back…
Cops can use tasers on us anytime they want to. We don’t get to shoot them. Usually because they are rabbit punching us in the head, kneeling on our back while another “officer” is grinding our face into the pavement.
But we are “resisting”, right? When you are being beaten and tased, you UNCONSCIOUSLY try to cover up and protect yourself. That’s instinct, not resisting arrest. But that give you the authority to beat the person you are trying to arrest senseless until they stop moving (aka “resisting”).
I don’t blame that guy for tasing the officer and running. Perhaps he, like myself, has been on the receiving end of police brutality. It’s something that makes your fight or flight instincts do what you feel you have to do to survive.
If someone with a blue uniform has harassed and beaten you over and over on random occasions for your entire life and then you are approached by someone in a blue uniform AGAIN, would not the prudent action be to try and defend yourself?
You don’t know the fact, none of us do. But now this man is incapable of speaking to his own defense, so we’ll never know. Because he was shot in the back while RUNNING AWAY.
[quote]NickViar wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
I would wait until they leave for the range every Saturday like clockwork and rob their house because there is a good chance there will be valuable firearms inside for me to steal. [/quote]
This. Usmc, if a thief is taking the time to plan out his crimes, firearms aren’t much of a deterrent. Most crimes are crimes of opportunity(people who are obviously not present leaving their doors unlocked, windows open, etc.), or basically civil matters(one person owing another dope money and refusing to pay, and the person who is owed taking matters into his own hands). The number of “Wet Bandits”(professional burglars from Home Alone) out there is very small in real life.
Police officers’ homes are rarely burglarized, because they tend to be extremely careful to lock all of their doors, shut and lock their windows, and keep their properties lit up like a landing strip.[/quote]
Oh for fuck sakes you two…It was a quick example to illustrate s point.
Anyone seen the latest story of the reserve deputy who shot the guy fleeing from police…said he thought he pulled a taser, but pulled a real gun instead.
interesting audio on there…
[quote]Will207 wrote:
It appears Scott used Officer Slager’s own Taser on him moments before the video started.
The video is from an extremely biased entirely race based blog aptly named Whiteskinnedman. The video shows a taser on the floor. When someone is trying to use a taser on you it is natural human instinct to try and stop them tasing you.
There is clearly no evidence Scott attempted to use the taser on the Officer first. However even if he had he then ran unarmed.
I don’t see how that would justify shooting a man in the back.
We then see the taser on the floor and Scott running. The officer is in zero danger. He casually pumps 8 rounds into an unarmed fleeing man. No one is outraged at the police stopping him. No one is outraged the cop tried to tase a fleeing suspect. Everyone is outraged a cop executed a fleeing unarmed black with no imminent danger to himself. At a time when unarmed black men seem to be dropping like flies.
They planted the taser next to the body
They claimed they gave CPR
They claimed the Officer was in imminent danger
Also the fact the cop has had incidents in the past that would indicate he is prone to escelating force when dealing with black men really makes you wonder how many times this guy has abused his power.
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
It appears Scott used Officer Slager’s own Taser on him moments before the video started.
The video is from an extremely biased entirely race based blog aptly named Whiteskinnedman. The video shows a taser on the floor. When someone is trying to use a taser on you it is natural human instinct to try and stop them tasing you.
There is clearly no evidence Scott attempted to use the taser on the Officer first. However even if he had he then ran unarmed.
I don’t see how that would justify shooting a man in the back.
We then see the taser on the floor and Scott running. The officer is in zero danger. He casually pumps 8 rounds into an unarmed fleeing man. No one is outraged at the police stopping him. No one is outraged the cop tried to tase a fleeing suspect. Everyone is outraged a cop executed a fleeing unarmed black with no imminent danger to himself. At a time when unarmed black men seem to be dropping like flies.
They planted the taser next to the body
They claimed they gave CPR
They claimed the Officer was in imminent danger
Also the fact the cop has had incidents in the past that would indicate he is prone to escelating force when dealing with black men really makes you wonder how many times this guy has abused his power.
[/quote]
There is a photograph that shows both scott and slager on the ground after he was heard warning him he’d be taxed/shot in the dash cam video and before the video taken by the bystander. Also, in the bystander video you see the tazer wire coming from slager’s foot/shin and another wire coming from his upper body tangled up in scott’s leg as he ran.
Further, if it turns out in the court hearing that there are marks from the taser bolt on slager, then regardless of who tried to use the taser, slager was within his legal rights to use his gun when Scott ran.
Further, you have no evidence that slager was acting on the basis of race. The proportion of white officer to the proportion of black men being arrested for violent crimes means that a white officer being involved in the use of force against a black man in 2 situations is extremely likely.
However, Scott’s reaction in his tweets about the Martin case are clearly racist.
Of course we don’t know for certain what happened with the taser and fight that occured between scott and slager.
However if their was any kind of physical altercation between them before the video that will be enough to legally exonerate Slager.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
It appears Scott used Officer Slager’s own Taser on him moments before the video started.
The video is from an extremely biased entirely race based blog aptly named Whiteskinnedman. The video shows a taser on the floor. When someone is trying to use a taser on you it is natural human instinct to try and stop them tasing you.
There is clearly no evidence Scott attempted to use the taser on the Officer first. However even if he had he then ran unarmed.
I don’t see how that would justify shooting a man in the back.
We then see the taser on the floor and Scott running. The officer is in zero danger. He casually pumps 8 rounds into an unarmed fleeing man. No one is outraged at the police stopping him. No one is outraged the cop tried to tase a fleeing suspect. Everyone is outraged a cop executed a fleeing unarmed black with no imminent danger to himself. At a time when unarmed black men seem to be dropping like flies.
They planted the taser next to the body
They claimed they gave CPR
They claimed the Officer was in imminent danger
Also the fact the cop has had incidents in the past that would indicate he is prone to escelating force when dealing with black men really makes you wonder how many times this guy has abused his power.
[/quote]
There is a photograph that shows both scott and slager on the ground after he was heard warning him he’d be taxed/shot in the dash cam video and before the video taken by the bystander. Also, in the bystander video you see the tazer wire coming from slager’s foot/shin and another wire coming from his upper body tangled up in scott’s leg as he ran.
Further, if it turns out in the court hearing that there are marks from the taser bolt on slager, then regardless of who tried to use the taser, slager was within his legal rights to use his gun when Scott ran.
Further, you have no evidence that slager was acting on the basis of race. The proportion of white officer to the proportion of black men being arrested for violent crimes means that a white officer being involved in the use of force against a black man in 2 situations is extremely likely.
However, Scott’s reaction in his tweets about the Martin case are clearly racist.
Of course we don’t know for certain what happened with the taser and fight that occured between scott and slager.
However if their was any kind of physical altercation between them before the video that will be enough to legally exonerate Slager.
[/quote]
That does not make the shooting legal. He was running with no weapon. There is a reason the police union are not supporting him. The killing was unlawful.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Further, if it turns out in the court hearing that there are marks from the taser bolt on slager, then regardless of who tried to use the taser, slager was within his legal rights to use his gun when Scott ran.
[/quote]
Please explain how ANYONE is within legal rights to shoot an unarmed man in the back.
I’ll wait.
If that does come out in court, and this officer is found “not guilty”, can you IMAGINE the civil unrest? LMAO
It’ll make Fergusen look like a walk in the park. And rightfully so.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Murder for a police officer is legally not the same as murder for everyone else. [/quote]
Sure it is.
[quote]
You could be detained for selling raw milk or for running a lemonade stand without a license and if you resist enough(which is completely moral to do with anyone else trying to detain you) and they will escalate until they kill you. [/quote]
Hyperbole aside, we give the police the authority to enforce the law. That’s kinda the point.
[quote]
Police officers aren’t some kind of magical people that somehow can initiate force without expecting an escalation of violence. [/quote]
Well ya, they kind are…
[quote]
The only “good” cop is one that doesn’t ever enforce non-violent “crimes”, which is exactly ZERO cops. [/quote]
Lol, whut? It’s an officers job to enforce The Law, not some of the laws they think are good to go. Blame your state government and/or Congress. They’re the ones that pass the laws, even the dumb ones.
[quote]
You cannot be a cop without being EXPECTED to commit assault and murder eventually, because enforcing most laws will eventually lead to someone escalating to that point in self-defense.[/quote]
You’ve got an interesting outlook on life… [/quote]
You cannot commit homicide other than in certain instances of self defense without it being criminal. [/quote]
You most certainly can. The initiation of deadly force is authorized, under certain circumstance, for individuals and certain groups unrelated to self defense.
[quote]
A police officer can detain/assault a person for selling raw milk(or any other voluntary non-violent transaction/activity that is banned) and then kill them for acting in self defense. [/quote]
Raw milk laws are not law enforcement concern. That is a legislative matter. Police officers have been granted, by us, the legal use of deadly force when a citizen resists arrest. That is also a legislative matter.
Resisting arrest =/= self defense.
[quote]
If you believe someone is wrong for selling raw milk and you did the same, you would be tried for murder. The police officer will not. [/quote]
If I believe is a law is unlawful I would take it up with law makers and the judicial branch. I wouldn’t resist, in most case, the enforcement officers who are authorized to use deadly force when warranted.
[quote]
It’s not Hyperbole,[/quote]
Am I unaware of a lemonade stand citation turning into a use of deadly force occurrence? Please link, I;d love to read about.
[quote]
police can and HAVE in fact arrested/fined people for selling raw milk and threatened arrest/fines for little girls in several cases selling lemonade without a license. [/quote]
I get it, you don’t like the laws against these things. I tend to agree. That is still a legislative matter. It is not law enforcement job, thank God, to determine which laws are just and which laws are not.
[quote]
WE don’t GIVE the police ANYTHING. [/quote]
Yes, we do.
[quote]
How can you possibly GIVE the police the authority to do something you as an individual cannot do? [/quote]
We have collectively give the executive branch(s) of our government the ability to enforce laws the legislative branch(s) have created. That’s how.
[quote]
And don’t give me the democracy bullshit. [/quote]
Well, we don’t live in the People Republic of Magic Thoughts now do we?
[quote]
A collective doesn’t magically gain the rights an individual doesn’t have. that argument defeats all individual right for the rights of the majority. [/quote]
You could argue the enforcement of laws ratified by the collective is an extension of individual rights.
[quote]
And NO…limits through checks and balances don’t make any difference because once certain people have a monopoly on the initiation of force they have always and will always used it to manipulate the language to circumvent those checks. [/quote]
So, human nature. Good luck changing that. The balance of power can change and has numerous times thought out history. If you don’t like it, change it.
[quote]
You don’t seriously believe police officers are magical do you? [/quote]
No I don’t think they’re fucking magical.
[quote]
NO I’m going to blame you and others who support those laws by participating(legitimizing) the voting process and further speaking out in the support of ANY initiation of force which makes it possible for politicians to do what they do instead of being ostracized like the sociopaths they are.[/quote]
Okay, do whatever you want. It’s a free country because of those so called illegitimate institutions initiating force in your name so you can cry about it on the internet. [/quote]
Where is the contract I or You signed authorizing any kind of “special” use of force by certain individuals? [/quote]
Are you a U.S. citizen? Do you have a social security number? Your parents signed it for you, their parents signed it for them, so on and so forth all the way back to 1776.
You don’t like it, it’s up to you to leave.
[quote]
Governments are in fact just magical thoughts where people are deluded into believing that such a contract was ever signed by anyone that is subject to the monopoly on force the government and police have. [/quote]
That’s called reality.
[quote]
Further, you can’t make a universal statement out of this because clearly if any group of individuals made AN ACTUAL competing contract for their own law enforcement agency with the authorization to use special force, they would immediately be destroyed by the police. [/quote]
Because we the people have already established who gets to have that authority.
Man you’re stupid. Their was NO SUCH THING AS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS BEFORE 1935.
Social Security numbers are to track your tax and social security payments and only much later became ubiquitous identifying numbers due to convenience.
Further, the actually social security tax has nothing to do with social security pension payments. It’s just a pyramid scheme used to push the welfare system since the great depression.
There also was no such thing as United States Citizenship before the INS in 1933.
People were forced to sign up for those systems then(among many other things they gave up like being forced to give up their gold, etc…) or you went to jail.
So again, where’s the contract I signed or anyone else signed authorizing the monopoly on force?
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
[quote]YamatoDamashii92 wrote:
[quote]Will207 wrote:
It appears Scott used Officer Slager’s own Taser on him moments before the video started.
The video is from an extremely biased entirely race based blog aptly named Whiteskinnedman. The video shows a taser on the floor. When someone is trying to use a taser on you it is natural human instinct to try and stop them tasing you.
There is clearly no evidence Scott attempted to use the taser on the Officer first. However even if he had he then ran unarmed.
I don’t see how that would justify shooting a man in the back.
We then see the taser on the floor and Scott running. The officer is in zero danger. He casually pumps 8 rounds into an unarmed fleeing man. No one is outraged at the police stopping him. No one is outraged the cop tried to tase a fleeing suspect. Everyone is outraged a cop executed a fleeing unarmed black with no imminent danger to himself. At a time when unarmed black men seem to be dropping like flies.
They planted the taser next to the body
They claimed they gave CPR
They claimed the Officer was in imminent danger
Also the fact the cop has had incidents in the past that would indicate he is prone to escelating force when dealing with black men really makes you wonder how many times this guy has abused his power.
[/quote]
There is a photograph that shows both scott and slager on the ground after he was heard warning him he’d be taxed/shot in the dash cam video and before the video taken by the bystander. Also, in the bystander video you see the tazer wire coming from slager’s foot/shin and another wire coming from his upper body tangled up in scott’s leg as he ran.
Further, if it turns out in the court hearing that there are marks from the taser bolt on slager, then regardless of who tried to use the taser, slager was within his legal rights to use his gun when Scott ran.
Further, you have no evidence that slager was acting on the basis of race. The proportion of white officer to the proportion of black men being arrested for violent crimes means that a white officer being involved in the use of force against a black man in 2 situations is extremely likely.
However, Scott’s reaction in his tweets about the Martin case are clearly racist.
Of course we don’t know for certain what happened with the taser and fight that occured between scott and slager.
However if their was any kind of physical altercation between them before the video that will be enough to legally exonerate Slager.
[/quote]
That does not make the shooting legal. He was running with no weapon. There is a reason the police union are not supporting him. The killing was unlawful.
[/quote]
It doesn’t matter if he was running or not, if he committed a felony by fighting with the cop while resisting arrest after running the first time, the police officer can use any force necessary to make the arrest. Further, if the taser was no longer usable to make the arrest, shooting him would be his only other option after running him down the first time was ineffective.
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Further, if it turns out in the court hearing that there are marks from the taser bolt on slager, then regardless of who tried to use the taser, slager was within his legal rights to use his gun when Scott ran.
[/quote]
Please explain how ANYONE is within legal rights to shoot an unarmed man in the back.
I’ll wait.
If that does come out in court, and this officer is found “not guilty”, can you IMAGINE the civil unrest? LMAO
It’ll make Fergusen look like a walk in the park. And rightfully so.
[/quote]
If he’s found not guilty I will probably protest this one.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
Man you’re stupid. [/quote]
Lol.
[quote]
Their was NO SUCH THING AS SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS BEFORE 1935. [/quote]
I didn’t say that there was…
[quote]
Social Security numbers are to track your tax and social security payments and only much later became ubiquitous identifying numbers due to convenience.
Further, the actually social security tax has nothing to do with social security pension payments. It’s just a pyramid scheme used to push the welfare system since the great depression. [/quote]
Thanks for the lesson I didn’t need.
Go fuck yourself.
[quote]TooHuman wrote:
It doesn’t matter if he was running or not, if he committed a felony by fighting with the cop while resisting arrest after running the first time, the police officer can use any force necessary to make the arrest. Further, if the taser was no longer usable to make the arrest, shooting him would be his only other option after running him down the first time was ineffective.[/quote]
No he can’t. You are a moron.