Any other dishonest debate tactics you want to trot out while you’re at it?
Yes, like every other cop does in similar situations. The face slam is not typical thank God.
I mean, that's been the argument in court from many a cop that I've seen. Similarly, Brianna Taylor died in her own apartment while sleeping when the cops served a no knock warrant based on falsified information, and someone inside tried to defend themselves. The cops were cleared because even though they no knocked and didn't announce, the sleeping people being woken up by intruders breaking in should have known that they were cops and not to try to defend themselves.
IIRC the Florida shooting of the airmen was fairly similar to where the door was answered by the kid who had a pistol pointed down and away from the officer and he was executed within seconds before he could probably even establish that the person WAS a cop and not just someone claiming that. But people like the bootlickers argue that's okay that people can get executed or face slammed because "heat of the moment" and "you don't know" and "cops are better than us" and thin blue line crap.
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2023
- Messages
- 50
- Reaction score
- 68
I call BS… if this “cop” couldn’t turn this guy around and cuff him without throwing him to pavement…says it all… he’s a bully like most are…
Guys, quit feeding the troll…. He’s gonna get fat.
A good daily beating until moral improves usually turns that attitude around.I thought owning libs was outlawed. Besides I, myself, would never want one....to high maintenance.
Dishonest??
That's quite the stretch
I said id before the officer went overboard, but this could have been avoided altogether if the clown hadn't acted like a azzhat.
Anyhow I am going to let this one die. I don't have a dog in the fight just thought some of the blame should go on the moron that escalated it to begin with.
have a nice day yall.
now we are talking.A good daily beating until moral improves usually turns that attitude around.
The reason that's a justified shooting is because the definition is based on what the shooter knew at the time. It's the same as if someone were to point a toy gun at a cop. Just like a cop can't be convicted for not being able to distinguish a toy gun from a real one, cops can't be convicted for doing their job in good faith. This incident would fall under the general category of swatting. Whoever falsified the information is the one who's responsible for her murder (premeditated too).
The Vu incident is night and day. Based on the information he knew at the time, he was not justified in using force. He would have been justified in grabbing the old man's arm to prevent him from touching him, and using whatever force was necessary to get him into cuffs (which would have been zero because Vu had already consented to be arrested two or three times).
Nope....the cops that falsified it were cleared from any wrongdoing. IIRC the boyfriend was listed as her cause of death by the judge because he shot at the "intruders" who fired back and killed her. There was a push to try to make the people that falsified information that resulted in the no-knock being issued, but a judge said "no, they're cops, so obviously they can't be held responsible --- it wasn't that they were there based on the lies, it's that the boyfriend tried to defend them!".
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/25/us/breonna-taylor-raid-charges-dismissed/index.html
Remember, our "right" to bear arms has now been confirmed to only be a mild suggestion. Because as soon as the cops can see, think, claim, or otherwise have any notion that you have a gun (which is supposed to be your legal, constitutional right) they can murder you in the street or even your own bed.
