Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   "And so it's come to this: Rand Paul talking all by himself on the Senate floor. It is a very sad statement on the intellectual collapse...of the media, whose first impulse in this administration is to circle the wagons around the White House"   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line 337
    More: Sad, Rand Paul, White House, filibusters  
•       •       •

10976 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Mar 2013 at 11:49 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



337 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-07 12:19:15 PM  

MyRandomName: St_Francis_P: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I don't think that. I do think it's up to Congress to pass new laws and clarify existing ones, instead of using the opportunity for political grandstanding.

Since when do new laws need to be created to remove unconstitutional action? I would love to hear your scenario that would provide a constitutional acceptable drone attack on an american citizen in the u.s.


Hypothetically, if a drone was purchased and armed by a police agency (not the military), and it observed a person with -- say -- a rocket launcher standing in a field at the end of a runway & preparing to shoot at a commercial airliner, then I don't see any constitutional problem with the police using the drone to kill him.  If a cop was actually on the scene, he'd be justified in shooting the person in such a scenario, and being in the middle of an open field precludes any possible collateral damage.

That being said, I'd still be against doing this because of the possibility of error -- and also that its just unnecessary.  Police could respond in person pretty quickly within the US as long as they know where to go.
 
2013-03-07 12:19:19 PM  

Saiga410: Karac: being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.

Use of drone in a battlefield area is fine.  When the administration uses a drone attack to kill a US citizen because he is a propigandist for Al quida, does not meet up with needed use of force against a US citizen.  No emminant threat.


al-awlaki recruited and trained militants.  Remember the Christmas Day bomber?  He was recruited and trained by al-awlaki.
 
2013-03-07 12:19:56 PM  

Parthenogenetic: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Too late.

There's an article in this month's issue of National Geographic about drones.

[kxnet.images.worldnow.com image 265x388]

Here in Dayton, OH there is a thriving drone and sensor industry growing in the pork-laden soil surrounding the Wright-Patterson AFB.

I doubt armed drones will be deployed within the USA.  The drones will provide pervasive surveillance so that cops can shoot, pepper spray, and Taser pre-crime suspects in person, the old fashioned way.

It's for public safety, citizen.  Why are you against safety?


So when this is voted in unanimously, can we expect Scalia to express doubts that the decision was come to logically in a decision overturning the will of elected officials?

Or what?
 
2013-03-07 12:20:57 PM  

Saiga410: Karac: being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.

Use of drone in a battlefield area is fine.  When the administration uses a drone attack to kill a US citizen because he is a propigandist for Al quida, does not meet up with needed use of force against a US citizen.  No emminant threat.



Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
"No," Holder replied.

Nice to see that you agree exactly with Obama and Holder on the use of drones.
 
2013-03-07 12:21:56 PM  

sprgrss: If he were serious and not doing this for purely political reasons, he would introduce legislation on the topic.


Like this?

i5.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-07 12:22:03 PM  
I see all the tiny minds who paint themselves as lib/con here glorifying ignorance, stupidity and the continued cluster fark of our current government.

Way to go, guys! Keep farking that chicken!
 
2013-03-07 12:22:09 PM  

MugzyBrown: Lord_Baull: What the hell are you smoking? Who's been executed outside of enemy combatants* in Al Queada?

*remember the contex of when that word was first used?


Who determined they were enemy combatants? Was there evidence presented to a jury or judge convicting them of being an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed an enemy combatant?  Was every person killed in an active war zone?



Frigging George Bush, you friggin moran.
 
2013-03-07 12:22:59 PM  

LasersHurt: I am not going down your rabbit hole of choice. You said Obama, Barack Obama, has decided to kill everyone rather than give them trials because Gitmo wasn't closed.

Defend your statement, but don't try to drag me down some unrelated path. You said something dumb - justify it.


Item 1: Barack Obama campaigned against holding suspected terrorists at GTMO to "uphold our values" of due process.

Item 2: Barack Obama orders/allows the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists without due process

You don't see a contradiction?


qorkfiend: Yes, it's Congress's fault for not revoking that ability and then complaining that the President is doing something they have legally empowered him to do.


So because the president has the authority to do it, it absolves him of any wrong-doing for using that power?
 
2013-03-07 12:23:11 PM  

ficklefkrfark: /the (d) and (r) are like two drunks in a bar accusing each other of having a drinking problem.


And then going home and beating their wives who refuse to leave them because if they do, they are afraid that the other drunk will come over and rape them.
 
2013-03-07 12:23:36 PM  

doubled99: I see all the tiny minds who paint themselves as lib/con here glorifying ignorance, stupidity and the continued cluster fark of our current government.

Way to go, guys! Keep farking that chicken!


The important thing is that you found a way to feel superior to both parties, while adding nothing to the thread yourself.
 
2013-03-07 12:23:44 PM  

Carth: PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.

Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.


Why would you fire a $30,000 missile at a field full of plants?
 
2013-03-07 12:24:00 PM  

Lord_Baull: Frigging George Bush, you friggin moran.


George Bush is still directing drone strikes?
 
2013-03-07 12:24:24 PM  

LasersHurt: MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: The problem with your being upset by this is that No, that's not what he's said, or what anyone has suggested. I have no idea where you would get this idea. This has nothing to do with anything currently being discussed.

So the CIA currently does not kill people in foreign countries via drone without judicial review?

I am not going down your rabbit hole of choice. You said Obama, Barack Obama, has decided to kill everyone rather than give them trials because Gitmo wasn't closed.



No, no, he's just asking questions.
 
2013-03-07 12:24:33 PM  

halfof33: The Benghazi terrorist attack, during which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.

As Deputy National Security Brennan was also involved in coordinating the obviously false story that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest, even though the FBI, State Department AND CIA had evidence directly contradicting it.

\m/



There you go again.

i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-03-07 12:25:00 PM  

MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: I am not going down your rabbit hole of choice. You said Obama, Barack Obama, has decided to kill everyone rather than give them trials because Gitmo wasn't closed.

Defend your statement, but don't try to drag me down some unrelated path. You said something dumb - justify it.

Item 1: Barack Obama campaigned against holding suspected terrorists at GTMO to "uphold our values" of due process.

Item 2: Barack Obama orders/allows the use of drones to kill suspected terrorists without due process

You don't see a contradiction?


No. I don't. There's a huge difference in the way you treat captured combatants and combatants in the field. I really don't see how you think there's some important connection here.
 
2013-03-07 12:25:13 PM  

doubled99: I see all the tiny minds who paint themselves as lib/con here glorifying ignorance, stupidity and the continued cluster fark of our current government.

Way to go, guys! Keep farking that chicken!


Is this the new Fark Independent(tm) party line?
 
2013-03-07 12:27:11 PM  

jshine: Arkanaut: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I think the average Farker is wondering why Congress (the majority of Congress, anyway) doesn't take that option off the table once and for good.

Well, to "use" drones is a very ambiguous term...  I've got no real objection to drones being used for aerial surveillance in place of cops in helicopters (as is currently done).  Firing missiles is entirely different, and I wouldn't support that.


You'll get use to it.
 
2013-03-07 12:28:44 PM  

jshine: qorkfiend: HellRaisingHoosier: I feel the same way ... I do not want to see drones used on U.S. soil.

Why do you care specifically about drones, and not about the other tools at the disposal of the various domestic law enforcement agencies?

Yea, I don't understand the objection...  Police have been watching people from helicopters for years -- why does taking the pilot out of the aircraft and controlling it via radio-link make it any better or worse?


Because of reasons, that's why.
 
2013-03-07 12:29:03 PM  

PanicMan: Carth: PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.

Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.

Why would you fire a $30,000 missile at a field full of plants?


I ask myself that all the time. We spend around 50 billion dollars a year on drug laws. What is another 30,000 at that point. (estimates on just marijuana range between 7 and 15 billion).
 
2013-03-07 12:29:15 PM  

LasersHurt: No. I don't. There's a huge difference in the way you treat captured combatants and combatants in the field. I really don't see how you think there's some important connection here.


What's 'the field'? RIght now it's anywhere in the world.

This is a small meeting in Yemen or Somalia.  There's no active war zone here.

You're fine with executing people and just trusting the CIA that they were bad people.  The CIA does have a flawless record of such things.
 
2013-03-07 12:29:27 PM  

halfof33: The Benghazi terrorist attack, during which Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed, was mounted by Islamist militants in retaliation for attacks on them by JSOC forces. The raids, were ordered by President Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan, who was acting outside the command structure.

As Deputy National Security Brennan was also involved in coordinating the obviously false story that the attack spontaneously arose out of an anti-video protest, even though the FBI, State Department AND CIA had evidence directly contradicting it.

\m/


Let's stipulate that as true.

So?
 
2013-03-07 12:30:49 PM  

MugzyBrown: Lord_Baull: Frigging George Bush, you friggin moran.

George Bush is still directing drone strikes?



MugzyBrown: Who determined they were enemy combatants?



You have the memory retention of a teabagger. Good day, sir.
 
2013-03-07 12:31:01 PM  

MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: No. I don't. There's a huge difference in the way you treat captured combatants and combatants in the field. I really don't see how you think there's some important connection here.

What's 'the field'? RIght now it's anywhere in the world.

This is a small meeting in Yemen or Somalia.  There's no active war zone here.

You're fine with executing people and just trusting the CIA that they were bad people.  The CIA does have a flawless record of such things.


I just don't think that NOW is an honest time for people to decide that NOBODY in the world should be killed without due process.

And let me say, I don't disagree. In a perfect world, nobody would get killed. I just have a huge problem with people who suddenly have decided they have a problem with "bad guys" being killed.
 
2013-03-07 12:31:26 PM  

Karac: Saiga410: Karac: being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.

Use of drone in a battlefield area is fine.  When the administration uses a drone attack to kill a US citizen because he is a propigandist for Al quida, does not meet up with needed use of force against a US citizen.  No emminant threat.


Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
"No," Holder replied.

Nice to see that you agree exactly with Obama and Holder on the use of drones.


Then why are they not following it.  We have killed terrorists that were driving down the road... just driving down a road (similar to sitting in a cafe).  They at that point possed no threat.  The only justification is that they were to hard to get to to capture so we kill em.
 
2013-03-07 12:31:50 PM  

Arkanaut: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I think the average Farker is wondering why Congress (the majority of Congress, anyway) doesn't take that option off the table once and for good.


If you watch President Obama's "fireside hangout" from a few weeks ago, he actually called on Congress to come up with clear rules about the use of drones on American soil.
 
2013-03-07 12:32:10 PM  

Carth: PanicMan: Carth: PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.

Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.

Why would you fire a $30,000 missile at a field full of plants?

I ask myself that all the time. We spend around 50 billion dollars a year on drug laws. What is another 30,000 at that point. (estimates on just marijuana range between 7 and 15 billion).



Friggin this.
 
2013-03-07 12:33:17 PM  
This is one of those two times a day that the clock (Rand Paul) is right. I agree with TFA on that.... but I take issue with a LOT of the other shiat in that article. Seriously, Benghazi? The author brings up a legit point in one breath and then discredits themselves in the next by bringing up the Benghazi fauxtroversy.

And then there's this little gem:
And as for those pushing filibuster reform - in essence running interference for an administration that wants no push-back from any quarter on any nominee or legislation - they might take a good look at why the ability of the minority to hold up the majority is something we shouldn't easily cast aside.

Newsflash, dummy: Us who want fillibuster reform usually don't want to ELIMINATE the fillibuster at all. We want our lawmakers to actually be required to DO THEM and not just be able to shut everything down by threatening to.
 
2013-03-07 12:33:31 PM  
I see all the tiny minds who paint themselves as lib/con here glorifying ignorance, stupidity and the continued cluster fark of our current government.

Way to go, guys! Keep farking that chicken!

Is this the new Fark Independent(tm) party line?



It'll do.
What are the Fark liberal(tm) and Fark conservative(tm) slogans?
Oh wait, my bad. That might require original thought, which should only be mocked.
 
2013-03-07 12:34:10 PM  
Well if they don't circle the wagons, they might "end up regretting it."

Which is not a threat.  It's constructive criticism.
 
2013-03-07 12:35:37 PM  

vygramul: So?


So, Brennan has no business being named the head of the CIA and his nomination should be rejected by the Senate.
 
2013-03-07 12:35:54 PM  

anfrind: Arkanaut: Lee451: So, the average Farker thinnks it is ok to use drones on American citizens in the US? I can imagine the hatred spewing if GW had suggested something like this.

I think the average Farker is wondering why Congress (the majority of Congress, anyway) doesn't take that option off the table once and for good.

If you watch President Obama's "fireside hangout" from a few weeks ago, he actually called on Congress to come up with clear rules about the use of drones on American soil.



Shhhh. The Derp Squad is on a roll. Don't spoil their world view that Obama is a authoritarian dictator that jacks off to killing Americans on American soil.
 
2013-03-07 12:35:57 PM  

PanicMan: Carth: PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.

Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.

Why would you fire a $30,000 missile at a field full of plants?


Herbicidal flybys.

Kinda like they are doing in Columbia that has led to Roundup Resistant Coca plants.

//I wonder if people would smoke RR Marijuana?
 
2013-03-07 12:36:07 PM  

Saiga410: Karac: Saiga410: Karac: being against drones proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that they complety suck at doing it effectively.

Use of drone in a battlefield area is fine.  When the administration uses a drone attack to kill a US citizen because he is a propigandist for Al quida, does not meet up with needed use of force against a US citizen.  No emminant threat.


Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, pressed Holder whether he believed it would be constitutional to target an American terror suspect "sitting at a cafe" if the suspect didn't pose an imminent threat.
"No," Holder replied.

Nice to see that you agree exactly with Obama and Holder on the use of drones.

Then why are they not following it.  We have killed terrorists that were driving down the road... just driving down a road (similar to sitting in a cafe).  They at that point possed no threat.  The only justification is that they were to hard to get to to capture so we kill em.


We've droned people sitting in cafes on American soil?  Why was I not told about this?
 
2013-03-07 12:37:35 PM  

Talondel: sprgrss: If he were serious and not doing this for purely political reasons, he would introduce legislation on the topic.

Like this?

[i5.photobucket.com image 664x596]


Wow, a non-binding resolution that expresses current US and international law.  That's really going out on a limb here.
 
2013-03-07 12:39:11 PM  

Talondel: sprgrss: If he were serious and not doing this for purely political reasons, he would introduce legislation on the topic.

Like this?

[i5.photobucket.com image 664x596]


That's a non-binding resolution, it's not a bill of law. It says the Senate doesn't think it's right for him to do so, but it does not forbid it. Political grandstanding.

I agree that no POTUS should have the power, it should be removed. This does not do that, it leaves it in place for a future president of either party, and that resolution goes down the drain with a new Congress. Why not just remove the powers Congress granted, unless he wants to keep them for a POTUS of his party and doesn't actually care about the rights being infringed upon? That's all trying to get a statement from this administration does, rule it out for the Dem POTUS while leaving it intact for another.
 
2013-03-07 12:39:21 PM  

qorkfiend: Maybe Congress shouldn't have granted the power to make that determination solely to the executive in the first place. Maybe they should undo that, since they have the ability to do so.


I already have you favorited. I can't double-favorite you, geez.


St_Francis_P: Yes, Jennifer Rubin is a sad person.



This.
 
2013-03-07 12:40:14 PM  

Lord_Baull: You have the memory retention of a teabagger. Good day, sir.


I'm sorry you can't follow a conversation.  It must be difficult in your day-to-day life.

LasersHurt: I just don't think that NOW is an honest time for people to decide that NOBODY in the world should be killed without due process.

And let me say, I don't disagree. In a perfect world, nobody would get killed. I just have a huge problem with people who suddenly have decided they have a problem with "bad guys" being killed.


It's not difficult to hold people accountable for their corruption.  If you agreed that GTMO was an embarassment to the US, then you should be appalled at the current administration's use of drones, which everybody agrees has been greatly expanded in the past 4 years.

The CIA's history is filled with abuse of power, killing people outside the law, and have been grilled for it.  But now because you like Obama, you defend his policy.
 
2013-03-07 12:42:07 PM  
pbs.twimg.com
 
2013-03-07 12:42:19 PM  

LasersHurt: MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: No. I don't. There's a huge difference in the way you treat captured combatants and combatants in the field. I really don't see how you think there's some important connection here.

What's 'the field'? RIght now it's anywhere in the world.

This is a small meeting in Yemen or Somalia.  There's no active war zone here.

You're fine with executing people and just trusting the CIA that they were bad people.  The CIA does have a flawless record of such things.

I just don't think that NOW is an honest time for people to decide that NOBODY in the world should be killed without due process.

And let me say, I don't disagree. In a perfect world, nobody would get killed. I just have a huge problem with people who suddenly have decided they have a problem with "bad guys" being killed.


It's fairly simple really. Captives vs. combatants. End of story. They don't necessarily need to be pointing a gun at someone to be engaged in hostilities, but once you've captured them and they can no longer carry out terrorist acts, there's really no reason to shoot them.

Is it bizarre that we have to explain this to people? Especially since 10 years ago, these were the "GLASS PARKING LOT" types who now insist that we eliminate terrorism through gentle cuddling.
 
2013-03-07 12:43:06 PM  

halfof33: vygramul: So?

So, Brennan has no business being named the head of the CIA and his nomination should be rejected by the Senate.


What was the damage that was caused by his actions?
 
2013-03-07 12:43:29 PM  

Carth: PanicMan: Carth: PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.

Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.

Why would you fire a $30,000 missile at a field full of plants?

I ask myself that all the time. We spend around 50 billion dollars a year on drug laws. What is another 30,000 at that point. (estimates on just marijuana range between 7 and 15 billion).


Use a $30,000 missile with a napalm warhead to wipe out a field of devil weed with an estimated street value of $300 million**?  Oh yeah.  Totally cost effective.

If we hadn't pre-emptively destroyed that illegal marijuana, some of it could have been sold at the school that your kids attend!

** cop math
 
2013-03-07 12:43:34 PM  

MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: I just don't think that NOW is an honest time for people to decide that NOBODY in the world should be killed without due process.

And let me say, I don't disagree. In a perfect world, nobody would get killed. I just have a huge problem with people who suddenly have decided they have a problem with "bad guys" being killed.

It's not difficult to hold people accountable for their corruption.  If you agreed that GTMO was an embarassment to the US, then you should be appalled at the current administration's use of drones, which everybody agrees has been greatly expanded in the past 4 years.

The CIA's history is filled with abuse of power, killing people outside the law, and have been grilled for it.  But now because you like Obama, you defend his policy.


I do not have to agree with you, and you're kind of dumb for assuming I do. "It has to be interpreted this one way, and if you disagree, you're wrong and also love Obama."

Maybe I just think you're wrong?
 
2013-03-07 12:43:41 PM  

anfrind: If you watch President Obama's "fireside hangout" from a few weeks ago, he actually called on Congress to come up with clear rules about the use of drones on American soil.


Obama doesn't need to wait for congress.  He is the chief executive.

He could issue an executive order that would require judicial review before the deadly use of force via a drone.

This would apply until another executive overturned the order, or until congress changed the law.

Any innocent blood killed by the drones since 2009 is on Obama's hands not congress's
 
2013-03-07 12:44:00 PM  
Saiga410:  We have killed terrorists that were driving down the road... just driving down a road (similar to sitting in a cafe).  They at that point possed no threat.  The only justification is that they were to hard to get to to capture so we kill em.


Am I reading this right? You're lamenting that we took out an active Al-Queada member without the single loss of American lives because they weren't actually building a bomb at the time?
 
2013-03-07 12:44:08 PM  
I can't for the life of me figure out why the administration can't explicitly say, "Aside from an actual famine, we will not cook and eat small children."
 
2013-03-07 12:45:15 PM  
Front page of HuffPo is not effing around.
 
2013-03-07 12:45:17 PM  

Carth: PanicMan: I hate all this drone fearmongering.  There would literally have to be a war occurring on American soil for this to happen.  Jesus Christ.

Right. Not counting the War on Terrorism or the War on Drugs. I can see it now DEA gets drones and starts conducting strikes on marijuana growing facilities.


... because they have gunship helicopters and are totally allowed to do that now. Right?
 
2013-03-07 12:45:38 PM  

LasersHurt: I do not have to agree with you, and you're kind of dumb for assuming I do. "It has to be interpreted this one way, and if you disagree, you're wrong and also love Obama."

Maybe I just think you're wrong?


I didn't say you have to agree with me, but you're hypocritical if you support the current drone program and criticized GTMO.
 
2013-03-07 12:46:01 PM  
Can somebody explain to the derp brigade that drones are not the issue. The issue is can the U.S. use MILITARY weapons to kill U.S. citizens in America? The answer is no, unless there's an insurrection to put down (see Confederate States of America).
 
2013-03-07 12:47:09 PM  

LasersHurt: MugzyBrown: LasersHurt: No. I don't. There's a huge difference in the way you treat captured combatants and combatants in the field. I really don't see how you think there's some important connection here.

What's 'the field'? RIght now it's anywhere in the world.

This is a small meeting in Yemen or Somalia.  There's no active war zone here.

You're fine with executing people and just trusting the CIA that they were bad people.  The CIA does have a flawless record of such things.

I just don't think that NOW is an honest time for people to decide that NOBODY in the world should be killed without due process.

And let me say, I don't disagree. In a perfect world, nobody would get killed. I just have a huge problem with people who suddenly have decided they have a problem with "bad guys" being killed.


Its a matter of circumstance: if person A is in the process of pulling a gun to shoot person B, then a cop is justified in shooting A to prevent the murder.  That has been the law for -- well -- forever, as far as I'm aware (though IANAL).

Obviously its preferable to arrest A and send him/her to trial, but if there's an imminent threat to the life of a cop or another person, then police have the power to use deadly force to deal with that threat if necessary.
 
Displayed 50 of 337 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report