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.

(Courthouse News Service)   Refusing to let the police use your home as a lookout? That's a smashed open door and assault and arresting and jailing and some looting by the police while you are away   (courthousenews.com) divider line 372
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

14045 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2013 at 5:03 PM (40 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-04 06:33:47 PM

BarkingUnicorn: (A) No person shall negligently fail or refuse to aid a law enforcement officer, when called upon for assistance in preventing or halting the commission of an offense, or in apprehending or detaining an offender, when such aid can be given without a substantial risk of physical harm to the person giving it.


Obviously this case shows that you are at substantial risk if you allow police onto your property and into your home without a warrant and thus under no obligation to assist them.
 
2013-07-04 06:34:05 PM

OregonVet: You do realize Military Police is a modern concept, don't you?


That was my point. Sorry I did not communicate it as well as I intended.

Civilian Police are NOT Military Police. They are not members of the Military, nor are they members of the State National Guard.

bunner: Aren't these the same motherf*ckers who aren't legally obliged to intervene in activities harmful to citizens or halt criminal activity?


You're referring to DC V. Heller, right, with no idea what the definition of "Special Relationship" means in that case, or the fact that it was not the SCOTUS?
 
2013-07-04 06:35:57 PM

LrdPhoenix: EVERYBODY PANIC: Hey, this is what big government does. Why are we surprised. And just wait... Big government is  gonna get LAAAAARGER! Yay!

This isn't big government, this is city government, which is as small time as you can get.  Don't forget, the people crying about big government often say that the states, counties, and cities should be able to do practically whatever they want, even though that's the level where the most blatant rights abuses take place since the feds tend to watch their step and make sure that they actually have a good and legal reason to do so when it comes to actually causing legal injury to others.


Agree, most folks who prefer smaller govt are especially focussed on the abuses at the federal level. But it is still oppressive and wrong for any organization entrusted with authority to so badly abuse the regular folk. This does not bode well for the future. Your correction is appreciated.
 
2013-07-04 06:38:07 PM

OnlyM3: This is why every time a cop dies, I laugh my ass off.

Fark every last god damned one of them


That says something about you.  Fark the ones that abuse power, appreciate the ones that protect and serve.
 
2013-07-04 06:39:35 PM
One of my dreams is to have a homeowner shoots and seriously injures a police officer who illegally entered into the home, and the courts rule that the shooting was justified.
 
2013-07-04 06:40:04 PM

bunner: Pinko_Commie: Amusingly those are American school kids, probably reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Precisely why I referenced that pic.


I did wonder, it seemed an interesting choice. I'm also glad I wasn't snarky.
 
2013-07-04 06:43:08 PM

eventhelosers: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

[endthelie.com image 850x637]


Yeah, so farking what?  I can go out and buy a tank or an APC just like that one.  Does that mean I am now part of the military?
 
2013-07-04 06:52:00 PM

Mock26: One of my dreams is to have a homeowner shoots and seriously injures a police officer who illegally entered into the home, and the courts rule that the shooting was justified.


shooting a cop is ALWAYS against the law.  this is why if your gonna rob someone, don a police outfit b4hand
 
2013-07-04 06:52:28 PM

AngryDragon: Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x310]


Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.
 
2013-07-04 06:53:04 PM

eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]


Yeah, you tell them!  Everyone knows that it is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE I TELL YOU, for criminals to possess firearms powerful enough to shoot through body armor or the thin sheet metal used in squad cars.  It simply is not possible for the police to ever be outgunned, so they should not be allowed to possess any vehicle that is armored in any way, shape or form!  I am so glad that I live in a country where the criminals never use any firearm more powerful than a pistol, shotgun, or small caliber hunting rifle.  America, fark YEAH!
 
2013-07-04 06:53:05 PM
This is an outrage if even remotely true, however a search of the news turns up no other stories about this.  I suppose I could look up the court records and see if there really is a lawsuit filed.
 
2013-07-04 06:54:20 PM

Pinko_Commie: bunner: Pinko_Commie: Amusingly those are American school kids, probably reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Precisely why I referenced that pic.

I did wonder, it seemed an interesting choice. I'm also glad I wasn't snarky.


Whatever the powers that be can convince our children is normal and acceptable, or old and useless and must be discarded are the floors and walls of the society we will build for tomorrow.
 
2013-07-04 06:55:06 PM

Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Yeah, you tell them!  Everyone knows that it is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE I TELL YOU, for criminals to possess firearms powerful enough to shoot through body armor or the thin sheet metal used in squad cars.  It simply is not possible for the police to ever be outgunned, so they should not be allowed to possess any vehicle that is armored in any way, shape or form!  I am so glad that I live in a country where the criminals never use any firearm more powerful than a pistol, shotgun, or small caliber hunting rifle.  America, fark YEAH!


The police should not be allowed to use any firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess.  If the police argue that they need more firepower, then that's fine, so long as we are allowed more firepower.  And for the same farking reason they give.
 
2013-07-04 06:55:08 PM

theknuckler_33: This happened two YEARS ago and they just filed a complain this week?


You have to file a claim and wait for it to be denied before you can sue. Plus time for gathering evidence and statements etc.

/IANAL but even I now that much just from paying slight attention now and then between bouts of drunken carousing.
//I posted this drunk, from a bar, on my phone
///slashes!
 
2013-07-04 06:55:22 PM

HempHead: AngryDragon: Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x310]

Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.


OK, so empirically speaking, it wasn't a good playbook?
 
2013-07-04 06:56:20 PM

hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.


But, but, no police officer in America has ever been in an active shooter situation where they would need an armored vehicle to protect themselves or victims!  It is just not possible!  All criminals have an honor code that prevents them from being heavily armed or armored!  Gee, EVERYONE knows that.
 
2013-07-04 06:59:11 PM

Jon iz teh kewl: Mock26: One of my dreams is to have a homeowner shoots and seriously injures a police officer who illegally entered into the home, and the courts rule that the shooting was justified.

shooting a cop is ALWAYS against the law.  this is why if your gonna rob someone, don a police outfit b4hand


Not in Indiana since last year.  Here's just one section that has cops shiatting their pants there:

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html

 (k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:
        (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:
            (A) acting unlawfully; or
            (B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties; and
        (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.
 
2013-07-04 06:59:12 PM

HempHead: AngryDragon: Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x310]

Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.


And when the german people claimed, "we didn't know what he was going to do!" the response should have been "he made it pretty damn clear what he was planning to, and since everyone was pretty much required to memorize that horrid book, you knew."
 
2013-07-04 07:01:12 PM

Mock26: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

But, but, no police officer in America has ever been in an active shooter situation where they would need an armored vehicle to protect themselves or victims!  It is just not possible!  All criminals have an honor code that prevents them from being heavily armed or armored!  Gee, EVERYONE knows that.


If the police limited themselves to using their special gear in those extreme and RARE circumstances, I doubt anyone would have a problem with it.  Except they like to go full on military raid style for non-violent and minor warrants, e.g. simple pot possession.
 
2013-07-04 07:02:41 PM
www.mindparts.org
 
2013-07-04 07:03:04 PM

eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third:  You got it right.  (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?



img.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-04 07:04:17 PM

gfid: This is an outrage if even remotely true, however a search of the news turns up no other stories about this.  I suppose I could look up the court records and see if there really is a lawsuit filed.


CourtHouseNews is a fairly old (est. mid-90s) legit news service with no political agenda.  It publishes civil cases of interest to legal pros, that's all.
 
2013-07-04 07:06:34 PM

eventhelosers: OnlyM3: This is why every time a cop dies, I laugh my ass off.

Fark every last god damned one of them

That says something about you.  Fark the ones that abuse power, appreciate the ones that protect and serve.


...which would be "all of them" and "none of them", respectively.
 
2013-07-04 07:08:25 PM

buckeyebrain: eventhelosers: OnlyM3: This is why every time a cop dies, I laugh my ass off.

Fark every last god damned one of them

That says something about you.  Fark the ones that abuse power, appreciate the ones that protect and serve.

...which would be "all of them" and "none of them", respectively.


The good cops succumb to peer pressure and eventually become bad cops. Or they try to point out police abuse, get framed for crimes, then shot and burned in a small cabin in the woods.
 
2013-07-04 07:09:07 PM

hardinparamedic: You do not have the right to shoot the police.


That's a rather broad statement that is not factual. In Texas, you do have the right to shoot the police and it is even specifically called out:

(c)  The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.


(this is defining use of force but not lethal force, but this opens the door for legal force)

I don't want to be the one to test this in court, though.

[1] http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm
 
2013-07-04 07:09:50 PM

hardinparamedic: Civilian Police are NOT Military Police. They are not members of the Military, nor are they members of the State National Guard.


Actually, there are in fact a lot of civilian cops in both the NG and the Reserves. I know that has nothing to do with this, but the fact remains that.
 
2013-07-04 07:11:19 PM

eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]


Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?
 
2013-07-04 07:13:10 PM

Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?


How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?
 
2013-07-04 07:14:45 PM

Mock26: eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third:  You got it right.  (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]


OK here we go.........

I've driven them.  First hand experience.
 
2013-07-04 07:17:15 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Yeah, you tell them!  Everyone knows that it is impossible, IMPOSSIBLE I TELL YOU, for criminals to possess firearms powerful enough to shoot through body armor or the thin sheet metal used in squad cars.  It simply is not possible for the police to ever be outgunned, so they should not be allowed to possess any vehicle that is armored in any way, shape or form!  I am so glad that I live in a country where the criminals never use any firearm more powerful than a pistol, shotgun, or small caliber hunting rifle.  America, fark YEAH!

The police should not be allowed to use any firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess.  If the police argue that they need more firepower, then that's fine, so long as we are allowed more firepower.  And for the same farking reason they give.


Right!  Because everyone knows that no criminal would ever dare use a firearm that a civilian was not allowed to possess.  In the entire history of America no police officer has ever confronted a criminal using a firearm that would otherwise be illegal in the hands of a civilian.  Not a single incident.  I am so happy to live in a country where criminals obey the law.

Also, you do realize that the unarmed vehicle pictured is, well, an unarmed vehicle?  You can own one of those if you want.
 
2013-07-04 07:17:57 PM

hardinparamedic: bunner: Aren't these the same motherf*ckers who aren't legally obliged to intervene in activities harmful to citizens or halt criminal activity?

You're referring to DC V. Heller, right, with no idea what the definition of "Special Relationship" means in that case, or the fact that it was not the SCOTUS?


Are you confusing Heller with Warren?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
 
2013-07-04 07:18:36 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?


Also, how does that rate on the 9/11 scale? Two football fields or an Olympic swimming pool?
 
2013-07-04 07:19:36 PM

hardinparamedic: The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.


Doesn't sound very friendly.
 
2013-07-04 07:21:21 PM

eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third:  You got it right.  (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

OK here we go.........

I've driven them.  First hand experience.


Not too bright, are you?  Did you see the part that I had highlighted?  I will give you a hint, it was this part:  First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.Where is your proof of that?  Or are you saying that you drove the APC at the protest?
 
2013-07-04 07:21:36 PM

OgreMagi: The police should not be allowed to use any firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess. If the police argue that they need more firepower, then that's fine, so long as we are allowed more firepower. And for the same farking reason they give.


This. They are civilians just like and derive their power from us.  How can we give them something we don't have?
 
2013-07-04 07:24:06 PM

OgreMagi: How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?


West Memphis in 2010 comes to mind.

Weber, NY in 2012.
 
2013-07-04 07:24:56 PM

pedrop357: This. They are civilians just like and derive their power from us.  How can we give them something we don't have?


What firearms do the police use that civilians are not allowed to own? I'm curious.
 
2013-07-04 07:29:51 PM

bunner: HempHead: AngryDragon: Dear American Government,

THIS IS NOT A PLAYBOOK.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 200x310]

Actually it is, Hitler laid out his complete strategy and followed it.

OK, so empirically speaking, it wasn't a good playbook?


Actually, empirically speaking, it was a great playbook.  Hitler did manage to rebuild the German economy and manufacturing capabilities from one of the worst conditions in the history of any country in the world to the point that it could compete on a global scale, and then very, very nearly used that to conquer the world, in only just a decade or so.

It's kinda like the lowest rated football team with 0 wins getting a new coach who manages to take them to the Superbowl which they only lose by 1 point.
 
2013-07-04 07:31:26 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?


So what, are you somehow trying to say that that was some sort of one time incident, that it can never happen again and that no criminal would ever dare use a high powered rifle capable of penetrating body armor and vehicles?
 
2013-07-04 07:32:37 PM

hardinparamedic: pedrop357: This. They are civilians just like and derive their power from us.  How can we give them something we don't have?

What firearms do the police use that civilians are not allowed to own? I'm curious.


Post 1986 machineguns and imported firearms not determined to have a sporting purpose for starters.

Then we have laws in a bunch of states that outright forbids possession of rifles and/or shotguns with short barrels, machineguns, suppressors, so-called destructive devices, etc.

Police departments do not have to pay. a $200 tax on each nfa weapon nor do they have to wait as long as 8 months to be approved to own or possess them.
 
2013-07-04 07:33:45 PM

Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?


In that case they should have let them flee and trailed them,  IN LAPD APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERS OF COURSE.
 
2013-07-04 07:34:20 PM

pedrop357: OgreMagi: The police should not be allowed to use any firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess. If the police argue that they need more firepower, then that's fine, so long as we are allowed more firepower. And for the same farking reason they give.

This. They are civilians just like and derive their power from us.  How can we give them something we don't have?


And how do you propose to prevent criminals from acquiring firearms that civilians are not allowed to possess?  Do you think a strongly worded letter would work?  Maybe a stern lecture with some finger wagging and brow furrowing?  OR MAYBE AN ALL CAPS POST ON THE INTERNET?
 
2013-07-04 07:34:31 PM
 It's strange to hear people arguing in favor of this insanity, and on Jul 4th no less. Without irony even.
sad and disgusting.
 
2013-07-04 07:35:13 PM

Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?


Insanely rare, it's never been to the supreme court. THIS is one of the last rights they didn't touch and now it's gone. Holy fark this is very bad.

/ July 4th I read this, holy fark, so sad
 
2013-07-04 07:36:17 PM

eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

In that case they should have let them flee and trailed them,  IN LAPD APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERS OF COURSE.


Wow.  You really are stupid.
 
2013-07-04 07:37:55 PM

Mock26: OgreMagi: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

How many similar incidents of this nature have occurred since then?

So what, are you somehow trying to say that that was some sort of one time incident, that it can never happen again and that no criminal would ever dare use a high powered rifle capable of penetrating body armor and vehicles?


You argue like a teenager.  You use extreme examples, unlikely events, and bad logic.

You argue the police need more firepower because criminals don't follow the rules.  I agree.  And because the criminals almost always target non law professionals (us civilians), we have an even greater need for that fire power.  You just argued that the people being targeted need better weapons.  So are you going to back off on that argument now, or are you going to go for some more "really stupid logic", which is your specialty?
 
2013-07-04 07:38:48 PM

Mock26: eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: hardinparamedic: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".

Riiiight.

First - those vehicles are used for rescue in active shooter situations. They allow tactical teams to deliver care safely to victims that otherwise would set and bleed until the shooter was neutralized. Second - they're not patrol vehicles. They don't rumble down the streets all the time. They're basically kept locked up until needed.

Third - Those have no weapons on them. In fact, that model of the M113 was either used as a military ambulance, or as a coms/command post vehicle

Forth- The reason those departments use them is because they're dirt cheap from surplus sources.

First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.

Second: Exactly, a waste of taxpayer money.

Third:  You got it right.  (88M 1070 driver, I hauled these, M60's, M1's, glad I didn't have to correct you)

Fourth:  Often free via grants, still doesn't mean a police department should be a standing army.   Maintenance cost compared to armored bread truck?


[img.photobucket.com image 500x271]

OK here we go.........

I've driven them.  First hand experience.

Not too bright, are you?  Did you see the part that I had highlighted?  I will give you a hint, it was this part:  First: Actually the pic came from an article where it was used for intimidation at a protest.  Not real quick response time in one of these in an active shooter situation.Where is your proof of that?  Or are you saying that you drove the APC at the protest?


ok you win I'm wrong, APC's drive like Ferraris at speed on pavement.

You know some criminals are trying to obtain nuclear weapons, I think all police departments need nuclear weapons too.
 
2013-07-04 07:40:49 PM

eventhelosers: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

[endthelie.com image 850x637]


That is the weirdest vehicle....for Vallejo.
 
2013-07-04 07:41:49 PM

Mock26: eventhelosers: Mock26: eventhelosers: I like how they name the units "rescue 2".  These tuff guy cops need to grow a pair and sign up for infantry.

Oh and I have a family member that is a cop, fortunately for the community he serves he is not a control freak, and I served albeit national guard as well.  This shiat is out of line.  Plaintiff could have helped the cops out but the point is he had a right to be an ahole and not let them in.

[denverandmore.com image 487x322]

Remember the North Hollywood shoot out from 1997?  Two bank robbers in full body armor and using fully automatic AKMs and an HK91 (which was capable of penetrating the kevlar vests the police were wearing) and there was a massive shoot that left 18 police officers and civilians injured, some of them critically.  You do remember that, right?  Now, are you actually saying that you would rather see a repeat of an incident like this than for a police department to have a armored vehicle that could possibly end the incident quickly?

In that case they should have let them flee and trailed them,  IN LAPD APACHE ATTACK HELICOPTERS OF COURSE.

Wow.  You really are stupid.


And you appear to have gathered your reality from Steven Seagal and Bruce Willis movies.
 
2013-07-04 07:45:51 PM

hardinparamedic: Dow Jones and the Temple of Doom: "Their duties" include illegally breaking into people's homes and shooting them and their pets with pepper balls?

You do not have the right to shoot the police. Alternatively, Quinton Tarantino movies do not adequately represent real life, feet and all.

Unless that cop breaks into your house without identifying himself AND is in the act of raping or murdering you, you have no chance of beating a murder or attempted murder rap for shooting one, and he is perfectly within the law for forcing entry at that time after identifying himself and the reason for entry. All you're actually doing is ensuring either you'll rot in prison, or go down in a hail of police gunfire.

In fact, most states with a CCW/HCP law blatantly state the only way you have an affirmative defense to shooting a cop is the exact act I stated.

The fact that it is illegal or unconstitutional, at that point, obviously doesn't matter to Officer Friendly. At that point, if you're already that far into a situation, discretion would say do not resist, and demand a lawyer immediately, don't say a word.

But yeah. Shoot a cop, and see how far that gets you.


you are forgetting one thing... a seance cannot provide legal evidence in court, so it would be the word of the defendant against.... silence.
 
Displayed 50 of 372 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report