quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Well, for the first thing, someone who legally owns a gun is very UNLIKELY to get involved in a gun fight with the police, anyone with two (or more) brain cells that communicate with each other knows that.

Wait, did you read OP news? It was about a gun carrying civilian who shot the police who was choosing to use the benevolent taser instead of a gun against him.
So what's this about gun owners not getting into a gun fight with the police again?

You missed two points, one of which is incredibly vital, Greta. Jeff referenced someone who LEGALLY owns a gun being very unlikely to get involved in a gun fight with the police.

Your question to that statement demonstrates that you don't understand that "incredibly unlikely" does not mean "never." Thus, just because someone is incredibly unlikely to do a thing, that doesn't mean that person will never do that thing. And, your question also demonstrates that you don't understand the difference between someone who legally owns a gun and someone who does not legally own a gun. In Ohio (which is my State, and my statement may or may not be valid for any other State), it is legal to openly carry a gun, but you need a permit to legally carry a gun concealed. So, if I'm walking down the street while armed, I had either be carrying so the gun isn't concealed, or have a permit to carry it concealed.

Was Orr legally allowed to carry a gun? If he was, that still doesn't make Jeff's claim any less true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
Specifically in the US, you are dealing with people who everyone is carrying guns. A taser is useless in their situation. When all the civilians have guns, all the cop can do is aim his gun at them too.

Because usually all these shooting incident starts with the police fearing the guy is taking out his gun to shoot.

Gun ownership in the US has declined from around 50% in the 1970s to ~ 30% today.

What has changed is that there are more nut cases thinking like you do in the US, that it's all just a big WWE wrestling match re politics and everything else.

Most of the gun owners I know haven't taken the thing out of the side drawer or whatever cabinet it was in for 20 years. Other than this one commie 'far far left!' guy I know (by sanity/bozo standards) who loves target practice and range shooting.

So the shooting starts because apparently it has become requisite in police hiring in the US to take on within the force only those who are the biggest chickenshits and most amenable to any kind of nonsense they are told with out question. So then they can't understand those who are not as unquestioning as they are and and are too easily freaked out in that occurrence.

So to be more specific; any country that would allow someone with your mind to have a gun would be gone in the next five years. There's a reason why guns are verboten in Singapore. It's called national self preservation, considering the mindset of people like you within their borders.

Do remember that it was the cop, and not the thug who was shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
Specifically in the US, you are dealing with people who everyone is carrying guns. A taser is useless in their situation. When all the civilians have guns, all the cop can do is aim his gun at them too.

Because usually all these shooting incident starts with the police fearing the guy is taking out his gun to shoot.

Gun ownership in the US has declined from around 50% in the 1970s to ~ 30% today.

What has changed is that there are more nut cases thinking like you do in the US, that it's all just a big WWE wrestling match re politics and everything else.

Most of the gun owners I know haven't taken the thing out of the side drawer or whatever cabinet it was in for 20 years. Other than this one commie 'far far left!' guy I know (by sanity/bozo standards) who loves target practice and range shooting.

So the shooting starts because apparently it has become requisite in police hiring in the US to take on within the force only those who are the biggest chickenshits and most amenable to any kind of nonsense they are told with out question. So then they can't understand those who are not as unquestioning as they are and and are too easily freaked out in that occurrence.

So to be more specific; any country that would allow someone with your mind to have a gun would be gone in the next five years. There's a reason why guns are verboten in Singapore. It's called national self preservation, considering the mindset of people like you within their borders.

Do remember that it was the cop, and not the thug who was shot.

I'm sure his peers will be shooting a few thugs over the next few months to redress the balance: some of them may even demand that the taxpayer shell out for them to blub to a councillor about their job demanding that they shoot a few jigaboos in order to feel better about themselves.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
Specifically in the US, you are dealing with people who everyone is carrying guns. A taser is useless in their situation. When all the civilians have guns, all the cop can do is aim his gun at them too.

Because usually all these shooting incident starts with the police fearing the guy is taking out his gun to shoot.

Gun ownership in the US has declined from around 50% in the 1970s to ~ 30% today.

What has changed is that there are more nut cases thinking like you do in the US, that it's all just a big WWE wrestling match re politics and everything else.

Most of the gun owners I know haven't taken the thing out of the side drawer or whatever cabinet it was in for 20 years. Other than this one commie 'far far left!' guy I know (by sanity/bozo standards) who loves target practice and range shooting.

So the shooting starts because apparently it has become requisite in police hiring in the US to take on within the force only those who are the biggest chickenshits and most amenable to any kind of nonsense they are told with out question. So then they can't understand those who are not as unquestioning as they are and and are too easily freaked out in that occurrence.

So to be more specific; any country that would allow someone with your mind to have a gun would be gone in the next five years. There's a reason why guns are verboten in Singapore. It's called national self preservation, considering the mindset of people like you within their borders.

Do remember that it was the cop, and not the thug who was shot.

I'm sure his peers will be shooting a few thugs over the next few months to redress the balance: some of them may even demand that the taxpayer shell out for them to blub to a councillor about their job demanding that they shoot a few jigaboos in order to feel better about themselves.

Have you ever meet reality, your posts do not show it. You assume that because a thug shot a cop his relatives will kill some minorities in the future.
A You assume that the cops don't care that the thug was convicted.
B You assume that law enforcement is still a family business.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
Specifically in the US, you are dealing with people who everyone is carrying guns. A taser is useless in their situation. When all the civilians have guns, all the cop can do is aim his gun at them too.

Because usually all these shooting incident starts with the police fearing the guy is taking out his gun to shoot.

Gun ownership in the US has declined from around 50% in the 1970s to ~ 30% today.

What has changed is that there are more nut cases thinking like you do in the US, that it's all just a big WWE wrestling match re politics and everything else.

Most of the gun owners I know haven't taken the thing out of the side drawer or whatever cabinet it was in for 20 years. Other than this one commie 'far far left!' guy I know (by sanity/bozo standards) who loves target practice and range shooting.

So the shooting starts because apparently it has become requisite in police hiring in the US to take on within the force only those who are the biggest chickenshits and most amenable to any kind of nonsense they are told with out question. So then they can't understand those who are not as unquestioning as they are and and are too easily freaked out in that occurrence.

So to be more specific; any country that would allow someone with your mind to have a gun would be gone in the next five years. There's a reason why guns are verboten in Singapore. It's called national self preservation, considering the mindset of people like you within their borders.

Do remember that it was the cop, and not the thug who was shot.

I'm sure his peers will be shooting a few thugs over the next few months to redress the balance: some of them may even demand that the taxpayer shell out for them to blub to a councillor about their job demanding that they shoot a few jigaboos in order to feel better about themselves.

Have you ever meet reality, your posts do not show it. You assume that because a thug shot a cop his relatives will kill some minorities in the future.
A You assume that the cops don't care that the thug was convicted.
B You assume that law enforcement is still a family business.

His peers are his colleagues, not his family.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
Specifically in the US, you are dealing with people who everyone is carrying guns. A taser is useless in their situation. When all the civilians have guns, all the cop can do is aim his gun at them too.

Because usually all these shooting incident starts with the police fearing the guy is taking out his gun to shoot.

Gun ownership in the US has declined from around 50% in the 1970s to ~ 30% today.

What has changed is that there are more nut cases thinking like you do in the US, that it's all just a big WWE wrestling match re politics and everything else.

Most of the gun owners I know haven't taken the thing out of the side drawer or whatever cabinet it was in for 20 years. Other than this one commie 'far far left!' guy I know (by sanity/bozo standards) who loves target practice and range shooting.

So the shooting starts because apparently it has become requisite in police hiring in the US to take on within the force only those who are the biggest chickenshits and most amenable to any kind of nonsense they are told with out question. So then they can't understand those who are not as unquestioning as they are and and are too easily freaked out in that occurrence.

So to be more specific; any country that would allow someone with your mind to have a gun would be gone in the next five years. There's a reason why guns are verboten in Singapore. It's called national self preservation, considering the mindset of people like you within their borders.

Do remember that it was the cop, and not the thug who was shot.

I'm sure his peers will be shooting a few thugs over the next few months to redress the balance: some of them may even demand that the taxpayer shell out for them to blub to a councillor about their job demanding that they shoot a few jigaboos in order to feel better about themselves.

Have you ever meet reality, your posts do not show it. You assume that because a thug shot a cop his relatives will kill some minorities in the future.
A You assume that the cops don't care that the thug was convicted.
B You assume that law enforcement is still a family business.

His peers are his colleagues, not his family.

You are still making stupid assumptions .

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
Suspect had his hand in his pocket, wouldn't obey commands to stop...

quote:

But I heard Smith repeatedly threaten Orr with harm. That is no excuse for Malcolm Orr to turn around and fire off eight shots at Smith. I am not contesting the jury verdict. But, I do believe Smith's actions were reckless and Smith endangered himself, tragically.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

But I heard Smith repeatedly threaten Orr with harm. That is no excuse for Malcolm Orr to turn around and fire off eight shots at Smith. I am not contesting the jury verdict. But, I do believe Smith's actions were reckless and Smith endangered himself, tragically.

It amazes me how two fairly logical people can see the same evidence and arrive at opposite conclusions.

The police officer politely asked him to stop and talk with him a minute... even though this man was pointed out by a witness and there was no doubt he was the perpetrator. The man kept walking...at that time there was no threat by the police officer... the officer did not seem to have his taser out. After multiple commands to stop...he did threaten him with the taser... Now around here there would have been no threat... he would have already been tased. But this officer showed restrain and paid the price. HOW can you find any fault with the police officer is beyond me. If he had stopped the officer would have questioned him about the incident. HE had NO CHOICE but to threaten with the taser and I'll bet next time he has his weapon out not a taser.


Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

So then, no issue with tax payer money to purpose of murdering un-armed citizens? As has been ongoing for these last several years?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
Suspect had his hand in his pocket, wouldn't obey commands to stop...

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
Specifically in the US, you are dealing with people who everyone is carrying guns. A taser is useless in their situation. When all the civilians have guns, all the cop can do is aim his gun at them too.

Because usually all these shooting incident starts with the police fearing the guy is taking out his gun to shoot.

Gun ownership in the US has declined from around 50% in the 1970s to ~ 30% today.

What has changed is that there are more nut cases thinking like you do in the US, that it's all just a big WWE wrestling match re politics and everything else.

Most of the gun owners I know haven't taken the thing out of the side drawer or whatever cabinet it was in for 20 years. Other than this one commie 'far far left!' guy I know (by sanity/bozo standards) who loves target practice and range shooting.

So the shooting starts because apparently it has become requisite in police hiring in the US to take on within the force only those who are the biggest chickenshits and most amenable to any kind of nonsense they are told with out question. So then they can't understand those who are not as unquestioning as they are and and are too easily freaked out in that occurrence.

So to be more specific; any country that would allow someone with your mind to have a gun would be gone in the next five years. There's a reason why guns are verboten in Singapore. It's called national self preservation, considering the mindset of people like you within their borders.

Do remember that it was the cop, and not the thug who was shot.

I'm sure his peers will be shooting a few thugs over the next few months to redress the balance: some of them may even demand that the taxpayer shell out for them to blub to a councillor about their job demanding that they shoot a few jigaboos in order to feel better about themselves.

Have you ever meet reality, your posts do not show it. You assume that because a thug shot a cop his relatives will kill some minorities in the future.
A You assume that the cops don't care that the thug was convicted.
B You assume that law enforcement is still a family business.

His peers are his colleagues, not his family.

You are still making stupid assumptions .

What, like you assuming I'm describing a Michael Winner film with the dead cop's family setting out to kill mo' niggaz* when I talk about his peers retaliating?

*(fo' shizzle)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD Another condemned the cop for killing the thug then upon discovering that it was the cop who was shot
proceeded to condemn all other cops for what that person just knows they are going to do.
One was not fully informed so gets a partial pass. The other is a foreigner who made up her mind without wasting time getting facts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
Specifically in the US, you are dealing with people who everyone is carrying guns. A taser is useless in their situation. When all the civilians have guns, all the cop can do is aim his gun at them too.

Because usually all these shooting incident starts with the police fearing the guy is taking out his gun to shoot.

Gun ownership in the US has declined from around 50% in the 1970s to ~ 30% today.

What has changed is that there are more nut cases thinking like you do in the US, that it's all just a big WWE wrestling match re politics and everything else.

Most of the gun owners I know haven't taken the thing out of the side drawer or whatever cabinet it was in for 20 years. Other than this one commie 'far far left!' guy I know (by sanity/bozo standards) who loves target practice and range shooting.

So the shooting starts because apparently it has become requisite in police hiring in the US to take on within the force only those who are the biggest chickenshits and most amenable to any kind of nonsense they are told with out question. So then they can't understand those who are not as unquestioning as they are and and are too easily freaked out in that occurrence.

So to be more specific; any country that would allow someone with your mind to have a gun would be gone in the next five years. There's a reason why guns are verboten in Singapore. It's called national self preservation, considering the mindset of people like you within their borders.

Do remember that it was the cop, and not the thug who was shot.

I'm sure his peers will be shooting a few thugs over the next few months to redress the balance: some of them may even demand that the taxpayer shell out for them to blub to a councillor about their job demanding that they shoot a few jigaboos in order to feel better about themselves.

Have you ever meet reality, your posts do not show it. You assume that because a thug shot a cop his relatives will kill some minorities in the future.
A You assume that the cops don't care that the thug was convicted.
B You assume that law enforcement is still a family business.

His peers are his colleagues, not his family.

You are still making stupid assumptions .

What, like you assuming I'm describing a Michael Winner film with the dead cop's family setting out to kill mo' niggaz* when I talk about his peers retaliating?

*(fo' shizzle)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD Another condemned the cop for killing the thug then upon discovering that it was the cop who was shot
proceeded to condemn all other cops for what that person just knows they are going to do.
One was not fully informed so gets a partial pass. The other is a foreigner who made up her mind without wasting time getting facts.

And this poster has an ongoing discussion with himself as to whom is supposed to win the battle between waist size and IQ. Waist size is obviously the clear winner, here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

That would be a question for the police.

As soon as you get the answer about shooting and murdering un-armed citizens, get back to us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

But I heard Smith repeatedly threaten Orr with harm. That is no excuse for Malcolm Orr to turn around and fire off eight shots at Smith. I am not contesting the jury verdict. But, I do believe Smith's actions were reckless and Smith endangered himself, tragically.

It amazes me how two fairly logical people can see the same evidence and arrive at opposite conclusions.

The police officer politely asked him to stop and talk with him a minute... even though this man was pointed out by a witness and there was no doubt he was the perpetrator. The man kept walking...at that time there was no threat by the police officer... the officer did not seem to have his taser out. After multiple commands to stop...he did threaten him with the taser... Now around here there would have been no threat... he would have already been tased and both would have been safe. But this officer showed restraint and paid the price. HOW can you find any fault with the police officer is beyond me. If he had stopped the officer would have questioned him about the incident. HE had NO CHOICE but to threaten with the taser and I'll bet next time he has his weapon out not a taser.


Butch