|
Post by Trades on Jul 6, 2016 8:08:41 GMT -5
I am OUTRAGED at the FBI decision! No justice, no peace! Time to go loot my neighborhood and pick up a TV, some laundry detergent, and some baby diapers. yeah that's really equivalent to someone being killed by the police for no reason
|
|
|
Post by DDNYjets on Jul 6, 2016 8:17:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jul 6, 2016 8:49:32 GMT -5
Just like the 30,000 that Clinton never gave to the FBI because she deleted them At least the republicans are better at covering their tracks. She's such a dumbass she left classified shit un deleted So she meets with the FBI for 3 1/2 hrs on Saturday and Comey makes his recommendation Tuesday morning. Like he even had any time to take anything she said into account. All kabuki theater and the info FF2 speaks of is campaign related. RNC, Karl Rove type stuff. Not CIA, state department activity in basically a Gmail account. Sure as long as you take Karl Roves word for it. And gee he seems lime a pretty decent fellow. (its wasn't campaign stuff, it involved Valeirie Plame and the firing of 7 Federal judges.)
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jul 6, 2016 8:54:51 GMT -5
3 things jump out: 1. In all the cases, however -- as well as Clinton's -- the information was not marked "classified" at the time the emails were sent, according to State Department investigators. 2. "I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified," Powell said....Well if Powell says that then OKEY DOKEY...because his never been known to forward false intel. (What, we cant just takes Hillary's word for it too?) 3. Rice didnt have classified emails on her private email...it was only her staff. Swell!
|
|
|
Post by Mond the Bagnificient on Jul 6, 2016 9:09:36 GMT -5
I am OUTRAGED at the FBI decision! No justice, no peace! Time to go loot my neighborhood and pick up a TV, some laundry detergent, and some baby diapers. yeah that's really equivalent to someone being killed by the police for no reason Right.. because A. The looters really care about the dead black man vs. looting for their own personal gain. And, B. The person being killed is for NO reason... all saints I tell ya. I'd love for you to walk your white ass in Camden on a hot Saturday night and then tell me you're not praying for the cops to be around. So naive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2016 9:17:42 GMT -5
The top 1% salary increased 7.7% this year. Tough times The FBI did not exonerate Hillary, only said there was no proof of a criminal act. Does it really matter? She with out a doubt put this country and its operatives at risk. Those who vote for her, clearly dont care, they simply want to tax those who produce and continue their own downward spiral to the bottom as we have seen since 1964. Several top law scholars have said that her negligence absolutely crossed the line of negligence which is a crime. But who cares..she'll still get 90 percent of a certain voting blocks the dems have kept down since 1964.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jul 6, 2016 9:51:42 GMT -5
yeah that's really equivalent to someone being killed by the police for no reason Right.. because A. The looters really care about the dead black man vs. looting for their own personal gain. And, B. The person being killed is for NO reason... all saints I tell ya. I'd love for you to walk your white ass in Camden on a hot Saturday night and then tell me you're not praying for the cops to be around. So naive. Id like to see your black ass try and sell CDs at gas station in Baton Rouge. I don't thing anyone is naive because they dont want unarmed folks executed.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jul 6, 2016 9:54:39 GMT -5
The top 1% salary increased 7.7% this year. Tough times Does it really matter? She with out a doubt put this country and its operatives at risk. Those who vote for her, clearly dont care, they simply want to tax those who produce and continue their own downward spiral to the bottom as we have seen since 1964. Several top law scholars have said that her negligence absolutely crossed the line of negligence which is a crime. But who cares..she'll still get 90 percent of a certain voting blocks the dems have kept down since 1964. Well, gas IS back over $2 in some areas. Scary times.
|
|
|
Post by Mond the Bagnificient on Jul 6, 2016 10:00:51 GMT -5
Right.. because A. The looters really care about the dead black man vs. looting for their own personal gain. And, B. The person being killed is for NO reason... all saints I tell ya. I'd love for you to walk your white ass in Camden on a hot Saturday night and then tell me you're not praying for the cops to be around. So naive. Id like to see your black ass try and sell CDs at gas station in Baton Rouge. I don't thing anyone is naive because they dont want unarmed folks executed. So what you're saying is - in NO circumstances, should a cop use a gun to shoot an unarmed assailant? Yes or no.
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jul 6, 2016 10:02:27 GMT -5
Id like to see your black ass try and sell CDs at gas station in Baton Rouge. I don't thing anyone is naive because they dont want unarmed folks executed. So what you're saying is - in NO circumstances, should a cop use a gun to shoot an unarmed assailant? Yes or no. I am NOT saying that. Did you watch the video...should they have shot him? Yes or No?
|
|
|
Post by Mond the Bagnificient on Jul 6, 2016 10:06:12 GMT -5
So what you're saying is - in NO circumstances, should a cop use a gun to shoot an unarmed assailant? Yes or no. I am NOT saying that. Did you watch the video...should they have shot him? Yes or No? You, like VTN, speak in generalities. You said.. "don't want unarmed folks executed". Well, in my opinion, in some circumstances, cops have no other choice than to shoot at unarmed assailants. Now, to your question, I don't know yet if they should have shot him. First glance, no. But one article said he had a gun in his pocket - if he tried to pull it, then adios muchacho. If he didn't try to pull it, then no, they should just taser him until he resembles a Tourette's patient.
|
|
|
Post by Trades on Jul 6, 2016 10:09:24 GMT -5
So what you're saying is - in NO circumstances, should a cop use a gun to shoot an unarmed assailant? Yes or no. I am NOT saying that. Did you watch the video...should they have shot him? Yes or No? I would say that from that video it is inconclusive. We don't know what prompted the tackle, we couldn't hear what was being said. We couldn't see what the victim was doing beyond that he was fighting the cops. I will also say that the goal should be to not put yourself in that situation in the first place. Listen to the police, cooperate and if need be fight it in court. As I said in the Pizza Roll thread, "Horrible that the guy got killed. It sounds like the cop says "he got my gun" around 17 seconds in. Don't fight the cops. You will never win. At least not for long."
|
|
|
Post by Mond the Bagnificient on Jul 6, 2016 10:11:10 GMT -5
I am NOT saying that. Did you watch the video...should they have shot him? Yes or No? You, like VTN, speak in generalities. You said.. "don't want unarmed folks executed". Well, in my opinion, in some circumstances, cops have no other choice than to shoot at unarmed assailants. Now, to your question, I don't know yet if they should have shot him. First glance, no. But one article said he had a gun in his pocket - if he tried to pull it, then adios muchacho. If he didn't try to pull it, then no, they should just taser him until he resembles a Tourette's patient. I'm actually curious as to what was the initial crime being committed... unlike that dope in Ferguson who committed robbery before he was shot (and charging the police), it seems this guy had the permission of the store owner to sell CD's in front of the store. Were the CD's bootlegs? Or did someone see the gun and get nervous (not sure about LA concealed carry laws)?
|
|
|
Post by 2foolish on Jul 6, 2016 10:13:05 GMT -5
So what you're saying is - in NO circumstances, should a cop use a gun to shoot an unarmed assailant? Yes or no. I am NOT saying that. Did you watch the video...should they have shot him? Yes or No? one cop shoots'gun'...that would put the fear in anyone...the cops came because of a report of a man with a gun...
|
|
|
Post by Ff2 on Jul 6, 2016 10:15:24 GMT -5
I am NOT saying that. Did you watch the video...should they have shot him? Yes or No? You, like VTN, speak in generalities. You said.. "don't want unarmed folks executed". Well, in my opinion, in some circumstances, cops have no other choice than to shoot at unarmed assailants. Now, to your question, I don't know yet if they should have shot him. First glance, no. But one article said he had a gun in his pocket - if he tried to pull it, then adios muchacho. If he didn't try to pull it, then no, they should just taser him until he resembles a Tourette's patient. Of course we speak in generalities at times, we cant type in the details of every case, police killed over 100 unarmed black people in 2015.
|
|