U.S. Police Have Shot Dead 385 People In Five Months

When an inner city thug breaks into your house and violently rapes and sodomizes your young children, will you be calling 911? Or just let it happen so the cops don't shoot the attackers?

- - - Updated - - -

The only way it will get close to zero is if all of the recidivist black criminals in inner cities and all the meth addicted whites in suburbia are shipped out of our country. As long as thugs are putting LEO lives at risk; there will be situations where they need to be exterminated like the cockroaches that they are. Of those 385 that died; was there even one little old grandma crossing the street with her walker and a boy scout by her side? Yeah - didn't think so.

 

Now that's a separate conversation. The legality or illegality of any specific thing is not what this topic is about. The police enforce the law, they are not the ones who create it. That's your elected officials that do that. So regardless of whether drugs should or shouldn't be illegal, they currently are which means it's common knowledge that the police will have a problem with you engaging in activities that involve them. If you don't want to risk that kind of police attention and the possibility of prison, don't engage in illegal drug activities or at the very least, don't get caught.

If you want that changed, you have to talk to the various levels of government who are making the laws. That's how it works in this country with our structure of government.

And it's not just about money either because people have been going to prison at the behest of the community(or far worse) for a lot longer than the prison industrial complex has been around.

There is no hidden narrative here that you can say applies to the whole country. Life is not that simple.

 

When you inform us criminals, than I will inform you racists,.. yeah.

 

Ridiculous, childish assertion and generalization. Would be more valid to say message board members who use the word 'dog' in their screen name are child molesters and poodle diddlers.

 

Perhaps. But until scum bag criminals quit forcing the hand of law enforcement, it will not be. So, your attention and emphasis would be better spent on that segment of society, and not police.

 

He was first struck by a car. The passengers then attacked him with a knives and a cleaver. The criminals had a gun. They "gave themselves up" after charging the police and were wounded by the armed police. Luckily, the armed police officers may have saved other lives that day. There was a 5 minute interval between the arrival of unarmed police, and armed police.

 

and who again assigned the word criminal to any particular group?
It wasn't me it is you that has

 

Horsecrap! The police only take one oath, and that oath is to uphold the Constitution. They take that sacred oath which is an oath to the people then they wipe their collective asses with the Constitution every single day of their career.. The argument that they do not make the law is a strawman and holds no credibility whatsoever.

 

I assigned the world racist in the same way you assigned the word criminal.
Quid pro quo

 

As I suspected, no psychological studies to back up your spew, just hit pieces and a few anecdotal cases. I really like how the FBI agent convicted of espionage is somehow indicative of police violence .

 

ok show me where I said or even implied that criminal=a minority

here is my post you initially replied to

point out where it is said or even implied?
only a racist would read that statement and assume when I said criminal I must be talking about a minority

 

As I suspected, you care nothing about evidence. The facts interfere with you opinions.

 

Wen I see some evidence I'll let you know. An FBI agent convicted of espionage somehow indicates police violence? ROFL.

 

Yes, like a surgeon is getting into cutting human bodies with a scalpel. And both those professionals are responsible for using their access and resources safely, prudently, and without causing unnecessary harm to their subject. They're held to a high standard.

When either performs well we thank them for their professional, difficult and necessary actions. We're grateful for their judicious and careful use of the trust we've invested in them. Neither has license to act with disregard for consequences or without diligence to the terms of our relationship. And if either betrays our trust, we feel doubly harmed -- harmed by both the act itself and the misuse of our trust.



​

 

It's not a strawman, or even an argument of any kind because it's not something that's even up for debate. It's the plain simple truth. The legislative branches of government make the laws. Law ENFORCEMENT officials...well...enforce those laws.

 

In what way is this a rebuttal to my post? They had a gun but did not use it. They waited until armed police arrived then ran at them, still not using the gun. Unarmed police were there for 5 minutes and were not attacked. The murderers spoke to a woman for over 15 minutes without threatening her. Good job for her that none of the bystanders had a gun - she probably would be dead now.

 

But it's America, they are more violent in the United States, I think that the polices has been left with no choice but to shoot them but I dont say it's right, it's definately wrong, but half of these deaths has probably been on purpose I dont know.

 

A citizen only has an obligation to obey laws which are Constitutional, the police are only obliged to enforce laws which are Constitutional.
Unconstitutional laws are null and void.

 

`
1) Your opinion. That works for me.

2) Irrelevant.

3/4) Nonsensical reply.

5) What facts? You haven't given any facts, just your opinions.

6) When left with no practical options other than more lies, declare yourself a victor, spout some pontifical rhetoric, then crawl back into your hole. I can deal with that.

 

1. Yes, it is my opinion. One that's based on facts. What's your opinion based on? It seems that it's based on the cherry picked stories that the media chooses to report on.
2. You didn't respond to what I had said...what was I suppose to do?
3/4. you posted it not me.
5. The fact that I didn't state the actual percentage does not mean that i simply stated my opinions. Are you going to continue to complain about facts when you've given none yourself? I've come to expect it from the cop haters on this forum. Facts are never used because there are none that support their arguments.
6. What lies? You've claimed that I've only given my opinions and if they're just my opinions then how can they be lies? Your circular argument is brilliant.

 

How many of those 385 deserved to get shot?

 

Because they did have a gun and the cops shot them. So a gun saved the day.

 

One day you are going to need one of these police officers you despise so much. I'm sure he will still help you regardless of your blind hatred of some of the best men and women this country has to offer.

 

I replied to this post saying "I hate to inform you criminals"
with I hate to inform you racist.

And just like you find it odd that there is nothing racist in your post.
It is equally odd you call me a criminal. Than again, you started this.
I'm only returning the racist an equal favor.

 

92 were mentally ill, while 20% were unarmed civilians.
All in all... it's an epidemic that the cops just massacre away.