2 nyc cops executed...

Crackshot.'s picture
Crackshot.
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/09

 

Quincy,  Some food for thought .   Do you think was Paul Harvey a jerk too ?

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:

Quincy for some reason if you ever did put on a badge and patrol some of the neighborhoods in Miami, Chicago, LA it would be interesting to hear your take after a couple years.

Talk is cheap sitting behind a computer screen there 05.

People have refered to you as a troll, trolls simple post bullshit to keep an arguement going, I actually get the impression you believe the foolish crap you post.

Illinois: 2 cops died in the line of duty. 1 from heat exhaustion, the other from a car accident.

California: 14 cops.

Florida: 6.

http://www.odmp.org/search/year

Tell me again how it's so dangerous for cops this day and age.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

snow Said:
Hey quin,take a break,you don't have to be a dickweed on every page JHC,now on pg10 its all you pal,your not going change opinions here,like I said before your behind the curve and cherry pick what suits you regarding these events.Maybe take a stand at one of these BS protests with your brothers and see how that's works for ya,if your lucky you might get a beat down,in which case play dead~

Okay, buddy, let's be cordial. What exactly am I cherry picking? Why would I get beat at a peaceful protest? And if I'm behind the curve, does that suggest you think bad cops shouldn't be fired?

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Davy Crockett Said:
 

Quincy,  Some food for thought .   Do you think was Paul Harvey a jerk too ?

Where's that facepalm smiley...

Hey Davy, do you think Timothy Loehmann was a stand up officer as well?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:

You seem to want to place words into other people mouths Quincy. Please show where I have said Al Sharpton should be charged.

The 1st amendment while granting free speech, also requires a responsibility to go with that speech. These responsibilities sometimes have nothing to do with "legal" standing but are more of a moral nature. (liberals hate that accountability standard of free speech)

If you can look me in the eye and tell me Al Sharpton had no moral impact on the actions of people calling for dead cops and actual dead cops by fanning the flames of  bad situations with self serving rhetoric...................I really have nothing else to say to you.

So you want people to protest Sharpton? Okay, feel free to continue that. To say any blame should be placed on him for the shooter is still disingenous.

No, Sharpton did not have any moral impact on the people calling for dead cops. There has been no evidence of this in this thread, nor have I seen any anywhere. You may think that is the case, but without evidence backing it up, you only have speculation. And speculation is what causes people to say all cops are racist. Congrats, you're no better than those you wish to protest.

How about in a thread about two dead officers, the guy who shot them is the one that is blamed. The pedantic whining about protests and those you disagree with politically take away from the fact this deranged asshole killed two cops, when they didn't need to die. It also takes away from the fact he shot his ex-girlfriend FIRST, without anyone apparently protesting her. It shows that he was seriously delusional. The fact that he used the protests as an excuse, doesn't lead credence to the claims those protests are at fault. Correlation does not equal causation

And Hitler had no moral impact on millions of Jews being gassed either.

I indeed hold the person that actually committed the act responsible. But you have no more way of knowing inflamatory rhetoric did NOT play a role in his actions than I do of knowing for certain it did.

But what can be understood is the likelyhood of protests turning violent increases when someone is inciting actions in the manner the good reverand does.

Do you really think millions of Jews would have been sent to the gas chamber or baked alive if it had not been for the "rhetoric" of one man?


Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
And Hitler had no moral impact on millions of Jews being gassed either.

No, he just had a DRASTICALLY LARGE implicit impact when he ordered the Jews to be gassed.

Come on, be better than this. Surely your argument has more merit than comparing protestors and Obama to Hitler.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
And Hitler had no moral impact on millions of Jews being gassed either.

I indeed hold the person that actually committed the act responsible. But you have no more way of knowing inflamatory rhetoric did NOT play a role in his actions than I do of knowing for certain it did.

But what can be understood is the likelyhood of protests turning violent increases when someone is inciting actions in the manner the good reverand does.

Do you really think millions of Jews would have been sent to the gas chamber or baked alive if it had not been for the "rhetoric" of one man?


Do you think the Tea Party and conservatives should be held morally responsible for the cops killed in Las Vegas? For Loughner? For the OKC bombing?

Where is the line drawn in rhetoric to moral blame? Does there need to be set time after rhetoric to insure that said rhetoric is the cause for the action and not just a coincidence? Does the line always fall on one side of the political spectrum? Do you think cops should be held morally responsible because of the actions of the bad cops? Do you think the rhetoric of the police union will have any effect on actions of the NYPD?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:
That you do not understand that to get someone to a point they will commit suicide to carry out a religious jihad does NOT require carfullly contrived rhetoric is what is mind boggling.

So that's all 9/11 was? A simple suicide mission based on vague rhetoric? Do you really not know the background of it or are you just minimalizing it to make a weak point?

Congrats, conservatives are to blame for the Las Vegas cop killers...
http://www.startribune.com/262333211.html

LAS VEGAS — A husband and wife who went on a deadly shooting rampage in Las Vegas harbored anti-government beliefs and left a swastika and a "Don't tread on me" flag on the body of one of the two police officers they killed, authorities said Monday.

Jerad and Amanda Miller had been kicked off a Nevada ranch where anti-government protesters faced down federal agents earlier this year because they were "very radical," according to the son of rancher Cliven Bundy.

Quincy once again where have I said "thats all 911 was" ? You seem to want to make up what people say.
 
How do you get someone to fly a plane into a building killing themselves and thousands of others including women and children without brain washing them with "rhetoric" quincy? Please explain that.


That may indeed not be the sole "causation" but there is a definate "correlation".

Seems like "conservatives" wanted nothing to do with these people. Can you show where a conservative "reverand" was standing in front of national TV cameras calling for actions against cops in Nevada.
 
Wait a minute, I thought you claimed being a cop was safe.
gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

labhunter66 Said:
 

Quincy05 Said:

Plainsman Said:
Quincy why don't you tell us why your more informed than a grand jury, internal affairs, eye witnesses etc. 

The grand juries in these cases were bullshit.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

If you don't understand that, basically it says for civilians there is a 99%+ charge rate, for cops it's almost the opposite. That the grand jury didn't come back in either case is more indicative of a poor/corrupt prosecutor then a fault of them.

And eye witnesses are contradictory in both Brown and Garner.

And internal affairs hasn't even had an investigation yet. http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/10/nypds-internal-affairs-questions-officer-involved-in-eric-garner-death/

Do you know why that is Quincy?  Because unlike dip shits like you, most people on the grand juries understand what cops go through, they take the time to examine the evidence, and they come back with a decision that is fair based on the evidence.  Has it ever occurred to you the reason the charge rate is so low is that it is a rare event when a cop actually commits a criminal act in the performance of their duty or do cops not get the same prosumption of innocence as regular citizens?  If I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to someone it will be to the men and women that put on a badge everyday and go to work to protect others.  It will not be to the person that already has 30+ arrests on their record and decides to resist arrest.  It will not be to a thug that robs a convenience store and assaults a clerk for no reason whatsoever.  They made their own beds. 

What gives you the right to question the grand juries?  Were you there?  Did you here the evidence?  Did you get to judge the truthfulness of peoples statements for yourself and not rely on media accounts of what happened?  Did you get to examine autopsy results in detail before coming to your corrupt conclusions?  The Constitution is written to give the benefit of the doubt to people accused of a crime - all people including cops.  These grand juries found that not only was there not going to be enough evidence to convict them, there wasn't even enough to charge them.  I can't think of a job where there would be more opportunity to be falsely accused of wrongdoing. None of these criminals want to take responsibility for their own actions and none of these protesters are willing to hold them accountable for their actions.  It's always someone else's fault.  Are all cops perfect?  Of course not, in fact none of them are but I will give them the benefit of the doubt until they are proven guilty beyond that reasonable doubt.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:

Quincy for some reason if you ever did put on a badge and patrol some of the neighborhoods in Miami, Chicago, LA it would be interesting to hear your take after a couple years.

Talk is cheap sitting behind a computer screen there 05.

People have refered to you as a troll, trolls simple post bullshit to keep an arguement going, I actually get the impression you believe the foolish crap you post.

Illinois: 2 cops died in the line of duty. 1 from heat exhaustion, the other from a car accident.

California: 14 cops.

Florida: 6.

http://www.odmp.org/search/year

Tell me again how it's so dangerous for cops this day and age.

Quincy when was the last time someone aimed a gun (albeit poorly aka gangster style) and fired off a few rounds your direction?

Just becasue they are not shot and killed................................

For some reason when I picture you in a uniform with a badge  I have a picture in my mind of a wet behind the ears little fella cowering behind a car while someone else runs out and grabs a kid in the street in the middle of some gang shoot out.

Big talk sitting behind a computer.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
Quincy once again where have I said "thats all 911 was" ? You seem to want to make up what people say.
 
How do you get someone to fly a plane into a building killing themselves and thousands of others including women and children without brain washing them with "rhetoric" quincy? Please explain that.


That may indeed not be the sole "causation" but there is a definate "correlation".

Seems like "conservatives" wanted nothing to do with these people. Can you show where a conservative "reverand" was standing in front of national TV cameras calling for actions against cops in Nevada.
 
Wait a minute, I thought you claimed being a cop was safe.

If that isn't all what 9/11 was, then your attempt at conflating it is entirely off base. The men who took down the towers won't strictly relying on rhetoric to do their deed. There were far more factors.

How do you get someone to do that? Tell them to.

Which one of these protestors told this asshole to shoot cops? It's insulting that you are trying to compare the rhetoric of protestors to the actions of a terrorist group.

Crackshot.'s picture
Crackshot.
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/14/09

 

Quincy05 Said:

Davy Crockett Said:
 

Quincy,  Some food for thought .   Do you think was Paul Harvey a jerk too ?

Where's that facepalm smiley...
Hey Davy, do you think Timothy Loehmann was a stand up officer as well?

 I'm not responding, All I wanted to do was throw you a bone for thought.  Bye

 

 

 

Life is good
 

 

 

 

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:

Seems like "conservatives" wanted nothing to do with these people. Can you show where a conservative "reverand" was standing in front of national TV cameras calling for actions against cops in Nevada.
 
Wait a minute, I thought you claimed being a cop was safe.

AND WHICH PROTESTORS WANTED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS GUY WHEN HE WAS SPOUTING OFF HIS KILL A COP CRAP???????????

What specific reverand was calling for cops to be killed? Name specifically who it was. I will forward that name to the FBI.

Cops are safer now than they ever have been. Just because some have been killed, doesn't mean their profession isn't safe.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Davy Crockett Said:
 
 I'm not responding, All I wanted to do was throw you a bone for thought.  Bye

No, you were trying to inflame. Why would I think he was a jerk for making a video like the one you posted? Let alone be in addition to the bad cops I think are jerks. Was he a bad cop?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:
And Hitler had no moral impact on millions of Jews being gassed either.

I indeed hold the person that actually committed the act responsible. But you have no more way of knowing inflamatory rhetoric did NOT play a role in his actions than I do of knowing for certain it did.

But what can be understood is the likelyhood of protests turning violent increases when someone is inciting actions in the manner the good reverand does.

Do you really think millions of Jews would have been sent to the gas chamber or baked alive if it had not been for the "rhetoric" of one man?

Do you think the Tea Party and conservatives should be held morally responsible for the cops killed in Las Vegas? For Loughner? For the OKC bombing?

Where is the line drawn in rhetoric to moral blame? Does there need to be set time after rhetoric to insure that said rhetoric is the cause for the action and not just a coincidence? Does the line always fall on one side of the political spectrum? Do you think cops should be held morally responsible because of the actions of the bad cops? Do you think the rhetoric of the police union will have any effect on actions of the NYPD?

Nope your right quincy, no one is responsible for anything they say anymore.

If you really can not tell the difference between a Sara Palin and an Al Sharpton ...............................don;t try to pull the wool over peoples eyes about your own "hyper partisan" ideologies.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

labhunter66 Said:
 What gives you the right to question the grand juries?  Were you there?  Did you here the evidence?  Did you get to judge the truthfulness of peoples statements for yourself and not rely on media accounts of what happened?  Did you get to examine autopsy results in detail before coming to your corrupt conclusions?  The Constitution is written to give the benefit of the doubt to people accused of a crime - all people including cops.  These grand juries found that not only was there not going to be enough evidence to convict them, there wasn't even enough to charge them.  I can't think of a job where there would be more opportunity to be falsely accused of wrongdoing. None of these criminals want to take responsibility for their own actions and none of these protesters are willing to hold them accountable for their actions.  It's always someone else's fault.  Are all cops perfect?  Of course not, in fact none of them are but I will give them the benefit of the doubt until they are proven guilty beyond that reasonable doubt.

Please look into how grand juries operate. Usually there is only one side of the story told. That of the prosecution. The defense doesn't have a chance to rebute. The common saying is that prosecutors could get charges brought against a ham sandwhich if they wanted to.

If prosecutors don't get charges brought against cops, why do you think that is? Because evidence, or because they didn't want to?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:
Quincy once again where have I said "thats all 911 was" ? You seem to want to make up what people say.
 
How do you get someone to fly a plane into a building killing themselves and thousands of others including women and children without brain washing them with "rhetoric" quincy? Please explain that.


That may indeed not be the sole "causation" but there is a definate "correlation".

Seems like "conservatives" wanted nothing to do with these people. Can you show where a conservative "reverand" was standing in front of national TV cameras calling for actions against cops in Nevada.
 
Wait a minute, I thought you claimed being a cop was safe.

If that isn't all what 9/11 was, then your attempt at conflating it is entirely off base. The men who took down the towers won't strictly relying on rhetoric to do their deed. There were far more factors.

How do you get someone to do that? Tell them to.

Which one of these protestors told this asshole to shoot cops? It's insulting that you are trying to compare the rhetoric of protestors to the actions of a terrorist group.

So you just "tell" someone get on plane hijack it and kill thousands of innocent people and they do it?

And yet you are trying to deny the impact of people chanting for dead cops on someone elses actions???

Stop and actually think about what you just typed quincy.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
Nope your right quincy, no one is responsible for anything they say anymore.

If you really can not tell the difference between a Sara Palin and an Al Sharpton ...............................don;t try to pull the wool over peoples eyes about your own "hyper partisan" ideologies.

People are responsible for what they say, to a point, as it has always been. Using something someone says in an outlandish way to try and lay blame on an entire group is weak and not the responsible thing to do. Because note, your words now could subsequently be used by someone as an excuse to cause violence. That is what happens when you perpetuate the blame game. Eventually your "moral responsiblity" will come up due to something you said. Are you then going to accept your posts on Fishing Buddy were morally responsible for some harm caused? Or are you rightfully going to call bullshit?

What exactly are my "hyper partisan" ideologies? Give me specifics.

Perhaps you can tell me specifically how Palin and Sharpton are different using the specific words they said. Where did Sharpton call for violence? Where did Palin?

If you can not tell the similarities between the cases of Sharpton being blamed and Palin being blamed, perhaps you should take a look at your own ideologies.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:

So you just "tell" someone get on plane hijack it and kill thousands of innocent people and they do it?

And yet you are trying to deny the impact of people chanting for dead cops on someone elses actions???

Wait, I thought Sharpton was to blame for what he said? Now it's protestors? You've already said you have ZERO evidence the shooter heard of those chants or heard of any others specific words from a specifc person. Quit speculating.

Al Queda and the protestors are not equivalent by any metric of the matter. To equate those that took down the tower to the shooter is dishonest.

So unless you think that it was strictly rhetoric that made those 9 men do their actions (which you've already said is not the case), just stop while you are behind. Or step up to the plate and find evidence of someone explicitly telling the shooter to kill cops.

Stop and actually think about what you just typed quincy.

HAHAHAHA, the irony of it all....

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:
And Hitler had no moral impact on millions of Jews being gassed either.

No, he just had a DRASTICALLY LARGE implicit impact when he ordered the Jews to be gassed.

Come on, be better than this. Surely your argument has more merit than comparing protestors and Obama to Hitler.

Quincy, once again comprehension is a big part of a logical discussion.

No where is Hitler being compared to protestors.

Rhetoric's impact on consequences is.

BIG difference.

Without years of Hitlers rhetoric there would not have been a scenario where he had the power to order that.

There in lies the issue with not holding people accountable for inciting inflamatory rhetoric.

Try to understand a little better before spouting off.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
Quincy, once again comprehension is a big part of a logical discussion.

No where is Hitler being compared to protestors.

THEN WHY THE HELL DID YOU BRING HIM UP????? He is so far off from a simple analogy of ANYTHING that it's effing ridiculous to try and use him as one. Good lord. Do you really not see the inherent differences of the people you are trying to claim are equivalent to the protestors?

You are using large, organized, terrorist groups to allude that it was simply rhetoric that made their members commit atroscities.

If you aren't trying to make the claim the protestors are equivalent, then the basis for your analogies is completely flawed and make absolutely no sense.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:

Seems like "conservatives" wanted nothing to do with these people. Can you show where a conservative "reverand" was standing in front of national TV cameras calling for actions against cops in Nevada.
 
Wait a minute, I thought you claimed being a cop was safe.

AND WHICH PROTESTORS WANTED TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS GUY WHEN HE WAS SPOUTING OFF HIS KILL A COP CRAP???????????

What specific reverand was calling for cops to be killed? Name specifically who it was. I will forward that name to the FBI.

Cops are safer now than they ever have been. Just because some have been killed, doesn't mean their profession isn't safe.

easy there big fella, no need to internet yell.

I would imagine not one of those protestors calling for dead cops would have the spine to accept responsibility when someone else actually did it.

Kinda like spouting off from behind a computer.

Once again you try to infer something was being said that simply wasnot. Please show where anyone has said sharpton was calling for people to kill cops.

You do not seem to be able to follow a simple step by step trail.

Had the likes of Sharpton and Jackson not been fanning the flames in the manner they had attracting national TV would there have been protests were people WERE calling for dead cops?

It appears you have no understanding of causation or correlation.

Been interesting, got ot go feed cows and head back to the big city.

Take a step back quincy and actually read and think for a bit.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
Without years of Hitlers rhetoric there would not have been a scenario where he had the power to order that.

There in lies the issue with not holding people accountable for inciting inflamatory rhetoric.

Try to understand a little better before spouting off.

HAHAHA, so now it's years of rhetoric. Nice to see that months of police protests are equivalent to rhetoric of "kill all jews".

And again, you advocate of holding people responsible in relation to Hitler. So if people say something you don't like, we have to stop them so they don't kill Jews?

How about this: Hitler used his anti-criminal rhetoric to obtain the police following. Police used tactics above and beyond what is normal to demolish the rights of the German people. Those that didn't follow in line, or goose step, with them, were treated the same as criminals. Ergo, the police rhetoric being used against those they abuse
is inflamatory and will be used by those that seek power and wish to destroy the rights of the people...

Therein lies the issue of trying to use Hitler to further your point.

I'm trying to understand, but you are getting further and further into the deep end.

Johnny 7's picture
Johnny 7
Offline
WEEKEND WARRIOR
Joined: 2/11/02

If you quit acknowledging him and don't answer anything he asks he won't have anything to say.  If he still has something to write let it go and don't respond.  
Pretty simple!
Merry Christmas everyone and please have a safe Holiday.

God, Family, Green Bay Packers!

Johnny 7

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
I would imagine not one of those protestors calling for dead cops would have the spine to accept responsibility when someone else actually did it.

Kinda like spouting off from behind a computer.

Once again you try to infer something was being said that simply wasnot. Please show where anyone has said sharpton was calling for people to kill cops.

You do not seem to be able to follow a simple step by step trail.

Had the likes of Sharpton and Jackson not been fanning the flames in the manner they had attracting national TV would there have been protests were people WERE calling for dead cops?

It appears you have no understanding of causation or correlation.

Been interesting, got ot go feed cows and head back to the big city.

Take a step back quincy and actually read and think for a bit.

That's too convienent though. I blame the protestors without any evidence but they are too cowardly to admit they were wrong. Without evidence their actions are to cause, why would they have to admit to being at fault? This is similar to the attitude the protesters have by saying that all cops are racist.
 
I'm inferring things being said because your allusion to those things is so thick I'm getting stuck in it.

Had the police not insisted that everyone listen to their illegal orders, black folks like Garner would not resist when accosted. Ergo, the rhetoric of police has caused the deaths of police....

If only the police wouldn't use such inflamatory words, none of this would have happened.

I have a complete understanding of correlation and causation. I think you should study it a bit more.

Hope you cows are doing good. Drive safe if you have to travel, kind of a shitty day out this morning. Take care of yourself!!!

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

BrokenBackJack Said:
If you quit acknowledging him and don't answer anything he asks he won't have anything to say.  If he still has something to write let it go and don't respond.  
Pretty simple!

Sometimes the simplest routes are not the correct routes ;)

Merry Christmas everyone and please have a safe Holiday.

This. Take care everyone, drive safe if you're traveling tomorrow!!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:

So you just "tell" someone get on plane hijack it and kill thousands of innocent people and they do it?

And yet you are trying to deny the impact of people chanting for dead cops on someone elses actions???

Wait, I thought Sharpton was to blame for what he said? Now it's protestors? You've already said you have ZERO evidence the shooter heard of those chants or heard of any others specific words from a specifc person. Quit speculating.

Al Queda and the protestors are not equivalent by any metric of the matter. To equate those that took down the tower to the shooter is dishonest.

So unless you think that it was strictly rhetoric that made those 9 men do their actions (which you've already said is not the case), just stop while you are behind. Or step up to the plate and find evidence of someone explicitly telling the shooter to kill cops.

Stop and actually think about what you just typed quincy.

HAHAHAHA, the irony of it all....

Are you not "specualting" the shooter did not see repeated coverage of protestors fanned by the flames of sharptons rhetoric calling for dead cops and as a result decide to go out and "give some pigs wings"?

Really quincy take a step back and think before you type.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

BrokenBackJack Said:
If you quit acknowledging him and don't answer anything he asks he won't have anything to say.  If he still has something to write let it go and don't respond.  
Pretty simple!
Merry Christmas everyone and please have a safe Holiday.

Sometimes you just have to poke the bear.

Merry Christmas indeed.

labhunter66's picture
labhunter66
Offline
Joined: 3/7/07

 

Quincy05 Said:

labhunter66 Said:
 Do you know why that is Quincy?  Because unlike dip shits like you, most people on the grand juries understand what cops go through, they take the time to examine the evidence, and they come back with a decision that is fair based on the evidence.  Has it ever occurred to you the reason the charge rate is so low is that it is a rare event when a cop actually commits a criminal act in the performance of their duty or do cops not get the same prosumption of innocence as regular citizens?  If I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt to someone it will be to the men and women that put on a badge everyday and go to work to protect others.  It will not be to the person that already has 30+ arrests on their record and decides to resist arrest.  It will not be to a thug that robs a convenience store and assaults a clerk for no reason whatsoever.  They made their own beds. 

What you said was completely contradictory and you are too blind to realize it. On one hand grand juries know police have it tough so they don't bring charges, but on the other police are always charged when they do something bad.

Do you even know why grand juries fail to charge when it comes to cops? Hint: it's not simply about feelings for cops. Hint 2: Who shows the evidence to the juries while simultaneously works closely with those being charged? It's not the cops.

What are you reading?  I didn't say they don't bring charges.  I said they take the time to actually examine evidence and see if charges are warranted and I do think charges should be brought against cops that break the law and that's shown beyond a reasonable doubt.  I don't think it happens as much as some want to make believe and that's why grand juries fail to charge cops and if you think cops and prosecutors always see eye to eye you simply don't know enough about the entire legal system to be commenting - but I think most involved in this post have already realized that.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:

Are you not "specualting" the shooter did not see repeated coverage of protestors fanned by the flames of sharptons rhetoric calling for dead cops and as a result decide to go out and "give some pigs wings"?

Really quincy take a step back and think before you type.

No, because there is no evidence in favor of it. There is no need to speculate. If I say the world is flat because I can't physically see the curve from my house, you aren't speculating when you disagree.

And again with blaming Sharpton. Where did he specifically say that cops should die? Please stop the misinformation. The only thing I've heard of cries to kill cops were from a small group at a protest in NY. The shooter wasn't from New York.

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

he dead 

Quincy05 Said:

KurtR Said:
should garner have resisted? 

Yes.

 Adn

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

KurtR Said:
he dead 

Quincy05 Said:

KurtR Said:
should garner have resisted? 

Yes.

Yep, guilty until innocent....

KurtR's picture
KurtR
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/16/07

or dumb and not smart 

Quincy05 Said:

KurtR Said:
he dead 

Quincy05 Said:

KurtR Said:
should garner have resisted? 

Yes.

Yep, guilty until innocent....

 Adn

labhunter66's picture
labhunter66
Offline
Joined: 3/7/07

 

Quincy05 Said:

labhunter66 Said:
 What gives you the right to question the grand juries?  Were you there?  Did you here the evidence?  Did you get to judge the truthfulness of peoples statements for yourself and not rely on media accounts of what happened?  Did you get to examine autopsy results in detail before coming to your corrupt conclusions?  The Constitution is written to give the benefit of the doubt to people accused of a crime - all people including cops.  These grand juries found that not only was there not going to be enough evidence to convict them, there wasn't even enough to charge them.  I can't think of a job where there would be more opportunity to be falsely accused of wrongdoing. None of these criminals want to take responsibility for their own actions and none of these protesters are willing to hold them accountable for their actions.  It's always someone else's fault.  Are all cops perfect?  Of course not, in fact none of them are but I will give them the benefit of the doubt until they are proven guilty beyond that reasonable doubt.

Please look into how grand juries operate. Usually there is only one side of the story told. That of the prosecution. The defense doesn't have a chance to rebute. The common saying is that prosecutors could get charges brought against a ham sandwhich if they wanted to.

If prosecutors don't get charges brought against cops, why do you think that is? Because evidence, or because they didn't want to?

You should probably look at how a grand jury operates.  In most cases the defense does have an opportunity to testify but it's not required by law.  Most people that are subject of grand jury investigations and know they are guilty will choose not testify in front of the grand jury.  Why would they?  They are under no obligation to incriminate themselves and when they know they're guilty why would you give any additional information to the prosecution.  It says something that Wilson and Pantaleo were both willing to stand before the grand juries and answer questions.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

The cold-blooded murder of two New York City policemen as they sat in their car is not only an outrage but also a wake-up call. It shows, in the most painful way, the high cost of having demagogues, politicians, mobs and the media constantly taking cheap shots at the police.

Those cheap shots are in fact very expensive shots, not only to the police themselves but to the whole society. Someone once said that civilization is a thin crust over a volcano. The police are part of that thin crust. We have seen before our own eyes, first in Ferguson, Missouri and then in other communities, what happens when there is just a small crack in that crust, and barbarism and arson burst out.

That can happen anywhere. So can what happened in New York. "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
 

It is a painful irony that, on the eve of the murders of these two police officers in New York, some of the city's police were already saying that, in the event of their deaths, they did not want Mayor Bill de Blasio to attend their funerals.

We can only hope that Mayor de Blasio has some residual decency, so that he will not defile these two officers' memorial services with his presence. No politician in the country has done more to play the race card against the police and spread the notion that cops are the big problem in minority communities.

It so happens that the police officers killed were both members of minority groups -- Officer Rafael Ramos, Hispanic, and Officer Wenjian Liu, Asian. It so happens that a substantial part of the New York City police force are members of minority groups.

But you might never know that from the story told by demagogues who depict the black community as a "colonial" society being "occupied" by white policemen who target young blacks. Mayor de Blasio joined the chorus of those saying that they have to warn their black sons how to cope with this situation.
 

"What can we say to our sons?" some demagogues ask. They can say, "Don't go around punching strangers, because it is only a matter of time before you punch the wrong stranger."

Mayor de Blasio has made anti-police comments with Al Sharpton seated at his side. This is the same Al Sharpton with a trail of slime going back more than a quarter of a century, during which he has whipped up mobs and fomented race hatred from the days of the Tawana Brawley "rape" hoax of 1987 to the Duke University "rape" hoax of 2006 and the Ferguson riots of 2014.

Make no mistake about it. There is political mileage to be made siding with demagogues like Al Sharpton who, as demagogue-in-chief, has been invited to the White House dozens of times by its commander-in-chief.

Many in the media and among the intelligentsia cherish the romantic tale of an "us" against "them" struggle of beleaguered ghetto blacks defending themselves against the aggression of white policemen. The gullible include both whites who don't know what they are talking about and blacks who don't know what they are talking about either, because they never grew up in a ghetto. Among the latter are the President of the United States and his Attorney General.
 

Such people readily buy the story that ghetto social problems today -- from children being raised without a father to runaway rates of murder -- are "a legacy of slavery," even though such social problems were nowhere near as severe in the first half of the 20th century as they became in the second half.

You would be hard pressed to name just five examples from the first half of the 20th century of the kinds of ghetto riots that have raged in more than a hundred cities during the second half. Such riots are a legacy of the social degeneracy of our times.

Calling this social degeneracy "a legacy of slavery" is not just an excuse for those who engage in it, it is an excuse for the ideology of the intelligentsia behind the social policies that promoted this degeneracy.

Let those who have laid a guilt trip on people in our times, for evils done by other people in past centuries, at least face their own responsibility for the evil consequences of their own notions and policies. If they won't do it, then the rest of us need to stop listening gullibly to what they are saying.

The race card is nothing to play with. It can ruin us all.

 

 

 

 

Colt45's picture
Colt45
Offline
Joined: 8/24/12

Quincy05 Said:

Colt45 Said:
Liang had a gun when confronted by the cops, not smart, maybe thats why he got shot?

Officials said Liang was holding a flashlight in his right hand and a Glock 9-mm. in the other when he opened the door to the eighth-floor landing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, try reading the article a little closer. Protip: Gurley was shot (unarmed) Liang was the Officer.

This completely illustrates the problem of immediately assuming the ones that died are at fault for some crime they commited.

Upon further review, you are correct quin, I got it mixed up. To be fair, I had never heard of this case and quickly read through a NY Times article. I didnt assume any crime was committed, the way I read it was that the cops shot an armed man, which apparently wasnt the case. Either way, the dude is dead, killed by a cop, and now the question is if the cop is guilty of homocide or manslaughter, or some crime.

I guess I was trying to understand your position better and why you keep pounding "cops are bad" up everyones arse. In this case, there is a grand jury looking into it and the cop may very well be prosecuted and sentenced, if he committed a crime.  I guess you have already found the cop guilty, so be it. Its just your opinion.
Cops are human, make mistakes just like everyone else. Do you think we are better off without cops?

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

labhunter66 Said:
 What are you reading?  I didn't say they don't bring charges.  I said they take the time to actually examine evidence and see if charges are warranted and I do think charges should be brought against cops that break the law and that's shown beyond a reasonable doubt.  I don't think it happens as much as some want to make believe and that's why grand juries fail to charge cops and if you think cops and prosecutors always see eye to eye you simply don't know enough about the entire legal system to be commenting - but I think most involved in this post have already realized that.

Look at statistics for grand juries and cops; rarely are cops indicted. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

If you think cops and prosecutors seeing eye to eye has anything to do with the close relationship they have, I don't think it's my issues with the legal system we should be discussing.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Colt45 Said:
Upon further review, you are correct quin, I got it mixed up. To be fair, I had never heard of this case and quickly read through a NY Times article. I didnt assume any crime was committed, the way I read it was that the cops shot an armed man, which apparently wasnt the case. Either way, the dude is dead, killed by a cop, and now the question is if the cop is guilty of homocide or manslaughter, or some crime.

I guess I was trying to understand your position better and why you keep pounding "cops are bad" up everyones arse. In this case, there is a grand jury looking into it and the cop may very well be prosecuted and sentenced, if he committed a crime.  I guess you have already found the cop guilty, so be it. Its just your opinion.
Cops are human, make mistakes just like everyone else. Do you think we are better off without cops?

No I don't think that, I never have. I think we're better off without BAD cops. The keep pounding the issue because everyone seems to think that anti-bad cop means anti-cop. That's completely incorrect. In order for beneficial reform to happen, that fallacy needs to gone and the fallacy of the infalliable cop needs to be gone.

There are so many here that excuse the actions of bad cops based on some narrative that the person "deserved" it because they were resisting arrest, were talking bad, etc. No one deserves to die based on the actions of a cop. Blaming the victim takes away from the actions of the officers that also lead to deaths. Is excessive force needed whenever someone resists? Are all laws major enough that the penalty of death is always there? I would suggest no, but far too many still think in the affirmative.

The more bad cops that are removed from the force, the better it is for everyone. More trust equates to better interactions and, in turn, fewer instances of force against civilians and cops. Isn't that what the end goal should be?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy05 Said:

gst Said:

Are you not "specualting" the shooter did not see repeated coverage of protestors fanned by the flames of sharptons rhetoric calling for dead cops and as a result decide to go out and "give some pigs wings"?

Really quincy take a step back and think before you type.

No, because there is no evidence in favor of it. There is no need to speculate. If I say the world is flat because I can't physically see the curve from my house, you aren't speculating when you disagree.

And again with blaming Sharpton. Where did he specifically say that cops should die? Please stop the misinformation. The only thing I've heard of cries to kill cops were from a small group at a protest in NY. The shooter wasn't from New York.

Quincy I am from the little town of Antler ND and I repeatedly saw reports of protestors calling for dead cops when do we want them right now.

Do you really beleive it is not "speculation" to think this shooter did not see it as well?

Once again please show were I have ever said sharpton called for the killing of cops. You seem to want to continue to infer things that have never been said have been said.

Your inability to connect simple dots shows your lack of understanding of correlation or causation.

Hate to burst your bubble quincy, but if it is choosing between your thoughts  or those of Thomas Sowell on this issue..............................................................................

labhunter66's picture
labhunter66
Offline
Joined: 3/7/07

 

Quincy05 Said:

labhunter66 Said:
 What are you reading?  I didn't say they don't bring charges.  I said they take the time to actually examine evidence and see if charges are warranted and I do think charges should be brought against cops that break the law and that's shown beyond a reasonable doubt.  I don't think it happens as much as some want to make believe and that's why grand juries fail to charge cops and if you think cops and prosecutors always see eye to eye you simply don't know enough about the entire legal system to be commenting - but I think most involved in this post have already realized that.

Look at statistics for grand juries and cops; rarely are cops indicted. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/

If you think cops and prosecutors seeing eye to eye has anything to do with the close relationship they have, I don't think it's my issues with the legal system we should be discussing.

Did you even read that article?  It basically confirms the reasons I told you.  Grand juries have a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to the officers and many times the evidence is very weak but the prosecutor doesn't want to appear biased and just not charge so they bring the case the the grand jury and they confirm the evidence isn't sufficient to charge.  

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

Good to see Townhall keeping their standards. I wonder if Sowell will be part of 2014's biggest political blunders?

http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/01/03/the_10_biggest_political_debacles_of_2011/page/full

9) Sarah Palin is blamed for Gabrielle Giffords’ shooting. Early this year, Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head by deranged nutjob Jared Loughner. That was a tragedy, but what happened next reached Kanye-West-going-to-an-Occupy-protest levels of irony. Liberals found a map Palin put out several months earlier "targeting" Giffords district. Then, based on absolutely nothing, they concluded Loughner saw the map, took it as a direct order from Palin to kill Giffords, and went on a rampage. The irony here is that by falsely accusing Palin of being directly responsible for the Giffords shooting, her critics did a thousand times more to incite a violent attack on Sarah Palin than Palin had ever done by putting crosshairs on Gifford's district. Plus, as an extra added bonus, we got to hear some of the least civil people in all of politics sanctimoniously lecturing everyone else about the need for civility before they went on over-the-top rants against everyone who disagreed with them. 
Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

labhunter66 Said:
 Did you even read that article?  It basically confirms the reasons I told you.  Grand juries have a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to the officers and many times the evidence is very weak but the prosecutor doesn't want to appear biased and just not charge so they bring the case the the grand jury and they confirm the evidence isn't sufficient to charge. 

Haha, so reason #2 is magically gone? Do you think all of the 161,989 federal grand jury cases that returned indictments had lock solid evidence?

Again, ham sandwich.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:

Quincy I am from the little town of Antler ND and I repeatedly saw reports of protestors calling for dead cops when do we want them right now.

Do you really beleive it is not "speculation" to think this shooter did not see it as well?

Once again please show were I have ever said sharpton called for the killing of cops. You seem to want to continue to infer things that have never been said have been said.

Your inability to connect simple dots shows your lack of understanding of correlation or causation.

Hate to burst your bubble quincy, but if it is choosing between your thoughts  or those of Thomas Sowell on this issue..............................................................................

Yes, it is speculation. I didn't see anything about that until after the shooting. Perhaps you look at sources that would preclude that information being out there. Do you think the shooter looked at the same sources as you?

Feel free to choose Sowell. I disagree with him completely on this issue, and we'll see if Townhall has the gall to call him or themselves out on the hypocrisy.

As for Sharpton, you're correct. The jumbled sentence made me misread "protestors fanned by the flames of sharptons rhetoric calling for dead cops". You need commas in there if you want it read properly. You know "i love fucking college guys" or "I love fucking college, guys"

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

Quincy once again I don;t beleive anyone here thinks cops are infallible nor should they be given a pass.

But it is an occupation that is unlike any other despite your efforts to compare it to working in the oil field and most people understand that and as such tend to give cops the benefit of the doubt.

I have had run ins with over zealous law enforcement in the past, but I have also had the priviledge of knowing people who do in fact put on a badge each day to "protect and serve" not knowing what they will face that day.

It is not a job I would want to do so I tend to appreciate those that do and allow them the benefit of the doubt till facts are known.

Remember as you sit with your family this Christmas, there are police officers that are once again putting their life on the line not soley for their pay check, but to truly protect you and yours.


labhunter66's picture
labhunter66
Offline
Joined: 3/7/07

 

Quincy05 Said:

labhunter66 Said:
 Did you even read that article?  It basically confirms the reasons I told you.  Grand juries have a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to the officers and many times the evidence is very weak but the prosecutor doesn't want to appear biased and just not charge so they bring the case the the grand jury and they confirm the evidence isn't sufficient to charge. 

Haha, so reason #2 is magically gone? Do you think all of the 161,989 federal grand jury cases that returned indictments had lock solid evidence?

Again, ham sandwich.

My point is you cite an article as proof of your theories and that article contradicts you on two of their three points and you just ignore them.  You're delusional and not worth conversing with anymore.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:

Quincy I am from the little town of Antler ND and I repeatedly saw reports of protestors calling for dead cops when do we want them right now.

Do you really beleive it is not "speculation" to think this shooter did not see it as well?

Once again please show were I have ever said sharpton called for the killing of cops. You seem to want to continue to infer things that have never been said have been said.

Your inability to connect simple dots shows your lack of understanding of correlation or causation.

Hate to burst your bubble quincy, but if it is choosing between your thoughts  or those of Thomas Sowell on this issue..............................................................................

Here you go, a specific group to blame for moral responsibility.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/23/who-started-new-york-s-dead-cops-chant.html

Not all protestors chanted this and not all protestors agree with them.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

gst Said:
Quincy once again I don;t beleive anyone here thinks cops are infallible nor should they be given a pass.

But it is an occupation that is unlike any other despite your efforts to compare it to working in the oil field and most people understand that and as such tend to give cops the benefit of the doubt.

I have had run ins with over zealous law enforcement in the past, but I have also had the priviledge of knowing people who do in fact put on a badge each day to "protect and serve" not knowing what they will face that day.

It is not a job I would want to do so I tend to appreciate those that do and allow them the benefit of the doubt till facts are known.

Remember as you sit with your family this Christmas, there are police officers that are once again putting their life on the line not soley for their pay check, but to truly protect you and yours.


It's the talk such as this that puts them on a pedastal and makes them infalliable. Cops aren't protecting my by throwing a kid down in a Fargo school. Cops aren't protecting me for arresting a teenager with marijuana. Cops weren't protecting me when they told the lady to delete her pictures after their raid.

You can give cops the benefit of the doubt, just don't make that benefit so large that there is only doubt left. Seems like more and more often people try to find something, anything wrong with the person that dies in order to exonerate the officers that kill. Garner sold untaxed cigarettes, so the officer isn't to blame. Kelly Thomas resisted arrest, so the officers that severely beat him aren't at fault. What about Tamir Rice?  Oh, well his parents had a criminal past and he shouldn't have had a BB gun. Disregarding the non-illegaltiy of it all. John Crawford? Oh, well he shouldn't have been holding a BB gun in Wal Mart that looked like a gun. Ignoring the fact that officers engaged him immediately and the sole reliance on a phony 911 call.

There are too many officers now that have a "use force now, ask forgiveness later" attitude in order to be "safe". Why aren't civilians allowed to be safe when they encounter the police?

Myself, I will give them the same benefit I'll give everyone else from now on.

Quincy05's picture
Quincy05
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 6/8/09

labhunter66 Said:
 
My point is you cite an article as proof of your theories and that article contradicts you on two of their three points and you just ignore them.  You're delusional and not worth conversing with anymore.

The article doesn't contradict what I said and I didn't ignore them. If that were the case, you were also contradicted on 2 of 3 points and you ignored them as well. Guess you're just as delusional as I am. Perhaps we can get a group rate on a hospital.

Why didn't you asnwer my question about the 161,989 federal cases that led to indictment? Do you think they had rock solid evidence?

Colt45's picture
Colt45
Offline
Joined: 8/24/12

Quincy05 Said:

Colt45 Said:
Upon further review, you are correct quin, I got it mixed up. To be fair, I had never heard of this case and quickly read through a NY Times article. I didnt assume any crime was committed, the way I read it was that the cops shot an armed man, which apparently wasnt the case. Either way, the dude is dead, killed by a cop, and now the question is if the cop is guilty of homocide or manslaughter, or some crime.

I guess I was trying to understand your position better and why you keep pounding "cops are bad" up everyones arse. In this case, there is a grand jury looking into it and the cop may very well be prosecuted and sentenced, if he committed a crime.  I guess you have already found the cop guilty, so be it. Its just your opinion.
Cops are human, make mistakes just like everyone else. Do you think we are better off without cops?

No I don't think that, I never have. I think we're better off without BAD cops. The keep pounding the issue because everyone seems to think that anti-bad cop means anti-cop. That's completely incorrect. In order for beneficial reform to happen, that fallacy needs to gone and the fallacy of the infalliable cop needs to be gone.

There are so many here that excuse the actions of bad cops based on some narrative that the person "deserved" it because they were resisting arrest, were talking bad, etc. No one deserves to die based on the actions of a cop. Blaming the victim takes away from the actions of the officers that also lead to deaths. Is excessive force needed whenever someone resists? Are all laws major enough that the penalty of death is always there? I would suggest no, but far too many still think in the affirmative.

The more bad cops that are removed from the force, the better it is for everyone. More trust equates to better interactions and, in turn, fewer instances of force against civilians and cops. Isn't that what the end goal should be?

The problem I think most on here have with you is your lukewarm “support” for cops. Your logic implies that “not all cops are bad, and we do need cops, but lets get rid of the bad ones”.  
You minimize the dedication, courage, and professionalism that cops display, day in and day out. You are coming across, at least to me, that good cops are the exception rather than the rule.
You are painting a “bad” image of cops, and most everyone on this site takes exception to the image you are painting.
There are “bad” people in every occupation. There are bad doctors, bad pilots, bad garbage men, …………
It should be obvious that all cops put their lives on the line to protect us. For that they deserve the public’s support, and your support too quin. When you come across as a cop hater, you will be blasted on this site, as you have hopefully learned.
Say something about the “good” cops for a change so everyone can start their healing process………
snow's picture
snow
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/29/03

Hey Jack~

Good thought but this idiot just likes to blab blab blab...He carries on his own convo from top to bottom...

Have a great holiday as well.

Perazzi usa
Benelli usa
Briley Chokes
 

Pages