Would this man be justified having shot two officers?

http://www.11alive.com/story/news/local/2015/06/01/man-says-he-was-haras...

This man was open carrying his weapon legally when Police questioned him. After expressing his rights they followed him to his vehicle.

Now according to some Swampbubbles posters following a person is akin to an attack. So would this man not be justified in shooting the police at the airport?

No votes yet

Let the police follow you if they like. Soon enough the police will learn they're wasting their time that way. They know what the crooks look like. They know where the crooks live. They will go back to doing real police work soon enough.

If the man carrying the rifle was a minority he would be dead.

True, since minorities have bad habits of pointing firearms at police, disobeying police orders, fighting with police, etc. You're exactly right about that.

Fighting with police being the big one. Then, if you're a cop, you'll get vilified by the commercial news media for excessive violence, racial profiling and a host of other 'crimes', while the real criminal is free to commit yet another violent crime.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

You forgot to say, they'll get killed if they are unarmed.

Yes, it's entirely possible they'll be killed when they attack police, as these minorities are prone to do.

Why can't they behave? Why can't they just do what the police officers order them to do? Why do they run from police, even during a traffic stop, where they're being legally detained and for which flight is a crime?

Can you answer any of those? I mean, sanely? I doubt it.

As for myself and others who are well behaved, we've never had trouble with police, since we:

1. Obey police orders.
2. Don't flee police.
3. Don't fight with police or otherwise physically resist them.
4. Don't point weapons at police.

Etc.

ZC

ZC I notice you didn't answer the question I posed. Would he been justified shooting the police because he was being followed?

MikeyA

No.

No.

Uh, that doesn't make any sense, coming from you, since in a famous previous case, you clearly implied that you're free to attack anyone who's following you.

Can you explain this discrepancy?

Zimmerman wasn t a policeman.

You're not free to attack somebody (policeman or not) merely because they are following you, or that you believe they're following you.

If Trayvon Martin had survived his attack on George Zimmerman, he would have been brought up on an assault charge. Luckily, Mr Zimmerman acted appropriately in his self defense and saved us, the taxpayers, from all that problem. Unluckily, Liberals turned the entire thing into a circus and cost the taxpayers far more, accomplishing nothing but making the point clear that there's something mentally wrong with Liberals.

Absolutely right. I think the charges against Martin would have been manslaughter, since he tried to kill Zimmerman before getting what was coming to him. One thug in the meat wagon, and the cops on the scene correctly called it self-defense.

Mad Jack
Mad Jack's Shack

Only one problem- it was never proved that Martin actually attacked anyone. That was part of George's story, a story which changed several times during questioning. Also, the cops on the scene didn't call it self defense.

Here are some links if you would like to know more.

https://youtu.be/PX1sxARNq_c

https://youtu.be/uHyIpO43NRg

https://youtu.be/h0aeCKOny-Q

"it was never proved that Martin actually attacked anyone"

Uh, dead wrong.

You have to use something called "logic" which Liberals are piss-poor at following since it often leads to conclusions which cross their ideology.

1. Zimmerman was found NOT GUILTY of murder AND manslaughter.
2. Therefore his shooting was legally JUSTIFIED.
3. There's only one condition in which you're justified in shooting a person: Self defense.
3. Self defense means you were ATTACKED.

Get it? Zimmerman's acquittal proved that Martin attacked him. It's sure as night following day. If Martin had survived Zimmerman's defensive action, he'd be up on an assault charge... which is sadly typical for young Black males.

Sorry Zero, you are the one dead wrong, as usual. Zimmerman's acquittal did not prove that Martin attacked. Ask a lawyer or a judge if you don't believe me.

You failed to specify what was wrong with my chain of logic.

Therefore the logic isn't wrong.

You should have got over "nuh-uh" as your justification for ending arguments.

Your logic falls apart because it is based on an assumption and not on fact.
You jump to the conclusion that the shooting was justified based on the acquittal and not on the evidence. The evidence in the case never actually proved or disproved Zimmerman's account of the events. An acquittal must occur when there is not enough evidence to prove one way or the other what actually happened. Look it up.

Under the current conditions, Zimmerman walks around a free man since his shooting was legally justified. There's only one, ONE possibility that that's so: Because he fired in self defense. What triggers self defense? AN ATTACK. Attacks are illegal.

Once again, point out the flaw in the logic.

But you can't.

The end.

Zimmerman walks around a free man since his shooting was legally justified. There's only one, ONE possibility that that's so

Where you are wrong is that there is in fact another possibility to why Zimmerman is walking free; and that is the evidence never proved one why or the other whether he was telling the truth. This is the possibility you are willfully ignoring. In this country if there is not enough evidence to convict you must acquit. Your logic falls apart based on your ignorance of the law.

Zimmerman is walking around a free man since his shooting was justified. True or false? Was the shooting justified, or not?

Don't bother answering; the answer is "true". The shooting was justified.

Hence there's only one legal conclusion; a justified shooting directly implies that somebody committed a crime of assault against you (or worse, like attempted murder).

If Martin had survived the shooting the legal system could have prosecuted him for assault.

Period.

It's obvious the demons are still there.

Neither was Martin yet the assumption you and Dale made was that Martin's attack on Zimmerman was justified because Zimmerman was following him.

So.... since we've established that you believe police are exempt from attack when they follow can we then assume if I am followed by a random person I am fully justified in attacking said person?

MikeyA

None of us know who attacked who first in the Martin case. The only thing we know for sure is that Martin is dead and would be alive today if Zimmerman would have folowed law enforcement's instructions.

AHHH but you stated GZ got what he deserved for following TM.

Law enforcement gave GZ no instructions. 911 is not law enforcement.

MikeyA

As usual you are splitting hairs.

Then please explain where I got it wrong.

MikeyA

If you don't know who attacked first in the Martin-Zimmerman case, then you can only agree via the principle of reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not guilty of committing a crime.

Also, we don't know if Martin would be alive today since:

1. He may have attacked police when they found him on their own.

2. He may have gone onto performing other crimes which would have then caused his death.

Both these points would have had significant chances of occurring.

It just proves we only heard one side of the story. We only have the story from a vigilante.

So, when the physical evidence is duly collected and nothing is found that contradicts his story, and in fact the physical evidence supports his story, then the principle of reasonable doubt says that you do WHAT as a result?

...

Hint: It rhymes with "acquit".

However in your case, you use another principle, called the principle of Liberalism, in which case you arbitrarily decide that Zimmerman was in the wrong since he had light skin while the dead person had dark skin.

We're onto your little game. You Liberals are as racist as you accuse your opponents of being.

Actually liberals are worse racist, bigoted homophobes than ANY Conservatives are!

Because G-MAN says so. That's why!!

Zimmerman/Martin. Been there; done that.

Your last lines intrigued me. If "Liberals" are so racist, what explains these voting patterns?
In 2004, Kerry obtained the following percentages of votes broken down by race:
Whites, non-Hispanic -- 41%
African-American -- 88%
Hispanic -- 53%
Asian -- 56%
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
In 2012, Obama obtained the following percentages:
Whites, non-Hispanic -- 39%
African-American -- 93%
Hispanic -- 71%
Asian -- 73%
http://www.nationaljournal.com/thenextamerica/politics/10-amazing-demogr...

Apparently, both minorities and non-minorities understand whether or not most "Liberals" are racist. Under the heading of "more bad news for conservatives," for the first time since 1968, a higher percentage of African-Americans voted than did whites: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/09/blacks-outvoted-whites-i... No wonder, Republicans are passing laws to suppress voter participation!
Not only do conservative candidates have a problem with getting votes from African-Americans, but they also have a problem getting votes from the growing Hispanic and Asian communities. BTW -- 55% of Asian Americans over the age of 25 have at least a baccalaureate degree.
http://www.asian-nation.org/14-statistics.shtml

But, GZ aka Chicken Little, you keep living in your fantasy world of, "You Liberals are as racist as you accuse your opponents of being." As usual, you cite no statistics to prove this, you have no education, no training, nor practical experience from which to draw a rational conclusion. You have, merely, your vacuous, unsubstantiated opinion. By the way they vote, minority Americans know better.

The racism of Liberals is expressed twofold:

1. They believe Blacks and Hispanics are incapable of helping themselves. Hence the Liberal support for endless welfare programs.

2. Liberals tend to have White neighbors. Liberals may preach diversity but seldom experience it for themselves. Scott HS draws from the OWE, for instance, and yet there are only a handful of White kids there. Where are all the White children of the highly Liberalized OWE going? To private schools, of course! (Where they won't have to deal with Black kids, per parental plans.)

We all know you Liberals are one of the most racist people out there (other than Blacks, who live, eat and breathe so much "racial consciousness" that it's racism by definition). We know you won't live near Blacks, you won't work with Blacks, and you sure as fuck won't send your kids to school with Blacks. Luckily, the wellspring of bank credit that fueled that segregation is drying up, and even if Liberals can continue to flee (the demographic mess that they created), Section 8 is proving to be as nimble.

There's a thread or two on ToledoTalk now that have me howling. Specifically some yokel was complaining there about his having to deal with "renters" and "thugs" but we all know what he means: Young Black males. And you don't want 'em in your neighborhood either.

No evidence, no statistics. Vacuous opinions only!

Your mindless diatribes on this topic remind me of how the adult verbiage was always shown by Charles Schultz: "Wah, wah. Wah wah wah wah."

Sounds like excerpts from Adolf Hitler's auto biography.

I never knew Hitler wrote an autobiography? Can you enlighten me as to the title?

What proportion of the white OWE residents have school age children? That's something you should include in your post. When I lived there all the whites I knew were either gay, single, their children had grown, or they had no children at all. Of course I didn't know everyone in the neighborhood; but if I was going to make the claims you are making I would try to use a few facts to back up my argument. What are the numbers? Do you have any? I'm actually interested to know what the proportion is.

Well, you go right ahead and collect that data. It's enough for me to know population size, which is large enough to smooth those sort of aberrations out. The end result is a few thousand homes that have only delivered, what, a handful of White kids to Scott HS? That matches what we know about Liberals: They avoid Blacks.

Toledo is the only municipal jurisdiction in the state of Ohio that I know of, which has TWO public school systems: TPS and Washington Local. WL was created to avoid Blacks. That's how long this sort of thing has been going on around here.

All I ever wanted people today to simply do is admit they don't like Blacks and they don't like race-mixing and that their socio-economic choices largely reflect that. After all, I've already seen the collective outcome of those choices, I'm just reverse-engineering it to get back to what's driven it all.

Meanwhile, while the propagandists like Dale and the rest of his Liberal brethren try to deny what's happening, people continue to pull up stakes and leave the City of Toledo. They may whitewash their reasons with code phrases like "too much crime" and "want better schools", but we all know what those phrases really mean: Social problems are created by too many Blacks and so people should flee Black areas. Now that Toledo has reached 25% Black, it's going to be progressively abandoned by Whites since that's too many Blacks. That 25% will rise to 50% in only a generation, perhaps on the long side (30 years).

Why should he collect data. You should provide a citation.

You always contradict yourself. You say Liberals won't live near Blacks, yet you use the OWE, a mixed race neighborhood, as an example. You even referred to it as "the highly Liberalized OWE".

Here's a lesson Rush Limbaugh won't teach you: Liberalism has nothing to do with race. A member of any race can be a Liberal. Statements such as "Liberals tend to have white neighbors" and "Liberals may preach diversity but seldom experience it for themselves" make you look stupid.

Do you know which Liberals tend to have white neighbors? Answer: the Black Liberals living side by side with the White Liberals in the OWE.

Stop assigning motives to others and you won't look quite so dumb.

If you're Liberal, chances are, you don't have Black neighbors. Failing that largest chance, you have a few Black neighbors who are middle class or upper class, hence aren't neighborhood destroyers. There's also a chance there that you have far less than the 13% Black that's the national average.

What you generally don't see are Liberals living in neighborhoods that have the national average of Blacks or more. Those Liberals are quite rare. That's because like most Whites, Liberals flee the "Blackening" of residential zones. That's because Blacks tend to bring cultural despondency, crime, rental units and falling property values.

That's why Toledo is losing about 1000 people per year over the long term. Toledo is now about twice the national average for a Black share of the population. The public school system (TPS) is even worse: 50% Black. So even when Whites remain here, they sure as hell avoid sending their kids to school with Blacks.

Actions and reactions show how people really feel and what they really believe... not their claims, boasts or lies.

You can all sit around and pretend it's not so, but it's so. "And yet it moves." Call me the racial Galileo.

Hey Zero, pull your head out. Being a Liberal does not depend on race. Are you a dummy? I tried to teach you something, but you insist on staying ignorant. A Liberal can be of any race. You keep talking as though Liberals are just Whites.

You always make a fool of yourself with statements like "If you're Liberal, chances are, you don't have Black neighbors". Oh really...? What if you are a Black who is a Liberal?

Most Liberals are Whites. Because Whites are still the supermajority. Why are you having so much trouble with this?

I always have trouble with BS.

"Most Liberals are Whites. Because Whites are still the supermajority."

Tip: You might want to look up the word "supermajority" to see how it is used.

Then you are typical!

Because G-MAN says so. That's why!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

White liberals don't live in Black areas because they are afraid of Black folks.

I was shaking like a leaf. After all, he brings with him a thug culture...right G-MAN?

Still waiting for the thug culture to invade our racially integrated neighborhood.
Still waiting.
Still waiting.
Been waiting for over a decade.
Still waiting.
Still waiting.

Well, I don't claim to know exactly why so many Whites (hence Liberals) have fled areas with significant percentages of Blacks, other than the usual motivations which are often claimed to be "racism", those being avoidance of known socio-economic problems strongly associated with significant Black populations.

Republicans outnumber registered Democrats by a wide margin. Where are all the "Liberals" in my suburban neighborhood?
In Sylvania, almost every elected official is a Republican. Where are all of the "Liberal" voters in this suburb?
Your contention makes no sense at all. But, hey, don't allow facts to get in the way of your beliefs, ever!

Still waiting for the African-Americans who live and play in my neighborhood to bring their "thug" mentality with them. I saw one walking by my house today. SCARY!! Sure glad he wasn't wearing a hoodie. Of course, it is a little warm for hoodies. Maybe it will be cold enough tomorrow to wear one.
BTW -- I wear hoodies a lot in cold weather. Better let people see my white face, huh.

The biggest fear that the United States should have is for the minorities to totally adopt the barbaric ways White America has victimized minorities over the centuries. If you think it's not possible, think again. The White minorities in South Africa and Rhodesia did it for years. Instead, why don't we unite our efforts as a nation and treat everybody with respect and fairness. We will get more harmony and a better America.

Personally, I cannot be as good a person as were Jesus, or Martin King, or Ghandi. I am not capable of never raising a hand to another who is trying to harm me or someone else. However, we can all do our part, merely by treating all those we meet as individuals, not as part of some group we either love or hate. As Thomas Jefferson stated over 200 years ago, we should all attempt to be, "doers of good, and eschewers of bad."

Thank you for your gracious words. I too am not perfect, and everyday I run into people who are more interested in ruling over people who do not share the same looks, religious beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, etc.. It is obvious to me there are posters on this site who want mediocre and sub-mediocre White Americans to rule over exceptional people who are not like themselves. I consider their positions as unpatriotic and blasphemous against God's laws.How dare they circumvent our great country's Constitution and mistreat God's creations.

I am so glad I was raised by parents that taught me to accept people of other cultures and races. There is a lot I would have missed out on if I had been raised with all the suspicion and fear that goes along with racism.

near what is now Reverend Savage Park, then called City Park. His family was the only Jewish family in the immediate area. This meant nothing to his father. I never met this grandfather because he was killed in a freak accident when his oil furnace blew up as he was trying to relight it, when I was still a babe in arms. When my father's entire family got sick in one of those infamous flu epidemics, the couple next door to them came over every day for several days to help them out. They brought food and tended to all of the ill family members. They didn't care that they were helping a family of Eastern European Jews, and that they were African-American Christians. They were just neighbors helping neighbors.
I remember working in my father's jewelry store in Swayne Field Shopping Center. My father had an amazing memory for people. I remember seeing my father approach an African-American male about his age and call the man by name. He would say something like, "Don't you remember me? I'm Ralph Pertcheck. We used to play baseball together at City Park."
My father was the least prejudiced person I ever knew. He simply treated everyone the same way. Two of his best friends from his childhood were lifelong friends. One was of Irish background. The other was of Italian descent. Both were Catholic. I am named after my father's best friend growing up, Dale Wine. He was killed in World War II. It is traditional for Jewish people to name their children after a deceased family member. No one objected when my father named me after his deceased Christian friend. I have just patterned myself after my father in this respect. And, I have never regretted it for one moment. Thanks, Dad!

If we want a more productive America, we eschew prejudice and discrimination. When we limit anyone's opportunities to be the best he or she can be, we not only directly hurt those who are the victims of discrimination, we also hurt so many others who could have benefited from the talents that were never fully developed. Opening opportunities to all, means that more grow up to be productive citizens rather than criminals, and more become taxpayers instead of tax users.
Discrimination and prejudice create winners and losers. Respect and equal treatment create a win-win environment.

How many slaves did Liberal Jefferson when he stated that?

So, G-MAN...nothing Jefferson ever said is valid. Right?

You get treated with respect and fairness when you don't aim weapons as police officers, when you don't disobey lawful police orders, when you don't flee police officers while under detainment, etc.

I've never had a problem with police, since I don't point guns at them, disobey them or resist them. That should be a lesson there for those who want "respect and fairness".

A Black man in NY didn't do any of the things you said and the police shot him 26 times.

Ideologues hate facts. They usually just ignore facts. Facts get in the way of their opinions.

I also don't reach quickly into my jacket when confronted by police officers. Look, you can't get around these facts: When confronted by police officers, particularly by those with guns drawn, your hands should go UP... not behind your back or into a pocket or jacket.

I mean, is this the incident you were referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo

"The officers stated that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". The porch lightbulb was out and Diallo was backlit by the inside vestibule light, showing only a silhouette. Diallo then reached into his jacket and withdrew his wallet. Seeing the man holding a small square object, Carroll yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. Mistakenly believing Diallo had aimed a gun at them at close range, the officers opened fire on Diallo. During the shooting, lead officer McMellon tripped backward off the front stairs, causing the other officers to believe he had been shot. The four officers fired 41 shots, more than half of which went astray as Diallo was hit 19 times."

Look what happened there closely, which is far too close for you Liberals to stand:

1. Officers identified themselves verbally since they were in street clothes.
2. Officers ordered Black man to stop and show his hands.
3. Black man ignored their orders, fled, then hid his hand or hands in his jacket.
4. Unsurprisingly to people like me, the Black man gets shot by police.

Zey, serious question: Why do all these Black males have so much trouble understanding that you must obey lawful police orders? That you must submit to police? Is there some sort of cultural problem with Black males submitting to police?

TOUGH. We White males have to submit to police no matter how angry it makes us. There's a lesson there for Black males, methinks. After all, we're never going to tell police to treat Blacks any differently than Whites when performing an investigation.

Why exactly should they respond to police orders? It's because they're Special.

Police in the African American community have a reputation, not protect and serve, but to hunt, harass and hurt.

Sure sure.

This shows why you refuse to post the 5w's your examples don't survive objective scrutiny. I am not shocked isn't facts or a reasoning rebuttal but solely hyperbole.

MikeyA

Put on some Blackface and go strolling down Hamilton near Ewing Street about 1o PM. If the Crips don't get you first, the police will. C omitting a crime is not required.

This post has nothing to do with the topic. More hyperbole, this time off-topic.

MikeyA

Yes, career criminals often have a poor opinion of police.

In other news, water is wet. Film at 11pm.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.