Who was the rogue shooter here?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-08-2012, 06:35 PM
 
Who was the rogue shooter here?
New York cops have a peculiar way of interpreting their motto "To protect and to serve"...: they shoot us, the public!

That shooter knew how to shoot: he shot and killed one guy! The guy he intended to kill. In the middle of a bustling metropolis.
The cops fired 16 bullets, killed the shooter, and hit 9 – nine – innocent bystanders!

Now, tell me, who was the rogue shooter here?


'Organized' cops are worse than organized crime.
Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 07:50 PM
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
The police obviously did not intend to shoot the civilians, so stop trying to make it sound as if they did.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
25-08-2012, 07:54 PM
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(25-08-2012 07:50 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The police obviously did not intend to shoot the civilians, so stop trying to make it sound as if they did.

This.

[Image: g8g7t.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 08:32 PM
 
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(25-08-2012 07:50 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The police obviously did not intend to shoot the civilians, so stop trying to make it sound as if they did.

It is totally irrelevant who they, the cops, 'intended' to shoot. It IS relevant who they did shoot! Nine innocent bystanders!
What more convincing demonstration of incompetence and ineptitude do you want?
FUCK 'intentions'! People, the public, we, ARE GETTING SHOT BY THE POLICE!
That's reality!
Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 08:58 PM
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(25-08-2012 08:32 PM)The Governor Wrote:  
(25-08-2012 07:50 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The police obviously did not intend to shoot the civilians, so stop trying to make it sound as if they did.

It is totally irrelevant who they, the cops, 'intended' to shoot. It IS relevant who they did shoot! Nine innocent bystanders!
What more convincing demonstration of incompetence and ineptitude do you want?
FUCK 'intentions'! People, the public, we, ARE GETTING SHOT BY THE POLICE!
That's reality!

It is totally relevant. An accident is completely different from murder. Do I think it is sad? Yes. Do I feel angry at all policemen all over U.S? No. Do I feel anger towards the policemen involved? A little, but not enough to make an irrational generalization.

You are only displaying that you're far too emotionally involved in this, and not making any valid points.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 06:40 AM
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(25-08-2012 08:58 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(25-08-2012 08:32 PM)The Governor Wrote:  It is totally irrelevant who they, the cops, 'intended' to shoot. It IS relevant who they did shoot! Nine innocent bystanders!
What more convincing demonstration of incompetence and ineptitude do you want?
FUCK 'intentions'! People, the public, we, ARE GETTING SHOT BY THE POLICE!
That's reality!

It is totally relevant. An accident is completely different from murder. Do I think it is sad? Yes. Do I feel angry at all policemen all over U.S? No. Do I feel anger towards the policemen involved? A little, but not enough to make an irrational generalization.

You are only displaying that you're far too emotionally involved in this, and not making any valid points.

The valid point is that those cops are not qualified to carry and use firearms.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
26-08-2012, 07:20 AM
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(26-08-2012 06:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-08-2012 08:58 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is totally relevant. An accident is completely different from murder. Do I think it is sad? Yes. Do I feel angry at all policemen all over U.S? No. Do I feel anger towards the policemen involved? A little, but not enough to make an irrational generalization.

You are only displaying that you're far too emotionally involved in this, and not making any valid points.

The valid point is that those cops are not qualified to carry and use firearms.

Agreed. The Governor, however, is far too irrational.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 09:35 AM
 
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(26-08-2012 07:20 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(26-08-2012 06:40 AM)Chas Wrote:  The valid point is that those cops are not qualified to carry and use firearms.

Agreed. The Governor, however, is far too irrational.

Name-calling doesn't change the facts, mate.

The valid point is that NY cops demonstrate time and again – remember that innocent guy that was killed in a hail of 54 police bullets, last year? – that they are life-threateningly dangerous to the public, us, when they 'just do their job'.

The valid point is that we need police like that like we need a hole in the head. And guess what? They are trying real hard, and succeeding ever more often!

The valid point is that you play down the extremely REAL danger of the cops to the public. Whose side are you on?

The valid point is that crooks can shoot, while cops can't.

The valid point is that cops have guns, powers, and responsibilities they obviously are incapable of handling.

Consequently, the valid point is that cops are vastly overpaid out of our tax dollars!

And ultimately: the valid point is that we, taxpayers, are not getting our money's worth! That we, the taxpayers, are getting stiffed: we don't get what we pay for: protection! Instead, IRL, we get the opposite: we get shot!

Wait till Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, the Young Turks, etc. etc. get their teeth into this one!
I guess they are also irrational?
Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 10:51 AM (This post was last modified: 26-08-2012 11:07 AM by Logica Humano.)
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(26-08-2012 09:35 AM)The Governor Wrote:  
(26-08-2012 07:20 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Agreed. The Governor, however, is far too irrational.

Name-calling doesn't change the facts, mate.

The valid point is that NY cops demonstrate time and again – remember that innocent guy that was killed in a hail of 54 police bullets, last year? – that they are life-threateningly dangerous to the public, us, when they 'just do their job'.

The valid point is that we need police like that like we need a hole in the head. And guess what? They are trying real hard, and succeeding ever more often!

The valid point is that you play down the extremely REAL danger of the cops to the public. Whose side are you on?

The valid point is that crooks can shoot, while cops can't.

The valid point is that cops have guns, powers, and responsibilities they obviously are incapable of handling.

Consequently, the valid point is that cops are vastly overpaid out of our tax dollars!

And ultimately: the valid point is that we, taxpayers, are not getting our money's worth! That we, the taxpayers, are getting stiffed: we don't get what we pay for: protection! Instead, IRL, we get the opposite: we get shot!

Wait till Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, Rachel Maddow, the Young Turks, etc. etc. get their teeth into this one!
I guess they are also irrational?

First of all, no one was calling you a name. Because you perceive someone calling you out on your irrational prejudice as an insult does not make it one.

Second of all, you are making broad claims about police forces, showing your bias against them. You are trying to portray it as if they intended to shoot innocents.

They will get a hold of it for a laugh, like they always do for everything.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-08-2012, 11:16 AM
 
RE: Who was the rogue shooter here?
(26-08-2012 10:51 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  You are trying to portray it as if they intended to shoot innocents.

Either you are willfully misrepresenting my position or you have a problem with comprehensive reading: I have repeatedly said that the cops' 'intentions' are totally irrelevant vis-a-vis what they actually DO/DID: shooting innocent bystanders!
Whatever those 'intentions' are/were, who the fuck cares? You are assuming those 'intentions'. On the basis of what? You don't know anything about them. You're projecting. So let's keep to the facts!

The fact is that innocent bystanders got shot! By the cops, not the crook! The fact is that those 'intentions' – that you assume – resulted in exactly their opposite! So the fact is that those 'intentions' were worthless and useless IRL. Ergo: the cops are worthless and useless IRL. Worse: they shoot us!

Again, FYI: it wasn't the crook that shot nine innocent bystanders! It was the cops that shot nine innocent bystanders! 'Protecting them'...
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: