Video share: When should you shoot a "cop"

[EMNofSeattle]

As I've said before, a RESPONSIBLE person would have measures in place for emergencies such as this. Owning a gun or a fire extinguisher is a small scale example of what I'm talking about. No one knows what services they will need, which is why they are supposed to PREPARE for what they reasonably can, rather than spending every last dime on their fancy smart phone rather than a emergency fund or supplies. If my house were on fire and my kid were inside, I certainly wouldn't ask someone else to risk their life to save my loved ones while being unwilling to risk my own. You might depend on someone else to take care of your problems, but I don't.

Or if you have no training, equipment and support you'll die attempting too...

I think it's perfectly ok that the firefighters my community pays taxes to support who we generously provide with modern equipment, generous salaries, and OK benefits package along with top notch training to come over and put out my house, in fact any professional firefighter should advise you not to risk your life if it's not nessecary, it's like citizens arrest, sure you can try if you want. but I am not willing to re-enter a burning house unless it's absolutely nessecary to save someone's life and I can reasonably accomplish the rescue. sides I'm only 1 minute response time from the nearest fire station anyway.

Oh that's nice, what about children? sorry little johnny your parents didn't prepare enough, you get to go hungry while all your friends are getting fed, you can watch them eat in the school cafeteria, and what are you even doing in school, not enough people have voluntarily given enough money to the school system, no education for you pal!

Oh yeah and you too, I know you're trying to get into college but unfortunately you haven't contributed enough to service fund, I know you were too busy trying to get enough money to eat, so we're going to leave you right in ghetto we found you in....

Let's just do all that, because throughout history creating large subclasses of hopeless people in poverty without allowing some of the wealth of those at the top to assist them has worked out just GREAT throughout history, I mean just ask King Louis XVI, I'm sure he's happy with his decision to let the little people fend for themselves....

1. "Sweetheart" doesn't offend me. "Sugar" is used in the same manner as "buddy" or "dude". Not my problem if it knots your knickers.

Just covering the bases in case you took offense...

2. Give to Caesar's what is Caesar's. Okay, so I'll ask AGAIN, what entitles Caesar to MY property??? It's not his, so what legitimizes his seizure of my assets for redistribution against my will?

Well in Ancient Rome the fact that he's the emperor is not to be ignored....
The statutory law passed and signed by your elected officials in accordance with the constitution which was ratified by the states that were in the union at the time legitmizes taking your money for taxes. you may not agree with taxes, but by the definition of legitimate, the seizure is in fact legitimate.

Not a very high place, if your integrity allows you to advocate for the deception of others.

Sometimes integrity involves doing what needs to be done. If local officials are violating the constitution to the point where the people think it's ok, then sometimes drastic measures must be taken.

Also lying is not universally wrong. some times lying is nessecary for the greater good.

*sigh* You are either deliberately choosing to misinterpret what I've been saying, or you are too dense to understand it. Let me type slowly for you; I. Am. Fine. With. Paying. For. Services. I. May. Need. But. Let. ME. Decide. Which. Services. I. Want. To. Buy. And. Let. ME. Suffer. The. Consequences. If. Something. Goes. Wrong. I promise you I won't be on your doorstep with my hand out, demanding you pay for my mistakes. I can only WISH you would promise the same...

No, the United States Government will not allow to choose which services you need. you may need any of them. and even if you don't, someone else does. What about people who don't make enough money to contribute to all the services they may need? give me a break.

Where in the Constitution does it say candidates should be dishonest about their platform in order to get elected and pass the agenda of their supporters? Please explain that to me...

Where does it not? Again we're talking about an extreme example I thought of where people are denied rights that their counterparts have in other states arbitrarily because a certain official doesn't want to allow it. Besides it was more a mental exercise then anything else. I floated that to see what opinions people might have. Nothing more, Nothing less.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

No it's not theft, the people as a whole have agreed to taxation by electing candidates to congress in accordance with the US constitution which gives the congress the specific power to levy taxes. It is in fact consented to. if the majority of people dont like the tax policy they can elect a new congress or run for office.

It is still theft, just because you believe in mob rule doesn't make it right. My guess is you are not a fan of and maybe not very aware of how nullification is supposed to work (not just in courts).

Nope I think the minority (like Rosa Parks) need to stand up to the majority or actually the few. How many people vote? And then that vote is cut in half because almost half votes another way. So what really happens is rule by a minority.

Wrong or not it still happens. look around throughout history, people cheat and exploit each other all the time if it means benefitting them just a little bit more. We can bring up again the numerous times private entities have screwed the people, see you think that government is automatically evil and that the free market is the best way to run things, I don't really trust either of them to do everything. there is a time and place for government and a time and place for private industry. you can look at all the abuses committed by private entities, lying about nicotines addictiveness, violent actions to kill or injure union organizers, dumping dangerous chemicals into water tables and covering it up, cutting corners and building unsafe structures, sending coal miners down into the mines with no respirators or spare supplies to hold out if the mine shaft collapsed. We can think of the numerous abuses of the Chinese workers on the railroad who were treated far worse then any plantation slave in the south, How about the Titanic? in which White Star Line determined that a good view from the first class cabins were more important the lifeboats, they travelled fast into an area with known floating ice just so they could make it into New York a day early, and the rich first class passengers were prioritized into lifeboats.

So your answer to rich people screwing you over is to have rich people elect officials and lobby them to screw you over.

I never said people won't cheat each other, when the government does it or they do it with government protection what is our recourse? You really need to learn some better history, when government is involved it normally gets worse.

So how would you reform licensing a contractor in Washington with more law? Costing houses even more and putting more people out of business who are good at what they do but have small family owned or individual owned business that any more regulation will put them out of business.

Obama care will probably do just that to many business, look for your choices to get narrower and for prices to sky rocket soon.

example after example, private businesses put dollars above people. and that's fair the goal of a business is to make money, but someone has to watch out for the commoner's interests as well. you keep saying "the free market takes care of this better" but they NEVER have, so what is your support for that argument? I'm not aware of any functioning libertarian society having ever existed, I frankly think it's just as realistic as pure communism, sure libertarianism sounds great on essays put forth by the Austrian School, but so does the Communist Manifesto both ideas are unrealistic utopias becuase they ignore the imperfect nature of man. Therefore an imperfect system of government and economic philosophy is needed. As far as courts, who establishes the courts? under whose authorty do these courts operate? how are buildings and judges paid for? and once the ruling is down how do you enforce your order for me to remove my dam, will there be an executive branch of [strike]police officers[/strike] freedom officers who coerce me into removing rocks on my own property? or will you have to risk injury enforcing the order yourself? the libertarians keep accusing me of misrepresenting their views, but no one ever answers this question in a way that doesn't contradict their previous statements.

Pennsylvania in the late 1600 flourished under a fairly anarchistic society. So it isn't unrealistic. And lack of rulers doesn't mean lack of rule this has been explained to you. The free market takes care of many things better than some elitist put into office telling us how to run things.

Look into how Pennsylvania did it in the 1600's.

This is all you have to fall back on is that someone needs to force you to remove your damn? Far cry from all the other services you claim are necessary.

People putting dollars first normally makes them careful about who they hurt.

So that means the system needs reform, not being brought down

Careful now I wasn't advocating bringing down the system. But broken parts of the system don't need reform, when something doesn't work it needs to be done away with.

And you would've told her??????? Oh well let the free market provide busses you can choose your seat on?

Skipping the point I see that she effected change and didn't accept that she wasn't allowed to sit where she wanted to.

If I was in the front of the bus I would have told her "Ma'am do you want my seat?"

Yes. How would that not work. Don't steal my money for others to have a ride, and then don't have the federal government give authority to State discrimination laws.

You do realize there were in the south those who didn't want to or couldn't afford to have separate and two of everything and didn't care if their business was integrated, yet thanks to SCOTUS, nope you had to have that. This was one of the major factors that helped keep the south's economy low for so long.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Amazing, isn't it? I don't know what's worse; that we are so tolerant of such tyranny, or that we are afflicted with the indoctrinated masses who see nothing wrong with it, dismisses it as irrelevant, or supports double standards when it suits them. Such as this gem below;










Though, I'm not surprised at the double standard of morality being displayed here. This is the same guy who advocates candidates campaign on a platform of deception in order to implement his preferred agenda, so perhaps he understands the true nature of government after all.

And Psuedo Conservatives want to claim they are different from the Psuedo liberals......his posts argue for all the same things both those parties argue for.

 

[Freedom1Man]

And Psuedo Conservatives want to claim they are different from the Psuedo liberals......his posts argue for all the same things both those parties argue for.

It's because he's not lived long enough to see the crap we have.

He's never cuffed and stuffed by idiot cops. He's not had the pleasure of going toe to toe with some ignorant cops, while he is armed.

 

[OC for ME]

Or if you have no training, equipment and support you'll die attempting too...

Speculation.

Also lying is not universally wrong. Some times lying is necessary for the greater good.

Liberal BS. Lying is never right or ever warranted. Lying is disrespectful and a insult to your fellow citizen. Liars must not be trusted in my view.

I have a higher and grander standard of principle than George Washington. He could not lie; I can, but I won't. - Mark Twain

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Or if you have no training, equipment and support you'll die attempting too...

I think it's perfectly ok that the firefighters my community pays taxes to support who we generously provide with modern equipment, generous salaries, and OK benefits package along with top notch training to come over and put out my house, in fact any professional firefighter should advise you not to risk your life if it's not nessecary, it's like citizens arrest, sure you can try if you want. but I am not willing to re-enter a burning house unless it's absolutely nessecary to save someone's life and I can reasonably accomplish the rescue. sides I'm only 1 minute response time from the nearest fire station anyway.

Oh that's nice, what about children? sorry little johnny your parents didn't prepare enough, you get to go hungry while all your friends are getting fed, you can watch them eat in the school cafeteria, and what are you even doing in school, not enough people have voluntarily given enough money to the school system, no education for you pal!

Oh yeah and you too, I know you're trying to get into college but unfortunately you haven't contributed enough to service fund, I know you were too busy trying to get enough money to eat, so we're going to leave you right in ghetto we found you in....

Let's just do all that, because throughout history creating large subclasses of hopeless people in poverty without allowing some of the wealth of those at the top to assist them has worked out just GREAT throughout history, I mean just ask King Louis XVI, I'm sure he's happy with his decision to let the little people fend for themselves....

So, your argument is that because there is suffering in the world, that justifies the enslavement of a populace?

Just covering the bases in case you took offense...

Why would the words of a stranger make me take offense?

Well in Ancient Rome the fact that he's the emperor is not to be ignored....

So, let me see if I've got this straight. Someone sets himself up as ruler, and that's all it takes to legitimize him? If 51% of the people vote for a candidate, where does that give him the authority to govern the 49% who did NOT vote for him?

The statutory law passed and signed by your elected officials in accordance with the constitution which was ratified by the states that were in the union at the time legitmizes taking your money for taxes.

How is this different from a group of thieves who all agree they should rob me? Does a document I never agreed to somehow bypass my lack of consent? WHAT makes them legitimate? The mere fact that they said so?

you may not agree with taxes, but by the definition of legitimate, the seizure is in fact legitimate.

So if the thief defines legitimate to suit his actions, that MAKES it legitimate? My consent is irrelevant? Gee, that sounds like...slavery.

Sometimes integrity involves doing what needs to be done. If local officials are violating the constitution to the point where the people think it's ok, then sometimes drastic measures must be taken.

"in·teg·ri·ty/inˈtegritē/
Noun:
The quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness. Synonyms: honesty - probity - entirety - rectitude - wholeness"

Also lying is not universally wrong. some times lying is nessecary for the greater good.

*facepalm* so if it suits your agenda, then it's okay to lie? Read the definition of integrity again.

No, the United States Government will not allow to choose which services you need.

Uh, yeah, that's kind of the point I've been trying to make. I do not have the freedom to choose for myself. Ergo, they are the masters and we are the slaves.

you may need any of them. and even if you don't, someone else does. What about people who don't make enough money to contribute to all the services they may need? give me a break.

Yes, I may need those services. Which is why I do my best to PREPARE for them. Why is this eluding you? Also, there used to be a time where neighbors, churches and charity organizations VOLUNTARILY came to the assistance of people who needed them. Now, the government legislates and enforces such behavior, and we see a lot less of it. But yes, let's believe the government is here to help us...

NYC bans food donations to the homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content

Where does it not? Again we're talking about an extreme example

So the Constitution doesn't specifically state deceptive candidates can't run, therefore we should condone it? Do you need someone to tell you right from wrong?

I thought of where people are denied rights that their counterparts have in other states arbitrarily because a certain official doesn't want to allow it. Besides it was more a mental exercise then anything else. I floated that to see what opinions people might have. Nothing more, Nothing less.

But you shouldn't have a problem with the government denying people their rights, because the government legitimized their authority to do so. Isn't that what you've been saying this whole time?

The statutory law passed and signed by your elected officials in accordance with the constitution which was ratified by the states that were in the union at the time legitmizes [Strike]taking your money for taxes[/Strike] regulating your rights. You may not agree with [Strike]taxes,[/Strike] losing your rights, but by the definition of legitimate, the [Strike]seizure[/Strike] regulation is in fact legitimate.

So let's swap out the word taxes for gun rights. Do you still stand by your argument?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It's because he's not lived long enough to see the crap we have.

He's never cuffed and stuffed by idiot cops. He's not had the pleasure of going toe to toe with some ignorant cops, while he is armed.

There are those who will never be stuffed and cuffed because they feel you have to show respect by "cooperating", while disrespecting the centuries of struggle and the millions of those who died for liberty.

They put the mythical status of the state over, the very real fundamental natural rights of individuals.

 

[Freedom1Man]

There are those who will never be stuffed and cuffed because they feel you have to show respect by "cooperating", while disrespecting the centuries of struggle and the millions of those who died for liberty.

They put the mythical status of the state over, the very real fundamental natural rights of individuals.

I too made some of those mistakes.

If I had known back then what I know now, I would never have opened the trunk of my car for a check point in AZ.

While I am not defending EMN's ideals by any stretch nor am I excusing his statist position, I am believing that it comes about from his younger age. He was 20 last time I met him. I believe that is where some it is coming from. It's not an excuse but it's something to keep in mind. Wait until he gets arrested for OC, that might change his mind.

I am trying to be optimistic, however he might always be a statist and that would be sad.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Speculation.

Liberal BS. Lying is never right or ever warranted. Lying is disrespectful and a insult to your fellow citizen. Liars must not be trusted in my view.

Sure it is, if while I'm typing this someone I know from high school knocks on my door and tells me she's in fear of an abusive ex and needs somewhere safe to stay, and later the abuser calls and asks if she's at my place, I think In that case lying is most certainly justified. This may be an extreme example, but if you agree that lying is always wrong that means you must tell him where the girl is hiding, but if not then that means the justification for a lie is always a conditional argument. If P then Q, P therefore Q this is called modes ponen and is an essential law of logical inference. If lying is always wrong, you must reveal the location of the woman you're sheltering, lying is always wrong, therefore you must provide the location of the one you're sheltering.

Both mindsets cannot be true, if lying is always wrong, and you lie to the abuser and say that is right, you've violated the law of non contradiction.

With this in mind sometimes deception is warranted for the greater good. What the greater good is is subjective, but to blankety say all lying is wrong, well I can't agree with that statement. My belief is lying With Malicious Intent is wrong. If I lie is nessecary to preserve someone's safety or liberty from an unjustified assault then yes lying is perfectly acceptable.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So, your argument is that because there is suffering in the world, that justifies the enslavement of a populace?
So, let me see if I've got this straight. Someone sets himself up as ruler, and that's all it takes to legitimize him? If 51% of the people vote for a candidate, where does that give him the authority to govern the 49% who did NOT vote for him?

If this is truly your definition of enslavement then really we gotta find a different topic to talk about, because There is no way we'll ever see eye to eye on this...

Yes, I may need those services. Which is why I do my best to PREPARE for them. Why is this eluding you? Also, there used to be a time where neighbors, churches and charity organizations VOLUNTARILY came to the assistance of people who needed them. Now, the government legislates and enforces such behavior, and we see a lot less of it. But yes, let's believe the government is here to help us...

NYC bans food donations to the homeless shelters because the city can’t assess their salt, fat and fiber content

No it's that we've gotten to a point in which private individuals cannot or will not help. I've spent plenty of time volunteering to do plenty of things to help people. The problem is A large number of the more fortunate now have the attitude that helping others is beneath them. I've never heard anyway say "I won't volunteer at St. Benedict's house because the government takes care of them" It's always "I won't do it because I got better things to do" Churches have traditionally provided that kind of support, but in many cases now churches are struggling just to keep the lights on, fewer people are interested in going to church, and an even smaller percentage in doing the community outreach ministries.

And no of course I don't agree with Bloomie's edicts and that one will likely be thrown out in court. But now you're confusing the issue by asking questions on specific policy issues. I'm only defending the ability of the government to maintain order in the general sense. There's many many things the government does that I don't like, that doesn't mean it's not legitimate or "theft" from me.

So the Constitution doesn't specifically state deceptive candidates can't run, therefore we should condone it? Do you need someone to tell you right from wrong?

No, violating people's rights is wrong. But once again you mistook the intent of that thread which was for an amusing mental exercise.

But you shouldn't have a problem with the government denying people their rights, because the government legitimized their authority to do so. Isn't that what you've been saying this whole time?

In accordance with our constitution.

So let's swap out the word taxes for gun rights. Do you still stand by your argument?

Yes, the U.S. Constitution gives me the right to bear arms, It also gives congress the power to levy taxes. If they want to disarm me the constitution must be amended to allow that before they can pass statutory law to do so. The constitution is the "law of the land" laws that contradict it are not legal. taxes however, most certainly are legal.

 

[Freedom1Man]

If this is truly your definition of enslavement then really we gotta find a different topic to talk about, because There is no way we'll ever see eye to eye on this...

The government cannot tax a right. You have a right to the fruits of your labor. If you did not have the right to the fruits of your labor then you are a slave. If you say that it's legal to tax my earnings at the rate of any (1) % then the government has the power to tax it at 100% (or higher). If the government does have to the power to tax your earning at all then you have no right to your earnings, thus you are a slave. So PistolPackingMomma is correct.

Yes, the U.S. Constitution gives me the right to bear arms, It also gives congress the power to levy taxes. If they want to disarm me the constitution must be amended to allow that before they can pass statutory law to do so. The constitution is the "law of the land" laws that contradict it are not legal. taxes however, most certainly are legal.

The Constitution does not GRANT/GIVE you any rights. I thought you knew better.

It's interesting that Congress does not have the power to lay a direct tax on the citizens the direct tax can only be levied on the states. The only taxes citizens can be required to pay are indirect taxes and those are part of the mark up of the goods and services that you pay for unless you're engaged in a taxable activity (eg manufacturing alcohol, gasoline, and/or firearms).

Since you have a right to earn a living.

Clearly "wages, salaries and fees personally earned" in the exercise of an occupation of common right, are exempt, not only because the right to earn a living is exempt as a fundamental right, but because "'The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. . . .' Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. 10." Butchers' Union, supra

I would love to sit down with you and show you the law. Hell a friend of mine has the IRC in hard print so let me know if that is what would be required. The other thing is that you've got to stop calling things "loop holes." It's like any set of rules, there are ways to work around them.

Golf, a subject I know very little about, is an example. There is a rule that states your club head has to stay under a certain weight. A company played with materials and found they could get a higher energy transfer without violating the weight limit rule. The energy transfer was the same as that as using a club of a greater weight. That limit in the rules was an inspiration for design development. You would call it a 'loop hole' because it "got around" the intent of the rule. I only know about that one because it was an article about materials/science so please don't ask me about details.

I know in auto racing people have used the stated limits as something to blow through. Look at the rotary engines there were rules stating that your displacement could not be over 1600cc and a rotary engine displaced only 1200cc was knocking the socks off of larger piston engines. They had to re-write the rules. I believe that the next step will be with a steam engine. I believe some auto racing has an HP output limit but no torque limit. So if you come off the line with 100% of your HP at 0 RPM you have a chance to smoke the competitors. Plus you'll not have to worry about gear changes.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

If this is truly your definition of enslavement then really we gotta find a different topic to talk about, because There is no way we'll ever see eye to eye on this...

Oh, sugar, I think there's more than just this that we'll never see eye to eye on. By the way? THE (ergo, not just MY) definition of slavery is this:

"slavery [ˈsleɪvərɪ]
n
1. (Law) the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune.
2. submission to a dominating influence."
The Thesaurus provides these other applicable terms; "verb: subjugate, bind, dominate, trap, suppress, enthral, yoke, tyrannize."

No it's that we've gotten to a point in which private individuals cannot or will not help. I've spent plenty of time volunteering to do plenty of things to help people. The problem is A large number of the more fortunate now have the attitude that helping others is beneath them. I've never heard anyway say "I won't volunteer at St. Benedict's house because the government takes care of them" It's always "I won't do it because I got better things to do" Churches have traditionally provided that kind of support, but in many cases now churches are struggling just to keep the lights on, fewer people are interested in going to church, and an even smaller percentage in doing the community outreach ministries.

So who made you volunteer? Because, by your argument, I'm supposed to believe that people just don't do that unless they are made to. So what or who compelled you to help others? Surely you won't jest by telling me it was your own free will...:uhoh: People just aren't inherently good enough to DO that sort of thing! /sarcasm

And no of course I don't agree with Bloomie's edicts and that one will likely be thrown out in court.

Oh really? His soda ban seems to face little opposition, since the NY Board of Health has approved it. It may get thrown out too, if there are enough intelligent, liberty minded brains in the same room together (doubtful), but the point is that your precious elected officials are doing things to CONTROL people's freedom of choice. People would donate food to the homeless, of their own incentive, but Bloomie has told them they can't. GOVERNMENT has stepped in and turned away those who would help.

But now you're confusing the issue by asking questions on specific policy issues. I'm only defending the ability of the government to maintain order in the general sense. There's many many things the government does that I don't like, that doesn't mean it's not legitimate or "theft" from me.

I'm not the one who is confused, sugar.

No, violating people's rights is wrong. But once again you mistook the intent of that thread which was for an amusing mental exercise.

"Amusing mental exercise"?

So the genesis of this idea...After explaining this underhanded idea...The idea though...Has anyone ever heard of this being done for any issue?...And is it a worthy idea...Well the idea is to do this undetected...actually it's basically deception is what I'm proposing...like I said the idea is a "stealth candidate"...the idea is to put someone up who will fool anti-gunners...

Number of times the word "idea" appears in your posts: 7. Number of times "theoretical", "mental exercise" or any other such term pops up? 0. Also, in one sentence you yourself say it is an "underhanded" idea, then contradict yourself by saying it is a "worthy" idea. Unless, in some messed up way, you think underhanded tactics are worthy actions of honorable men?

I think the damning speaks for itself.

In accordance with our constitution.

Yes, the U.S. Constitution gives me the right to bear arms, It also gives congress the power to levy taxes. If they want to disarm me the constitution must be amended to allow that before they can pass statutory law to do so. The constitution is the "law of the land" laws that contradict it are not legal. taxes however, most certainly are legal.

As Freedom1Man said, the Constitution does not "give" you anything; it was written to allegedly restrain government from infringing upon rights you inherently have!

As SuddenValleyGunner said, you are a positivist, believing that a law is right, even if it isn't good, so long as it goes through the proper channels. So if the government rules tomorrow that you do not actually have the God given right to self defense with arms of any kind, you'll be okay with that, because it's "in accordance with our Constitution"???



"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." ~ Malcolm X

 

[Citizen]

(chuckle)

@SVG and PPM,

Between EMN, SVG, and PPM all knowledge is covered. EMN knows all that can be known. And, you two all know the rest. (borrowed from Mark Twain's comment about Rudyard Kipling.)

 

[Freedom1Man]

This is the flow chart one person seems to be using.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP This is the flow chart one person seems to be using.

+1

Lysander Spooner was my convincer. In his lengthy essay No Treason, he points out (paraphrase) that just because Messiers A, B, and C depute D by secret ballot can in now way legitimize D's theft from me under threat of force.

 

[Ca Patriot]

Tonight in Los Angeles and sheriffs deputy was shot and wounded.

A news helicopter overhead said they counted 117 law enforcement vehicles on scene.

I have been to multiple shooting scenes involving regular citizens who were shot. At most I usually count about 7 -10 police cars to investigate.

Are police officers more special than regular citizens ?

 

[Citizen]

Tonight in Los Angeles and sheriffs deputy was shot and wounded.

A news helicopter overhead said they counted 117 law enforcement vehicles on scene.

I have been to multiple shooting scenes involving regular citizens who were shot. At most I usually count about 7 -10 police cars to investigate.

Are police officers more special than regular citizens ?

One need only witness the numerous police attending the line-of-duty funeral for a cop to know that.

 

[MikeTheGreek]

Tonight in Los Angeles and sheriffs deputy was shot and wounded.

A news helicopter overhead said they counted 117 law enforcement vehicles on scene.

I have been to multiple shooting scenes involving regular citizens who were shot. At most I usually count about 7 -10 police cars to investigate.

Are police officers more special than regular citizens ?

It's often be said around Detroit that the only way to get officers to respond to an emergency is to call and say there's an officer down.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

Posting error. Apologies.