ONUS, did you give that Mcbeth character your logon? This "advice" sounds like something he would suggest!
whats a logon ?
ONUS, did you give that Mcbeth character your logon? This "advice" sounds like something he would suggest!
ONUS, did you give that Mcbeth character your logon? This "advice" sounds like something he would suggest!
Only a judge will be able to answer these two questions.Were the officer’s actions lawful and justified by public safety concerns? Or was it an unjustified response to lawful open carry?
whats a logon ?
log·on
ˈlôgˌän,ˈläg-,-ˌôn/
noun
1.
another term for login.
Doug, we have several threads on this already. Why create a new one?
When the cop said he would shoot the law abiding citizen in the head, the law abiding citizen should have said "thank you for the warning sir. now, in all fairness I must warn you as well. if you decide to fire lethal rounds at me for doing nothing illegal or threatening I will respond by firing lethal rounds back at you. I too am wearing a bulletproof vest and my friend with the long gun is a crack shot. so if you want to have a shoot out over me doing nothing illegal, just call your wife and children right now and tell them you wont be home tonight"
Primus is a cop apologist. Primus views any encounter a OCer has with LE as "OCer deserved it, the cop is being unfairly maligned" situation. Primus, via his words, would be supportive of banning LG OC everywhere. His position in this thread speaks to the truth of my words.
Are you done wasting time and space on a thread trying to explain myself or my stance to other people? This thread was about an encounter, not what I think or feel about it. I know, I get it, guys like you lurk around analyzing every word people say and wait to pounce when they utter words that you feel "have an agenda". Your one of those guys who must put people in categories and then writes them off as whatever you label them as.
The fact the cop said "will shoot you in the head" DOES cross the line. I have no qualms with saying that. I'm on the fence as to if that's a "threat". I guess by definition of the word it could be a threat. But let me ask this. Is the fact you are carrying a firearm on your hip a threat? Isn't it a deterrent? How does it deter? By being pretty and shiny? No. It's a deterrent because it says to the BG "if you try to harm me or my family, I will shoot you (in the head? chest? center mass of available target?)". So I guess maybe that's just an implied "threat" why the guy explaining what would happen if they reached for their weapons.
It's context guys.... he said if they made a move to shoot at them, they would shoot first. Period. I'd rather not break down every word, but it's there for the guys who are smart and unbiased. Again, maybe he didn't need to say the "in the head part".
Actually, that's another incarnation of the stalker who's already been banned about a dozen times now.OC for ME said:Primus is a cop apologist.
And he's repling with 3 (or is it 4) separate accounts just on this thread.protias said:Doug, we have several threads on this already. Why create a new one?
You're conflating 3 unrelated things.davidmcbeth said:since most are democrats who support abortion ... I usually zing them with the millions of murders that they have supported
The Supreme Court has ruled that Gun Control is "lawful" and not an infringement upon our Right To Bear Arms. Do you believe that this makes it right?:dude:2) Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. Even if you count a fetus as a human life, abortion is lawful.
.
Does this change if that fetus were to have its metabolism cease as a result of a drunk driver, a gunshot from an attacker or any other reason, do you support additional charges being brought against the person who causes this condition or is this all irrelevant because it is just an insignificant "part" of its host?3) I don't count a fetus as anything other than a part of the woman it's attached to.
Does this change if that fetus were to have its metabolism cease as a result of a drunk driver, a gunshot from an attacker or any other reason, do you support additional charges being brought against the person who causes this condition or is this all irrelevant because it is just an insignificant "part" of its host?
But that's different! Then it is a *wanted* part of the woman it's attached to. Surely you can see how that would justify different treatment under the law?
I am certain that a finger is a "wanted" part, but there is no charge of manslaughter because you destroyed the function of a finger...But that's different! Then it is a *wanted* part of the woman it's attached to. Surely you can see how that would justify different treatment under the law?
So then you see my point - on the one hand, a fetus is just a part of the female's body that is incubating it and has no separate identity, but on the other hand that same fetus is a separate individual that can cause additional or more severe charges to be attached to a crime committed against the female. Either it is an individual with its own rights, or it is not, but currently it is treated both ways, and the only difference is whether or not the female has expressed a desire to keep the fetus.
So then you see my point - on the one hand, a fetus is just a part of the female's body that is incubating it and has no separate identity,
Well...there are also other fundamental differences...the finger will never continue to develop and be able to eventually exist separately from the female's body, the fetus likely will. The finger is also present from the time that the female was also nothing more than a fetal extension from another female, the fetus was not.
Well...there are also other fundamental differences...the finger will never continue to develop and be able to eventually exist separately from the female's body, the fetus likely will. The finger is also present from the time that the female was also nothing more than a fetal extension from another female, the fetus was not.