Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Not what I said, nice strawman.Not a single shot was fired by the bundy group
Yeah, it's what I said; I was making a statement: "They were armed while the authorities tried to arrest them and they have previously used threats of violence"
So in your opinion the authorities can't shoot armed people who have previously made threats of violence unless those people shoot first? While being arrested no less.
Originally posted by Robtard
A gun couldn't keep a supreme Tru-American patriot like Charles Carter safe, so maybe Hillary was onto something. Food for thought.
But we have a variety of instances where guns do keep people safe, so no it's not food for thought really.
Maybe, just maybe, guns aren't good or bad, safe or unsafe, it comes down to who using it? So yes, if I said all guns are harmless I'd be just as wrong(and stupid) as Hilary saying guns don't keep people safe.
Also hate to break this to you, but if you want to play this game of "it couldn't keep a true American safe so maybe she was right" your thing would hold more weight if you followed it up with an article about how Hilary is disarming every single bodyguard she has of firearms. Is..is she going to do that?
Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, it's what I said; I was making a statement: "They were armed while the authorities tried to arrest them and they have previously used threats of violence"So in your opinion the authorities can't shoot armed people who have previously made threats of violence unless those people shoot first? While being arrested no less.
Why does the military have to have the procedure of "do not shoot unless fired upon" but the police can shoot whenever?
Pretty sure the military has shot first in times of war/conflict. Anyhow.
The police can't shoot whenever. But taking into account that these men were armed and have previously said that they'd use violence if someone tried to stop/arrest them, it's not surprising what happened here. They were out looking for a fight from day one; they unfortunately got it.
No, that is the rule currently, you cannot fire unless fired upon.
The police can shoot whenever, and they do often.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/us/cleveland-police-officers-fired-chase/
But let us think if cops did have to wait until fired upon before firing. Isn't this..um, stupid? Like super stupid? Like the level of stupidity one is granted when a particle accelerator explodes and douses you with strange radiation?(I'm watching Flash at the moment)
What if the criminal is a really good shot and the first shot fired is a bulleye straight to the head? Wouldn't the "don't fire unless fired upon" rule of gotten the cop killed?
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No, that is the rule currently, you cannot fire unless fired upon.The police can shoot whenever, and they do often.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/26/us/cleveland-police-officers-fired-chase/
Pretty sure a police officer has to have a reasonable level of threat before they start capping. Granted, not all of them follow this.
How it relates to this case: these men were armed and have said they'd use violence if arrested. So again, I'm not surprised one of them ended up dead. More will come out in the following days.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What Q99 lied about and Bardock seeming to hide and roll with the lie, is that not a single shot was fired by the Bundy's side.
Oooh, and Time lies.
I said precisely squat about what the Bundy's did at the traffic stop. I said 'shots fired,' period. Not what they specifically did- because I don't know, and I don't think anyone but the police know.
Precise quote- "Aaand a group of them went out, were caught in a traffic stop, shots fired, Bundy's arrested, and someone's dead (one who specifically said he'd die rather than be captured) and another person wounded."
"Shots fired," exact words, that's all. You simply assumed I was talking about the Bundy's firing because... well, you wanted to accuse me of saying something I didn't, even though a simple read through shows a lack of what you said I said.
Really Time, what did you think you'd accomplish lying when my post is right there? You're so easily caught in inserting words in other's mouths.
So, big ol' lier Time caught false- accusing again.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
You painted it as a shootout. Which was a lie.
I said "Shots fired," period.
What you assumed I meant-but clearly did not say- is your own matter. That you're insisting that something I didn't actually say is a lie, is your own clear lie.
Face it, you are caught cold, you are once again, as often the case, caught in blatant dishonesty, making up stuff about those you don't like to falsely accuse them.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Lol right. Like you went ahead and left out the important details in your planned parenthood thread you made. I might have assumed you meant shootout, but lefts face you left out the other stuff in that other thread.
Oh yes, another case where you chose to falsely accuse.
This is a standard situation. Someone says something you can possibly interpert badly, you accuse them, and then it turns out, oh, you were misrepresenting what they said, again.
You don't just do it with me, and it just makes you look like a liar and a fool.
"You didn't say enough for my preference therefore I'm gonna lie about you being a liar," doesn't make you look good. There's a reason you have such a reputation for dishonesty around here.
Originally posted by Q99
So unsurprisingly things ended in a gunfight, and it's still unsure what the rest of them will do.
In which people shoot guns at each other.