Knowing whether or not the person you're about to shoot is armed or unarmed is actually reasonably important. And by reasonably I mean it's pretty fvcking important.
Is that a tear in my eye…….nope!
- Thread starter Reasoned
- Start date
Knowing whether or not the person you're about to shoot is armed or unarmed is actually reasonably important. And by reasonably I mean it's pretty fvcking important.
LOLOLOLOLOL that you have to explain this point to someone who claims they are intelligent.
In that split second decision? If you think that officers are trained to assess that first when charged, you are retarded.
Ok Sockey, answer this question….
The people that the federal
Marshals and federal officers pushed back away from the federal courthouse in Portland: were they protesters or terrorists?
You won’t get an honest response due to those heinous acts occurring in liberal shithole utopia Portland.
Wish they would have all been Rittenhoused like the losers in Kenosha.
Had they broken in, or was that their intent? Were they openly calling for hangings? Were they there to sit-in or to abduct leaders with zip ties? Those would be terrorists. Let me know.
They were trying to break in, they were committing arson, the west doors of the courthouse were breached. They were brandishing crowbars and hammers
terrorists or no?
I love it when the know it all libs try to argue with someone who does the job every day.
“No it’s not like that, it’s like this!”
Not because they have been there, lifted a finger to research the issue or think through the issue. No! It’s liberal media talking points - food for those with lazy minds and insufficient brainpower. Again, why they are easily controlled.
Absolutely. Terrorists just like that Babbitt freak that got put down like the rabid dog she was. Glad we sorted that out.
Holy shit....yes, we absolutely are. You know Jack shit on this subject so just stop.
Your life, or anothers, or their safety from serious bodily harm, can be in danger even if the perpetrator isn't armed but you better damn well be able to articulate how and why it was.
IMOP...these are the general standards for use of force and they are relevant for law enforcement as well.
Intent, means, and opportunity are the desire, the ability, and the access to hurt you. You must be able to show all three to justify using force for self-defense. The P is only relevant in some states and it stands for Preclusion, meaning that you had no avenue for escape from the situation.
There are a few situations where IMOP isn't relevant for LE and that would be with regards to an attempted escape by certain convicted violent felons or situations involving nuclear or other WMD.
They tried to burn federal buildings with people inside them.
Are you serious with this bullshit? And yes, they absolutely attempted to get into those federal buildings.
Several feds were injured in the process...many of them seriously. Some suffered serious burns, many more suffered damage to their eyes from lasers being intentionally pointed at them. Countless numbers of them were injured by rocks, bottles and other missiles launched at them by your buddies.
Last edited:
One of the officers was beaten with a large hammer near the doors that were breached.
Clearly these people weren't terrorists...but Babbit on the other hand...
Did you not bother reading my response above before you typed this, or are you just illiterate?
So you would have celebrated if those federal officers had opened fire and killed the people that tried to attack, burn and breach the federal courthouse and other fed buildings?
Yes or no?
No, I read it. I simply don't believe you. Narrative has certainly proven to be something that you are willing to lie over.
I asked a follow-up because I believe that you're FOS. You would have called for their heads if they had shot and killed the people who attacked the fed courthouse because, as you stated, political bedfellows and such. You told on yourself with that line.
By sticking to your common applied definition of terrorist acts in this discussion, do you agree that the Mayor of Portland suborned terrorism by joining the terrorists at the federal gate, and being present with the terrorists when fires were set and Molotovs thrown?
This is just so retarded it was worth another response. 😂
IAMO is actually the standard that I was trained with btw.
Intent
Ability
Means
Opportunity
The State Supreme Court Judge who instructed me in this course plainly stated that you needed to be able to show all 4 before using deadly force...and then he went on to guarantee us all that if we couldn't at least show 3 out of 4, a federal prison sentence was almost a guarantee.
To show 4 of the above means that I must be able to reasonably prove that they existed in that moment.
So again, yes...we are ABSOLUTELY trained to make that split second decision.
Again, in Babbitt's situation, I tend to agree with what I know about the officers choice. The number of people that would have come through and at the very least they possessed blunt force instruments.
If he told them to go down there and said anything like "fight like Hell" he's guilty of inciting terrorism. Now do Trump...
Nope, not done yet. How can that Mayor be innocent of terrorism, if those were terroristic acts? How can the January 6th mob be considered terrorists by being part of the mob, and that Mayor not be? Is NOT the Mayor of Portland granting LEGITAMCY to terroristic acts by being there with the terrorists? Being there WITH the terrorists without any condemnation of their acts?
is the act of condemning those trying to fight against terroristic actors, not defending terrorists?
He is going to pull a muscle spinning this one. Well done.
Akin to the white libs that tell black people how they’re supposed to think.
You still never answered my question. Do that first and then give me an accurate source account of the Portland situation. I'll look it up in the meantime.
I’m sure you will provide a Twitter account or some obscure periodical from Bangladesh as your source. Lol. You stupid racist fûck.
That part got me. Lulz
Socky’s illiterate ass is probably having to google where the help Bangladesh is even located.
Deflection. I’m trying to establish YOUR benchmark of the definition of abetting terrorism or acts of terrorism that we can both apply moving forward. If you can’t state whether the Mayor is culpable or not in abetting domestic terrorism, then you admit your definitions and views of terroristic actors “depends”, but you apparently won’t discuss it, as to show the veiled hypocrisy …..
You are calling the Babbitt “freak” a terrorist, and I have not argued against your point. Per my inquisition, you concur the arson and forced entry into a federal courthouse is likewise domestic terrorism
but you stop at proclaiming a Dem politician actively engaging with the terrorists as being culpable - why?? How can you purport to engage in such a topic, if you stop when the knife gets sharp
And that’s just after one year of the Biden administration. Imagine where you’ll be in theee years.
Yeah. Sounds like he was really whipping up a bunch of his "supporters". LOL. Embarrassing comparison...
Although Wheeler denounced the presence of federal officers in Portland, he allowed local police to use tear gas against demonstrators from May until just this week. He has expressed support for protesters demanding racial equality but cautions against using violence during marches.
“The middle ground is very elusive right now,” Wheeler said. “When it comes to solutions, compromise is seen as a dirty word.”
Demonstrators went to Wheeler’s own doorstep last month when they staged a sit-in in the lobby of his condominium building. Then, on his 58th birthday, protesters returned to the building, calling for his resignation and demanding that he slash the police budget in half.
Those protests quickly turned ugly as crowds lit a fire in the street, shattered windows and broke into a ground-level dental office, the Oregonian reported.
Portland mayor won't 'capitulate' to critics who say he mishandled protests, police reform
“The middle ground is very elusive right now,” Mayor Ted Wheeler said. “When it comes to solutions, compromise is seen as a dirty word.”
www.nbcnews.com
And now Trump?....
We can get to Trump…. But you’ve not yet acknowledged Wheeler’s participation yetYeah. Sounds like he was really whipping up a bunch of his "supporters". LOL. Embarrassing comparison...
Although Wheeler denounced the presence of federal officers in Portland, he allowed local police to use tear gas against demonstrators from May until just this week. He has expressed support for protesters demanding racial equality but cautions against using violence during marches.
“The middle ground is very elusive right now,” Wheeler said. “When it comes to solutions, compromise is seen as a dirty word.”
Demonstrators went to Wheeler’s own doorstep last month when they staged a sit-in in the lobby of his condominium building. Then, on his 58th birthday, protesters returned to the building, calling for his resignation and demanding that he slash the police budget in half.
Those protests quickly turned ugly as crowds lit a fire in the street, shattered windows and broke into a ground-level dental office, the Oregonian reported.
Portland mayor won't 'capitulate' to critics who say he mishandled protests, police reform
“The middle ground is very elusive right now,” Mayor Ted Wheeler said. “When it comes to solutions, compromise is seen as a dirty word.”
And now Trump?....
New York Times, 7/23/21
PORTLAND, Ore. — The mayor of Portland, Ted Wheeler, was left coughing and wincing in the middle of his own city on Wednesday night after federal officers deployed tear gas into a crowd of protesters that Mr. Wheeler had joined outside the federal courthouse.
Mr. Wheeler, who scrambled to put on goggles while denouncing what he called the “urban warfare” tactic of the federal agents in Oregon, said that he was outraged by the use of tear gas and that it only made protesters more angry.
He called it an “egregious overreaction” on the part of the federal officers, and not a de-escalation strategy.
“It’s got to stop now,” he declared.
Mr. Wheeler joined the crowd at the front of the protest, against a barrier around the federal courthouse. …..
Mr. Wheeler said that joining the protesters at the front of the line was just one way he was going to try to rid the city of the federal tactical teams.
So…. Suborning terrorism or terroristic acts or not?
So now you liberals are understanding of cops who kill unarmed suspects within split second interactions?
Weren’t you scumbags crying “defund da poh-leases” over these exact same actions last year?
If it weren’t for double standards, libs wouldn’t have standards at all. You see this daily with our board fairy.
Fvcking losers.
Yeah. We always understood that. Try understanding not kneeling 12 minutes on their necks, or not giving conflicting instructions and shooting people, or not assaulting or killing unarmed people who AREN’T charging officers telling them to stop. Nice Ebonics at the end. Racist MAGAts gonna racist.
Get a room if you want to suck each other off that bad! 😆
You seem to know a lot about "sucking"....
I Missed this thread until today.
Peenace is pretty stupid doesn’t quite cover this 😂😂😂
Peenace is pretty stupid doesn’t quite cover this 😂😂😂
What’s this, homophobic shaming from a liberal scumbag?
Are you too stupid to realize when your racism and homophobia are showing ???
Similar threads
