It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Police Shoot a Baby Used as a Shield

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
This guy was being investigated for being a molestor. And there was not that many shots fired at all. This guy did take shots at police 3 different times. They held considerable restraint, because he was holding this child.

Theres an investigation into the cause of death, because the infant was found in another part of the building, and it looked wierd to the coroner.

Also, anyone taking a national news service at what they report on a local issue is not seeing everything we are. Every local tv and radio station is all over this, and the evidence is pouring out that this guy may have killed the child. There is no dispute that the child was shot, but its not conclusive to the cause of death yet.

And these police did protect. Thier job is to protect the masses, not just one. Again, the bigger picture. Also, being only the second incident in like 40 years, I think the LA SWAT team has faired pretty well.




posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
CNN is just looking for sensationalism to find another reason to bash LAPD.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

The officer that was shot has 5 children. Does that matter?


If it doesn't fit certain people's "Screw the police" agenda, then no. Unfortunately as you said, the policemen and their families don't matter to certain people.


It's always a good idea to shoot at someone shooting at you, but never to shoot at an innocent bystander or in this case a hostage..... The man had been cornered and had a limited amount of ammo.



Yeah, and it would have been a good idea for me to have taken something other than 1st Avenue this morning. Pity neither myself nor the cops on this scene are prophets. Please explain to me how the police (while being shot at) were supposed to know about the guy's limited ammo and what not? It's so easy Monday morning, buddy.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Maybe each individual officer should have better training when average firearms officers in the U.K. can shoot guns out of people hands. (Which has been on the news a few times) from 20/30 yards away, easy as...

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!! What do you think that the cops didn’t know that they could call in snipers? Do you think that they didn’t know all their options? Do you think American cops are some pansies?
American SWAT teams can shoot through people fingers 500 or more yards away! Also American officers deal with guns more than any British Cop, they actually carry guns not some lame baton, so don’t give me you supercilious crap!
Firstly the situation was not your usual hostage takers or something of that sort, a man who was drunk or on drugs was SHOOTING at people on the street, that could have killed many more children.
Secondly, the SWAT was called in and they though that a sniper was not required in that situation, this is the LAPD we are talking about not some county police, the LAPD is one of Americas most decorated police force, thus this establishes that they had experience.
Thirdly, the guy "ran inside a fenced area that included his apartment and his car wash and detailing business. He had a 9 mm handgun and a shotgun, police said." he had two weapons which could have been deadly on the street. Since he was behind enclosures and most likely firing at people from some safe place. The police maintained the stand off as long as they could, they tried to talk to this guy and reason with him, his wife spoke to him but he still didn’t relent, he exchanged fire with the police 3 times! That is pushing it, though the life of one baby might have been saved many more people could have been killed.
Lastly, the guy shot at officers when they were trying to rescue people in the neighborhood injuring officers, that would definitely be the last straw for any police force in the world, not only did he want to keep the police away he wanted to kill others as well, also when firing at the cops, mind you from some position of vantage as he was in his property, he held his daughter up as a shield, the cops must have assumed that he had enough ammo to let this continue for a long time and must have decided that taking out the guy was the best course of action! So they did WHAT WAS NECCESSARY!
This was the LAPD one of the worlds best police forces and they have enough experience behind them to judge carefully, shootout are nothing special to these police. They saw no other option but to take him out whether he had a child or not, the safety of many outweigh the safety of one!



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
and it is one of the reasons I left law enforcement.

You get paid 12 bucks an hour, so that people can shoot at you if you catch them doing depraved things to children. If you get killed, your kids are orphaned. If you live, then you get sued.

I wasn't there, and so I'm in no position to judge. And neither are any of you.

A SWAT unit costs probably 5 to 15 million a year to train and maintain with, say, an 8 MINUTE response time. But again, it wasn't the SWAT team that was being shot at. It was the cops on the scene. What were they supposed to do? file lawsuits at the guy until the long guns showed up?

People blame the cops regardless. If it was a cop who died instead of a baby, the surviving cops would be blamed for that, too.


I was on the scene when a guy being arrested for selling meth grabbed a cop's gun. I got the gun away from him, with no back-up, no body armor,
and no help from bystanders. The perp did not have a bone in his body broken. It was on video tape, and after I got him on the ground I put him in a non-authorized "choke-hold" until the other cop could get handcuffs on the dude.

I was named as the principal in the lawsuit filed on behalf of the perp, because I didn't LET HIM GO while I "put the gun in a safe place" before re-arresting him. Basically, I was charged with wreckless conduct.

I was named. So was the agency I worked for, as well as the elected official I served under (who was maybe 20 miles away at the moment). The suit was thrown out by a grand jury of grateful texans, but only after lingering in the court system for most of a year. It cost me a fortune in attorney's fees (some of which were never reimbursed by agency or union) and tons of missed work on the job because of repeated court appearances, at which the plaintiff's attorney was a "no show."

Here's my prophecy for western civilization:

"You cannot tell the difference between your cops and the robbers. So, eventually, they will become the same thing."

Every good cop I ever knew, with one exception, has left law enforcement for safer, more lucrative, less lawsuit-liable work.

Which means the dirty cops are the only ones desperate enough to do law enforcement.

At some point, you simply get enough of defending people who despise you.

Which is what made the movie "training day" so realistic.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
well said drstrangecraft! Well said.
I know a couple of my friends from school who became cops, it was the macho bravado at first, the desire to serve second and now they long to leave asking everybody if they can hook them up with something "safe"!
It is cops who suffer either way, the baby dies or the baby lives!



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Maybe each individual officer should have better training when average firearms officers in the U.K. can shoot guns out of people hands. (Which has been on the news a few times) from 20/30 yards away, easy as...

Originally posted by IAF101
That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard!! What do you think that the cops didn’t know that they could call in snipers? Do you think that they didn’t know all their options? Do you think American cops are some pansies?
Relax, breath, I was pointing out the mistake they have made and clearly if the training fails (which it did) they need more of it.


Originally posted by IAF101
American SWAT teams can shoot through people fingers 500 or more yards away! Also American officers deal with guns more than any British Cop, they actually carry guns not some lame baton, so don’t give me you supercilious crap!


British Police also carry firearms depending on area of the Country, which shows how little you know. In areas such as London there is more gun crime than in some parts of America.

Also if they can do such things, why did they not? Why is a child dead?


Originally posted by IAF101
Firstly the situation was not your usual hostage takers or something of that sort, a man who was drunk or on drugs was SHOOTING at people on the street, that could have killed many more children.


People should have been evacuated, I am sure they have those "large" bullet proof shields in America? Which can hide more then two people behind them encase such a thing happens?


Originally posted by IAF101
Secondly, the SWAT was called in and they though that a sniper was not required in that situation, this is the LAPD we are talking about not some county police, the LAPD is one of Americas most decorated police force, thus this establishes that they had experience.


Clearly, their training failed them as they made a bad judgement. In all instances when it is possible hostages should be taken "snipers" are called in for back-up in the U.K.


Originally posted by IAF101
Thirdly, the guy "ran inside a fenced area that included his apartment and his car wash and detailing business. He had a 9 mm handgun and a shotgun, police said." he had two weapons which could have been deadly on the street. Since he was behind enclosures and most likely firing at people from some safe place. The police maintained the stand off as long as they could, they tried to talk to this guy and reason with him, his wife spoke to him but he still didn’t relent, he exchanged fire with the police 3 times! That is pushing it, though the life of one baby might have been saved many more people could have been killed.


As you yourself said, "American SWAT teams can shoot through people fingers 500 or more yards away!" why did they not? The head is a large target. Also I am sure the wife would have told them about the child, so the Police would have known there was a chance for a hostage and/or a small child to be hurt.


Originally posted by IAF101
Lastly, the guy shot at officers when they were trying to rescue people in the neighborhood injuring officers, that would definitely be the last straw for any police force in the world, not only did he want to keep the police away he wanted to kill others as well, also when firing at the cops, mind you from some position of vantage as he was in his property, he held his daughter up as a shield, the cops must have assumed that he had enough ammo to let this continue for a long time and must have decided that taking out the guy was the best course of action! So they did WHAT WAS NECCESSARY!


Not at all, in the U.K. just last week there was an armed stand off where a man shot and injured a Police officer, using the bullet proof shields they were able to advance and rescure the injured man as well as rescue the people in the near by housing. Guardian Source


Originally posted by IAF101
This was the LAPD one of the worlds best police forces and they have enough experience behind them to judge carefully, shootout are nothing special to these police. They saw no other option but to take him out whether he had a child or not, the safety of many outweigh the safety of one!


Yes, the LAPD, they are one of the best law enforcement agencies in the World. God bless their wonderful record and let us all pretend that such things as the Rampart Division corruption scandal in 1997, the Christopher Commission and others never happened.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
but the police I think didn't fill out all options on this situation.

When someone is shooting at you, your only option is to return fire.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
but the police I think didn't fill out all options on this situation.

When someone is shooting at you, your only option is to return fire.


Sorry Nygdan, but there have been cases in the U.K. where the Police have not shot back when someone has shot at them. They only return fire when they know they can hit the target or if innocent bystanders lives are on the line.

As was shown in the article I posted above.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
You have voted dr_strangecraft for the Way Above Top Secret award.


Well Put Doc. One day our society will collapse and it will be due to people like Odium who support criminals and Murderers more than the police.

This is why Im armed, because one day the cops "might" not be there anymore and who will we call than?

Ill just keep my powder dry.


Max



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Relax, breath, I was pointing out the mistake they have made and clearly if the training fails (which it did) they need more of it.

You! Who the hell are you to point out anything? HAve you ever held a gun in your life! You who has no military/ police experience! Dont be silly!

Originally posted by Odium
British Police also carry firearms depending on area of the Country, which shows how little you know. In areas such as London there is more gun crime than in some parts of America.

Wow! depending on the area of the country! Thats really something isnt it! Well, hello, cops here carry guns everywhere! In all parts!
Yeah some areas of london compared to Yellowstone !

Originally posted by Odium
Also if they can do such things, why did they not? Why is a child dead?

Because Mr. Armchair general, they knew that their was no other way to effectively solve the problem! Cant you read the news article ??


Originally posted by Odium
People should have been evacuated, I am sure they have those "large" bullet proof shields in America? Which can hide more then two people behind them encase such a thing happens?

Oh really! You think!

you think they ddont know how to evacute people? YOU!
So apparently you should go and teach the LAPD in your arm chair hostage conceptualisation, instead of the people who do it day in and day out!

Originally posted by Odium
Clearly, their training failed them as they made a bad judgement. In all instances when it is possible hostages should be taken "snipers" are called in for back-up in the U.K.

Yeah, and you are a jude of that! Do you know how many such situation the SWAT have dealed with in the past? Do you know that they have some of the best police snipers in the world! Of course you do,

The SWAT have their own snipers, they dont need to call in nipers for bak up! What do you think this is some CSI or somesuch show on TV? You are clearly delude on what the police can and cant do !


Originally posted by Odium
As you yourself said, "American SWAT teams can shoot through people fingers 500 or more yards away!" why did they not? The head is a large target. Also I am sure the wife would have told them about the child, so the Police would have known there was a chance for a hostage and/or a small child to be hurt.

MY god! man this isnt some western shoot out! The guy was hiding in his property adn shooting people whom he could see! He was using the girl as cover, he hid in a postion of VANTAGE and shoot police so that they could not blow his head away! its is not some western shoot out!


Originally posted by Odium
Not at all, in the U.K. just last week there was an armed stand off where a man shot and injured a Police officer, using the bullet proof shields they were able to advance and rescure the injured man as well as rescue the people in the near by housing.

Well bravo for the UK police, three cheers! We have done that a million times already in america, so spare me!
They did what was necessary and thats it, the LAPD rescue people everyday, hundreds, thousands in the last few years, shootout happen everyother day, it isnt a big deal, they know how to react and they did so accordingly!

Originally posted by Odium
Yes, the LAPD, they are one of the best law enforcement agencies in the World. God bless their wonderful record and let us all pretend that such things as the Rampart Division corruption scandal in 1997, the Christopher Commission and others never happened.

Yeah and we know too about the british "Operation Ore" as well, pretending as if your reputation is so devine!

Atleast the LAPD corruption wasnt as cheap as the the UK police and their scandalous "operation ore" .
YOu dont see racisim in our police department, we dont go molesting children like you cops! Dont throw stones at other people when you yourself live in glass houses!
link
Operation Ore
BBC
Huh! you replies have show that your base you thinking on fantasy and some deluded version of Commando, apparently you have no real knowledge of weapons, police or law enforement!



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:29 PM
link   


You dont see racisim in our police department.


Missed an earlier post did we?



On November 13, the day of the second round of violence in St. Petersburg, a similar scenario played itself out in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. White police Officer Jon Vojtas was acquitted by an all-white jury in the killing of black motorist Jonny Gammage in Brentwood, a predominantly white Pittsburgh suburb. Following the acquittal, there was a protest outside the courtroom, with chants reminiscent of the King case, "No justice, no peace." Vojtas later returned to the Brentwood police force.

Gammage had been driving in Brentwood in October 1995 when police officers pulled him over, claiming that he had been driving erratically. In a struggle with five officers after he emerged from his car, Gammage was subdued as officers pressed on his back and neck, suffocating him. He died at the scene. The case drew unusual attention because the victim was the cousin of a Pittsburgh Steelers football player, Ray Seals, a local celebrity, and he had been driving Seals's car at the time of the encounter. The trials of two other officers involved in the incident ended in mistrials in 1996 and 1997.


Lets see here. A black guy driving down the street at 2:35 or so am. in an exspensive car.. in Brentwood PA....

A little history on Brentwood. If you are not white, you better get tf out or you will be hurt.

Anyway, These cops stop this guy, they tell him to get out of the car, he has a celphone on him, clearly seen by police. Vojtas the ring leader starts, Then takes 6 cops to take him down...

Sounds almost like I donno, the LAPD beating the crap out of Rodney King???

Now this probably wouldnt have been a big thing, only reason I remember it is because he was some famous persons cousin. Unlike the other black guy who was killed in the armstong tunnels by police for some stupid crap charge.. they just shot him not good reasoning.

Anyway your right, No racism in the US police force, at least you nailed that one good.

Ohh lil tid bit of this Vojtas guy.. His wife misteriously comits suicicde.. Wonder why that was???

and yes Misteriously is the key word.

[edit on 7/12/2005 by ThichHeaded]

[edit on 7/12/2005 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by mpeake
At the last moments of the gun battle, this sick lunatic picked up his daughter and used her as a sheild. The police were not aiming at her, and I imaging that they didn't even realize that the man had picked up the girl until after it was too late.


Actually, it's on video that he came out of the building several times already holding his daughter. The police were well aware that he had her in his arms.

I can often understand the police need to use overwhelming force. In this case, though, I can't believe they couldn't set up a single shot kill. The fusillade captured on audio was totally over the top considering the situation.

[edit on 7/12/2005 by eaglewingz]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Exactly. Its not like someone who has been drinking and doing drugs, is the best person in the world to hide from a sniper...

Hell!! Question, did they even have snipers there when all this went down?

[edit on 7/12/2005 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Relax, breath, I was pointing out the mistake they have made and clearly if the training fails (which it did) they need more of it.

Originally posted by IAF101
You! Who the hell are you to point out anything? HAve you ever held a gun in your life! You who has no military/ police experience! Dont be silly!


I was a member of the TA from when I was 17 till I was 18 and have left due to my views on the Iraq war - so yes, I have held a gun. Yes I have had basic military training. I am also working towards getting my rifle and/or shotgun licence in the U.K. however, I am undergoing the waiting/training period of 6months before I will be able to apply for it.

So who is the silly one? The one to assume I don't?


Originally posted by Odium
British Police also carry firearms depending on area of the Country, which shows how little you know. In areas such as London there is more gun crime than in some parts of America.


Originally posted by IAF101
Wow! depending on the area of the country! Thats really something isnt it! Well, hello, cops here carry guns everywhere! In all parts!
Yeah some areas of london compared to Yellowstone !


I'm glad they don't have to carry a firearm in every are of the Nation due to crime not being at the level yet that such a thing is needed - however, in the future they probably will do.

Would you rather the Police did not need to be armed? Would it not make you happy to know the over all crime rate is low enough at the moment that it isn't needed?


Originally posted by Odium
Also if they can do such things, why did they not? Why is a child dead?


Originally posted by IAF101
Because Mr. Armchair general, they knew that their was no other way to effectively solve the problem! Cant you read the news article ??


I did read the news article and also your comments. Do not try to discredit my statements by making accusations of the like. However, it does seem to be a trend you do follow.


Originally posted by Odium
People should have been evacuated, I am sure they have those "large" bullet proof shields in America? Which can hide more then two people behind them encase such a thing happens?


Originally posted by IAF101
Oh really! You think!

you think they ddont know how to evacute people? YOU!
So apparently you should go and teach the LAPD in your arm chair hostage conceptualisation, instead of the people who do it day in and day out!


No but maybe the British Police Force should?


Originally posted by Odium
Clearly, their training failed them as they made a bad judgement. In all instances when it is possible hostages should be taken "snipers" are called in for back-up in the U.K.


Originally posted by IAF101
Yeah, and you are a jude of that! Do you know how many such situation the SWAT have dealed with in the past? Do you know that they have some of the best police snipers in the world! Of course you do,

The SWAT have their own snipers, they dont need to call in nipers for bak up! What do you think this is some CSI or somesuch show on TV? You are clearly delude on what the police can and cant do !


If they are such good snipers they would have killed the guy and not the child. It is that simple. Either they are so good they can do all that and then some, or they're not. Your choice.


Originally posted by Odium
As you yourself said, "American SWAT teams can shoot through people fingers 500 or more yards away!" why did they not? The head is a large target. Also I am sure the wife would have told them about the child, so the Police would have known there was a chance for a hostage and/or a small child to be hurt.


Originally posted by IAF101
MY god! man this isnt some western shoot out! The guy was hiding in his property adn shooting people whom he could see! He was using the girl as cover, he hid in a postion of VANTAGE and shoot police so that they could not blow his head away! its is not some western shoot out!


"Lemos "appeared to be under the influence of alcohol and drugs and was quite despondent," said police Lt. Paul Vernon said. "He came out shooting randomly at the people out on the street, as well as police officers.""

So they did have a chance and it should have been taken right then.

Also I went back over the article and can't find where it states he held a vantage point? Can you Police source me the line of the article and the site? But yet again the point stands, if they were such good snipers they could do it without killing the child. As from the photo, it looks as though houses around the area also could have been used to allow such a thing.


Originally posted by Odium
Not at all, in the U.K. just last week there was an armed stand off where a man shot and injured a Police officer, using the bullet proof shields they were able to advance and rescure the injured man as well as rescue the people in the near by housing.


Originally posted by IAF101
Well bravo for the UK police, three cheers! We have done that a million times already in america, so spare me!
They did what was necessary and thats it, the LAPD rescue people everyday, hundreds, thousands in the last few years, shootout happen everyother day, it isnt a big deal, they know how to react and they did so accordingly!


No, someone lost their life due to their actions and their mistake as I quote again "Lemos "appeared to be under the influence of alcohol and drugs and was quite despondent," said police Lt. Paul Vernon said. "He came out shooting randomly at the people out on the street, as well as police officers."" and "Under police regulations, officers may only fire "when it reasonably appears necessary" to protect themselves or others from death or serious injury. "

They could have done it then, stoppe the problem before it got worse. If they are such good marksmen, they would have done it without killing him or the child or at least without killing the child.


Originally posted by Odium
Yes, the LAPD, they are one of the best law enforcement agencies in the World. God bless their wonderful record and let us all pretend that such things as the Rampart Division corruption scandal in 1997, the Christopher Commission and others never happened.



Originally posted by IAF101
Yeah and we know too about the british "Operation Ore" as well, pretending as if your reputation is so devine!

Atleast the LAPD corruption wasnt as cheap as the the UK police and their scandalous "operation ore" .
YOu dont see racisim in our police department, we dont go molesting children like you cops! Dont throw stones at other people when you yourself live in glass houses!
link
Operation Ore
BBC
Huh! you replies have show that your base you thinking on fantasy and some deluded version of Commando, apparently you have no real knowledge of weapons, police or law enforement!


But I admit we've had problems? I don't remember ever denying such a thing? However, the corrupting, Police violence, etc, are clear in America and always have been - time and time again. It is why they have had to pay our so many times in court cases, ever heard of Fred Hampton and the actions of the F.B.I. and SAO to kill him and destory the "rainbow coalition" which helped end street gang problems in Chicago? Which the F.B.I. then restarted?

Got to love those Police officers, who will willingly cause racial and gang problems to get their own way and to stop people getting to much Political power.

And such actions cost the U.S. Government an undisclosed sum, however the family of Hampton and Clark said they settled for no less then $47.7 million. A lot of money which could have done a lot of good if the F.B.I. did not have innocent people killed. :-)



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Serve and protect eh?

I guess we'll have some one come on here and defend the shooting of this baby.

A damn tragedy and one that could of been avoided. Dont the police use sharp shooters any more? Or do the sharp shooters use machine guns now?

You can bet the police would of waited if the POTUS or other member of government was being used as a human shield. Do you think the police would just lose patience and taken them all out just because they were getting shot at?

[edit on 12/7/05 by subz]


Unless you are in law enforcement or military and been in a situation such as this, don't be so smug. Those officers are crushed by this and this will haunt them as it would you if you had to fire the shot. How about shame on the nut that used a child as a shield? The man was firing aimlessly every which way, what would you do? Let him keep shooting and possible kill other innocent adults and children that may be in the area? What would you do with a man holding a child and shooting willfully in the open? How would you take him out? How long would you let him shoot.......till there were officers dead all around him? It is so easy for keyboard critics to spout off about such matters but unless you have ever been on the other side of that gun, don't be so sure what you would do or not do. It is a terrible tragedy for everyone. This is a time to pray for the family and to hope that somehow we can find ways to deal with distressed persons to prevent such events from continuing to happen.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Odium,
Since the coroners report is not in yet and NO ONE KNOWS who shot the child yet; I can only assume you hate Americans and will always take any chance to slander anything American or to make one of us look bad. Why not be honest and admit it. You hate us and you don't even know why. Could it just be that we are a convenient target and that if it was not us, you would be attacking someone else. I assure you - we are the same as you. We are ordinary people who go to work, raise our children as best we can and hope to someday retire with a few dollars in our pockets. I work with law enforcement at times and they are also ordinary people with familys who voluntarily put their lives on the line for us for very little pay.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:03 PM
link   
No, Blaine91555, my girlfriend is in fact American and some of my best friends are American and in the USAF base where I used to work. So do not assume, I hate Americans because of the actions of your Government and/or Police force throughout the history, I also dislike the actions of the British Government, Chinese Government, etc, throughout history.

However, certain Americans I do like and have stood up for on this forum, including various Presidents, Businesses men and the like. However, you assume I hate Americans because the SWAT team and/or Police force did not kill a man when they had the chance? To me the photo looks clear, it looks easy enough for them to take various points around his house so they could have got a shot off and this would have never happened.



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   
I'm not so sure... but you know how parents always told you... ignore your brother or sister annoying you and they'll stop what they're doing?...

Its my philosophy that if the police didn't exist A LOT of crime would cease... the only reason a lot of people are in the "game" of crime is because police act as a team to compete against...

F*** You that was the best they could do..... short of leaving the situation .. who would he have to argue with then? his daughter? ..

Obviously I don't know why they were called there in the first place... but honestly... peace officers? police officers? people helping people? .. that scenario seemed awhole lot like people harming people.

Good guy
Bad guy .. .
no real difference .. .just a matter of opinion and it's sad to say but opinions change like the weather.


Think of it this way... what if I were holding your daughter and started shooting at you ... you gonna shoot me? ... or even attempt it? ..
Pretty egotistical to think your life is worth more than that of a childs..

[edit on 12/7/05 by dnero6911]



posted on Jul, 12 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dnero6911
Good guy
Bad guy .. .
no real difference .. .just a matter of opinion and it's sad to say but opinions change like the weather.


Yeah so some guy raping a little girl is a good guy?

a bank robber who shoots the teller dead is a good guy?

A woman who bashed her sleeping husbands head in for his life insurance is also good?

You wrong, there is right and wrong in this world.....Good and Bad...Evil and Rightious. If you take away the police there would be total Chaos...imagine the local Cholo Gang charging you a "tax" everytime you drove down their street to go to work?

I bet you would would be the first one screaming for the cops to come back.


Maximu§

[edit on 073131p://222 by LA_Maximus]




top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join