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.

 

Immunity, morals, and other things.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   
I intended to kill four people. Three were killed and the forth was made a vegtable. I didn't do it. I had reason to. No investigation of it even though two were gun runners, one was a drug dealing pimp, and the other was a contract killer. LEO's will say I donn't know aht I am talking about. That I would not have known about the investigation. Wrong. I had access to police computers. To the NCIS coputer. I would have known. If I was going to do it myself what is my beef? That is the problem.

I suspect LEO's did it for me. I won't go into what was going on. It would take to long. My problem is this. If a bugler breaks into my house I will capture him if I can. If he is carrying a badge I will kill him. Why? What is the difference between the two? The badge. the immunity. If I had killed the above I would have done it as a father, a private citizen, and had to take my chances with the court. A LEO has immunity so long as he hasn't pissed off his fellow offers. The same with a prosecuter or judge.

Pelosi has said that politicians can not be held personally responsible for their votes. Is she nuts? If it was LEO's who did the above they probably think I owe them a favor I see where they are coming from but they are wrong. They have taken the right and the consequences of defending my family away from. What is worse is they did it with immunity. Can anyone besides me see the difference?

Many LEO's are friends of mine. I have told them that it would not bother me if they were killed in uniform. If they have personal problems I will be there for them whatever they need but as officers on the job I have no sympathy for them. Most understand the difference as they know me. Can you?




posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
An add on. These days anyone who fights back is considered wrong. I remember when the police told women that if someone is trying to rape them to go along with it. When people on planes were told not to fight back against terrorists. I am from a different era even before this. That is part of my question. Why do I believe it is moral for me to kill for my familys protection but not for the police to kill for me? It sounds stupid but it is not. For ME it is wrong for people to kill for me when I should do it myself. Especially with immunity. Please try to explain to me why I am wrong if you believe me to be.



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:46 AM
link   
Because you are basically trying to glorify anarchy. No thanks. Move to Afghanistan if you REALLY want live that way.

Best,
Skunknuts



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


No not glorify anarchy. If I did it I would have to face trial. A jury of my peers. They get to decide. If LEO's do it they usually don't even go to trial. Immunity. He stood wrong. He looked wrong. He put his hand in his pocket which I am TRAINED to do for electronics. They end with with effective IMMUNITY and no one in the public has a voice. Do you not see the difference?



posted on Apr, 11 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


So you believe it is okay for the LEO's to kill for me but it is wrong for me to kill for the same reasons myself? Please explain to me. I have never understood why it is ok for 12 men to murder someone but for one man to do it is illegal for the same reasons. If you are talking about sanity I would refer to you what happened in West Yellowstone in 1975. The townspeople killed the wrong people. They killed the ones who defended the town. Not those who attacked it. I was there for the whole thing and saw what they did not.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join