Maybe if the police had done their job instead of sitting in their cars and watching the city burn, they wouldn’t have had to risk their lives.
Sure. Here is one of them:
"Why were the officers standing back? Why don’t they shoot these looters?"I suppose I could have waited for you to speak out for them, but you seem kinda busy.
Oh, so he was one of the people I was talking about? Don’t seem likely.
I’m limping, but not from that. Shooting from the hip is much faster. And I hit my target or you wouldn’t be crying. Some of the time I do shoot myself in the foot. Most of the time I don’t. I didn’t on the topic of police violence and disrespect for the citizens shown by typical American cops and police forces. I didn’t show-up late; some of you did. If I’m crowing, too fucking bad. I was right; isn’t that the point ?
Terr, Smapti:
Is this your guy? This is what you applaud, cheer for? Ready to kill to protect his property?
Well, are there guidelines, limits? Shirley you would not approve killing someone for stealing a pack of gum. (Totally sure you would not, and if I’m wrong, don’t tell me, OK?..) Make no mistake, that is what you are talking about.
Two packs of gum, ten? Handful of cigars? Break a window? You’ve already established that, under certain circumstances, property means more to you than life. But what are the parameters, what are your rules? Have you any?
If you wouldn’t kill somebody to take what’s theirs, why would you be willing to kill to keep what’s yours?
Let’s not ignore the real shock of this story
$49 for a box of cigars???
ah,another idiot anti gun liberal.perhaps you should grow a brain and relize the guy with 2 guns in his hand would like his shop not looted and burned to the ground by a group of thugs rioting
Seems right to me.
I am not sure what the laws in MO are about it. Here is the TX law:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/D/9.42
That means: I can close my business and stand guard and shoot anyone who breaks in. If I had a store and there were looters, that is what I’d be doing.
That’s a really stupid question, Elucidator.
For just one reason why it is a stupid question, two people - a society, if you will - can both be willing to kill looters and never come into conflict. You can live next door without ever coming to harm, as long as you resist the urge to throw a brick through their shop window.
Somebody willing to kill to seize things that aren’t theirs isn’t like that. They are a direct threat to you, their neighbour, and anybody who possesses anything or might inadvertently stand between them and something that they want.
I don’t believe in vigilantism. If we didn’t have guys like him roaming free, we wouldn’t need “militarized” police.
sounds like robbery to me
We don’t need them, Stalin.
By the way, it is so lovely when the police “evaluate the security of the rioters” and decide to withdraw and leave them to loot in order not to, God forbid, endanger the rioters’ security…
Texas. Of course. Should have known. (Sigh) Great place to be from.
You Brickered my question. Wasn’t asking about the law, asking about your values.
Punk teenage kid runs in, grabs something worth $1.99. You shoot? How about $10.99? Hundred bucks?
And those people I was talking about, who stood up, unarmed, save for their moral courage. Would you have joined them, or sneer at them? I invite you to praise them for their courage, but you are too busy bragging about what a tough guy you are. We need more tough guys, you think, that’s what’s going to save us?
Thank you, I just moved here from Maryland. Love it.
If I am the owner of the store, I closed the store, and the punk kid breaks into the store, I’d shoot him before he grabbed anything. Or after. Does that answer your question?
I wouldn’t be at the scene of a riot. I make it a rule to stay away from riots. Don’t you?
Praises and salutations. Of course, they are paying the taxes to the police to do it, but the police were not doing their job that day, so all praises to the civilians that had to do it. Not that their courageous stance prevented looting, did it?
Yep. Pretty much what I figured.
That’s not the quote, unless they changed it.
“We had to evaluate the security of the officers there and also the rioters,” Johnson said. “We just felt it was better to move back.”
That’s the most recent version. But seriously, you cite Fox News? No kidding?
Yes, that’s the quote. And yes, I cite Fox News, who quote Johnson. Do you dispute their accuracy of quoting Johnson? What exactly is your objection?
And as for me not citing the full quote - yes, because considering security of your officers doesn’t even need to be mentioned - it is obvious. But the “kumbaya” Johnson loves the rioters and “evaluates their safety” - so much that he withdraws the police force completely and allows them to continue looting in peace.