Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Indiana First State to Allow Citizens to Shoot Law Enforcement Officers


45/50
06-12-2012, 11:30
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611
This is my new favorite state

G-19
06-13-2012, 21:34
Good for them

samurairabbi
06-13-2012, 21:57
Nothing in the new law precludes Law Enforcement Officers from SHOOTING BACK! ... :whistling:

RussP
06-14-2012, 08:04
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611
This is my new favorite statePerhaps you might want to read the law before getting all warm and fuzzy about shooting a cop.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/ES/ES0001.2.html

There was a lengthy discussion in Cop Talk earlier this year: Indiana house approves bill authorizing the shooting of Police Officers (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1405859).

And there is a current discussion here: Indiana legalizes shooting police officers? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1426786)

Bravo 1
06-14-2012, 14:35
I don't really understand why police would get all butt hurt over this law.

As long as they are there legally, and have a warrant, and don't violate a property owners's/citizen's rights, there isn't an issue.

From how LEO powers have been trending the last 10 years anyway, I'm glad to see some powers go the other direction.

A police state is not good.

Mister_Beefy
06-14-2012, 16:47
Perhaps you might want to read the law before getting all warm and fuzzy about shooting a cop.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2012/ES/ES0001.2.html

There was a lengthy discussion in Cop Talk earlier this year: Indiana house approves bill authorizing the shooting of Police Officers (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1405859).

And there is a current discussion here: Indiana legalizes shooting police officers? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1426786)


not everyone has access to coptalk.

RussP
06-14-2012, 20:42
Here was a shorter discussion in Carry Issues: 'Right to resist police' signed into law by Ind. governor (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1410206)

SgtScott31
06-15-2012, 04:18
Because officers entering houses illegally and firing upon innocent people is such a widespread problem. :upeyes: Give me a break. No-knock warrants are only allowed under strict circumstances. Although there have been very RARE incidents where the wrong house was entered, LEOs serving these type warrants are getting very dangerous folks off the streets.

Don't read much into this bill. It will never affect 99.9% of the U.S. population. I wish a few in favor of this could go on a few search warrants to get the perspective of the LEOs. Matter of fact, put the stats together of those LEOs killed executing a search warrant versus innocent citizens killed as a result of a LEOs illegally entering their house. It's not even a comparison.

Bravo 1
06-15-2012, 11:17
Because officers entering houses illegally and firing upon innocent people is such a widespread problem. :upeyes: Give me a break. No-knock warrants are only allowed under strict circumstances. Although there have been very RARE incidents where the wrong house was entered, LEOs serving these type warrants are getting very dangerous folks off the streets.

Don't read much into this bill. It will never affect 99.9% of the U.S. population. I wish a few in favor of this could go on a few search warrants to get the perspective of the LEOs. Matter of fact, put the stats together of those LEOs killed executing a search warrant versus innocent citizens killed as a result of a LEOs illegally entering their house. It's not even a comparison.


Exactly.

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2012, 19:34
not everyone has access to coptalk.

Interesting, I thought you would be moving there by now?:upeyes:

Kingarthurhk
06-15-2012, 19:37
I don't really understand why police would get all butt hurt over this law.

As long as they are there legally, and have a warrant, and don't violate a property owners's/citizen's rights, there isn't an issue.

From how LEO powers have been trending the last 10 years anyway, I'm glad to see some powers go the other direction.

A police state is not good.

I do. The next team that comes down to your drug den with a warrant, you will open fire and try to get out of a First Degree Murder charge by stating you thought they were making an unlawful entry.

Bravo 1
06-16-2012, 02:32
I do. The next team that comes down to your drug den with a warrant, you will open fire and try to get out of a First Degree Murder charge by stating you thought they were making an unlawful entry.


OHHHHHH,,, SAVE THE POLICE!!!!!!!

THERE WILL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!!!!!!!!!

SAVE THE CHILDREN TOOOOO!!!

SAVE THE TREES!!!

SAVE THE WATER!!!


Same old B.S. as the tree huggers and anti-gunners.

Get over it, now the police will actually have to pay attention and no-knock the correct address.

SgtScott31
06-16-2012, 02:37
Get over it, now the police will actually have to pay attention and no-knock the correct address.


The bill is a complete waste of taxpayer money. I guarantee if an actual REAL study was done about erroneous warrant entries, it would be around the .00000000000001 percentile.

Bravo 1
06-16-2012, 02:45
The bill is a complete waste of taxpayer money. I guarantee if an actual REAL study was done about erroneous warrant entries, it would be around the .00000000000001 percentile.

So then, the police should get over it, stop whining and go about their business of protecting us poor defenseless little sheep from the bad guys.

Good deal, I feel safer already.

RussP
06-16-2012, 06:44
Ask a Cop: No-knock search warrants (http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=711&sid=19150428)

Just information...

Kingarthurhk
06-16-2012, 08:17
OHHHHHH,,, SAVE THE POLICE!!!!!!!

THERE WILL BE BLOOD IN THE STREETS!!!!!!!!!!

SAVE THE CHILDREN TOOOOO!!!

SAVE THE TREES!!!

SAVE THE WATER!!!


Same old B.S. as the tree huggers and anti-gunners.

Get over it, now the police will actually have to pay attention and no-knock the correct address.

"Save the drug dealer!"

"Save the serial killer!"

"Save the child abductor!"

Does that sound like your mantra? Given your reaction, it does.

No one is taking your firearms away unless you are an illegal alien or a convicted felon. Are you either one of those?

Kingarthurhk
06-16-2012, 08:19
So then, the police should get over it, stop whining and go about their business of protecting us poor defenseless little sheep from the bad guys.

Good deal, I feel safer already.

Are you upset because you are one?

Bravo 1
06-16-2012, 18:14
Are you upset because you are one?



HAHAHA,,, yup.

You nailed it. :wavey:

Bravo 1
06-16-2012, 18:16
"Save the drug dealer!"

"Save the serial killer!"

"Save the child abductor!"

Does that sound like your mantra? Given your reaction, it does.

No one is taking your firearms away unless you are an illegal alien or a convicted felon. Are you either one of those?

You nailed it too.

You must be a psychic or sumpthin'

(Obviously you missed the whole point altogether)

samurairabbi
06-16-2012, 18:21
This controversy in meaningless to my situation. The new law has not removed my right to bore a policeman to death.

Hey, I know what is VITAL for survival!

ronin_the_great
06-16-2012, 18:25
I said this in one of the other threads about this, and I'll say it again here. Whoever does try this, even if he/she is right, and the cops are entering the wrong house by mistake, is not going to survive to see the trial where this new law will protect them. Cops tend to serve warrents in droves, and while you might get the first one through the door(very doubtful, but hey, it could happen), the other 5-7 that come through right behind him are going to light you up. It's just how it is.

If cops bust down my door by mistake, it'll be yes sir/no sir all the way to my payday in court. In this situation, as well as any other situation, you ARE NOT GOING TO WIN ANY ARGUMENT WITH A COP! PERIOD. You may, however, win one with his/her supervisor after the fact.

RussP
06-17-2012, 08:29
I don't really understand why police would get all butt hurt over this law.

As long as they are there legally, and have a warrant, and don't violate a property owners's/citizen's rights, there isn't an issue.

From how LEO powers have been trending the last 10 years anyway, I'm glad to see some powers go the other direction.

A police state is not good.

Because officers entering houses illegally and firing upon innocent people is such a widespread problem. :upeyes: Give me a break. No-knock warrants are only allowed under strict circumstances. Although there have been very RARE incidents where the wrong house was entered, LEOs serving these type warrants are getting very dangerous folks off the streets.

Don't read much into this bill. It will never affect 99.9% of the U.S. population. I wish a few in favor of this could go on a few search warrants to get the perspective of the LEOs. Matter of fact, put the stats together of those LEOs killed executing a search warrant versus innocent citizens killed as a result of a LEOs illegally entering their house. It's not even a comparison.Exactly.

So then, the police should get over it, stop whining and go about their business of protecting us poor defenseless little sheep from the bad guys.

Good deal, I feel safer already.

You nailed it too.

You must be a psychic or sumpthin'

(Obviously you missed the whole point altogether)What exactly is your "whole point"?

BossGodfrey
06-18-2012, 10:20
Maybe his point is the American people are getting fed up with being treated like dirt by police officers who have no respect for constitutional law.

Kyle M.
06-18-2012, 10:54
Maybe his point is the American people are getting fed up with being treated like dirt by police officers who have no respect for constitutional law.

Thats the problem where Im from cops think there gods. Just last week I got a $250 ticket for intent to drive without a seatbelt. I was sitting in my work parking lot at break with my a/c on, on private property. I took the ticket to the police station where after a lengthy agology the chief tore up the ticket, and said he would be having a talk with that officer.

Kingarthurhk
06-18-2012, 21:27
Maybe his point is the American people are getting fed up with being treated like dirt by police officers who have no respect for constitutional law.

I don't know any. I do know a president that doesn't however. Perhaps you should draft a letter to him.

Kingarthurhk
06-18-2012, 21:28
Thats the problem where Im from cops think there gods. Just last week I got a $250 ticket for intent to drive without a seatbelt. I was sitting in my work parking lot at break with my a/c on, on private property. I took the ticket to the police station where after a lengthy agology the chief tore up the ticket, and said he would be having a talk with that officer.

No, sounds like a rookie.

Bravo 1
06-19-2012, 02:38
What exactly is your "whole point"?


Guess you will never know if you cannot see it.

BicycleDay43
06-19-2012, 02:53
Thats the problem where Im from cops think there gods. Just last week I got a $250 ticket for intent to drive without a seatbelt. I was sitting in my work parking lot at break with my a/c on, on private property. I took the ticket to the police station where after a lengthy agology the chief tore up the ticket, and said he would be having a talk with that officer.

LAW BREAKING, DRUG USING SCUMBAG!!!1!111!!one

You should have gotten on your knees and THANKED the officer for that ticket..not gone behind his back. The officer is ALWAYS &^$%ING RIGHT!!! :wavey:

RussP
06-19-2012, 21:47
First you say:
I don't really understand why police would get all butt hurt over this law.

As long as they are there legally, and have a warrant, and don't violate a property owners's/citizen's rights, there isn't an issue.

From how LEO powers have been trending the last 10 years anyway, I'm glad to see some powers go the other direction.

A police state is not good.
Then you agree with SgtScott31's post:Because officers entering houses illegally and firing upon innocent people is such a widespread problem. :upeyes: Give me a break. No-knock warrants are only allowed under strict circumstances. Although there have been very RARE incidents where the wrong house was entered, LEOs serving these type warrants are getting very dangerous folks off the streets.

Don't read much into this bill. It will never affect 99.9% of the U.S. population. I wish a few in favor of this could go on a few search warrants to get the perspective of the LEOs. Matter of fact, put the stats together of those LEOs killed executing a search warrant versus innocent citizens killed as a result of a LEOs illegally entering their house. It's not even a comparison.Exactly.His post relates to Point #2 of your post.

That leaves Points #1, #3 and #4, therefore, I asked, What exactly is your "whole point"?to which you responded...Guess you will never know if you cannot see it.So, I'll ask again, from the following four points, which one is everyone missing?
I don't really understand why police would get all butt hurt over this law.


As long as they are there legally, and have a warrant, and don't violate a property owners's/citizen's rights, there isn't an issue.


From how LEO powers have been trending the last 10 years anyway, I'm glad to see some powers go the other direction.


A police state is not good.

Bravo 1
06-20-2012, 14:26
Again, I cannot see what is so hard for you comprehend.

It seems apparent to me that you see nothing wrong with the direction law enforcement, .gov and the country is going, to broaden the thought.

If you have done any study or reading on the principles of our country then I cannot see how the current direction is good.

Obviously we disagree.

RussP
06-20-2012, 17:51
It seems apparent to me that you see nothing wrong with the direction law enforcement, .gov and the country is going, to broaden the thought.What that I posted, and please quote my exact words, makes it apparent to you I "see nothing wrong with the direction law enforcement, .gov and the country is going?"

Answer that, please.

RussP
06-20-2012, 17:58
If you have done any study or reading on the principles of our country then I cannot see how the current direction is good.I believe you may have omitted a few words in that sentence, or have a pronoun wrong. Which is it?

Bravo 1
06-22-2012, 05:33
What that I posted, and please quote my exact words, makes it apparent to you I "see nothing wrong with the direction law enforcement, .gov and the country is going?"

Answer that, please.


Just because you didn't "say" it doesn't mean the insinuation isn't there. You have defended the use of drones by using typical LEO or Liberal logic. Never mentioning the probable negatives of their use and the policies.


Your big bad "MOD" means nothing to me, and if we disagree then that is fine. So stop acting like a hall monitor in school.

Judging by what you repeat, you have no problems with the trending of law enforcement. So we disagree.

Good luck with that.

Bravo 1
06-22-2012, 05:37
I believe you may have omitted a few words in that sentence, or have a pronoun wrong. Which is it?


Little bit of a smart ***** today?

RussP
06-22-2012, 06:57
If you have done any study or reading on the principles of our country then I cannot see how the current direction is good.I believe you may have omitted a few words in that sentence, or have a pronoun wrong. Which is it?Little bit of a smart ***** today?If you have done any study or reading on the principles of our countryYes, I have then I cannot see how the current direction is good.Please tell me how my studies and reading on the principals of our country result in the fact that you cannot see how the current direction is good. Are you forming your opinion based on my study and reading?

Did you mean to say this? "If you have done any study or reading on the principles of our country then you would understand why I cannot see how the current direction is good."

RussP
06-22-2012, 07:16
Just because you didn't "say" it doesn't mean the insinuation isn't there.Really? You are wrong.You have defended the use of drones by using typical LEO or Liberal logic.You mistake my presenting the other side of the story as defending a certain position. Again, you are wrong.Never mentioning the probable negatives of their use and the policies.If others adequately present their side of an issue, why do I need to repeat what they post? They did a good job. Nothing more was/is needed.Your big bad "MOD" means nothing to me, and if we disagree then that is fine. So stop acting like a hall monitor in school.You really do not like people challenging what you post, do you.

What is your objection to clarifying your personal position on matters?

The Moderator thing under my name, that follows me wherever I go. It has no bearing on 99.99% of what I post. When I post as a Moderator, it is very obvious and specifically addresses behavior conflicting with GT Rules. Otherwise, I'm just RussP.Judging by what you repeat, you have no problems with the trending of law enforcement. So we disagree.

Good luck with that.Actually, you are wrong again.

Bravo 1
06-22-2012, 07:22
I will waste a few more heartbeats on this topic.

As far as my problem with people challenging what I think. No, I don't really care what you or other people think. Believe it or not, you don't have the final say on anything.

It does disappoint me that many on a board such as this seem to be oblivious to what is happening here today.

But as long as they use the tired arguments such as" what if it was your children" or "but, but,but we will be safer" they seem to claim the higher moral ground.

.gov of any fashion will NEVER give back power and our rights are trivial as a result.

As far as all of your posting,,Well then I guess I am wrong and you are right.

I somehow feel compelled to bow to your obviously superior intellect.

Again, good luck with that.

Bren
06-22-2012, 07:37
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611
This is my new favorite state

All states allow citizens to shoot law enforcement officers in the right circumstances, just like Indiana did before legally ignorant headline grabbers enacted this new law - I've just never heard of it really happening in circumstances where it was legal.

Glad some of you are so pleased - hope you give it a try. See, legal is decided months or years later - who wins the gunfight is decided at the end of the fight...when you lose. The police don't stop shooting and go away, they keep coming until they win. There is no other version.

Feel free to point out a gunfight betweeen police and a civilian where the police gave up and went away.

Bren
06-22-2012, 07:40
No, sounds like a rookie.

No, that sounds like a lie. He didn't get a ticket for "intent to drive without a seatbelt" and there is no such offense.

RussP
06-22-2012, 10:17
First, it is obvious you learned nothing from this thread: *Video* Open Carry Challenge: Man Walks Main Street--With AK47!!! (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1355444).I will waste a few more heartbeats on this topic.

As far as my problem with people challenging what I think. No, I don't really care what you or other people think. Believe it or not, you don't have the final say on anything.I did not say what you "think." I said what you post. You post and someone comments on that post. You claim they miss the point. When asked to clarify which point, you do not give a direct answer. That's happen a few times in this thread.It does disappoint me that many on a board such as this seem to be oblivious to what is happening here today.Not knowing specifically which poster(s) you are referring to, those I know in this thread, those in LE, have a very firm grasp on what is happening, some perhaps better than you.But as long as they use the tired arguments such as" what if it was your children" or "but, but,but we will be safer" they seem to claim the higher moral ground.If those points have no meaning for you, okay....gov of any fashion will NEVER give back power and our rights are trivial as a result.Never? That one word says a lot...As far as all of your posting,,Well then I guess I am wrong and you are right.That is correct.I somehow feel compelled to bow to your obviously superior intellect.Intellect? No. Superior knowledge in some areas - yes.Again, good luck with that.Thanks...

RussP
06-22-2012, 10:38
All this sounded familiar, so I went looking for why. I found it in the thread I linked to above. What amuses me is the typical police response here,, "wishing him dead", calling names, action like he is such a threat to anybody,, even mentioning small children,,:faint: Sounds like a bunch of Liberal/Marxist types to me.

These attitudes are what is causing the split between the public and the police.

Personally, the fact that the cops are so butt hurt about a person who is not breaking any laws, is worrisome.

It would seem that the police are accepting a position of superiority more and more as compared to the public, which help create an atmosphere of distrust and dislike.Yet another attitude, I am truly shocked.:whistling:

And yes, I did miss it. I don't tend to read alot of posting on here because it doesn't exactly reinforce warm and fuzzy feelings.

I have a friend in the FBI and a really good guy as a Sheriff that I talk to about some of the things I read about in the LEO world.

They too are amazed by some of the stuff in here.Rant,,,wow somebody must wear their feelers on their sleeve if you call that a rant,inflammatory statement or what ever.

Like the old saying goes, if the shoe fits, wear it. If it doesn't then don't

PS....HAhahaha,, nice try Dr. Phil,, actually I never wanted to be a cop. While I respect the job, not necessarily some of the actors, I don't want the cut in pay. If being an LEO paid what a job in the energy industry does, I would have considered it.

My friends that are in the LEO field, do okay and like their job except for some of the egos,attitudes and the occasional JBT they encounter within.

I would agree. A badge means nothing to me. And the person behind it does not get a pass automatically because of that badge.

The person behind that badge is what matters.

And judging from what I see on here sometimes, there is a lot of short man syndrome, and/or bully complex in general from a few LEO posters.I have tried to explain my positions in a tongue-in-cheek method, if some are taken as a slight or as an attack, then that is the fault of that reader.

But it is what it is, and it does occur in this country.

I like how you quoted me with no context whatsoever to what I was replying to.

Sorta like watching the evening news,While you were,,reading this thread, tell me why you never said a word about the posters who wished this ak clown dead in some fashion?

And there was a guy who was glad he patrolled in Ohio. Nowhere did I state he was involved. I was wondering what he knew about that incident.

Instead of having a conversation, there are continually attacks and name calling.

It is amazing to see how there is soo much read into anything I have said and more importantly, not said.I was inferring a question, I guess you missed it.Yeah, again I quoted you without the posts to which you were responding.

I especially like the last two quotes in bold...

Kingarthurhk
06-22-2012, 15:28
No, that sounds like a lie. He didn't get a ticket for "intent to drive without a seatbelt" and there is no such offense.

Perhaps. However, I have seen some very dumb things in my time.

Bravo 1
06-23-2012, 04:17
SO what is your point Russ?

As far as the bottom quotes you "liked so much" I WAS RESPONDING TO COPS WHO WERE TALKING ABOUT WISHING A CITIZEN DEAD and several nuggets of wisdom from our "officer friendly" posters. But you never once mentioned any of that did you?

And nice job of framing certain posts, but not all of them while trying to prove a point. But what IS your point again?

Do you have some sort of crush on me? Desire some gay love or something?

I mean if your into man-love there is nothing wrong with that, but I am a hetero-sexual and while your attention is flattering I'll have to pass as my wife and kids would disapprove.


Apparently you have a problem with me, and it appears it is you that has a problem with people challenging your posts. And I thought you superior intellect types could take a prod or 2,,

:rofl:

Guess not, so take your little hall monitor clip board and either go pound sand or get over it.

Doesn't really matter to me which one.

series1811
06-23-2012, 05:39
All states allow citizens to shoot law enforcement officers in the right circumstances, just like Indiana did before legally ignorant headline grabbers enacted this new law - I've just never heard of it really happening in circumstances where it was legal.

Glad some of you are so pleased - hope you give it a try. See, legal is decided months or years later - who wins the gunfight is decided at the end of the fight...when you lose. The police don't stop shooting and go away, they keep coming until they win. There is no other version.

Feel free to point out a gunfight betweeen police and a civilian where the police gave up and went away.

Exactly. Reminds me of when G. Gordon Liddy suggested shooting the first cop who comes through your door if you are sure you haven't done anything wrong. That works great right up until the point the five behind him start shooting back.

And, of course, Liddy didn't do that when they arrested him, all tough talk to the contrary.

Bren
06-23-2012, 06:25
Exactly. Reminds me of when G. Gordon Liddy suggested shooting the first cop who comes through your door if you are sure you haven't done anything wrong. That works great right up until the point the five behind him start shooting back.

And, of course, Liddy didn't do that when they arrested him, all tough talk to the contrary.

Hard to take serious advice from a super-spook-ninja who couldn't successfully burglarize a hotel room - I mean, crackheads burglarize hotel rooms every day without getting caught, so where does that put Liddy?

RussP
06-23-2012, 07:45
First, realizing this is Civil Liberties Issues and that there is a bit more leeway given to expression of opinions, I'd suggest you remove all the stuff in your post that violates several GT Rules before one of the admins or other moderators see it. Just giving you a fair chance...
SO what is your point Russ?Interesting that you would ask that question. Perhaps I should answer as you did to my same question...What exactly is your "whole point"?Guess you will never know if you cannot see it.Most people, when asking a question for clarification, expect a a reasonably straightforward answer to the question. Even when I asked more definitively...So, I'll ask again, from the following four points, which one is everyone missing?
I don't really understand why police would get all butt hurt over this law.

As long as they are there legally, and have a warrant, and don't violate a property owners's/citizen's rights, there isn't an issue.

From how LEO powers have been trending the last 10 years anyway, I'm glad to see some powers go the other direction.

A police state is not good.
...you answered...Again, I cannot see what is so hard for you comprehend.

It seems apparent to me that you see nothing wrong with the direction law enforcement, .gov and the country is going, to broaden the thought.

If you have done any study or reading on the principles of our country then I cannot see how the current direction is good.

Obviously we disagree.Perhaps others comprehension isn't as much an issue as how you present your thoughts cloaked in insults.

Why couldn't you respond with, "My point is that this law reverses the, to me, disturbing trend of increasing powers granted to law enforcement, which clearly reflects more broadly where .gov and our Country is heading, which in my opinion is toward a police state." I do believe that sums up your position, doesn't it, or am I misinterpreting your words?

As far as the bottom quotes you "liked so much" I WAS RESPONDING TO COPS WHO WERE TALKING ABOUT WISHING A CITIZEN DEAD Let's see, first someone who is not a cop asked, "where is the run away semi when we need it?" Then a cop in Monterrey, Mexico says, "where I come from, that guy would be DRT, talk about an ahole." I believe a man carrying an AK down the street in Mexico might have serious problems. Then you posted. Were there any others before you posted I missed?and several nuggets of wisdom from our "officer friendly" posters. But you never once mentioned any of that did you?Your are correct. I did not.And nice job of framing certain posts, but not all of them while trying to prove a point. But what IS your point again?I'll quote you once more:Again, I cannot see what is so hard for you comprehend.Lets go back to As far as the bottom quotes you "liked so much"I said in my postI especially like the last two quotes in bold...The bolded parts wereIt is amazing to see how there is soo much read into anything I have said and more importantly, not said.I was inferring a question, I guess you missed it.They are in reference to your post...Just because you didn't "say" it doesn't mean the insinuation isn't there....where you were reading something not there into my post, believing I was inferring something not articulated. You do not like people reading anything into your posts, but you are comfortable with making an incomplete comment, leaving the reader to guess what you may or may not be inferring.

And that is the point about your presentation of your points. It is often confusing to some.Apparently you have a problem with me, If I did, you would know it.and it appears it is you that has a problem with people challenging your posts. And I thought you superior intellect types could take a prod or 2,,No, and superior intellect, I don't know, superior knowledge about some things, perhaps, probably yes. Challenges? When done properly, no, no problem.

Again, please think about my opening comment here...

Do you have some sort of crush on me? Desire some gay love or something? I mean if your into man-love there is nothing wrong with that, but I am a hetero-sexual and while your attention is flattering I'll have to pass as my wife and kids would disapprove. Guess not, so take your little hall monitor clip board and either go pound sand or get over it. Doesn't really matter to me which one.

Bravo 1
06-23-2012, 09:29
It is noble of you to give me a chance to remove whatever you obviously don't like

As far as "comments violating rules" so be it. I have several friends and co-workers who are gay. It doesn't bother me. Strikes me as odd maybe, but doesn't bother me. So no, I'm far from homophobic or bigoted.

You have turned this thing into a :duel: of sorts, and definately a :aodnsb:.

I cannot see where I posted anything offending. It was written in jest, as a jab, with a sense of humor. If it offends you, well don't wear your feelings on your sleeve sir.

Now back on point.

I don't like big brother. I don't like the direction this republic is headed. I definately don't agree with the "excused" abuse of our rights as citizens. That means all of us.

But as it now appears, you did in fact get my "whole point". Surprisingly , you wanted to start this slap fight. Which does mystify me.:shocked:

In reference to the topic, while this law is odd for sure. The devil is in the details as posted earlier.

And the only people who will shoot police are the ones who will shoot them regardless of any legislation. And I thought murder was already illegal.

They should be convicted and sent to the hot seat with a fast track imho.

Police have enough to work through in todays society, and I support them. I shoot regularly with a few of them and count a couple as good friends. We need more good police today. And less lawyers.

That better?

RussP
06-23-2012, 11:30
It is noble of you to give me a chance to remove whatever you obviously don't like

As far as "comments violating rules" so be it.Okay...your call, your consequences.Now back on point.

I don't like big brother. I don't like the direction this republic is headed. I definately don't agree with the "excused" abuse of our rights as citizens. That means all of us.

But as it now appears, you did in fact get my "whole point". Surprisingly , you wanted to start this slap fight. Which does mystify me.:shocked:

In reference to the topic, while this law is odd for sure. The devil is in the details as posted earlier.

And the only people who will shoot police are the ones who will shoot them regardless of any legislation. And I thought murder was already illegal.

They should be convicted and sent to the hot seat with a fast track imho.

Police have enough to work through in todays society, and I support them. I shoot regularly with a few of them and count a couple as good friends. We need more good police today. And less lawyers.

That better?Why the hell didn't you respond like that to start with? Please remember it for the future. Life will be more simple...

Kingarthurhk
06-23-2012, 17:51
LAW BREAKING, DRUG USING SCUMBAG!!!1!111!!one

You should have gotten on your knees and THANKED the officer for that ticket..not gone behind his back. The officer is ALWAYS &^$%ING RIGHT!!! :wavey:

I guess I could counter with:

You Anti-American scumbag! You should fall to your knees in reverance everytime an Army Private assigned to the clerical corps shadow passes your worthless path! He is a veteran dogonit!

There, feel better now?:wavey:

OldCurlyWolf
06-29-2012, 16:19
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Indiana_First_State_to_Allow_Citizens_to_Shoot_Law_Enforcement_Officers_120611
This is my new favorite state
No, they are not.

Read the Texas statues. It is legal to resist an unlawful act of a police officer, up to and including deadly force. But you better be able to prove it if you don't want to sit on the row in Huntsville.:wow: