GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-12-2013, 23:07   #426
CLoft239
I Like Turtles
 
CLoft239's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Oklahoma, USA
Posts: 652
News is now reporting that no body has been located or removed from the cabin...

WTF?

Sent from the Titanic. I named my phone "The Titanic" so when I plug it into the computer it says "The Titanic is syncing".
__________________
Order without liberty and liberty without order are equally destructive.
- Theodore Roosevelt

Last edited by CLoft239; 02-12-2013 at 23:08..
CLoft239 is offline  
Old 02-12-2013, 23:08   #427
w01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Recovered, yes. Identified, no.

That's what I got.
Now CBS & CNN is reporting that no body has been recovered or identified. They believe that the body is in the burned out building because of the overall circumstances (details in link) but what's left of the building is still too hot to safely enter & search (still may be some unexpended ammo inside, etc).

No question a valid concern & the right approach, but having the body identified will help with short-term closure.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/12/us/lap...html?hpt=hp_t1


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-...cop-recovered/
w01 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 01:01   #428
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,330
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Low_Speed View Post
I don't know if showing them the bottom of your shoe has a similar meaning and history as the N-word. But if it does....probably so. You ask a Muslim how he feels about it after you do it. If in 30 seconds you're still standing upright it may not bother him. If he knocks you on your behind you know not to do it again.

Show people the respect you'd want and you wouldn't have to worry about it.
Can white folks who get called "crackah" or "white boy" respond in the same fashion? How about an Asian that gets called "Jackie Chan" or "Jet Li" wherever he goes? Or a Jew that gets called "Shylock" or "Kike"? We don't hear about these things too much because the media and PC left tell us that only certain people have a right to be offended.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TBO View Post
Feinstein and Boxer Ask Californians to Lay Down Their Weapons During Statewide Manhunt

(PP)- As an ex-Los Angeles police officer killed three people and went on a deadly shooting rampage in a vendetta to punish those he attributed for his firing, California Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer pleaded for calm, and asked both law enforcement and civilians to lay down their weapons.

http://www.palookavillepost.com/2013...ewide-manhunt/
All fake, and the editor of Palookaville responded as best he could about it. But it doesn't sound too far from reality, does it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
Drone, RPG, or hell a 55 gallon drum of diesel dropped from the police airship.

Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
A whole 155mm Howitzer battery and a Spectre Gunship with all BOFORS on go should do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuneyBooney View Post
If the guy was as slick as reported he may not be dead. He may come back like a zombie..just like the movies. e really won't know for at least a week.
Shoot the head!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 01:11   #429
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarCry View Post
You're insane if you think police shouldn't be allowed to answer deadly force with deadly force.

Even if they did intend to burn him alive, why is that worse than a sniper bullet to the head?
Are you telling me that a suspect that previously was alleged to have used deadly force becomes a justified target for deadly force by police absent an immediate threat to those police? In other words, even if the suspect isn't at that moment a threat (as in pointing a gun at YOU) that you can still kill him? While I think he did kill himself (pure opinion) and the burning actions were ultimately inconsequential, this is kind of a microcosm of this new policy that's popping up where the Powers That Be, local to federal, can just execute people based on past behavior or perceived threat level without any due process as prescribed by the law and the Constitution.
G19G20 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 01:16   #430
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,330
Blog Entries: 1
No, cops do not become executioners just by virtue of someone having killed cops and have stated overtly they plan to kill more cops. That has no bearing on declaring open season the guy. That doesn't happen.

What does happen is that you don't take any chances and you err on the side of caution so that if it came down to it and you had a choice to make, you do whatever it takes for you to go home.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 01:29   #431
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawman800 View Post
No, cops do not become executioners just by virtue of someone having killed cops and have stated overtly they plan to kill more cops. That has no bearing on declaring open season the guy. That doesn't happen.

What does happen is that you don't take any chances and you err on the side of caution so that if it came down to it and you had a choice to make, you do whatever it takes for you to go home.
Oh that "officer safety" thing I keep hearing about. Seems you can justify most anything as long as you claim "officer safety" once police start burning down houses with people inside. That's a scary precedent in the wrong hands and historically leads to cases where the wrong people are targeted or politically "unpopular" are exterminated. Don't get me wrong, I understand why it went down like it did in Big Bear. Im no moron. But I worry for the long term picture when things like that become policy and cops and gov't are able to convince themselves that such policies are fair and constitutional.
G19G20 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 01:31   #432
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Copper View Post
"copy, seven (7) burners deployed and we have a fire"

Is that what you're referring to?

If I'm not mistaken a burner is also some type of CS gas? As someone else noted here, a better expert can speak on this.
My understanding is that a "burner" is an incendiary grenade launched from an M79 launcher. Anybody can correct me if Im wrong here.
G19G20 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 01:36   #433
Ohio Copper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: In the hood
Posts: 3,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Oh that "officer safety" thing I keep hearing about. Seems you can justify most anything as long as you claim "officer safety" once police start burning down houses with people inside. That's a scary precedent in the wrong hands and historically leads to cases where the wrong people are targeted or politically "unpopular" are exterminated. Don't get me wrong, I understand why it went down like it did in Big Bear. Im no moron. But I worry for the long term picture when things like that become policy and cops and gov't are able to convince themselves that such policies are fair and constitutional.

If you can show me where ANYTHING you stated is policy anywhere; please advise.

EVERY INCIDENT IS DIFFERENT! That is why so many of us question DETAILS! Because it is nearly impossible for us to come to a conclusion without as many facts and circumstances as we can gather and I see that our inquisitive nature 'bothers' some folks, to say the least.

Law enforcement is a life saving facet of every community. Deadly force is utilized in the preservation of life including the lives of others, when there are no other options.

If you can come up with better answers, you are more than welcome to go ahead and sign up and start a hiring process somewhere.
Ohio Copper is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 01:39   #434
Ohio Copper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: In the hood
Posts: 3,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
CS munitions are of two types. The heat-producing variety are called "burners" in some places.

Took me some looking but I knew I saw it somewhere in this post.

Sam, please advise and enlighten our mutual acquaintance.
Ohio Copper is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 01:39   #435
WarCry
Senior Member
 
WarCry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IL, on the banks of the Muddy River
Posts: 7,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Are you telling me that a suspect that previously was alleged to have used deadly force becomes a justified target for deadly force by police absent an immediate threat to those police? In other words, even if the suspect isn't at that moment a threat (as in pointing a gun at YOU) that you can still kill him? While I think he did kill himself (pure opinion) and the burning actions were ultimately inconsequential, this is kind of a microcosm of this new policy that's popping up where the Powers That Be, local to federal, can just execute people based on past behavior or perceived threat level without any due process as prescribed by the law and the Constitution.
You really seem to have no concept of what you're talking about. When I turned on the news this afternoon, it was about an ongoing GUN FIGHT with the suspect.

If they were being shot at and the assailant stopped to reload, by your definition he's not an "immediate, at-that-moment" threat, so they all need to lower their weapons and wait for him to reload, right?

This guy was in active contact with the police, leaving one more dead and another in surgery. What, pray tell, is YOUR definition of an "immediate, at-that-moment" threat? Because personally, I think you're just looking for any reason to bash on cops.
__________________
"If you have something to say, now would be a perfect time to keep it to yourself." --Col. Chester Phillips
"If you believe everything you read, better not read." --Japanese proverb
WarCry is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 01:43   #436
Ohio Copper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: In the hood
Posts: 3,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Are you telling me that a suspect that previously was alleged to have used deadly force becomes a justified target for deadly force by police absent an immediate threat to those police? In other words, even if the suspect isn't at that moment a threat (as in pointing a gun at YOU) that you can still kill him? While I think he did kill himself (pure opinion) and the burning actions were ultimately inconsequential, this is kind of a microcosm of this new policy that's popping up where the Powers That Be, local to federal, can just execute people based on past behavior or perceived threat level without any due process as prescribed by the law and the Constitution.
See Tennessee v. Garner among others.


If a guy shoots at me, misses and then runs away; am I to not shoot back at him? Is he not still a threat?

You are wading in waters that are well over your head, sir and I suggest that you head towards shore.
Ohio Copper is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 01:47   #437
dano1427
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 800
Based upon his behavior, accused crimes, and potential armament, incl. a .50 barrett, an RPG, grenades, etc, burning him out was a valid and brilliant decision.
dano1427 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 01:55   #438
lawman800
Juris Glocktor
 
lawman800's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Out the frying pan & into the fire!
Posts: 37,330
Blog Entries: 1
I'm not going to add to this... you guys have covered it for me. No need to further dignify the response to something that I didn't say but was misinterpreted to fit his own views.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueiron:
I've said it before and I'll say it here: they'd look better with lividity.
lawman800 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 02:24   #439
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio Copper View Post
See Tennessee v. Garner among others.


If a guy shoots at me, misses and then runs away; am I to not shoot back at him? Is he not still a threat?

You are wading in waters that are well over your head, sir and I suggest that you head towards shore.
That's all great and whatnot but whenever it becomes acceptable to burn houses with people inside (see: Waco) because they are an alleged and perceived threat, we have crossed the rubicon as a society that believes in the rule of law and have moved into Judge Dredd territory.

Im sorry but if you joined the police force and suddenly find yourself in a situation "too dangerous" to follow the rule book (you did say such things aren't policy) in ending the standoff with a suspect then you probably shouldn't be police. Plus there's a prohibition against something called "cruel and unusual punishment". Burning someone alive is what radical muslims do. Are you ok with doing what they do to address a problem?

Last edited by G19G20; 02-13-2013 at 02:33..
G19G20 is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 03:34   #440
Ohio Copper
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: In the hood
Posts: 3,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
That's all great and whatnot but whenever it becomes acceptable to burn houses with people inside (see: Waco) because they are an alleged and perceived threat, we have crossed the rubicon as a society that believes in the rule of law and have moved into Judge Dredd territory.

Im sorry but if you joined the police force and suddenly find yourself in a situation "too dangerous" to follow the rule book (you did say such things aren't policy) in ending the standoff with a suspect then you probably shouldn't be police. Plus there's a prohibition against something called "cruel and unusual punishment". Burning someone alive is what radical muslims do. Are you ok with doing what they do to address a problem?
Sir, do you have anything of substance or merit to back any of that up?


In either case, did they douse the dwelling in gasoline and set it ablaze? Or was it a direct result of their failure to comply given the situation and that the police made attempts to resolve the situation using less-lethal means?


Maybe we can play some Sting over a PA system and they'll give up??

Your first sentence tells me a lot and I'm afraid you're a little bit too deep.
Ohio Copper is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 03:37   #441
DustyJacket
Gold Membership
Directiv 10-289
 
DustyJacket's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Missouri, East of KC
Posts: 5,987
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
My understanding is that a "burner" is an incendiary grenade launched from an M79 launcher. Anybody can correct me if Im wrong here.
Not incendiary.
2 types of gas grenade.

One "pops" open and scatters tear gas dust (or liquid). It does not produce a lot.

The other type burns like a smoke grenade and produced a large volume of tear "gas" (dust actually, or particles). You need that volume to chase someone out of a building, cave, whatever, or to disperse a large crown outdoors. That is a "burner".

There is a risk that a burning smoke grenade or burning tear gas grenade can start a fire if used in a flammable structure.
__________________
"...our quick technology allows use to indulge our deepest stupidity and tastelessness with out first thinking...."

Last edited by DustyJacket; 02-13-2013 at 03:54..
DustyJacket is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 03:52   #442
jdavionic
NRA Member
 
jdavionic's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 11,820
Well my Dad used to tell -
"when you begin to think you're invincable is when you're most likely to get beat down."

He used to have a similar saying about work - "when you begin to think you're irreplacable at work, you're most likely to get fired."

It's sad another officer lost his life. Hopefully Dorner is done. His acts have resulted in the deaths of 4 people with others facing a struggle to recover.
__________________
- JD

"No matter how bad it gets, if you're still alive it's just another bad day."
jdavionic is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 04:34   #443
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,529
Quote:
This message is hidden because G19G20 is on your ignore list.
Whatever you said, am absolutely certain it was wrong and no adult with normal intelligence shares your point of view.

Actually, from what I can see others quoting above, you don't know much about law...yes, Dorner can be shot by a police officer (not by a civilian) while running away, just to prevent him from escaping, even if he throws down his guns and isn't an immediate threat.

As Ohio Copper said, Tennessee v. Garner. Garner, by the way, made the rule stricter, because when officer Hymon of the MPD shot Garner in 1985, Tennessee law allowed the police to shoot anybody to keep them from getting away and the Supreme Court narrowed it down to people who had presented some deadly force threat to the officer or others.

What the law allows is deadly force and it's just as legal to do it by burning the house as by shooting (with regard to Garner - as to the owner of the house, it's less clear).
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.

Last edited by Bren; 02-13-2013 at 07:26..
Bren is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 04:49   #444
2wheelDuke
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
Whatever you said, am absolutely certain it was wrong and no adult with normal intelligence shares your point of view.

Actually, from what I can see others quoting above, you don't know much about law...yes, Dorner can be shot by a police officer (no by a civilian) while running away, just to prevent him from escaping, even if he throws down his guns and isn't an immediate threat.

As Ohipo Copper said, Tennessee v. Garner. Garner, by the way, made the rule stricter, because when officer Hymon or the MPD shot Garner in 1985, Tennessee law allowed the police to shoot anybody to keep them from getting away and the Supreme Court narrowed it down to people who had presented some deadly force threat to the officer or others.

What the law allows is deadly force and it's just as legal to do it by burning the house as by shooting (with regard to Garner - as to the owner of the house, it's less clear).
Actually it wasn't just anybody but any fleeing felon, hence the burglar being shot. Since then, it's been restricted to fleeing felons that are posing a distinct danger to the public.
2wheelDuke is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 05:19   #445
4949shooter
Senior Member
 
4949shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: New Jersey Republik
Posts: 12,807


Well, I guess I was wrong, he wasn't froze to a tree.

It's more like the opposite.
__________________
"...the men under your command deserve your leadership."-OXCOPS
4949shooter is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 06:12   #446
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 20,786
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
My understanding is that a "burner" is an incendiary grenade launched from an M79 launcher. Anybody can correct me if Im wrong here.
As stated, it refers to a CS projectile that disperses the powder with heat. Yes, it carries a risk of fire, not a certainty.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 06:57   #447
Cav
Senior Member
 
Cav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The Great State of Texas
Posts: 2,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Are you telling me that a suspect that previously was alleged to have used deadly force becomes a justified target for deadly force by police absent an immediate threat to those police? In other words, even if the suspect isn't at that moment a threat (as in pointing a gun at YOU) that you can still kill him? While I think he did kill himself (pure opinion) and the burning actions were ultimately inconsequential, this is kind of a microcosm of this new policy that's popping up where the Powers That Be, local to federal, can just execute people based on past behavior or perceived threat level without any due process as prescribed by the law and the Constitution.
In the Great State Of Texas, if you are deemed a threat and used deadly force, than you shall be hunted down and met with deadly force. Yes, we can shoot people in the back as they flee, just like shooting at a vehicle that flees. Dont mistake America to all liberal states or all like CA.

Do you think a prision lets a convicted serial killer run away? Or do they take that 100 to 300 meter shot at his back?

Do you feel Police should let people escape when there are odds they will harm others? I mean if kill 50 people at a mall, and then drop your gun and then try to escape in car, do you not think that police will try to ram your car and use deadly force to stop you? Do you not think police will shoot at you to stop you?

Yes, you can become a target for deadly force, and in some states the Police dont even have to say "Freeze Police, Drop the Gun", we can just pull the trigger and stop the threat in some cases.
__________________
We need more restrictions on the 1st Amendment and less on the 2nd Amendment.
Cav is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 07:00   #448
spcwes
Senior Member
 
spcwes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
My understanding is that a "burner" is an incendiary grenade launched from an M79 launcher. Anybody can correct me if Im wrong here.
No sir you are incorrect and your understanding must come from video games. "Burners" are a term I have heard used for any grenade gas or smoke that uses heat to conduct. We used the same for CS grenades while in the Army. But yea you are just reaching.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Oh that "officer safety" thing I keep hearing about. Seems you can justify most anything as long as you claim "officer safety" once police start burning down houses with people inside. That's a scary precedent in the wrong hands and historically leads to cases where the wrong people are targeted or politically "unpopular" are exterminated. Don't get me wrong, I understand why it went down like it did in Big Bear. Im no moron. But I worry for the long term picture when things like that become policy and cops and gov't are able to convince themselves that such policies are fair and constitutional.
During the entire time he was in the cabin and right before there was a sustained gunfight. He shot two law enforcement officers a few hours prior to him being killed and one of those died at the least not sure on the other. You are reaching again trying to paint law enforcement as the fault in this case. This man was a murderous POS and has now killed what 5 people? With guns?

Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
That's all great and whatnot but whenever it becomes acceptable to burn houses with people inside (see: Waco) because they are an alleged and perceived threat, we have crossed the rubicon as a society that believes in the rule of law and have moved into Judge Dredd territory.

Im sorry but if you joined the police force and suddenly find yourself in a situation "too dangerous" to follow the rule book (you did say such things aren't policy) in ending the standoff with a suspect then you probably shouldn't be police. Plus there's a prohibition against something called "cruel and unusual punishment". Burning someone alive is what radical muslims do. Are you ok with doing what they do to address a problem?
You are just assuming based on ignorance (lack of knowledge) that they burned this guy alive lol. Here let me get some tinfoil out real quick before we go further.

Did you have anything and I mean anything that would show proof there was a fire set intentionally by law enforcement? Do you know or not if the suspect started a fire?
__________________
"We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American perception that each individual is accountable for his/her actions." -Ronald Reagan-
spcwes is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 07:31   #449
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2wheelDuke View Post
Actually it wasn't just anybody but any fleeing felon, hence the burglar being shot. Since then, it's been restricted to fleeing felons that are posing a distinct danger to the public.
You are wrong. "Fleeing felon" was probably the MPD's policy, but not the law. Tennessee law said "any means" necessary could be used to stop any fleeing person who was being arrrested:

Quote:
In using deadly force to prevent the escape, Hymon was acting under the authority of a Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. The statute provides that “[i]f, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest.” Tenn.Code Ann. § 40–7–108 (1982).5 The Department policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute, but still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. App. 140–144. The incident was reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm's Review Board and presented to a grand jury. Neither took any action. Id., at 57.

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 4-5 (1985)
After the Garner decision (5 years after) they finally changed the statute to add the Garner standard:
Quote:
(a) A law enforcement officer, after giving notice of the officer's identity as an officer, may use or threaten to use force that is reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual suspected of a criminal act who resists or flees from the arrest.
(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the officer may use deadly force to effect an arrest only if all other reasonable means of apprehension have been exhausted or are unavailable, and where feasible, the officer has given notice of the officer's identity as an officer and given a warning that deadly force may be used unless resistance or flight ceases, and:
(1) The officer has probable cause to believe the individual to be arrested has committed a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily injury; or
(2) The officer has probable cause to believe that the individual to be arrested poses a threat of serious bodily injury, either to the officer or to others unless immediately apprehended.
(c) All law enforcement officers, both state and local, shall be bound by this section and shall receive instruction regarding implementation of this section in law enforcement training programs.Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-7-108 (West)
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.

Last edited by Bren; 02-13-2013 at 07:35..
Bren is offline  
Old 02-13-2013, 08:11   #450
txleapd
Hook 'Em Up
 
txleapd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: TX
Posts: 6,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
Are you telling me that a suspect that previously was alleged to have used deadly force becomes a justified target for deadly force by police absent an immediate threat to those police? In other words, even if the suspect isn't at that moment a threat (as in pointing a gun at YOU) that you can still kill him? While I think he did kill himself (pure opinion) and the burning actions were ultimately inconsequential, this is kind of a microcosm of this new policy that's popping up where the Powers That Be, local to federal, can just execute people based on past behavior or perceived threat level without any due process as prescribed by the law and the Constitution.
Continuing Threat

Look it up.
__________________
1911 Club #75
Kahr Club #286
Lone Star Glockers #919


"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity” Sigmund Freud

Last edited by txleapd; 02-13-2013 at 08:12..
txleapd is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:05.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,268
326 Members
942 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42