Soju

Was shooting a Sig SP2022, and damn the double action pull was the longest trigger pull ever.

I I'd imagine for similar reasons that people comply with illegal laws. Because there are potential repercussions if you don't. Or maybe just out of routine compliance. I'm not exactly sure but whatever the reason, apparently logic was not part of it.

I got murdered with the questions about dates and numbers. I have never found them (specifically) to be that important, so didn't bother to learn them. The Texas President question was a trap! I dropped the ball on the last amendment being ratified in '92. But hey, I got the number of states correct!

I've held off so far!

What he said. (post above mine). There is money in prohibition, that is why it is pushed. The only way they like things legal is monopolizing them, but even that can be less profitable.

So tempted.................

Indeed, and that was my point. Quite ironic really. I wasn't saying one thing was better than the other, more so just illustrating how sometimes it doesn't matter what you do, you might be effed. It is reasons like this and the Jose Guerena incident (as examples) why I am entirely against executing a warrant by means of force. Serve the warrant. If after it has been served, and they are not compliant, and you have no option but to use force..okay. If someone is known to be in immediate danger..okay. But using it as a first option is stupid, and dangerous for the residents and police both.

I have never heard this ad, and was tempted to look it up until I realized it has potential to be that loathing sound that makes people want to punch babies. I didn't know something could be so terrible. I wish all the unfortunate souls who have been subjected to such noise well being. Kars for Kids sounds terrible.

The flip side is A) You assume it's a bad guy with chain saw. You shoot. It is a bad guy. The threat is stopped. Life goes on for you. B) You assume it's incompetent FBI. It isn't. Bad guy kills you. You wait for 'full target identification', meanwhile the bad guy doesn't and kills you. In a situation like this, you can either hope it is Law Enforcement, they have made a mistake, and let you live, or you can defend yourself against whoever it may be, and instead of leaving your life entirely up to chance, be prepared to defend yourself. One thing is for sure. Whatever way you look at it, it is a shitty situation, and there is no guarantee to your safety.

No, that was sarcasm.

I agree. After all, with many of our amendments already being taken away, why not just get rid of the 6th along with them. Who needs them anyways. Better we charge someone criminally with exercising them rather so other people in the future will think twice about wanting to have rights!

Apparently it wasn't $26k, but only $6k. Still a pretty big chunk of change.

I am not sure you where you are reading that account of the incident. Can you share a link? Because the article I read said nothing similar to that. And his suit is about much more than that. What part of the warrant-less search and seizure, and destruction of his property did you miss? And as you are confused about PTSD and it's triggers, I'll give you a link so you can inform yourself on it. Please read what it says in my link more carefully then your reading of the initial article/post. http://ptsd.about.co...ervigilance.htm

Not everybody is as big of a Pokemon expert as you Pete!

Not entirely accurate from my understanding. That may often be the case, but it doesn't have to be. You can be charged with the same offense state and federally due to this notion of a 'duel sovereignty'. A good example I read, was being charged with murder by the state, but being acquitted by a biased jury, and then being charged federally so that there is a 'fair' trial. I could be wrong however, as what you say makes logical sense. It is because it makes logical sense why I'm thinking it could be wrong!

I thought that too...but after re-reading, it was the dog OWNER who shot and killed the upset neighbor! The guy that was upset about the dog crap is the one who was killed. Even more crazy isn't it!

It was suppose to be end of the year. Then it turned into end of January. Now end of February. Soon it will be end of March... And the winter has been so mild with a lack of snow you would think any reasonable projected time line could actually have them AHEAD of schedule. But of course that wouldn't make sense...

Unfortunately it is generally thought that way, regardless of any legal basis. I know for a fact that some states have explicitly stated that it is NOT reasonable suspicion. However I also know that at the very least, other agencies, such as the Philly PD, have said that it IS. Isn't that just great to hear!... Indeed. And for good reason too (like stated above). Truly unfortunate that it is this way.

If it clearly doesn't apply to this case, then why did you mention it in this thread? And why would your initial response to him be all of two words. So you clearly didn't state that initially, yet you knew what he was referring to (as you admit here), and still posted such a [un]detailed response anyways....clearly you had an agenda.

I know you are joking, but still. I can't support a particular part of the Bill of Rights without supporting them all, as much as I may agree with you.

I thought for sure you must be mistaken. But when I looked it up, turns out, you are right! How messed up is it that the Supreme Court would actually rule that it is okay to be charged twice for the exact same crime, if one is federal and one is state!?! What part of the 5th Amendment is that in? But I guess that is no different then them somehow interpreting "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd Amendment to mean it is okay to infringe it. Way to go Supreme Court, bunch of cronies.

What does the defendant not testifying have to do with it? Or that the defense called no witnesses? I would think that if the defense actually tried to make a case, and they still got a guilty verdict, that it would be just as strong, if not stronger. But I digress. Shooting a person in the head three times and being found guilty of murder seems reason enough. Life w/o parole? Anything less would also be a crime!

It is reasons like this why people are uncooperative and seem to act rude toward police. He tries to do the right thing, and in turn, gets arrested, his house ransacked by criminals, who kill his fish and steal his stuff, amongst other things. And sometimes the officers on this forum often don't understand the resentment toward police on a general level. I know there to be many good officers, and would like to assume the ones on this forum are not like the ones in this story. I have complete respect for the guys and gals who serve with honor. Unfortunately I have no respect for the ones who don't. The ones who abuse their authority. The ones who think wearing a badge and gun grant them extra rights. The ones who don't care about our rights. It is unfortunate that for the most part, you hear about the latter more often than the former. This gives a potentially distorting impression of police on a broad level. It is also unfair to those who act proper because of such. To those officers, I am sorry if my opinion of police is not so great. My resentment is not toward you. It is toward the criminals like in this incident. People always say "well this is just one side of the story", and things of that nature. This is true. There is the possibility that things happened differently. However I can only form an opinion, and operate under the assumption that said story is accurate. If it is inaccurate, most comments from anybody wouldn't be valid, so please don't hold it against us. He should sue for much more than 500k. I wish that there were DA's and prosecutors with the balls to actually charge officers who engage in police misconduct such as this, with criminal charges, rather than leaving the only form of recourse to the individual with a civil lawsuit. By one can dream.

Can't speak for the other services, but the Air Force one...all true.

Yep, that is it. Immediately assume everyone is a criminal. That's the ticket. From the audio I heard, Mark Fiorino had more reason to draw down on the cop than the cop did to draw on him! If saying he is going to effin kill him unless he listens, while giving him conflicting instructions, is not a threat, and you imply that drawing until determined the guy is not a threat, than what is the difference? Oh right, one wears a badge. Silly me applying the same logic to a mere citizen. Those people don't have or need rights...