Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

"Todd" wrote in message

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

A great shot!

Here's another...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw


--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 06:18:16 -0500, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"Todd" wrote in message

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

A great shot!

Here's another...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw

While that is a great feat, the balloon could not shoot back at him
nor did he have the pressure the cop had.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:52:47 -0800, Todd wrote:

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

One hundred yards, not 300.
And dammed irresponsible. He should have moved in closer and
dismounted. The horse could have moved, he could have shot a civilian
bystander. Stuuuupid.
And the "bad guy" was a better shot. Although he fired over
100 rounds, he was very careful not to harm anyone. No one was even
grazed, not even from a ricochet. Now THAT is good shooting.
But I agree with the outcome. Best place for right wingers is
in a grave. They are a bad influence.
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012

On 12/6/2014 8:19 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:52:47 -0800, Todd wrote:

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

One hundred yards, not 300.
And dammed irresponsible. He should have moved in closer and
dismounted. The horse could have moved, he could have shot a civilian
bystander. Stuuuupid.
And the "bad guy" was a better shot. Although he fired over
100 rounds, he was very careful not to harm anyone. No one was even
grazed, not even from a ricochet. Now THAT is good shooting.
But I agree with the outcome. Best place for right wingers is
in a grave. They are a bad influence.
[]'s


Also says he was holding the reins of two horses, stabling them, but
apparently not on top of one of them. Still a good shot but maybe just
a lucky one.

Todd,

No, more like 100 yds. Still 100yds with a pistol if he trains at that
distance is a good shot. If he doesn't train at that distance it's a lucky
shot.

Dave M.

Shadow wrote in :

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:52:47 -0800, Todd wrote:

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

One hundred yards, not 300.
And dammed irresponsible. He should have moved in closer and
dismounted. The horse could have moved, he could have shot a civilian
bystander. Stuuuupid.

Todd got two things wrong, and you spotted only one (feet vs. yards). The other one: there's
nothing in the news story that said he was mounted at the time. He was coming off his shift
and putting the horses in the stable. The story specifically says he was "holding the reins of
two horses" which is not something you typically do while riding one of them. "Stabling the
horses" implies that he was *on foot*, leading the horses into the stable -- probably had one
set of reins in each hand when the shooting started, and transferred one set to the other
hand so he'd have his gun hand free.

Speaking of "Stuuuuupid", you also missed the time of day this took place. Probably not
too many "civilian bystanders" at 2:30 in the morning.

And the "bad guy" was a better shot. Although he fired over
100 rounds, he was very careful not to harm anyone. No one was even
grazed, not even from a ricochet. Now THAT is good shooting.

Of course not -- all the buildings he was shooting at were unoccupied because it was the
middle of the night.

But I agree with the outcome. Best place for right wingers is
in a grave. They are a bad influence.

The story describes the shooter as a "long-time criminal", which means he's a liberal.

And you're a dolt.

David Martel wrote:
Todd,

No, more like 100 yds. Still 100yds with a pistol if he trains at
that distance is a good shot. If he doesn't train at that distance
it's a lucky shot.

Dave M.

Even if he's been training at that range , it's a very lucky shot . I
MIGHT be able to do that with a TC Contender with a 14" bull barrel and a 4X
scope over sandbags ... and I'm considered a pretty good shot with a handgun
..

--
Snag

"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
David Martel wrote:
Todd,

No, more like 100 yds. Still 100yds with a pistol if he trains at
that distance is a good shot. If he doesn't train at that distance
it's a lucky shot.

Dave M.

Even if he's been training at that range , it's a very lucky shot . I
MIGHT be able to do that with a TC Contender with a 14" bull barrel and a
4X scope over sandbags ... and I'm considered a pretty good shot with a
handgun .

Shooting at 100 yards with a handgun is not all that hard if you shoot very
much. This was just a chest shot. When I was shooting regulary and could
see beter I could hold my 357 and 22 cal revolvers in about 6 inches at 50
yards and most of the time I could hit one of the skeets laying on the berm
about 3 out of six shots shooting off hand with open sights. At the gun
club I would go to the skeet range and pick up unbroken skeets and then set
them up on the handgun and rifle ranges and shoot at them. The first time I
shot at a bowling pin some one had left at the range at 100 yards it took me
5 shots as I had to walk the shots to it as I was sighted in at 25 yards.
Those 357 rounds drop a lot more than I thought.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 06:18:16 -0500, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"Todd" wrote in message

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

A great shot!

Here's another...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw

While that is a great feat, the balloon could not shoot back at him
nor did he have the pressure the cop had.

No horse either. Still, hitting a balloon at 1000 yards with a handgun is
a skill to be admired

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On 12/06/2014 03:18 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"Todd" wrote in message

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/


A great shot!

Here's another...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw

Oh my! Like shooting a mortar. Noticed the guy used a
golf cart instead of walking it.

On 12/06/2014 08:00 AM, dadiOH wrote:
"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 06:18:16 -0500, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"Todd" wrote in message

Wow!


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/


A great shot!

Here's another...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw

While that is a great feat, the balloon could not shoot back at him
nor did he have the pressure the cop had.

No horse either. Still, hitting a balloon at 1000 yards with a handgun
is a skill to be admired


1+

On 12/06/2014 06:04 AM, David Martel wrote:
Todd,

No, more like 100 yds. Still 100yds with a pistol if he trains at that
distance is a good shot. If he doesn't train at that distance it's a lucky
shot.

Dave M.

Ya, I goofed the yards vs feet. And holding the
reins of two horses, not sitting on to of one.
Still, as extraordinary shot

On 12/06/2014 06:38 AM, Terry Coombs wrote:
David Martel wrote:
Todd,

No, more like 100 yds. Still 100yds with a pistol if he trains at
that distance is a good shot. If he doesn't train at that distance
it's a lucky shot.

Dave M.

Even if he's been training at that range , it's a very lucky shot . I
MIGHT be able to do that with a TC Contender with a 14" bull barrel and a 4X
scope over sandbags ... and I'm considered a pretty good shot with a handgun

I would have been able to make that at 100 yards with
my .45 under ideal circumstances (no adrenaline, perfect
lighting, etc.), but its still would have been a very
lucky shot. You can get rifle like accuracy with some
properly tricked out handguns. (I do not believe his
..40 was tricked out.)

On 12/06/2014 05:19 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:52:47 -0800, Todd wrote:

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

One hundred yards, not 300.

I goofed yards vs feet

And dammed irresponsible. He should have moved in closer and
dismounted. The horse could have moved, he could have shot a civilian
bystander. Stuuuupid.

And how many other people could have been killed while he
moved closer. You are not thinking this through. He was
shooting at a backstop: the ass hole. And he obviously had
a "clear shot".

And the "bad guy" was a better shot. Although he fired over
100 rounds, he was very careful not to harm anyone. No one was even
grazed, not even from a ricochet. Now THAT is good shooting.

You open fire in a public place like that and no one -- police
training or not -- is expected to see what you are shooting
at before defending themselves and the general public. What
the ass hole did was extremely stupid.

But I agree with the outcome.

1+

Best place for right wingers is
in a grave. They are a bad influence.--

Ever been to a Tea Party rally? Very peaceful. Nice
friendly people too. And they clean their trash up
after themselves

Left wingers on the on the other hand, act like pigs.
The "occupy movement" for instance. Your knee is
jerking and you are not thinking things through.

On 12/06/2014 07:09 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
bowling pin

:-) No light loads either!

"Todd" wrote in message
...
I would have been able to make that at 100 yards with
my .45 under ideal circumstances (no adrenaline, perfect
lighting, etc.), but its still would have been a very
lucky shot. You can get rifle like accuracy with some
properly tricked out handguns. (I do not believe his
.40 was tricked out.)


It probably was a lucky shot,but sometimes you just shoot in their general
direction to get their mind off shooting and for them to take cover.

Most likely he was shooting a Glock if a 40cal and not that well sighted in.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:19:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote in


Shadow wrote in :

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:52:47 -0800, Todd wrote:

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

One hundred yards, not 300.
And dammed irresponsible. He should have moved in closer and
dismounted. The horse could have moved, he could have shot a civilian
bystander. Stuuuupid.

Todd got two things wrong, and you spotted only one (feet vs. yards). The other one: there's
nothing in the news story that said he was mounted at the time. He was coming off his shift
and putting the horses in the stable. The story specifically says he was "holding the reins of
two horses" which is not something you typically do while riding one of them. "Stabling the
horses" implies that he was *on foot*, leading the horses into the stable -- probably had one
set of reins in each hand when the shooting started, and transferred one set to the other
hand so he'd have his gun hand free.

Speaking of "Stuuuuupid", you also missed the time of day this took place. Probably not
too many "civilian bystanders" at 2:30 in the morning.

+1
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

On 12/06/2014 11:51 AM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Todd" wrote in message
...
I would have been able to make that at 100 yards with
my .45 under ideal circumstances (no adrenaline, perfect
lighting, etc.), but its still would have been a very
lucky shot. You can get rifle like accuracy with some
properly tricked out handguns. (I do not believe his
.40 was tricked out.)


It probably was a lucky shot,but sometimes you just shoot in their general
direction to get their mind off shooting and for them to take cover.

Most likely he was shooting a Glock if a 40cal and not that well sighted in.


You make good points.

The thing about a .45 is that there is no end to
the customization. If I am not mistaken, other
than rubber grips, Glock's as an as is weapon.
I could be wrong.

And, I know I misread a lot of the original article,
but the officer only took one shot. I don't know what
was going through the officer's mind, but my mind would
have been terror over protecting the public. And
knowing if I missed, he would have probably turned his
superior weapon on me.

I would love to know if the officer has ever shot
competition.

On 12/06/2014 11:56 AM, CRNG wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:19:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote in


Shadow wrote in :

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:52:47 -0800, Todd wrote:

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

One hundred yards, not 300.
And dammed irresponsible. He should have moved in closer and
dismounted. The horse could have moved, he could have shot a civilian
bystander. Stuuuupid.

Todd got two things wrong, and you spotted only one (feet vs. yards). The other one: there's
nothing in the news story that said he was mounted at the time. He was coming off his shift
and putting the horses in the stable. The story specifically says he was "holding the reins of
two horses" which is not something you typically do while riding one of them. "Stabling the
horses" implies that he was *on foot*, leading the horses into the stable -- probably had one
set of reins in each hand when the shooting started, and transferred one set to the other
hand so he'd have his gun hand free.

Speaking of "Stuuuuupid", you also missed the time of day this took place. Probably not
too many "civilian bystanders" at 2:30 in the morning.

+1



You guys don't have enough information to make that
judgment. The ass hole had fire more than 100 round
before the officer took his shot. Everyone around the
ass hole would have run for cover, leaving a clear
shot at the ass hole. But, the news report did not
go into that, so not enough information.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:51:04 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Todd" wrote in message
...
I would have been able to make that at 100 yards with
my .45 under ideal circumstances (no adrenaline, perfect
lighting, etc.), but its still would have been a very
lucky shot. You can get rifle like accuracy with some
properly tricked out handguns. (I do not believe his
.40 was tricked out.)


It probably was a lucky shot,but sometimes you just shoot in their general
direction to get their mind off shooting and for them to take cover.

Most likely he was shooting a Glock if a 40cal and not that well sighted in.


You missed the "most likely"! "Johnson used a department issued Smith
and Wesson M & P .40 pistol. (Smith and Wesson)".

On 12/06/2014 01:03 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:51:04 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Todd" wrote in message
...
I would have been able to make that at 100 yards with
my .45 under ideal circumstances (no adrenaline, perfect
lighting, etc.), but its still would have been a very
lucky shot. You can get rifle like accuracy with some
properly tricked out handguns. (I do not believe his
.40 was tricked out.)


It probably was a lucky shot,but sometimes you just shoot in their general
direction to get their mind off shooting and for them to take cover.

Most likely he was shooting a Glock if a 40cal and not that well sighted in.


You missed the "most likely"! "Johnson used a department issued Smith
and Wesson M & P .40 pistol. (Smith and Wesson)".


Hi Oren,

Are these known for their accuracy or just their
ability to pump out a lot of lead?

-T

On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 13:09:47 -0800, Todd wrote:

On 12/06/2014 01:03 PM, Oren wrote:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:51:04 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"
wrote:


"Todd" wrote in message
...
I would have been able to make that at 100 yards with
my .45 under ideal circumstances (no adrenaline, perfect
lighting, etc.), but its still would have been a very
lucky shot. You can get rifle like accuracy with some
properly tricked out handguns. (I do not believe his
.40 was tricked out.)


It probably was a lucky shot,but sometimes you just shoot in their general
direction to get their mind off shooting and for them to take cover.

Most likely he was shooting a Glock if a 40cal and not that well sighted in.


You missed the "most likely"! "Johnson used a department issued Smith
and Wesson M & P .40 pistol. (Smith and Wesson)".


Hi Oren,

Are these known for their accuracy or just their
ability to pump out a lot of lead?

I think M & P is military and police models

Gosh, you guys figure it out. Velocity, trajectory - impact!

I can hit a swinging cast iron skillet at 25 yards. I'm good.

On Sat, 06 Dec 2014 07:48:46 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 06:18:16 -0500, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"Todd" wrote in message

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

A great shot!

Here's another...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ3XwizTqDw

While that is a great feat, the balloon could not shoot back at him
nor did he have the pressure the cop had.

There both great shots. If I were the cop, I wouldn't have felt much
pressure, because even if I were a good shot, I'd figure there was no
way I'd hit him anyhow.

On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 14:19:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Shadow wrote in :

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:52:47 -0800, Todd wrote:

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

One hundred yards, not 300.
And dammed irresponsible. He should have moved in closer and
dismounted. The horse could have moved, he could have shot a civilian
bystander. Stuuuupid.

Todd got two things wrong, and you spotted only one (feet vs. yards). The other one: there's
nothing in the news story that said he was mounted at the time. He was coming off his shift
and putting the horses in the stable. The story specifically says he was "holding the reins of
two horses" which is not something you typically do while riding one of them. "Stabling the
horses" implies that he was *on foot*, leading the horses into the stable -- probably had one
set of reins in each hand when the shooting started, and transferred one set to the other
hand so he'd have his gun hand free.

Speaking of "Stuuuuupid", you also missed the time of day this took place. Probably not
too many "civilian bystanders" at 2:30 in the morning.

And the "bad guy" was a better shot. Although he fired over
100 rounds, he was very careful not to harm anyone. No one was even
grazed, not even from a ricochet. Now THAT is good shooting.

Of course not -- all the buildings he was shooting at were unoccupied because it was the
middle of the night.

But I agree with the outcome. Best place for right wingers is
in a grave. They are a bad influence.

The story describes the shooter as a "long-time criminal", which means he's a liberal.

Talk about stoooopid, look in a mirror.


And you're a dolt.

On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:52:47 -0800, Todd wrote:

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

I'd be surprised if the guy committed suicide moments after he'd been
shot. If I were shot, the last thing I'd be thinking about is suicide.

Seriously, doesn't getting seriously hurt awaken the involuntary desire
to live that seems innate in everyone?

On 12/06/2014 07:05 PM, micky wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:52:47 -0800, Todd wrote:

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

I'd be surprised if the guy committed suicide moments after he'd been
shot. If I were shot, the last thing I'd be thinking about is suicide.

Seriously, doesn't getting seriously hurt awaken the involuntary desire
to live that seems innate in everyone?


Hi Micky,

You would think!

There is not enough information yet. They think "maybe"
he did.

I got to wondering if this wasn't "death by cop" (suicide).
"Supposedly" he shot the place up but didn't hit anyone.
The not enough information thing again.

-T

Todd wrote in :

I got to wondering if this wasn't "death by cop" (suicide).
"Supposedly" he shot the place up but didn't hit anyone.
The not enough information thing again.

There was plenty of information given, but you appear to not have read very much of it.
OF COURSE he didn't hit anyone -- it was two thirty in the morning!

On 12/07/2014 06:43 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
Todd wrote in :

I got to wondering if this wasn't "death by cop" (suicide).
"Supposedly" he shot the place up but didn't hit anyone.
The not enough information thing again.

There was plenty of information given, but you appear to not have read very much of it.
OF COURSE he didn't hit anyone -- it was two thirty in the morning!


Never saw an information about the occupants of the building
he was shooting into.

On 12/07/2014 09:51 PM, Todd wrote:
On 12/07/2014 06:43 AM, Doug Miller wrote:
Todd wrote in :

I got to wondering if this wasn't "death by cop" (suicide).
"Supposedly" he shot the place up but didn't hit anyone.
The not enough information thing again.

There was plenty of information given, but you appear to not have read
very much of it.
OF COURSE he didn't hit anyone -- it was two thirty in the morning!


Never saw an information about the occupants of the building
he was shooting into.

At that hour of the morning there still must have been enough
of a crowd that the police need mounted patrols. They never
filled that part of the story in.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 08:46:11 -0800, Todd wrote:

There was plenty of information given, but you appear to not have read
very much of it.
OF COURSE he didn't hit anyone -- it was two thirty in the morning!


Never saw an information about the occupants of the building
he was shooting into.

At that hour of the morning there still must have been enough
of a crowd that the police need mounted patrols. They never
filled that part of the story in.

Todd,

This is Austin, TX. The only democrat county in the entire state ?

"Austin is the self-proclaimed "live music capital of the world" and
the people of Austin reflect a friendly, accepting culture of artistic
and individual expression that maintains the city as a vibrant and
eclectic creative center and haven for an LGBT community, intellectual
community, community of naturalists and environmentalists, and for
subcultures and people(s) who are not mainstream. In a mostly
conservative Texas, Austin is "Weird" because of that and because it
continues to be liberal and progressive politically, socially, in
culture, in the arts and in music, among other things. "Keep Austin
Weird" moves beyond a mere slogan, to reflect the dynamics that
encompass Austin."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Austin_Weird

....bunch of hippies

On 12/08/2014 11:15 AM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2014 08:46:11 -0800, Todd wrote:

There was plenty of information given, but you appear to not have read
very much of it.
OF COURSE he didn't hit anyone -- it was two thirty in the morning!


Never saw an information about the occupants of the building
he was shooting into.

At that hour of the morning there still must have been enough
of a crowd that the police need mounted patrols. They never
filled that part of the story in.

Todd,

This is Austin, TX. The only democrat county in the entire state ?

"Austin is the self-proclaimed "live music capital of the world" and
the people of Austin reflect a friendly, accepting culture of artistic
and individual expression that maintains the city as a vibrant and
eclectic creative center and haven for an LGBT community, intellectual
community, community of naturalists and environmentalists, and for
subcultures and people(s) who are not mainstream. In a mostly
conservative Texas, Austin is "Weird" because of that and because it
continues to be liberal and progressive politically, socially, in
culture, in the arts and in music, among other things. "Keep Austin
Weird" moves beyond a mere slogan, to reflect the dynamics that
encompass Austin."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keep_Austin_Weird

...bunch of hippies


Probably why the shooter's bullets did not hit anyone:
they veered away in revolution. :-D

On Saturday, December 6, 2014 10:05:38 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:52:47 -0800, Todd wrote:

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

I'd be surprised if the guy committed suicide moments after he'd been
shot. If I were shot, the last thing I'd be thinking about is suicide.

Seriously, doesn't getting seriously hurt awaken the involuntary desire
to live that seems innate in everyone?

Did it awaken Michael Brown in Ferguson?

On 12/08/2014 02:01 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Saturday, December 6, 2014 10:05:38 PM UTC-5, micky wrote:
On Fri, 05 Dec 2014 20:52:47 -0800, Todd wrote:

Wow!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/12/05...crazed-gunman/

I'd be surprised if the guy committed suicide moments after he'd been
shot. If I were shot, the last thing I'd be thinking about is suicide.

Seriously, doesn't getting seriously hurt awaken the involuntary desire
to live that seems innate in everyone?

Did it awaken Michael Brown in Ferguson?


The kill shot was to the top of the head. Kind a hard
to do when someone is standing in front of you with their
hands up. Maybe Brown was sleep walking and tripped, lunging
at the officer with his hands out? (When the truth doesn't
matter.)

On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 14:01:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Seriously, doesn't getting seriously hurt awaken the involuntary desire
to live that seems innate in everyone?


No, not exactly.

Did it awaken Michael Brown in Ferguson?

No. He did have a choice in his behavior.
--
'bout to show me a city slicker how to kick it in the sticks with the critters - Brantley Gilbert

On 12/08/2014 02:25 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 14:01:21 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

Did it awaken Michael Brown in Ferguson?

No. He did have a choice in his behavior.


Well stated.

On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 10:08:07 -0800, Todd wrote:

The Garner and excessive use of force is a decent description.
Kind of sounds like it was excessive. But the grand jury
did not think so, so I will have to defer to them as that
is the way the system is suppose to work.

.... I choked a Nigerian Prince at work, defending myself. Sued for
brutality by him. Faced Civil Rights Violation (CRV) charges but he
dropped the case and the Feds refused to bring CRV via the local
federal prosecutor.

In the Garner case, the officer had other CRV cases. He may be a 'hot
head'

_The NYPD Cop Who Put Eric Garner In A Chokehold Has A History Of
Allegedly Violating Black Men's Rights_

Read mo
http://www.businessinsider.com/nypd-...#ixzz3LQUd50ta

Choke 'em if ya got 'em
--
"People who worry about crocodiles are smart!" -Joe Machi

Doug Miller wrote:

"The story describes the shooter as a "long-time criminal", which means he's a liberal.

And you're a dolt. "

Typical right-wing stereotyping: 'Liberals are all criminals'. And nice name-calling!

'Course I also blame the media for brainwashing ya.

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:34:51 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

"The story describes the shooter as a "long-time criminal", which means he's a liberal.

And you're a dolt. "

Typical right-wing stereotyping: 'Liberals are all criminals'. And nice name-calling!

'Course I also blame the media for brainwashing ya.

Warning! That does not compute. Error detected. Your logic is faulty.
Saying all long-time criminals are liberals does not equate with
saying that all liberals are criminals. A BMW is a car, not all cars are
BMWs. Most liberals are easily confused, so you are excused.

Now, IDK what percentage of long-term criminals are liberals, but there
is every reason to believe that they would favor being liberal. After all,
it's the libs that want to understand them, empathize with them, make
excuses for them, give
them light sentences, believe that anyone can be rehabilitated, etc.
Hillary for example, just the other day said we should "try to understand" and "empathize" with our enemies. I think criminals like that kind of viewpoint.

On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 8:47:57 AM UTC-5, trader_4 wrote:

Now, IDK what percentage of long-term criminals are liberals, but there
is every reason to believe that they would favor being liberal. After all,

Nah.

Most criminals are there because they sell drugs. Selling drugs is only profitable because drugs are illegal. If they were not illegal pot would be $1.79 a pound like tomatos. Criminals would never want drugs decriminalized or legalized, because then their profit center disappears. They would vote conservative if they were allowed to vote.

Also most criminals beat on their spouses, and that tends to be more of a concern to liberals than conservatives, though not exclusively of course.