6/05/2010 5:21pm, #41
BTW these larcenies from vehicles have become a major problem as of late (they have ALWAYS happened..just more often). For gods sake, lock your cars and don't leave valuables visible in your car. Ipods, GPS, Laptops, Cash, and even laptops, WALLETS?? and PURSES?? have been left in unlocked cars overnight around here and then the victims cry and complain when they are stolen.
6/05/2010 5:54pm, #42
6/05/2010 6:08pm, #43
Tell it to the dumbass politicians though:
The New York Post has just reported that Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson [D.-Bedford Stuyvesant] and Darryl Towns [D.-East New York] have introduced a “minimum force” bill that would require officers to “shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg” and to use firearms “with the intent to stop, rather than kill.”
6/05/2010 7:07pm, #44
6/05/2010 8:11pm, #45
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
6/05/2010 11:53pm, #46
I do wonder how Elmore will respond to his entire article (from 12/09) being copied here, since like many Randroid wackos he considers his copyrights on par stealing TVs from his house or something.
6/06/2010 6:31am, #47"Out of every hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back." -- Hericletus, circa 500 BC
6/06/2010 6:37am, #48
We know from Klecks work that simply showing you are armed ends the problem over 2 million times a year. So its really not such a bad idea.
The flaw in your logic comes down to the issue of "control." Let me give you a classic example, the cops controlled Rodney King, right?
A beat down is not professional and does not fall under the context of "control." You need to be VASTLY superior to control someone, rather than beating the crap out of them. You have to be EVEN MORE vastly superior to do so without injury to the other person. NO ONE is going to control three people, unarmed. Not going to happen. Kick the crap out of them, possible, but again, in the vast number of cases "Oh look, he has a gun" stops things very quickly.
In this ONE case it did not, in 2 million others it did."Out of every hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back." -- Hericletus, circa 500 BC
6/06/2010 6:39am, #49
6/06/2010 6:45am, #50
First, he decided it was ok to steal from another what they had earned with the sweat of his own brow. Without due process of law. I always find it amusing when someone now wants to talk about the punks rights, when he himself FREELY CHOSE to live outside of those rights. He was in the very act of denying those rights to others. Simply put, "Thou shall not steal."
Having made a lifestyle choice to live outside the rules of our republic, he finally got caught by someone who was not going to put up with it. Now, did he run away? Did he wait for cops to fight the good fight later? Nope, the charged the guy with the gun. Do you think he was running up there for a group hug?
At this point, after years of bad choices, the biggest one to NOT live inside the law, Darwin took over and the law of the jungle took effect.
His choice, his life. I have no tears for him.