Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If this standoff were to end with LEO raiding and killing some/all the militiamen, how would that be any different, from a procedural perspective, than what happened to Eric Garner? Tamir Rice? John Crawford?
The argument that LEO has used to defend their killings, and the argument that Conservative voices accept and repeat, boils down to these three points:
Fact #1: What the victim is doing appears to be illegal.
Fact #2: They are disobeying direct orders from LEO.
Fact #3: They could be dangerous.
Would Conservative media hold these militiamen to the same standards that they hold others to, or would they denounce LEO?
If this standoff were to end with LEO raiding and killing some/all the militiamen, how would that be any different, from a procedural perspective, than what happened to Eric Garner? Tamir Rice? John Crawford?
The argument that LEO has used to defend their killings, and the argument that Conservative voices accept and repeat, boils down to these three points:
Fact #1: What the victim is doing appears to be illegal.
Fact #2: They are disobeying direct orders from LEO.
Fact #3: They could be dangerous.
Would Conservative media hold these militiamen to the same standards that they hold others to, or would they denounce LEO?
LEO cannot use lethal force to prevent a non-violent crime.
1) Are they doing anything illegal? Burning any buildings, looting businesses, destroying property? At worst they might be disrupting the 2 people a month that might go to the refuge. Not like they are shutting down interstate highways, blocking businesses or occupying public parks or private malls.
2) Moot point since, AFAIK they have not been given any direct orders from LEO.
If this standoff were to end with LEO raiding and killing some/all the militiamen, how would that be any different, from a procedural perspective, than what happened to Eric Garner? Tamir Rice? John Crawford?
The argument that LEO has used to defend their killings, and the argument that Conservative voices accept and repeat, boils down to these three points:
Fact #1: What the victim is doing appears to be illegal.
Fact #2: They are disobeying direct orders from LEO.
Fact #3: They could be dangerous.
Would Conservative media hold these militiamen to the same standards that they hold others to, or would they denounce LEO?
If even one hair on their heads is harmed, you know it's going to be Obama's fault.
If this standoff were to end with LEO raiding and killing some/all the militiamen, how would that be any different, from a procedural perspective, than what happened to Eric Garner? Tamir Rice? John Crawford?
The argument that LEO has used to defend their killings, and the argument that Conservative voices accept and repeat, boils down to these three points:
Fact #1: What the victim is doing appears to be illegal.
Fact #2: They are disobeying direct orders from LEO.
Fact #3: They could be dangerous.
Would Conservative media hold these militiamen to the same standards that they hold others to, or would they denounce LEO?
No. The government killing white people in an election year is usually not awfully popular. And, as we all know, patriotism is very, very white. Dark is the color of insurrection and terrorism.
White=patriot. Dark=terrorist. Got it? Test during fifth period.
It really makes no difference if they come out riding in a Cadillac or bagged and tagged in the back of a NWS pickup truck. Their lunatic supporters are going to hold them up as martyrs no matter what.
If this standoff were to end with LEO raiding and killing some/all the militiamen, how would that be any different, from a procedural perspective, than what happened to Eric Garner? Tamir Rice? John Crawford?
The argument that LEO has used to defend their killings, and the argument that Conservative voices accept and repeat, boils down to these three points:
Fact #1: What the victim is doing appears to be illegal.
Fact #2: They are disobeying direct orders from LEO.
Fact #3: They could be dangerous.
Would Conservative media hold these militiamen to the same standards that they hold others to, or would they denounce LEO?
Your OP is dishonest. A conservative believes in a small government especially at the Federal level.
Your facts are made up nonsense.
I'm not "conservative" but I'll answer anyway. I look at who is initiating force. Which person was the first to bring violence into a non-violent situation? That person or group is the bad guy.
If they are breaking the law, they should be arrested. If they are arrested and resist arrest and/or point a weapon at officers and the officer shoot and kill them as a result, then it would be just as tragic as any shooting by a police officer is. If you do not resist arrest, there is no reason for a police officer to draw his weapon.
We don't need another Ruby Ridge or Waco, Texas. Since both events happened under a democrat administration, it is very possible that we will see the same result here.
No. The government killing white people in an election year is usually not awfully popular. And, as we all know, patriotism is very, very white. Dark is the color of insurrection and terrorism.
White=patriot. Dark=terrorist. Got it? Test during fifth period.
It really makes no difference if they come out riding in a Cadillac or bagged and tagged in the back of a NWS pickup truck. Their lunatic supporters are going to hold them up as martyrs no matter what.
Vicki Weaver was murdered by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi during an election year.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.