«12. . .2,2562,2572,2582,2592,2602,2612,262. . .2,5132,514»
It look like trafficking in the bodies of children-including children killed post-viability-is not the domain solely of Planned Parenthood, but of the federal government as well.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/15/federal-government-caught-buying-fresh-flesh-of-aborted-babies-who-could-have-survived-as-preemies/
Outside of any policy matters, I feel no moral compulsion whatsoever for a government seeking to disarm me 'for the sake of the children' while happily engaging in this level of horrific unrestrained barbarism.
The full 500+ pages of FOIA are here.
https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/JW-v-HHS-Humanized-Mice-FDA-prod-3-00876.pdf
Reading through them is half surreal, half sickening. Watching people just cheerily chat about work and work-related issues, give FedEx tracking numbers, complain about their internet not working well, act eminently normal while directly discussing trafficking in murdered children, including, explicitly, viability-age children, is deeply twisted. Evil rarely comes in a black cape, but in people convincing themselves that depravity is normal and routine: or just not caring at all.
My lib (like most) community college sent out a dumbass email to everyone a bit after that one guy was shot by the cop (the black guy resisting arrest who got shot after pointing the taser back at police) telling us how distraught they are. I dont care. Dont resist arrest and dont fight police: they wouldn't have cared if it was a white man. If you guys didnt hear, a woman cop accidentally shot a black dude when she mistook her gun for a taser, they temporarily relieved her of her duties or something, and they are trying to charge her with manslaughter. I think that is crap too: he was fighting. If someone is fighting, you can kill them. She would've just been being nice by using a taser. And, she warned him she would tase him several times. But he is a black man. So it's all about race.
On the other hand, the cop who shot the woman at the US Capitol riot in the hallway didnt get in trouble and we dont know who he is (whether she was committing a crime by crawling through a window, she was not fighting and was unarmed, unlike these pieces of sh*t).
ANTIFA and BLM burn down cities and innocent peoples private property and they dont get in trouble at all. They hardly ever use lethal force on those people
The bolded is where I have a problem. I'm in general agreement on many of these cases being manipulatively or even outright falsely reported on (Michael Brown 'hands up don't shoot' is probably the biggest example, when by witness testimony that never happened and he was trying to take the cop's gun), but 'if someone is fighting, you can kill them' is a very bad standard to have. Lethal force is limited to cases in which there is an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, not just any kind of scuffle. Wright's shooting in Minneapolis was far more his doing than anyone else's, he would be safe and alive today if he had not chosen to fight a lawful arrest, but the lethal shot still only happened by accident and would not have been justified if it had been intentional, he was not a lethal threat. (As it stands, I think a manslaughter charge is within the realm of reason, if certainly on the harsher side, I think by all available context the incident is worthy of employee discipline but most likely not a cell, certainly not a felony/homicide charge.)
Likewise, the shooting of Babbitt was wholly unjustified, for the exact same reason: she did not pose a lethal threat, less threatening than Wright was, for that matter. The differences in reactions, both media and legal, to the two cases are driven basically exclusively by politics, and we're only going to see things continue to get worse as that kind of imbalanced coverage and messaging drives division.
Post by The Confederacy of Beastland suppressed by 
New Dolgaria.
I was watching her body cam, and in all honesty I think it would be better not to have female cops (because of physical characteristics of course). In the video, 2 male cops were talking to the dude first and struggling with him, probably because she couldn't. Though I am not sure, I would imagine she had her hand on her gun while they were wrestling around in there in case the dude started posing a real threat (Let's remember that to any advocates of gun control: women need guns to protect themselves against stronger men), and then when she walked up to the car to help she probably just forgot to move her hand from the gun to the taser. A male cop who can handle men better might feel less stressed and not have to feel like he has to go for his taser as quick or something (because all she could do was use a weapon: she couldn't handle men if they are resisting (without a weapon))
Even if a person is resisting arrest, the officer in question had the ability to use a less lethal amount of force. Police are trained to de-escalate the situation, if they can. She'd been on the force for over 20 years, that wasn't any rookie mistake. Nothing in the footage I saw indicated that he pointed a taser back at the officers. As with what 
Roborian said, merely "fighting" is no justification for killing someone. If that was the case, we wouldn't bother to detail the different levels of murder/manslaughter/homicide by different mental states. The charge against the officer is reasonable, given the statute in Minnesota on second degree manslaughter:
609.205 MANSLAUGHTER IN THE SECOND DEGREE.
A person who causes the death of another by any of the following means is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree and may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than ten years or to payment of a fine of not more than $20,000, or both:
(1) by the person's culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another
It's not about "being nice," it's about de-escalating a situation so the cops don't get an excessive force lawsuit on them that costs tax-payer money. Many cops go their whole careers without ever having to draw their gun. If a situation can be resolved without drawing a firearm, that's better for the cop and the person being apprehended. With the trial of Derek Chauvin going on at the same time, this is the last thing that police department wants.
As for not caring if a white person got shot, look at the Portland shooting of a white man having a mental health crisis. There's plenty of outrage about it. https://www.opb.org/article/2021/04/16/portland-police-shooting-lents-park/
If someone is resisting arrest, a police officer has the right to use the minimum necessary force. No farther. Looking for an excuse to shoot and/or kill someone shows a disregard for the value of human life. And I'm in this region because I believe human life is valuable.
As for Kim Potter, I believe she genuinely mistook her gun for her taser. That doesn't mean she should be let off easy. A man is dead because of that mistake. Manslaughter sounds like an appropriate charge, since it refers to an intentional action that unintentionally killed someone.
Almost all of the high-profile cases in recent memory—Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Laquan McDonald, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile—have involved male police officers. If anything, female cops are more likely to defuse the situation before it turns into a physical encounter (which is never desirable if it can be avoided). Female cops are an anomaly for shootings and excessive force situations, which are incidents that no one wants to happen anyway. The post also makes it seem that female cops (or FBI agents, ATF agents, etc.) are trained to a lesser degree than their male counterparts. If someone can get through police academy, male or female, then they've demonstrated that they can adapt to conditions that an average citizen couldn't without proper training. Police are supposed to be oriented to a community/guardian role, not a warrior mindset.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/us/rarity-of-tulsa-shooting-female-officers-are-almost-never-involved.html
As for your first post, I wasn't referring to the woman: it was a previous time on tape when a male cop shot another black dude when the black dude pointed the taser back at the cop while trying to resist arrest. Notice the first source you used isn't very popular and the 2nd is the NY Times, which has become a liberal propaganda outlet: in other words, there was no outrage by the mainstream media. In fact, I just went onto Google (whose algorithim is manipulated in favor of libs) and there were almost no mainstream reports on it (actually I couldn't find any, but maybe you can if you try hard)
Your second post: that is probably (definitely) because almost all cops are men. And I believe 11 people have been accidentally shot that way y cops since 1999.
It isn't just resisting arrest. It was about pointing the taser in the first case and fighting in the second
And I wasn't saying she made the mistake because she was a woman. I'm just saying I think there may have been less of a chance
The Portland shooting happened today, so using a local outlet makes sense on a developing story. Here's a more "mainstream" piece for those who haven't read up on it.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/16/portland-police-shooting-park
It's a police shooting, so there's already people ready to protest about the matter. The mayor has visited the scene and issued a statement.
Citation/evidence for the statement, please?
The FedEx shooting by a mentally disturbed 19-year old male shows 1) A non-adult should not be in possession of a lethal weapon, and 2) Red flag laws should be implemented.
https://m.startribune.com/cases-in-which-a-service-pistol-is-mistaken-for-a-taser-are-rare/600045269/?clmob=y&c=n
Sorry, lost connection. You are right, they were all by men, but they are very very rare (this says 11 since 1999) and there are a lot more male cops. I am not saying she did that because she was a woman.
19 is an adult. Red flag laws should not be implemented: that is totally unconstitutional, taking away someone's constitutional rights because anyone suspects something. Take a break from the Trevor Noah/CNN, buddy
I looked specifically for it on Google after you made that statement, typing in "CNN" and other major news outlets and nothing came up from CNN or other mainstream news. You are wrong, my friend. They may report on it, but it will be on the opposite side if so. Kind of like how they rarely cover shootings of majority-white churches, especially not when people with guns stop the shootings
Post self-deleted by The Confederacy of Beastland.
Oh so my posts are being censored. I dont get why that one is censored at all. I think I sense something.
I will apply for citizenship so I can vote whenever the next "Regional Moderator" elections come up.
I am going to read into your guys' constitution and things.
You’re welcome to apply for citizenship on our off-site forums. Our constitution and regional laws are there also. Some of the regional ministers, like myself, have admin powers that may include the ability to suppress posts.
As mentioned, the shooting had just occurred and the story was developing at the time.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/16/us/portland-protest/index.html
This may be somewhat ironic given the link, but I don’t listen to Trevor Noah and my “news diet” generally doesn’t include CNN.
Yeah, I know it does. That's why I said I would like to vote for someone else: you wrongfully suppressed my posts. In 7 days I'll be a citizen
Not the type of report that would've come if the man was black. Not that I care about race (I'm not a racist: that's the point. I dont like racism against anyone, including whites)
I think that the police shooting we just had here in Chicago of a thirteen-year-old with a gun (who by best available evidence tossed the gun aside moments before being shot) shows that even in a state with extremely strict gun control, including mandatory universal gun licensing and background checks, that desire for things to be a certain way does not make them so when faced with criminality.
I think that the key word here is "consciously", and by best available evidence, that does not apply here. It appears, from what we currently know, that the officer believed that she was using a weapon, the Taser, that would not have a significant chance of causing death or great bodily harm, the use of the gun was unconscious, as evidenced by both her shouting "Taser, taser, taser!" and her reaction after shooting him. Had she drawn the gun intentionally and accidentally pulled the trigger, I think that there would be a better case for "conscious" negligence because the choice would have been made to bring to bear a deadly weapon, but that was not the case here: I think she is innocent of the charge as written, and fairly clearly so.
I have suppression powers but I didn’t suppress your post. New Dolgaria chose to do that
«12. . .2,2562,2572,2582,2592,2602,2612,262. . .2,5132,514»
Advertisement
