Obvious

Translation: No rebuttal.

My pleasure. here is you admitting you made "what if" scenarios. other hypothetical what if scenarios that was incorrect: Glad we could get those lies of you never saying "what if" in this thread out of the way.

So now you're backpeddling agreeing with laws. "Don't kill people unless they're trying to kill you." Both articles that were posted showed that he shot the first cop who never shot at him, and didn't have a dog. The cop wasn't trying to kill him. He jumped out the car and shot the cop and ran. The second cop was shot 8 times, which is obviously overkill with a shotgun. There was a case out here of a cop out here in L.A. that shot a guy who was on leave from Iraq. They were pulled over for speeding and there was a short chase.. He was in the passenger seat. I saw the tape. Dude was laying on the ground and kept saying he was in the military and was on the cop's side. The cop told him to get up. So he said "okay, I'm getting up." As he got up, the cop shot him. I strongly opposed the cop's actions. When I heard he lost his job and was put on trial, I was glad. The difference between me and you is that I look at the SITUATION and only the situation, and I try to determine who is right and who is wrong -- you just look at who's the cop and who isn't, and then you automatically take the side of the person that isn't the cop.

I don't have to trust you. I already stated numerous times that you're biased against all cops. Thanks for agreeing with me. You didn't put your bias aside. You just admitted you're "biased as fuck when it comes to cops." You don't just tuck that type of hatred away in a heartbeat. It's deeply rooted in you and it seeps out in all of your posts. I can't be more biased than you because I've already made posts condemning cops actions. But if I feel the "suspect" is wrong then I'll condemn him. You on the other hand have not, and will not ever condemn a person for doing anything bad to a cop. So far 100% of your posts go against cops, and mine is more 50/50...

You don't know where obvious begins and end. You're the same idiot that said the founding fathers of this nation wanted "freedom" from laws. You're the same idiot that said Canada doesn't benefit economically from the U.S. You're throwing out wild guesses and you've missed badly.

If you're older than many of us (I'm in my early 20's), and you think shit like "freedom" in the constitution means "free from having laws," and you think Canada doesn't benefit economically from the US, then you are possibly the saddest, sheltered idiot alive. There are 7th graders with more knowledge and experience than you.

You could very well be the dumbest person to ever post here. And I mean that with all sincerity. Laws existed in the U.S. when it was founded. Law enforcement existed during the founding of the U.S.... the same people that founded the U.S. wrote law and order into the books. Law was here before you were born and will be here after you die. Quit cryin. "Freedom" in the constitution never meant living in a society free from laws. It meant freedom to practice your own religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, a free press, etc. -- not to live in a society free from any laws, you fucking moron. I mean I can't believe you don't know this, this is shit you learn in like 8th grade. Are you even paying any attention in school? I was half-ass Middle School and even I remember this.

What fucking planet are you on? I have asked cops for directions and they simply gave directions. Not once did they ask for my ID or look for warrants. What parrellel universe is your space cadet goofy ass livin in?

You're the most biased scumbag idiot here. I'm going by what was said. If I was biased then why did I agree a couple weeks ago with your other "hate cops" thread where the dude was tazed. On that thread I thought you were simply an unbiased person talking about a random incident. But after reading more of your posts, it's evident you're far from unbiased, and you have a deep hatred for any authority, to the point of obsession. You are an obsessed, psychotic, hate-filled faggot. Do yourself a favor and call up your local psychiatric facility in regards to your obsessive compulsive behavior. Again, if a cop was with his son and was shot in a drive by just for being a cop, what would your thought on that be? Would you blame the cop and his son?

You're a fucking idiot. That's why you keep posting idiotic posts and more lies. When you're defeated and have no reply, you just call that person a cop. Fuck you and I hope you get killed while running in public with a shotgun while you're practicing "self defense."

Another lie. Go back a couple pages in this thread. You were saying "what if" every other post. The majority of what you said was hypothetical and not facts.

The "law" is part of real life. But you don't seem to recognize the law. In your world rules should be based on your subjective view of "common sense." And because you are a moron, your version of common sense is about as common as a black Muslim joining the KKK. You're either very young and thus inexperienced despite a "know it all" stance on life, or you're very stupid -- or both! With time you will begin to understand. Hopefully.

That says it all. You're gonna sit here and say you're looking at both sides of the coin when in fact you're a biased, hating, one-sided idiot. You're lying when you say no cop ever protects anyone. Many dudes that held innocent hostages and were about to execute them were killed by cops. Rapists who planned to rape more women and child molesters who planned to rape more children were stopped because of cops. That is a form of protecting and preventing further incidences. But your blind biased hatred is too deep to allow you to see that. Seriously, did you get fucked by a cop in the ass? Did a cop kill a loved one of yours? There must be some reason why your hatred is so strong that it causes you to say the most illogical bullshit ever contrived.

Thanks for posting this. This is even better, because both stories show it wasn't self-defense. It shows that the dude fled his car AND shot at the cop (Spiers). Not only does it show that the dude shot FIRST, but no dog was "sicked" on him at the time, because Spiers didn't have a dog, so --->'s argument goes directly out the window. Then later, after the other cop (Williams) went to search in the woods (not "sicked") with his dog, the guy shot the cop and the dog, who never fired on him. Not to mention the cop was shot EIGHT TIMES. Obviously not a case of self-defense. So all of --->'s arguments of him shooting because a dog was "sicked" on him not only go out the window but it wasn't even true.

It's common when someone has no rebuttal to simply say "what are you talking about?"

Yeah I notice that. What's with --->'s countless hypothetical 4th grader "what if" situations. People that say "what if" in an debate usually have no valid facts to base shit on.

Are you sure you're not an idiot? Because accusing anyone that takes a neutral stance and will sometimes back a cop if he feels is right as being a "cop" is a bitch-move cop-out that only an idiot would do.

You have not looked at both sides of the coin. You are completely biased, and your extensive history of "kill all cops" type threads and posts prove that. I have yet to see you claim the cop sicked the dog on the shotgun wielding fool in self defense. I have yet to see you condemn the dude for shooting the dog and cop (you simply say "i'm not saying it's right", but you haven't said it was wrong either). I think I can say I'm more "neutral" than you because on your "hate cops" about the taser I agreed with you. In this case I'm not. Because I look at the "situation" itself, not who wears a uniform and who doesn't. You simply just take the side of anyone who is against the cop. You made up your mind the minute you read the thread title. If a cop was minding his business with his son at the playground, and someone just did a drive-by on the cop and his son you'd automatically blame the cop and praise the drive-by shooter. You are what is known as a scumbag. You say he had to "preserve" his life, but where did you get the idea that a german shepherd kills people? They're only designed to take down a person violating the law. Once that is done, the cop calls the dog back and arrests him. Him being a cop has nothing to do with it, or "cancelling" it out. We're "condemning" him because it was HE that escalated the situation that led to him getting chased by the dog (and eventually being killed). If, in this situation, the cop, unprovoked, just randomly shot this dude for no reason, then yes, we'd all agree that this cop deserves to rot in prison. But that didn't happen. The cop was just doing his job and did nothing wrong. He didn't violate this person's rights. A person wielding a shotgun and running is a potential danger to society and it is the cop's job to apprehend him.

Graff ain't got shit to do with it, moron. Most of the people I know that write illegally don't think in the backwards way you do. Stop kissing ass just because you finally had someone come to your aid. Makes you seem desperate.

You're slowly trying to backpeddle. You initially made it sound like the cop was just a random "armed man" who chased an innocent person for no reason at all. Now you're repeating what I explained to you, such as admitting the cop is only doing his job, even though you said he "pressed the issue" as if the cop is being nosy and should mind their own business if someone has a shotgun. Of course he's going to "press the issue" that's his job, otherwise he'd get reprimanded by his superiors. So basically you're repeating what I'm saying but trying to pass it off as it's what you've been saying all along. As for the rest of the garbage, how do you know he was going to "spend the rest of his life" in prison? It could've been a 6 month or a year sentence.

Disagree with everything said here.

So how come you haven't admitted the cop was defending himself. A dude shoots your dog and will probably shoot you. As a cop, or anyone, you wouldn't shoot him first?

That's not always true. Statistics show that a sizable percentage of idiots that run during a routine traffic stop have no warrants for their arrest, and either run out of anger and don't want to pay, thinking they'll get away or could have psychological issues. Your "common sense" obviously isn't that common. Common sense is just paying the speeding ticket, or just spending some time in jail, and not pulling out a shotgun over a traffic stop and then claiming "self defense." You have the most backwards case of "common sense" ever. I guess you put out water with fire and go for touchdowns in basketball games too.

You are so dense and retarded, it's amazing. Of COURSE he was being chased -- he RAN, dumbass. Why do you think he got chased? Do you think he got chased while he sat in his car while stopped, listening to the cop? Or do you think the dude grabbed his shotgun and took off, which INITIATED the chase? It's ALWAYS the "suspect" that does something to initiate getting chased. Cops don't go around chasing innocent pedestrians for no fucking reason, unless in rare cases it's due to mistaken identity. Cops chase following the person's decision to run. And yes, you're now not saying the dude was "right" because you realize you're making yourself look like a fool, so you're backtracking a little on your stance. Figures. Even an ignoramus like you that think all cops should die has to admit that you started off on the wrong foot. Again, I'm going to ask you -- what prompted the officer and the dog to chase him? The dude didn't magically teleport 30 yards away due to divine intervention. He MADE THE DECISION to run, and by then, all bets are off. You're fair game to get your ass chased. If I get stopped by the cops and I decide to run, I expect to get chased. If I sit in the car and accept the ticket then I don't get chased. It really is that simple. But to you this shit is advanced calculus.

There needs to be written law to base our actions on, because if there was no written law then basing "self-defense" on "common sense" will always remain subjective and open to twisting and turning. Anyone who kills anyone will be able to claim "self-defense" for anything. Although I don't agree with everything in the law, the fact is much of the law is based on "common sense." The fact that you can only claim "self-defense" when you're attacked unprovoked (meaning not initiating or escalating or situation) makes perfect sense to me. The dude who ran with the shotgun not only initiated the situation by grabbing a shot gun and running, but he escalated it from the traffic violation to ultimately killing the dog and the cop. Do you think ANY of that would have happened if he just sat in the car and took the ticket (or if he had a warrant, just submitted)? Of course not. It's a good thing you're not in charge because society would be total anarchy.