On 1 Mar 2000 06:26:12 -0600, Sunder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Reese wrote:
>>
>
>> >Actually, there's no evidence that Yabbadabbadoo Diallo "refused to talk"
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Was that really necessary? Why not just "Diallo?"
>
>IMHO Tim seems to subconsciously need to self-defeat his point. Or wants the
>"PC" crowd to wail in horror at his writings. In either case, fuck the PC
>crowd. :)
>
>> >I know what _I'd_ think was going down if I was entering my home late at
>> >night and four black guys approached me and started screaming....
>>
>> Especially in NYC,,,
>
>No shit.
>
>> What may be needed is for some survivalist to whack a complete swat squad
>> on a no-knock entry, when they burst through the wrong door - and have the
>> case go to the supreme court. It'd be a living hell for the "survivalist"
>> though,,,
>
>I don't think the poor survivalist would even survive the encounter. At that
>point, they'd probably plant some drugs on the body after they pump a few
>hundred rounds up his ass. Still if he manages to take out more than one cop,
>I'd say it would be a win.
Not really. After all, if he was a survivalist, then he must have been up
to something.
( the sheeple's view, not mine)
>> Police Officers wear a uniform to provide a _visible_ presence, that very
>> presence being a deterrant to the criminally minded in society. Those 4
>> were in some other category and should not have been doing flatfoot work.
>
>Bottom line: police are here to protect the citizenry from criminals, not to
>shoot them. They are there to TAKE A BULLET for innocents, not allow the
>innocents to be shot by their fire. Sure a cop's life is important and
>protecting it is important, but not at the price of standerby's.
Wrong. The police are here to enforce laws and arrest people. They have
no legal obligation to protect. It'd be nice if it really were that way,
but it isn't.
