Charlotte NC, Police shoot and kill man seeking help after wreck - Page 4
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 92

Thread: Charlotte NC, Police shoot and kill man seeking help after wreck

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    I was actually getting ready to post an updated message about an article I just found about the information you just referenced. However the information you just referenced was just released last night, which was after my last post.
    Absolutely wrong. What BigSlick referenced (actually quoted from) was from the first link in the thread, the one in the OP. That article was last updated on Sept. 16, which means it may well have been first published even before that.

    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    My last post was on articles I had read from the original time of the incident which was a week ago. Based on the information they released at that time I stand behind what I said.
    You made the above statement yesterday, 9/22/13. The OP article was written no later than 9/16/13. That's six days. The two reports linked in this thread, which is what everybody but you is going by, only says that the accident happened "over the weekend." That would put the accident on either the 14th or the 15th, and both the stories linked in this thread were published on Monday, 9/16.

    So tell us what information that is so divergent from the two accounts in the two linked articles you were drawing from? Because the information we're all going on was from six days before the post in which you said you scrutinized info a "week ago," and based on that info at the time, you would still stand by your conclusions. One of those conclusions was, "I honestly can find more fault with the "victim" than I can the officer." No matter what info you were going off of, you came to the conclusion that the dead man was only worthy of being called a victim if you put it in quotation marks. So when an unarmed man comes to you for help when you're out there just "doing your job," is your report after you shot him dead going to be that he was a suspect or a "victim" with the dismissive quotation marks left intact?

    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    However, as you said, his police chief is now saying that it is evident from the video that he was "clearly unarmed".
    BigSlick didn't say any such thing, and where did you get the information that there's a video of the incident? I'm not saying there's not, I'm asking where you got that info, because you didn't get that from BigSlick's post as you said you did.

    And please, don't try to slough this off as you're just not as good as me or anyone else at saying what they mean. If you've pulled info out of your butt just to make some unknown "point," at least own up to it, but short of that much integrity, don't exacerbate the faux pas by making weak excuses for it.

    I freakin' knew it would be some passing, out-of-context reference!* Good grief, I even gave you an out to back away from this idiotic "hypocrisy" meme before you embarrassed yourself. I emphasized that if I said (or Liked) something that was said in the same or similar context as what you said here:

    Cops have every right to get an attitude with you and get in your face when they wanna ask you questions.
    Listen up Junior - Cops have NO rights when it comes to interactions with citizens, they only have granted authorities.

    Your statement is wrong on so many levels, but the simple statement that wolf_fire made, in the context in which he made it, is 100% true and accurate. He gave basically the same answer I did when you went off the rails with quoted statement above. You conveniently left out the sentence that followed the one you claim shows my "hypocrisy."

    A police officer can ask you anything. You do not need to answer him.
    Why do you not need to answer a cop's question(s)? As wolf_fire explained before ever uttering the words you attribute to my "hypocrisy," because of the 5th Amendment right to not be forced to testify against yourself, just as I said in response to that idiotic statement quoted above when I asked incredulously:

    Exactly where in the 5th Amendment does it say that????
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    I'm still not sure what it is that I've said that's got you so concerned. I've simply stated what cops have the right to do, but should have the discretion not to do (insinuating I would take the nice guy route).
    I've explained my problems with the statement quite clearly in the thread where you posted it. Now, with that link to what wolf_fire said, you have cross-threaded this thread so that nobody knows what's being discussed anymore. If you really don't understand what my problem is with that utterance, go back and read my answers to it in that thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    I also don't get why exactly I'm such a bad guy for, based on the initial stories (which didn't say anything about his own police chief of anyone else other than Ferrell's family attorney and the NAACP saying it wasn't a justified shooting)
    This is just wrong Andey. All you have to do is read the links in this thread and see that they quote a statement 'by police" that says unequivocally that Kerrick was outside of his authority to discharge his weapon at all, much less doing a mag-dump and hitting Mr. Ferrell 10 freakin' times! All you gotta do is read man, preferably before you post these fantasies about the cops having not made clear statements about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    presenting another possible side to the story other than the one that everyone wants to follow based on the ever-so-biased media version of the story. I hate that this kid had to die, and I think it was a senseless death that could have probably been avoided on the officers part. But there are a plethora of officer deadly force incidents that probably could have been avoided, but the officer simply made a split second decision based on the circumstances that were present.
    And this is exactly the kind of cavalier attitude that makes excuses for killer-cops that prompted me to say, "You're going to make some department a fine JBT someday." The circumstances weren't present for the killer-cop to open fire! Just say it and stop making excuses for murderers!

    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Based on what I know now I don't think he should have shot him. But I'm not going to sit here on my high horse, and I don't think anyone can, and say they wouldn't have done the same thing. Why? Because I WASN'T THERE!! We can easily say what we would and wouldn't have done now cause we're playing armchair quarterback.
    Based on this "logic" then no shooting anywhere by anyone can ever be scrutinized and/or discussed in as much detail as we can gather because none of us WERE THERE!! Absolutely ridiculous. Luke might as well just shut down the site based on such pretzel logic.

    You're not willing to say unequivocally that this cop, Kerrick, is a brutal murderer for only one reason; he's a cop. Your adherence to not crossing that thin blue line is as transparent as it can be. And you haven't even started on the streets yet. God help those that are the victims (notice no quotation marks) of your "service."

    Blues

    *Edited for accuracy and clarity.
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Absolutely wrong. What BigSlick referenced (actually quoted from) was from the first link in the thread, the one in the OP. That article was last updated on Sept. 16, which means it may well have been first published even before that.



    You made the above statement yesterday, 9/22/13. The OP article was written no later than 9/16/13. That's six days. The two reports linked in this thread, which is what everybody but you is going by, only says that the accident happened "over the weekend." That would put the accident on either the 14th or the 15th, and both the stories linked in this thread were published on Monday, 9/16.

    So tell us what information that is so divergent from the two accounts in the two linked articles you were drawing from? Because the information we're all going on was from six days before the post in which you said you scrutinized info a "week ago," and based on that info at the time, you would still stand by your conclusions. One of those conclusions was, "I honestly can find more fault with the "victim" than I can the officer." No matter what info you were going off of, you came to the conclusion that the dead man was only worthy of being called a victim if you put it in quotation marks. So when an unarmed man comes to you for help when you're out there just "doing your job," is your report after you shot him dead going to be that he was a suspect or a "victim" with the dismissive quotation marks left intact?



    BigSlick didn't say any such thing, and where did you get the information that there's a video of the incident? I'm not saying there's not, I'm asking where you got that info, because you didn't get that from BigSlick's post as you said you did.

    And please, don't try to slough this off as you're just not as good as me or anyone else at saying what they mean. If you've pulled info out of your butt just to make some unknown "point," at least own up to it, but short of that much integrity, don't exacerbate the faux pas by making weak excuses for it.



    I freakin' knew it would be some passing, out-of-context reference!* Good grief, I even gave you an out to back away from this idiotic "hypocrisy" meme before you embarrassed yourself. I emphasized that if I said (or Liked) something that was said in the same or similar context as what you said here:



    Listen up Junior - Cops have NO rights when it comes to interactions with citizens, they only have granted authorities.

    Your statement is wrong on so many levels, but the simple statement that wolf_fire made, in the context in which he made it, is 100% true and accurate. He gave basically the same answer I did when you went off the rails with quoted statement above. You conveniently left out the sentence that followed the one you claim shows my "hypocrisy."



    Why do you not need to answer a cop's question(s)? As wolf_fire explained before ever uttering the words you attribute to my "hypocrisy," because of the 5th Amendment right to not be forced to testify against yourself, just as I said in response to that idiotic statement quoted above when I asked incredulously:





    I've explained my problems with the statement quite clearly in the thread where you posted it. Now, with that link to what wolf_fire said, you have cross-threaded this thread so that nobody knows what's being discussed anymore. If you really don't understand what my problem is with that utterance, go back and read my answers to it in that thread.



    This is just wrong Andey. All you have to do is read the links in this thread and see that they quote a statement 'by police" that says unequivocally that Kerrick was outside of his authority to discharge his weapon at all, much less doing a mag-dump and hitting Mr. Ferrell 10 freakin' times! All you gotta do is read man, preferably before you post these fantasies about the cops having not made clear statements about it.



    And this is exactly the kind of cavalier attitude that makes excuses for killer-cops that prompted me to say, "You're going to make some department a fine JBT someday." The circumstances weren't present for the killer-cop to open fire! Just say it and stop making excuses for murderers!



    Based on this "logic" then no shooting anywhere by anyone can ever be scrutinized and/or discussed in as much detail as we can gather because none of us WERE THERE!! Absolutely ridiculous. Luke might as well just shut down the site based on such pretzel logic.

    You're not willing to say unequivocally that this cop, Kerrick, is a brutal murderer for only one reason; he's a cop. Your adherence to not crossing that thin blue line is as transparent as it can be. And you haven't even started on the streets yet. God help those that are the victims (notice no quotation marks) of your "service."

    Blues

    *Edited for accuracy and clarity.
    I started reading your post and had an epiphany about 3 sentences in...your posts are WAY goo damn long. I never really had it, but I have just run out of the time and patience to argue with your long winded posts. And by your condescending name referring to my age (Junior) perhaps I should get my face out of this forum (or at least this thread and any of your posts) and quit listening to the rants of some narrow minded, hypocritical geezer so that I actually have time to get out in the world and get some experience. And on that same token, by the length of your posts and by the volume of likes you said you give out, that indicates to me that you obviously spend so much time here reading these threads and writing counter posts that you have zero time to get out in the world to know anything about it, and that you see the world only through the eyes of this forum. You can respond if you want, but just letting you know that even if I had the time to read such a long winded, exhausting rant about absolutely nothing, I would give you the pleasure of reading it anyways.

    But just as a final FYI, perhaps I misplaced the word "authority" with "right", so let me reword: the police have the complete authority to get all up in your face with an attitude when they want to ask you questions. Now as wolf said in slightly different wording, you have every right to tell them to go ******* themselves. And if they do it with such an attitude I completely recommend doing so. But unless you can find me some particular law that states that the police have to ask you questions with a specific attitude, then you are wrong that I am wrong, and also hypocrite.

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    Boring, really boring Andey.........Just admit defeat, learn from others and move forward. Kinda what this site is all about. OR don't learn from others and continue stagnated in your own ego. JUZ saying.......
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Rocky River, Ohio
    Posts
    1,519
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    But unless you can find me some particular law that states that the police have to ask you questions with a specific attitude, then you are wrong that I am wrong, and also hypocrite.
    If the police choose to act like a hostile army of occupation, they shouldn't complain when they get treated like one.

    I have no illusions about the police respecting the law or being my "friends".

    It's an adversarial relationship, and by the doing of the police.

    I obey the law, including in interactions with the police. They get what the law REQUIRES of me to give, and NOTHING more.

    That MUST be what the police WANT, because they've done so much to cause so many to act in a like manner.

    Just don't whine about it, like Ariel Castro whining about what a great guy he is (was) and how unfair people's attitudes toward him are (were).

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    But just as a final FYI, perhaps I misplaced the word "authority" with "right", so let me reword: the police have the complete authority to get all up in your face with an attitude when they want to ask you questions. Now as wolf said in slightly different wording, you have every right to tell them to go ******* themselves. And if they do it with such an attitude I completely recommend doing so. But unless you can find me some particular law that states that the police have to ask you questions with a specific attitude, then you are wrong that I am wrong, and also hypocrite.
    AndeyHall I hope that is not what they are teaching you cause you will have lots of problems if you are going to act like that while wearing a badge and uniform. Because I treat people the way they treat me and if you got in my face acting like that you would not like how I respond to your questions. Police have no authority to act like ******** they are there to serve and protect and acting like an ******* is not serving anyone. Because I feel you should treat people the way you want to be treated I would understand a police officer acting like an ******* if the person he stopped started by acting like an ******* to the police officer. But the best thing for the police officer to do is remain acting professional and not take on the attitude of the person they stopped.

    Also Andeyhall you seem to be missing the point BluesStringer was trying to get you to understand. Which was you jumped behind supporting the officer who shot an unarmed man who was running toward him for help. The 5 questions you came up with for supporting the officer were all invalid questions that would not have had anything to do with the actions the officer took that night. Then BluesStringer pointed out that the police officer's chief did not stand behind his officer's actions and said that the officer had no justifiable reason to shoot the victim and you still would not stop backing the murdering officer saying now with these facts I am leaning towards the "victim". When you place "" around the word victim it come of as you still do not see anything wrong with the police offers actions that night. Or I should say that is the way I take it after reading your post. So we might be interpreting your post the wrong way. If that is the case please correct us and let us know what your point was.
    Last edited by Kasper; 09-23-2013 at 09:10 PM. Reason: correcting spelling error not to no

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    AndeyHall I hope that is not what they are teaching you cause you will have lots of problems if you are going to act like that while wearing a badge and uniform. Because I treat people the way they treat me and if you got in my face acting like that you would not like how I respond to your questions. Police have no authority to act like ******** they are there to serve and protect and acting like an ******* is not serving anyone. Because I feel you should treat people the way you want to be treated I would understand a police officer acting like an ******* if the person he stopped started by acting like an ******* to the police officer. But the best thing for the police officer to do is remain acting professional and not take on the attitude of the person they stopped.

    Also Andeyhall you seem to be missing the point BluesStringer was trying to get you to understand. Which was you jumped behind supporting the officer who shot an unarmed man who was running toward him for help. The 5 questions you came up with for supporting the officer were all invalid questions that would not have had anything to do with the actions the officer took that night. Then BluesStringer pointed out that the police officer's chief did not stand behind his officer's actions and said that the officer had not justifiable reason to shoot the victim and you still would not stop backing the murdering officer saying now with these facts I am leaning towards the "victim". When you place "" around the word victim it come of as you still do not see anything wrong with the police offers actions that night. Or I should say that is the way I take it after reading your post. So we might be interpreting your post the wrong way. If that is the case please correct us and let us know what your point was.
    What we are taught is that if we behave that way, our asses will be in the unemployment line. However the point I was trying to make is that if the agency is willing to tolerate it, then there's no law against a police officer being a ****. Yes, it is extremely frowned upon, and no, I would never behave that way. Actually I simply do not have that abrasive of an attitude even if I wanted to be like that. I do not treat people how they treat me. I treat people with respect even when they don't treat me with respect, because I know better than to further escalate an already tense situation. That's a good way to get yourself killed, or at least a good ass kicking. Our captain explained to us the best way to look at it (this was during the use of force section): there are gonna be times when someone you're arresting or questioning is going to make you see red. But our job as law enforcement is to put the bad guys in jail. What's the job of the bad guys? To stay out of jail. So if he spits in your face or hits or kicks you, he's just doing his job, and it's nothing personal. That, to me, has been the best advice I've heard so far.

    As for the information pertaining to this thread. As never read the specific article in the OP. I had already read 3 different articles and just happened to come across the thread so I figured I'd weigh in. I referred to Ferrell as the "victim" because none of the initial articles I had read said anything about his captain saying it was unjustified. So based on the facts that were presented, I quoted victim because without it, it means that the other party is by default the guilty one. The quotes were simply implying that I did not really believe or disbelieve that the person being referred to as the victim really was the victim. That is all. I was trying not to let the media or interest groups influence the way in which I labeled certain individuals.

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,421
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    I started reading your post and had an epiphany about 3 sentences in...your posts are WAY goo damn long. I never really had it, but I have just run out of the time and patience to argue with your long winded posts. And by your condescending name referring to my age (Junior) perhaps I should get my face out of this forum (or at least this thread and any of your posts) and quit listening to the rants of some narrow minded, hypocritical geezer so that I actually have time to get out in the world and get some experience. And on that same token, by the length of your posts and by the volume of likes you said you give out, that indicates to me that you obviously spend so much time here reading these threads and writing counter posts that you have zero time to get out in the world to know anything about it, and that you see the world only through the eyes of this forum. You can respond if you want, but just letting you know that even if I had the time to read such a long winded, exhausting rant about absolutely nothing, I would give you the pleasure of reading it anyways.
    I'm sure I'll regret this, but....

    "Geezer" is not an insult to me, but nice try anyway. I have some very good friends both in, and associated with, a world-renowned 60's/70's rock band who are still touring to this day, and I consistently refer to them as a "geezer-rock" band. They laugh and tell me I ain't no spring chicken myself, and I most certainly ain't. It's been a joke between us probably since you were still riding a bike with training wheels, Junior.

    While I wish I could give you credit for getting something right, I think it's more that you just stumbled on a related truth - I do indeed have too much time on my hands. Advanced liver disease has made that circumstance unavoidable for me, and no, it's not because I'm a drunk. Haven't had so much as a single beer in over 15 years, probably much longer than that, but who's countin'? Never did drink much anyway. Doesn't matter how I got it, I just got it, and I don't think I've mentioned it on this forum more than once or twice (if that), so save the "you're just trying to get sympathy to excuse being an a-hole" meme. Not making excuses for anything, just confirming that you (finally) got something right - I spend entirely too much time here.

    The time I spend here though, is to keep me intellectually-stimulated, which is often the result, but then I got caught in this toilet-bowl vortex with you and honestly, I feel dumber for it. Oops. I'm usually not so easily sucked into extended conversations with intellectual lightweights who think that "getting in my face" with a stanky attitude whenever they "wanna ask me questions" is an authority granted to someone who swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution that guarantees my rights to be protected from such abuses under color of lawful authority. As a cop, you have no rights or authorities to "get in my face" (invade my personal space) unless and until you have an articulable suspicion that I have committed, or am about to commit, a crime. What wolf_fire said is absolutely nothing like what you said, and speaking of that, if you want to know why I "Liked" his post, look directly underneath his post and see where I actually expounded on an unrelated part of it to what you claimed was a "Like" for no other reason than him saying something to the effect of, "A cop can ask you questions."

    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    But unless you can find me some particular law that states that the police have to ask you questions with a specific attitude, then you are wrong that I am wrong, and also hypocrite.
    Alright Junior. Are you ready? Here's that "particular" law:

    The 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.
    "I don't answer questions outside the presence of my attorney, Officer Thug-Life, and especially not when your halitosis is freakin' melting my glasses because you're in my face!"

    That's the "particular law" that says that "Cops [don't] have every right [or authority] to get an attitude with you and get in your face when they wanna ask you questions," Junior.

    I wouldn't blame you at all for not wanting to reply to this post - the previous "contributions" of yours confirm its accuracy, and you can really only do more damage to your already well-established vapidity by continuing.

    Next.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  9. Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I'm sure I'll regret this, but....

    "Geezer" is not an insult to me, but nice try anyway. I have some very good friends both in, and associated with, a world-renowned 60's/70's rock band who are still touring to this day, and I consistently refer to them as a "geezer-rock" band. They laugh and tell me I ain't no spring chicken myself, and I most certainly ain't. It's been a joke between us probably since you were still riding a bike with training wheels, Junior.

    While I wish I could give you credit for getting something right, I think it's more that you just stumbled on a related truth - I do indeed have too much time on my hands. Advanced liver disease has made that circumstance unavoidable for me, and no, it's not because I'm a drunk. Haven't had so much as a single beer in over 15 years, probably much longer than that, but who's countin'? Never did drink much anyway. Doesn't matter how I got it, I just got it, and I don't think I've mentioned it on this forum more than once or twice (if that), so save the "you're just trying to get sympathy to excuse being an a-hole" meme. Not making excuses for anything, just confirming that you (finally) got something right - I spend entirely too much time here.

    The time I spend here though, is to keep me intellectually-stimulated, which is often the result, but then I got caught in this toilet-bowl vortex with you and honestly, I feel dumber for it. Oops. I'm usually not so easily sucked into extended conversations with intellectual lightweights who think that "getting in my face" with a stanky attitude whenever they "wanna ask me questions" is an authority granted to someone who swears an oath to protect and defend the Constitution that guarantees my rights to be protected from such abuses under color of lawful authority. As a cop, you have no rights or authorities to "get in my face" (invade my personal space) unless and until you have an articulable suspicion that I have committed, or am about to commit, a crime. What wolf_fire said is absolutely nothing like what you said, and speaking of that, if you want to know why I "Liked" his post, look directly underneath his post and see where I actually expounded on an unrelated part of it to what you claimed was a "Like" for no other reason than him saying something to the effect of, "A cop can ask you questions."



    Alright Junior. Are you ready? Here's that "particular" law:



    "I don't answer questions outside the presence of my attorney, Officer Thug-Life, and especially not when your halitosis is freakin' melting my glasses because you're in my face!"

    That's the "particular law" that says that "Cops [don't] have every right [or authority] to get an attitude with you and get in your face when they wanna ask you questions," Junior.

    I wouldn't blame you at all for not wanting to reply to this post - the previous "contributions" of yours confirm its accuracy, and you can really only do more damage to your already well-established vapidity by continuing.

    Next.

    Blues
    Wow, finally a post short enough for me to read and have the time to respond to. If you're quoting the 5th amendment, and somebody has to be wrong, then it has to be wolf_fire cause it sure as heck ain't me. He was the one who said that the police have the right to ask you questions (which is a post you liked). That is the only thing the 5th amendment would pertain to in this context. And according to the SCOTUS, as long as you are read your Miranda rights, it's open season as far as questions go. And technically it's open season before that, they are just inadmissible in court. I simply said they can get in your face with an attitude when they ask you those questions. Our 5th amendment doesn't mention anything about what attitude those questions must be asked with. So please, work on finding a law that actually debunks what I said.

    Next

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    As for the information pertaining to this thread. As never read the specific article in the OP. I had already read 3 different articles and just happened to come across the thread so I figured I'd weigh in. I referred to Ferrell as the "victim" because none of the initial articles I had read said anything about his captain saying it was unjustified. So based on the facts that were presented, I quoted victim because without it, it means that the other party is by default the guilty one. The quotes were simply implying that I did not really believe or disbelieve that the person being referred to as the victim really was the victim. That is all. I was trying not to let the media or interest groups influence the way in which I labeled certain individuals.
    Ok AndeyHall I see where the problem is coming from we all are going by the links posted in this thread by the op and you were going from the 3 different articles you had read and weighed in by posting your opinion. That is why we all are wondering what the hell is AndeyHell thinking. Now that I know you are going from 3 different articles then the ones linked to by the OP I can see why you might be backing this officer. Please save yourself the hassle and read the full post before weighing in on it. Also please post links to what articles you have read so that we can read them to and inform an opinion from them.

    Also I like what you had to say about how you treat people I wish I could be more like you when it comes down to it but I am not I treat people the way they treat me.

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Kasper View Post
    Ok AndeyHall I see where the problem is coming from we all are going by the links posted in this thread by the op and you were going from the 3 different articles you had read and weighed in by posting your opinion. That is why we all are wondering what the hell is AndeyHell thinking. Now that I know you are going from 3 different articles then the ones linked to by the OP I can see why you might be backing this officer. Please save yourself the hassle and read the full post before weighing in on it. Also please post links to what articles you have read so that we can read them to and inform an opinion from them.

    Also I like what you had to say about how you treat people I wish I could be more like you when it comes down to it but I am not I treat people the way they treat me.
    Next time I definitely will do. One story was our local newspaper (which I would have no clue where to find online), the second was the article our teacher pulled up in class and I have no idea where he got it, and the last one has been updated to the most recent information. Apparently most sites just update the already existing story rather than writing a whole new updated story. I first found that out with The State, South Carolina's most liberal and anti-gun newspaper in circulation.

Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast