....well...they were clearly exempt from vision training as that was not nearly the truck they were looking for.jr0ck wrote:I kind of wonder what would have happened had the women LAPD shot at unannounced returned fire. They clearly emptied their mags, and must have been exempt from weapons training.Jumping Frog wrote:...Moving past the Holiday Inn, I'd like to point out that anyone promoting the idea of shooting police officers trying to make an arrest is a clear non-starter in my book. The time to discuss whether an arrest was legal or not is in the courtroom, not out there facing a gun muzzle.
I suppose one could theoretically argue about a hypothetical corrupt police squad where the person truly thinks they will be killed or quietly "disappear" before ever making it to jail, but we are still the United States, not the cartel-owned and corrupt Mexico. In the United States, 99.9999999999999% of arrests should be battled in the courtroom.
[ Image ]
Search found 2 matches
Return to “Two Supreme Court decisions the antis don't want you to see”
- Sun Feb 10, 2013 12:04 am
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Two Supreme Court decisions the antis don't want you to see
- Replies: 23
- Views: 3502
Re: Two Supreme Court decisions the antis don't want you to
- Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:02 pm
- Forum: Gun and/or Self-Defense Related Political Issues
- Topic: Two Supreme Court decisions the antis don't want you to see
- Replies: 23
- Views: 3502
Re: Two Supreme Court decisions the antis don't want you to
let me see if I can correctly word what my husband the law nerd (he'd love to go to law school) explained to me last night about the Miller decision.
Miller didn't actually show up to court, he ran off to Canada, this is a problem.
So the decision is actually a negative,
it's "you didn't prove that sawed off shotguns aren't used in war"
Had Miller actually shown up he might have presented evidence and we would have a decision that could be used, instead according to my husband, it's kinda iffy.
Miller didn't actually show up to court, he ran off to Canada, this is a problem.
So the decision is actually a negative,
it's "you didn't prove that sawed off shotguns aren't used in war"
Had Miller actually shown up he might have presented evidence and we would have a decision that could be used, instead according to my husband, it's kinda iffy.