quote:

originally posted by LDD
The only issue with the ruling that I can see is that some argument might be made against AOE type munitions. For instance, if you have someone holding a sign only, standing next to someone throwing rocks that are hitting officers, and LE response is to shoot a CS canister into the area, LE have probable cause against the rock thrower, but maybe not against the sign-holder.

At this point I have a hard time understanding how every single person participating in these riots isn't treated as guilty for acting as cover for the violent elements. These riots may be a mix of violent actors among a merely noisy crowd but the noisy participants are clearly just there to support the violent ones. These riots are clearly highly organized violent crime sprees. Everyone participating should be rounded up and charged under RICO and any force necessary should be used to do the rounding.

What I'm saying is holding a sign while a buddy throws a brick shouldn't entitle the sign holder to not receive a rubber shotgun ball.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Kook:
Edmund,

BLM/ANTIFA are Marxist organizations dedicated to seizing power by any means necessary. The goombas in the streets are the useful idiots with a strong emphasis on idiots. These people don't think much beyond their "grievance" that they're not rich and powerful. They intend to destroy stuff and hurt people until they become rich and powerful.

Yes. Many folks are confused (deliberately by the BLM folks). BLM does *NOT* stand for “Black Lives Matter”, no matter how many times they repeat that lie. BLM stands for Belligerent Lying Marxists, and it is just that simple.

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:
The arrest warrant for Michael Reinhold

What a shame that the victim had a way to defend himself and wasn't able to.

Victim? Almost Sunday....

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
Not for nothing but did you all actually read the article, ...

I did. Did you? The judge issued a ruling. The DPD and the DPD's land shark have their opinion on what the ruling means. Just because they have a certain opinion, doesn't mean the court that issued the ruling agrees with it.

See, for example, LDD's point.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Victim? Almost Sunday....

Reinoehl’s victim, *not* Reinoehl.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Victim? Almost Sunday....

Perhaps he is referring to the fact that the murder victim was carrying a handgun, but evidently was unable to defend himself with it.

Am I correct, PrinceAliFabulousHe?

from the arrest warrant,

Danielson was carrying a concealed Glock 17

It appears the first shot from Reinoehl hit a can of bear spray that Danielson was holding

The second shot (380) struck Danielson in the right upper chest

The warrant said a text was found on the phone of Reinoehl's son. From "Dad" 7 Aug 2020:

“Sell me the gun for a quarter pound of weed and $100 i’m getting tired of this shit I need a piece now”

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Victim? Almost Sunday....

Perhaps he is referring to the fact that the murder victim was carrying a handgun, but evidently was unable to defend himself with it.

Am I correct, PrinceAliFabulousHe?

Was Reinoehl's son 17 when he sold the gun for "a quarter pound of weed and $100"? He was 17 in June when they were both arrested for racing.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Victim? Almost Sunday....

The victim of Reinoehl was carrying a Glock 17 according to the police report. Sorry for the confusion.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

Am I correct, PrinceAliFabulousHe?

Yes, you are correct.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
Not for nothing but did you all actually read the article, ...

I did. Did you? The judge issued a ruling. The DPD and the DPD's land shark have their opinion on what the ruling means. Just because they have a certain opinion, doesn't mean the court that issued the ruling agrees with it.

See, for example, LDD's point.

Explain to me how the Judge’s ruling changes anything? All it does is restate what is/was already there.

Give me an example of when one could just use these options willy nilly without probable cause??

With LDD’s point that argument was in play prior to the judge’s ruling always has been I don’t see anything different.

Buncha fuckin' drama queens. Forget the rioting. They need their asses beat just for the bad acting.

Yeah, lady, sure. "Chemical warfare" Freakin' halfwits and children

"We're peaceful"....as the guy in the background chucks a rock.

That "I need a medic" screech...

For those that don't get Critical Race Theory.....and no I am no making it up

Way to long to post and so stupid I would feel dirty in doing so.....but this is what Universities and until yesterday the US .gov taught....thank you Trump for calling it what it is....unAmerican drivel
https://www.realclearinvestiga...uch_else_125033.html

quote:

Originally posted by lkdr1989:
That "I need a medic" screech...

Cameras turn people into bigger douchebags than they are already.

And from Para's video....MAN the fuck up, pretty sure I would have caught a boot if I acted that way in the CS hut

I have a whole case of bottle water, I am a "medic" and had no idea

Yes, you would think these people realize there's a good chance they're going to get pepper sprayed, so it would make sense for each of them tto carry bottled water, but then, where would that leave the soul-satisfying drama of yelling "I NEED A MEDIC!! NOW!!"? An on camera, no less. Come on. They can't miss out on that.

You don't need a medic, you drama queen. You just need to go home and stay there.