While Shooter Took Out Fourth Graders, Cops Huddled in Safety

Dutch Uncle said:
That's what Trump believed too! How awesome you two must be. :thup:

I'm not upset, but it's interesting to me that you think I am. Why do you think I'm upset?
Click to expand...

he doesn't realize you're also a gun grabber because you do this two faced thing where you pretend to be a patriot who gives a shit about freedom.
 
martin said:
School shooters aren't conditioned terrorists; their only kill zone is the classroom. They are not far from being kids themselves and out of their minds with rage or despair. Ever since Columbine 23 years ago the protocol for police departments across the country has been to go into the building without waiting for backup.
Click to expand...

he was probably a handled asset on a mission to terrorize the population into giving up our guns.
 
I almost started a new thread on this but how about his conspiracy theory:


WHAT IF THERE WAS NO BARRICADE????

There were, reportedly police, inside the school, evacuating students. What if they could have gotten to the guy but chose or were ordered not too?

Fuck. What a mess.
 
LurchAddams said:
Someone, perhaps you, brought him/her up before. Thought I was a sock. I'm not, I'm a reject from Debate Politics. A happy reject, by the way. This place will be fine :)
Click to expand...

It's because you have similar personalities: angry, youngish gay men with a chip on your shoulders.

This is different than determining gender. Like the original idea of the Turing test, my main interest was deducing who was female and who wasn't. Gays threw a variable into the mix since an angry, masculine woman and an angry, feminine man would have similar characteristics. To further complicate it, they'd be trying to mask their gender and sexual preferences. It's an interesting challenge.

Yes, lots of angry, youngish American males have chips on their shoulders. It's how they react over time that helps me determine which subculture they have chosen to belong.

I'm still not ruling out a sock even if you other claims are true. :)
 
Jarod said:
The reality is we had an AR ban, and it worked.
Click to expand...
It didn't do a damn thing about suicides, domestic abuse or gang-bangers plus it helped push the Republicans to use the same tactics in banning abortion.

Congrats! Both parties have been encouraged to remove rights of all Americans "for the children".

lo5ebRS.jpg
 
Dutch Uncle said:
It's because you have similar personalities: angry, youngish gay men with a chip on your shoulders.

This is different than determining gender. Like the original idea of the Turing test, my main interest was deducing who was female and who wasn't. Gays threw a variable into the mix since an angry, masculine woman and an angry, feminine man would have similar characteristics. To further complicate it, they'd be trying to mask their gender and sexual preferences. It's an interesting challenge.

Yes, lots of angry, youngish American males have chips on their shoulders. It's how they react over time that helps me determine which subculture they have chosen to belong.

I'm still not ruling out a sock even if you other claims are true. :)
Click to expand...

This is amazing. You got nothing right. I appreciate you think I'm "young". I do feel young at heart.

Gender Gay? I'll keep you guessing - you seem like an adorable little homophobe to me and I'd like to torture you a bit :)

I'm sorry. You did get one thing right. Chip on shoulder? Quite correct.

I'd love to meet this Diesel guy/girl.
 
LurchAddams said:
This is amazing. You got nothing right. I appreciate you think I'm "young". I do feel young at heart.

Gender Gay? I'll keep you guessing - you seem like an adorable little homophobe to me and I'd like to torture you a bit :)

I'm sorry. You did get one thing right. Chip on shoulder? Quite correct.

I'd love to meet this Diesel guy/girl.
Click to expand...
You are anxious to prove you have a right to your opinion then just as quickly you denounce the right of others to have their opinions. This is part of what I mean when pointing out that someone has a chip on their shoulder.

I'm 66. You strike me as someone in their 30s, maybe early 40s. Not a homophobe, just not into "gay culture". :)

Thanks for that little admission.

Diesel is a guy; 30s and gay. Loves to show his jean-covered derriere. IMO it's a smart move that both irritates the homophobes while enticing those interested to PM him for better pictures. The female move is similar with an avatar of her boobs prominently displayed. Like you, he's intelligent, educated and troubled.

His info is here: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/member.php?8296-Diesel
profilepic8296_7.gif

He hasn't posted since early April:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/search.php?searchid=6099003
 
LurchAddams said:
What you believe about me matters not the least bit to me. The polices' job is to protect the innocent.
Click to expand...

u are an uniformed stupid fuck


The Police are Not Required to Protect You

In the 1989 landmark case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure by government workers to protect someone (even 4-year-old Joshua DeShaney) from physical violence or harm from another person (his father) did not breach any substantive constitutional duty

Nevertheless, the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person.


The “no duty to protect” rule remains unwavering and the law today.


https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect




POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU, FEDERAL COURT AFFIRMS YET AGAIN

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again
 
Dutch Uncle said:
You are anxious to prove you have a right to your opinion then just as quickly you denounce the right of others to have their opinions. This is part of what I mean when pointing out that someone has a chip on their shoulder.

I'm 66. You strike me as someone in their 30s, maybe early 40s. Not a homophobe, just not into "gay culture". :)

Thanks for that little admission.

Diesel is a guy; 30s and gay. Loves to show his jean-covered derriere. IMO it's a smart move that both irritates the homophobes while enticing those interested to PM him for better pictures. The female move is similar with an avatar of her boobs prominently displayed. Like you, he's intelligent, educated and troubled.

His info is here: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/member.php?8296-Diesel
profilepic8296_7.gif

He hasn't posted since early April:
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/search.php?searchid=6099003
Click to expand...

You're fun. I'm going to keep you guessing. Not jazzed you don't like me, but I am who I am. That's why I'm here and no longer at DP.

I'm a controversial guy. I piss people off. Have you ever done that to anyone else here besides me? ;)

Rhetorical question.
 
LurchAddams said:
You're fun. I'm going to keep you guessing. Not jazzed you don't like me, but I am who I am. That's why I'm here and no longer at DP.

I'm a controversial guy. I piss people off. Have you ever done that to anyone else here besides me? ;)

Rhetorical question.
Click to expand...
Why do you think someone who disagrees with you doesn't like you? If you agree with someone, even if only once, does this automatically mean you like them? This is why I think you are much younger than myself; you have education but not life experience in comparison to someone who is middle-aged.

Nothing wrong with controversy. I unintentionally pissed you off several times driving you to say "Ta-Tah!", "Good bye", whatever. I'm as honest and cool, calm and logical as I am able...which doesn't mean I'm correct or a fucking robot. It's more of a goal than an accomplishment.
 
volsrock said:
u are an uniformed stupid fuck


The Police are Not Required to Protect You

In the 1989 landmark case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the failure by government workers to protect someone (even 4-year-old Joshua DeShaney) from physical violence or harm from another person (his father) did not breach any substantive constitutional duty

Nevertheless, the Court found that the government had no affirmative duty to protect any person, even a child, from harm by another person.


The “no duty to protect” rule remains unwavering and the law today.


https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect




POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU, FEDERAL COURT AFFIRMS YET AGAIN

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again
Click to expand...

Your confusing The Constitution with professional and contractual responsibilities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top