For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Suudy said:
How do you know TM saw this?

How do you know TM saw the gun? How do you know TM’s life was threatened?

“May have been”? So you don’t know. Yet you continue to assert that TM’s life was threatened?

GZ never attempted to detain nor arrest TM.
Click to expand...
TM reached for the gun, of course he saw it. He reached for it/touched it depending on the ? asked of GZ.

Tm’s life WAS threatened’ that’s why he defended himself against a gun carrying NW person who was not to be out of his car and following him anyway. Tm felt his life was in danger.

GZ did attempt to detain TM; he couldn’t arrest him because he was rejected by the police force.

That said, I’m all for concealed weapons by people with NO prior history of assault.
That’s plea bargains for you though.
 
MaryT777 said:
Because
Tm is dead and GZ criminally profiled him as a thug.
Read the tag lines; Thug control that were posted here.
Click to expand...
Criminally profiled? How did he do that?

What’s wrong with correctly identifying a person as a thug?
 
MaryT777 said:
Because
Tm is dead and GZ criminally profiled him as a thug.
Read the tag lines; Thug control that were posted here.
Click to expand...
Yet you claim to know GZ’s mind and that he was thinking that TM wasn’t his “idea of who should be walking in your neighborhood”. Did he state this? Or are you reading his mind?
 
Suudy said:
We know he’s been speeding once. So no, we don’t know “he’s out speeding around.” And why should it be a surprise that he has a gun? He had one before…

We don’t know he “has vigilante tendencies” because there’s no evidence that he’s ever acted as a vigilante.

Also, it seems that you think the only people that are qualified to carry a CCW are people that are qualified to be on the police force. Or at least if one’s application to join the police force is denied, one should be denied a CCW. Or does this idea only apply to GZ?
Click to expand...
We do know he’s out speeding around for he was stopped and it was taped and shown.

It is no surprise he has a gun; who doesn’t these days?

He has acted as a vigilante. I doubt he will again.

I feel anyone qualified to carry a CCW who have not had prior assaults on girl friends or police officers or anyone should be deputized and enlisted to help the police.

Lots of people are rejected from the police force, same force of which he had such little respect for he assaulted an officer.
 
MaryT777 said:
TM reached for the gun, of course he saw it. He reached for it/touched it depending on the ? asked of GZ.
Click to expand...
Did TM see GZ reach for it? If not, then why would TM think his life was in danger?
MaryT777 said:
Tm’s life WAS threatened’ that’s why he defended himself against a gun carrying NW person who was not to be out of his car and following him anyway. Tm felt his life was in danger.
Click to expand...
When was it threatened? Did GZ tell TM he was going to kill him? Did GZ draw his weapon? Did GZ act or speak threateningly?
MaryT777 said:
GZ did attempt to detain TM; he couldn’t arrest him because he was rejected by the police force.
Click to expand...
When did GZ try to detain TM? He followed TM, then returned to his car. Where in the timeline did GZ try to detain TM?
MaryT777 said:
That said, I’m all for concealed weapons by people with NO prior history of assault.
That’s plea bargains for you though.
Click to expand...
So, you mean convictions of assault? There is no prior history of assault if there is no conviction. People are wrongly accused of crimes. Or do you think that anyone with an arrest record should be denied a CCW?
 
MaryT777 said:
We do know he’s out speeding around for he was stopped and it was taped and shown.
Click to expand...
Once.
MaryT777 said:
It is no surprise he has a gun; who doesn’t these days?
Click to expand...
So why take notice of GZ has a gun?
MaryT777 said:
He has acted as a vigilante. I doubt he will again.
Click to expand...
When?
MaryT777 said:
I feel anyone qualified to carry a CCW who have not had prior assaults on girl friends or police officers or anyone should be deputized and enlisted to help the police.
Click to expand...
When was GZ convicted of such? As far as I can tell, he’s innocent of any charges of assault.
MaryT777 said:
Lots of people are rejected from the police force, same force of which he had such little respect for he assaulted an officer.
Click to expand...
So none of those rejected should have access to a CCW? And where’s GZ’s conviction of this assault that you claim occurred?
 
This is insane.

Assertion, after assertion, after assertion. With zero evidence (or even logic) to back it up.

It was fun sparring at first. But when the refusal to acknowledge simple facts compounds, it gets boring and frustrating. Sadly, though, some will view this as a victory when people tire of arguing in circles and walk away. But I’m done. I’ll just sit back and watch the shenanigans and smirk.
 
MaryT777 said:
GZ stated TM reached for/touched the gun in his interview with the police.

He did assault GZ to save his life. What’s he supposed to do when he sees the gun.
Z stated he reached in his pocket for the cell phone, may have been a gun in the pocket.

He should never have gotten out of the car; detaining and arresting people is work of the police.
Mary.
Click to expand...
Are you saying the mere presence of a gun is enough to justify the use of physical force against a legal gun owner who by all accounts was acting within the confines of the law???
 
Suudy said:
This is insane.

Assertion, after assertion, after assertion. With zero evidence (or even logic) to back it up.

It was fun sparring at first. But when the refusal to acknowledge simple facts compounds, it gets boring and frustrating. Sadly, though, some will view this as a victory when people tire of arguing in circles and walk away. But I’m done. I’ll just sit back and watch the shenanigans and smirk.
Click to expand...
If I had a dollar for every invented thoughtcrime and imaginary fact posted on these threads, I’d have enough money for a living wage-adjusted Big Mac value meal. 😃
 
My simple point is we have no clue what happened between GZ and Martin for TM is dead
and dead man can’t be heard,

No situation may be plausible and every situation posted may be plausible, possible,
and true.

It’s just that Plausible when 1/2 the evidence is buried with a dead man who did nothing more than walk home with Skittles and Iced Tea.

A true tragedy;.

Mary.
 
Suudy said:
This is insane.

Assertion, after assertion, after assertion. With zero evidence (or even logic) to back it up.

It was fun sparring at first. But when the refusal to acknowledge simple facts compounds, it gets boring and frustrating. Sadly, though, some will view this as a victory when people tire of arguing in circles and walk away. But I’m done. I’ll just sit back and watch the shenanigans and smirk.
Click to expand...
I mentioned the same thing sometime back. The same speculation and wild theories kept coming back and being reintroduced, even in direct contrast to actual evidence. That old saying comes to mind. “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people think is true.” Unfortunately, that appears to be the case here.
 
SwizzleStick said:
I mentioned the same thing sometime back. The same speculation and wild theories kept coming back and being reintroduced, even in direct contrast to actual evidence. That old saying comes to mind. “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people think is true.” Unfortunately, that appears to be the case here.
Click to expand...
PERSPECTIVE TAKING: What’s the other person’s perspective?
 
Suudy said:
This is insane.

Assertion, after assertion, after assertion. With zero evidence (or even logic) to back it up.
Click to expand...
That’s what you get when you try to have a conversation with a liberal.
 
Robert_Sock said:
PERSPECTIVE TAKING: What’s the other person’s perspective?
Click to expand...
Objection. Irrelevant and/or unknowable, and therefore of no probative value. GZ wasn’t a mind reader and neither are we. What you’re really saying is, “I don’t actually have anything to say that helps make my case so I will speculate on behalf of a dead person, despite a total lack of any basis to do so (other than my ideological prejudices that you all know about already).”
 
lcburgundy said:
Objection. Irrelevant and/or unknowable, and therefore of no probative value. GZ wasn’t a mind reader and neither are we. What you’re really saying is, “I don’t actually have anything to say that helps make my case so I will speculate on behalf of a dead person, despite a total lack of any basis to do so (other than my ideological prejudices that you all know about already).”
Click to expand...
Only taking the perspective of GZ does not sound like justice to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top