I didn't hear about that Henry. So the 'media' ignored that story. Please tell us the shooters name so we can find out the details for ourselves. It sounds like an interesting story.
They didn't ignore it, they were all about talking about a mass shooting, although after it was found that the cops hit 9 people it was gone from the media within days. Now the shooting in DC I'm sure we will hear about for months.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Great video Henry. This wasn't a "MASS SHOOTING" as you portrayed it. This was a murder of one man by another. Then the police shot the murderer. Again, not a mass shooting.
YOUR VIDEO clearly states that the reason that so many civilians were wounded by this incident was that police bullets ricocheted or fragmented hitting nearby civilians. Apparently none of the people shot were shot directly by the police.
So Henry... lets get back to your post:
Quoted Text
"I remember the last one when the media was in a frenzy talking about a mass shooting, it turned out the killer shot and killed who he was aiming for, the cops on the other hand unloaded on the citizens trying to get away, after that was found out the media never mentioned it again."
Since this wasn't a "mass shooting" (where innocent people are shot on purpose and usually at random) the incident isn't, as you posted, a "mass shooting". And The police never shot with disregard to nearby civilians and never shot any of them except indirectly from bullet fragmentation.
So now we all know know why your MEDIA never mentioned the story again.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
9 people hit but since it was an accident it isn't considered a mass shooting, if the DC shooter was found to be just targeting one man but unloaded on a dozen more by accident is that now not considered a mass shooting? It says something when the suspect can hit his target without collateral damage but the cops strike 9 people with missed shots Maybe we should limit the cops to single shot pistols, they might take there aim more seriously.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Dust in the wind... all we are is dust in the wind. Dude!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
9 people hit but since it was an accident it isn't considered a mass shooting, if the DC shooter was found to be just targeting one man but unloaded on a dozen more by accident is that now not considered a mass shooting? It says something when the suspect can hit his target without collateral damage but the cops strike 9 people with missed shots Maybe we should limit the cops to single shot pistols, they might take there aim more seriously.
Even someone as basic as you can see the difference between an intentional shooting and an accidental one.
A "mass shooter" usually is shooting with total disregard for his targets or those around them. The police shooting, that injured civilians, although not their finest hour, shot only the intended target and the resulting injuries were not in the line of fire.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Even someone as basic as you can see the difference between an intentional shooting and an accidental one.
A "mass shooter" usually is shooting with total disregard for his targets or those around them. The police shooting, that injured civilians, although not their finest hour, shot only the intended target and the resulting injuries were not in the line of fire.
then why gun control?
intentional is what a criminal does accidental is what a non-criminal does
gun control does what? when a human has a drive/purpose regardless to it's right or wrong.....keep building your machine of righteousness and you make yourself a criminal....every time we accept the at leasts of each thread of our so called safety net, we set a bigger trap for ourselves. more and more labeling of 'criminals'...how many are willing to create for your so called safety created by your 'god machine'????
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
seems like the law everywhere is jittery these days....look at the young man killed after he was looking for help..(crashed his car)..
woman called 911.....and bam....another mistake........maybe the law has a right to think...that they are in danger....but shooting recklessly and in the
same light....car chase......are both deadly to innocent citizens minding their own business.....we are living in a dangerous world...here and abroad..
Even someone as basic as you can see the difference between an intentional shooting and an accidental one.
A "mass shooter" usually is shooting with total disregard for his targets or those around them. The police shooting, that injured civilians, although not their finest hour, shot only the intended target and the resulting injuries were not in the line of fire.
The cops were intentionally trying to shoot the suspect and caused more damage. And what do you mean not in the line of fire, if you shoot a gun you are responsible for the bullet that leaves it, it doesn't matter if it is a direct hit or a fragment that flies off path. You probably shot tracers before so you should know how bullets react after hitting different objects.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
The cops were intentionally trying to shoot the suspect and caused more damage. And what do you mean not in the line of fire,
Definition of Line Of Fire: the expected path of gunfire or a missile.
The civilians in your video were not in the "line of fire" from police shots.
Bullets can ricochet or fragment in almost any direction even back at the shooter.
Check out this video of a man shooting himself in the head with a 50.
This man was certainly not in the "line of fire" of his weapon yet he shot himself.
Most would call this shot an "accident". Most would call the police shooting in your video also an accident.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Definition of Line Of Fire: the expected path of gunfire or a missile.
The civilians in your video were not in the "line of fire" from police shots.
Bullets can ricochet or fragment in almost any direction even back at the shooter.
Check out this video of a man shooting himself in the head with a 50.
This man was certainly not in the "line of fire" of his weapon yet he shot himself.
Most would call this shot an "accident". Most would call the police shooting in your video also an accident.
So you made the point I was making, bullets can do some weird things when fired, the point is though those who fired that bullet are responsible for it, if I was hit by one of those fragments I wouldn't give a sh1t if it was on purpose or accident, the person who fired the shot put my life at risk by not knowing his surroundings and backstop. You know what is funny I remember you making the argument that people shouldn't of had guns after the Aurora shooting because more innocents could have been killed, so why is it all a sudden different just because a cop pulled the trigger.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
tell me who guarantees a line of fire? a lawyer? a legislator? a warmonger? and insurance company? the safe act?
Tell me of a complete sentence that made sense from Senders. I've not seen one.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
Maybe we should limit the cops to single shot pistols, they might take there aim more seriously.
