WATCH: Phoenix Cops Kill Man after Responding to Noise Complaint over Video Game

How could they?

 

1. Snappy come back! Come on, just admit you're wrong.
2. Banned Catholicism? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Of course it didn't, where did you ever hear such nonsense?
3. Yes he did.
4. I love finding things I'm right about, it's very easy with you.
5. No, you've proved nothing, the only thing you've been right about is the pope thing.
6. Nonsense, plenty of Catholics owned plenty of land but they never wanted Britain to succeed. Why is it the non-conformist Protestants etc did succeed when they were subject to the same disadvantages. No one stole any land, the Gaelic lords abandoned it after being caught plotting against the ER1 and forfeited it as a result, their peasants stoned them from the quay as they fled. True the Irish Free State was like Apartheid, a Catholic state for a Catholic people where Protestants were discriminated against and they're still pretty bad today.
7. There are no native Irish, you're just racist. And sectarian, 'English Protestants'? What are you TALKING about?
8. I risked my life for true freedom, you never have, come on, just admit you're wrong.

 

1. Then they're wrong too and I'm happy to put them right
2. Crack caused murder, plain and simple. In a way heroin, powdered coke and even meth never did.
3. Wait a second, you're comparing these heroic people to CRACK DEALERS?
4. I don't, why do you practice hypocrisy?

 

1.Yes it does
2, And yes you are.

 

Why should the dissenter give up when anyone can see he's right, there's no apology necessary, this officer acted correctly, you must blank the contact officer's footage from your mind, just watch from the cover officer's viewpoint. He didn't have time for a warning and it isn't hand to hand combat when the suspect has a gun. And this isn't historical revisionism this is fact, the Irish Nationalist delusion is long gone, it's the Shamrock Awakening, time to question the lies of the past.

 

Sure they are, Rob. Everyone is wrong but you. Sure they are...

Nope. Evil scum who advocated and implemented its prohibition did. They are murderers.

Funny how heroin and cocaine never caused any murders when they were legal....

No, I'm comparing the evil, vicious scum who used the law to violate their rights to the evil, vicious scum who used the law to violate recreational drug users' rights.

Oh, the irony....

 

Bingo. Some people are ineducable because they do not want to know.

 

Everyone, including you, can see clearly that my description is accurate and yours is false.

It's one reasonable explanation for the murder. Certainly it makes more sense than your claim that the murder suffered a hallucination.

He was an innocent man murdered by a trigger-happy uniformed gunman.

He saw no such thing, not even close.

If you think his job was to murder an innocent civilian.

 

By being willing to know self-evident and indisputable facts of objective physical reality.

 

Everyone reading this thread knows I am right, including you.

More accurately, it did not lift the ban on Catholicism.

"The Toleration Act of 1689 made by the Parliament of England gave all non-conformists, except Roman Catholics, freedom of worship"

https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/education/resources/jacobite-1715/secretary-townshend/

Proving you wrong again, as on all other points.

You are certainly a worthy Trump fan.

Any reader can confirm I am provably right on every point.

They were prohibited from holding office, voting, and holding land. That is just a fact, which I have already proved to you. You just have to deny all such facts, because you have already realized that they prove your beliefs are false and evil.

Infantile and absurd.

They could own land, and thus effectively enslave Catholics, who could not.

That is a bald falsehood.

False.

"Forfeited"? It was forcibly stolen and you know it.

Because they didn't realize the English conquistadors who took the land were going to treat them even worse than their Gaelic landlords had.

There were plenty of wrongs on both sides, but your attempt to deny and whitewash English atrocities and bigotry is disgusting, disgraceful, and despicable.

The descendants of the original inhabitants are indisputably native Irish.

The truth. You are just not familiar with the concept.

What did you do, murder some Irish Catholics after they laid down their weapons?

Everyone else reading this thread knows I am right and you are wrong, including you.

 

I don't think that recreating a scene in which the victim never posed a threat to the LEOs is going to change my assessment of this tragedy.

I also don't know what movements in the video you imagined you saw that indicated that the victim was ever posing a threat to the LEOs but it seems obvious that no one else saw it.
Unless I overlooked someone, it looks like you're the only person to comment on this thread who feels that the killing was justified.

Please remember that I am not in any way anti police but I cannot ignore what is obvious to everyone else who looked at this video.

Again, after looking at this video many times, I'm afraid that we'll just have to agree to disagree on the validity of this killing.

 

No, I respect your opinion and reasoned argument (refreshing compared to Bringiton!) but I disagree, do as I asked with a pellet gun and you see how the movements the gunman made were identical to those as if he were drawing a bead on the contact officer.
You have to ask 2 questions;
1. Did the officer genuinely believe the gunman was about to shoot the contact officer?
2. Was that belief reasonable (even if mistaken) given his actions?

 

Let's cut to the chase and have a little rundown of the views expressed by my sparring partner;

1. Police officers are actually psychopaths who join the force so they can go around shooting innocent people for no reason.
2. Anti-apartheid campaigners are actually the moral equivalent of crack dealers.
3. At some point the heads of American law enforcement got together and conspired to launch the 'War on Drugs' in order to keep ethnic minorities down.
4. The Act of TOLERATION banned Roman Catholics in Ireland from practicing their faith rather than enshrining their right to worship in law for the first time and signalling the beginning of the end of the established church in Britain.
5. The REAL Irish people are a racially pure, totalitarian, sectarian entity who never intermarried with the Vikings, Normans, English, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Manx and never adopted any alternative religions to Roman Catholicism.
6. If someone knocks on your door it is perfectly reasonable to answer it in your underwear with a pistol in your hand?
7. When you realise that it is the police you do not drop the pistol or back off and place it on the floor you bring it around from the small of your back to your side so it is pointing at one of them.
8. He puts my disagreeing with him down to being a 'Trump fan'? (We really should have a competition as to what the most bizarre thing the left blame Donald Trump for?)
9. Legalised heroin and cocaine never caused any problems which spurred them being banned in the first place? Banning them was actually 'violating the rights of recreational drug users'.
10. Those who outlawed crack cocaine are responsible for the mass murders on American streets rather than those who carried them out in order to illegally sell it?

I'm beginning to appreciate why they interpret the BWV footage the way they do?

 

You evidently have never seen anyone draw a bead on anyone. He was self-evidently and indisputably crouching down to lay his weapon on the floor, not assuming a shooting stance. Everyone who has watched the video knows this, including you.

If he did, he was hallucinating.

It was clearly not.

 

Translation: my less than learned opponent is about to disgrace himself yet again with absurd strawman fallacies and disingenuous fabrications:

That is a strawman fallacy. I said some are, possibly including the Phoenix murderer.

No, that is another strawman fallacy. They are the legal equivalent: if your principle is that anyone who breaks a law is automatically in the wrong even if that law itself violates the rights of people who have not violated anyone else's rights, then that principle applies to anti-apartheid campaigners just as much as to crack dealers. But only if you are aware of the concept of "logic," which my immutably less than learned opponent self-evidently is not.

In the 1930s, as already proved. There was also a desire to retain a way of criminalizing innocent people after alcohol prohibition ended.

No, but it specifically excluded them from its protections, as already proved.

An end for which we are still waiting....

Attentive readers will recognize that as an absurd and disingenuous fabrication unrelated to anything I have said.

When you know your $#!+-for-brains neighbor may be keen to give you grief over the noise from your video game, and may himself be armed.

Ahem. The cover officer's body cam recording clearly shows the murder victim DID IMMEDIATELY bend down to place the weapon on the floor when he was suddenly and without warning fired upon by the murderer. At no time in the encounter was that weapon pointed at anyone.

No, just displaying a similar stunted mentality.

No, they just caused far fewer problems than alcohol -- which was also prohibited until the American people realized that alcohol prohibition caused more problems than drinking -- or tobacco, which was not prohibited.

Well. You finally got one right. Congratulations!

Also correct. The former created the conditions that created the latter.

 

So you think it wasn't an accidental shooting. Not murder, but just a dumb cop with an IQ of about 75 with an itchy trigger finger? Merely manslaughter?

Or are you really desperately somehow trying to illogically spin this into a blame the victim case?

 

Looks to me like the victim didn't have enough have enough time to react before the gunman police officer decided to kill him although he posed no threat. How could you when you get shot from behind at close range?

 

No, white lives don't matter. Whites are collectively guilty and owe everything because neo-Marxist social theorists say so.

Beyond that, it's a very sad situation but if the cops are at the door, don't answer with a gun in hand. If anyone else is at the door, don't open it so far the gun can be seen. Police had a legitimate cause to immediate fear of their lives even if that was not the intent.

 

If someone is brandishing a gun, how do you know?

 

The victim in this situation NEVER "brandished" a gun.

bran·dish

verb
wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.​

 

It was visibly in his hand, close enough. A gun can be raised to fire nearly instantaneously.

 

That doesn't change the fact that he was LOWERING the gun and clearly NOT brandishing it.

 

It doesn't count. He's the wrong race.

 

Look up "brandish" in a good dictionary.

 

So, police should immediately kill anyone who has a gun, just to be on the safe side....?