Watching The Cops
See other Watching The Cops Articles
Title: Milwaukee police officer dies after shooting on north side
Source:
WISN 12
URL Source: http://www.wisn.com/article/milwauk ... t-on-citys-north-side/22553707
Published: Jul 25, 2018
Author: Staff
Post Date: 2018-07-26 06:44:04 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 4461
Comments: 22
Roughly 135 cops died in 2016, making it the deadliest year for police officers in at least five years, Fox News has found. While there were fewer deaths in 2017, the numbers weren’t much better: a total of 129 officers died last year. And 46 of those were caused by gunfire. Tragically, a Milwaukee police officer has died following a shooting just after 5 p.m. yesterday in the city's north side Metcalfe Park neighborhood, according to the Milwaukee Police Department....increasing the number of deaths caused by gunfire to 31 this year. "I'm sad to inform you that one of the officers involved did not make it today," Milwaukee Police Chief Alfonso Morales said. Officers were looking for man near North 28th and West Wright streets who was wanted on gun and drug violations. When they approached the suspect at a residence, the suspect shot at the officers, Morales said. Police said they have the suspect in custody, and the weapon was recovered. The suspect was not shot, police said. The fallen officer, a 17-year veteran of the force, was a member of the Special Investigations Division. Police said they will not release his name until Thursday. "Words cannot describe the sorrow and anger I feel at this moment," Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett said. A procession of officers escorted the fallen officer's body Wednesday night from Froedtert Hospital to the Milwaukee County Medical Examiner's Office. At 9th and State streets, officers and firefighters lined the street in front of the police administration building, saluting. The last time a Milwaukee police officer was fatally shot while on duty was on Sept. 7, 1996, when Officer Wendolyn Tanner, 29, was killed. This is the first time since 1994 that two Milwaukee police officers have died in the line of duty. Officer Charles Irvine Jr., 23, was killed June 7 in a crash during a chase. "My heartfelt condolences to the family, friends and fellow officers who today suffered the loss of a beloved Milwaukee Police Department officer. Our community mourns once again at this tragic loss of life. May God's comfort be felt in this most difficult moment," Milwaukee County Sheriff Richard Schmidt said in a statement. Comment by Gatlin: Since the start of 2018, at least 51 law enforcement officers across the U.S. have died while on duty -- with 30 of the deaths caused by gunfire.
Milwaukee police officer dies after shooting on north side.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Gatlin (#0)
More US police officers killed in 2016 – but number still below 10-year average Tough break for the Milwaukee cop who was killed, but he knew the risks going in. Still - being a cop is less dangerous than so many other occupations. Still - being a cop is less dangerous than so many other occupations.
Most people understand that the day-to-day job of a police officer is full of potential dangers. Nearly every day, we see news stories of another police officer somewhere in the United States who is hurt or killed. We know there are bad people out there who are willing to do us - and any law enforcement officer who gets in the way - harm. But do you really understand the real dangers of being a police officer? Ask any officer and they will quickly tell you that, even in today's seemingly critical environment, the vast majority of people law enforcement officers meet each day are compliant - if not exactly friendly - and respectful. Even if they're not happy about getting a ticket, a notice to appear or even arrested, most people understand and appreciate the job that law enforcement is trying to do. Most officers also know - or learn very quickly - that there are a select few people who are on the fence, so to speak, over whether or not to comply. In those circumstances, how an officer interacts with those folks will very often determine how the encounter will go, which is why soft skills are so important for police officers. And then there are those very few people who have every intention of hurting or killing police officers from the very start. For those people, no matter what the officer may do, they intend to do harm. On average, 64 police officers per year were killed by criminals between 1980 and 2014, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigations. A relatively small percentage, given there are approximately 1 million officers working in the United States. But in 2013, nearly 50,000 police officers were assaulted - meaning 9 out of every one hundred officers were attacked. The challenge - and the inherent disadvantage - for police officers in any given citizen encounter is that they never know which kind of person they are dealing with. And so for a police officer, every single citizen interaction comes with a tremendous amount of risk of being assaulted or killed. It's not a surprise to most that police encounter people who may want to hurt them; most people recognize that risk. What is often underappreciated, especially by career hopefuls who want to become police officers themselves, are the other dangers that come with the job. The National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund reports that over the 10-year period ending in 2015, an average 144 officer were killed each year. Coupled with the 64 per year feloniously killed, and you can quickly see that the majority of officers - 80 per year - who die in the line of duty are killed by accident or other means besides the hands of a criminal. That means the greatest dangers to officers are the least understood or appreciated. Traffic accidents are a tremendous danger to a police officer, especially those whose primary responsibilities are traffic enforcement. Traffic fatalities have consistently been the single leading cause of death for police officers for the past several years. Officers spend a great deal of time driving, which naturally increases their risk of being in an accident. Add to that the dangers that come from driving in emergency response or police pursuits and you can quickly understand the increased risk. On top of their own driving, many officers work outside of their vehicles on busy streets, whether at scenes of traffic crashes or traffic stops, Those officers are in extremely vulnerable positions and risk getting hit by inattentive drivers. In fact, most officers will tell you one of the things they fear most is traffic. Training, too, can be dangerous for police officers. It's no secret that law enforcement careers come with physical rigors and that the training to become a police officer can be very intense, whether in firearms, defensive tactics, physical fitness or immersive programs like active shooter response training. The nature of police training is such that there is a relatively high potential for injury or even death if safety precautions are not imposed and adhered to. Even then, officers and police recruits alike can succumb to injuries they incur during their training. And then there are the truly hidden dangers that come with the job: health. Numerous reports, including a comprehensive study by the University of Buffalo School of Public Health and Health Professionals, have identified significant links between police officers' jobs and their own health. According to those studies, there are two primary components that contribute to significant health issues for officers: shift work and stress. Non-standard working hours, especially rotating shifts, encourage poor sleeping habits and police officer fatigue. Add to that the stress that comes from working in an already dangerous and libelous job, which in turn foster poor eating and exercise habits and associated health issues become a significant danger to officers on the job. That stress, along with the potential for post-traumatic stress from being involved in frightening and dangerous incidents, horrific scenes of death and destruction and unpleasant encounters with angry citizens can lead to yet another hidden danger: depression and suicide. By some estimates, somewhere between 120 and 150 police officers commit suicide each year, at a rate of about 17 suicides per 100,000 officers, 1.5 times higher than the rate of the general population and nearly triple the number of officers killed by criminals each year. So why would anyone want to be a police officer? The fact of the matter is that despite the dangers that come with the job, they can all be overcome. Mental fortitude, physical strength, a healthy spiritual life and the soft skills and hard skills necessary to make every citizen encounter successful are accessible through training, reflection, and caution. The policing profession offers an opportunity to help others and to make a difference. It fills a void in the world, where individuals are willing to make sacrifices in order to serve a greater cause: the safety and well-being of our society as a whole. Our world needs guardians to protect each other from the dangers we all face, and the law enforcement profession offers the opportunity to be a part of something more important than the self. In the end, despite the dangers, a job in law enforcement is more than worth the risk for the well-qualified officer. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/understand-the-dangers-of-being- a-police-officer-4034991
Yeah, we get it. You worship cops.
And you worship drugs Dexter. Because you want Americans to be stupid so they fall for your stupid ass bulshit libtard ideas.
You worship cops. “Worship" is the feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for God. I have respect for law enforcement and this in one way explains why: My answer is this, our generation has lost respect for authority in general. We talk back to our parents, we think rules don’t apply to us and we think we’re entitled to everything. Having that mindset, people hate those that are enforcing laws and getting them in trouble for wrongful actions; but that needs to change and it needs to change now. We have all heard about the supposed police brutality occurring “everywhere” in the United States, but we rarely hear about the officers who are killed in the line of duty while trying to protect people that they do not even know, people like you and me. Of course, there are some corrupt officers who have wrongfully injured or killed people, but that does not mean that ALL officers are corrupt and cruel. There’s corruptness and wrongful doings in all professions, but it does not mean that everyone has bad intentions. In fact, most officers have the mindset to help citizens in the best way possible. In 2016 alone, there have already been ten officers killed in the line of duty. The two most recent occurring Thursday, February 11th when Officer Jason Moszer and Officer Greg Barney were tragically shot. This proves that officers are willing to risk their lives for the sake of others and for their community. We need to trust, appreciate and respect police officers again. Every morning, they put on that uniform and hug their families before heading out the door, they know in the back of their heads that there’s a possibility of not coming back home that night. They risk their lives every day and go out of their way to protect strangers. And how do we repay or thank them? By rioting, putting their lives in danger, badmouthing them and disrespecting them and their profession. No, that’s all wrong. Instead of bashing them, we need to respect them and “have their backs” again like how it used to be. They need our support as much as we need theirs. They are the people we call whenever an emergency happens and they are always there to help us. They are the people who protect us in horrifying situations. Whether people like to admit it or not, we need our police officers and life without them protecting us is unfathomable. Like Odyssey on Facebook We need to stop disrespecting and rioting against our officers. We need to stand alongside them and give them the support they need. We need to put forth effort to make a change in our community and respect our police officers again.
You cannot speak for the other asshole libertarians. They must speak for themselves.
I believe that free citizens should have the right to determine on their own what substances they ingest. Statists and authoritarians on the other hand believe the government owns your body. Which one are you?
We will soon learn their names and perhaps you can send their family members your message that “being a cop is less dangerous than so many other occupations.” Although I fear that message will be of no consolation to them. You really need to stop your radical FUCKING WAR on cops....you cop-hating libertarian SOB.
Parsons is angry my friends...like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli. Piss off fascist - I hate the corrupt cops. In fact I have posted several "good cops" articles. Here's the latest: Good Cop Charges Police Chief with a Felony and Is Immediately Fired
You first.
I will die and go to hell before I ever become one.
I wouldn't wish that on anyone - not even you.
Parsons is angry my friends...like an old man trying to send back soup in a deli. Piss off fascist - I hate the corrupt cops. In fact I have posted several "good cops" articles. I simply find you to be another repulsive libertarian who wants everyone on drugs and all cops dead. Don’t you dare try to mask your true feeling and motives by saying you ONLY hate corrupt cops. That’s pure BULLSHIT. You posts and your lack of compassion shows your true feeling and intentions. You are really one SORRY piece of humanity. May God help you …
Compassion? He chose the job. I feel for his family though. I simply find you to be another repulsive libertarian who wants everyone on drugs and all cops dead. Please post a link to where I made either of those statements. Oh, you can't? You are full of shit then. Like I said - I have posted numerous good cops stories. As far as drugs - adults should be free to make their own choices. You on the other hand believe in total government control of our lives.
The individual who shot and killed one trooper and wounded another was walking “in and out of traffic” on Interstate 10 and “throwing things at cars.” The trooper was only trying get him out of danger when he struggled with the trooper, got his gun and shot him...then he shooti another trooper coming to assist. Since your libertarian druggies can’t control themselves when the take drugs....then the drugs must be controlled to prevent this type of incident from happening.
He chose the job. I feel for his family though. BULLSHIT. You libertarians have “feelings” ONLY for things that are of self-interest to you.
I see. T The guy who killed a trooper and wounded another “should be free to have made his own choice” and that choice being to walk in and out of traffic on Interstate 10 while throwing things at cars. If “drugees “can’t control their actions while on drugs, and we have yet another case here on I-10 where one could not….then I have no problem with the drugs being controlled to prevent future murderous actions by more “drugees”. You are SICK …
I wouldn't wish that on anyone - not even you. And I would never wish for anyone to be cursed with being a libertarian. But unfortunately for you….you are one. May God forgive your misguided ignorant ways.
The guy who killed a trooper and wounded another “should be free to have made his own choice” and that choice being to walk in and out of traffic on Interstate 10 while throwing things at cars. So...smoking a little ganja in the privacy of your own home is tantamount to killing a trooper. OK - got it. What a deluded simpleton you are. then I have no problem with the drugs being controlled to prevent future murderous actions by more “drugees”. Of course you will extend your crusade to those who use the deadly drug alcohol, right?
OK - got it. Filling your body with drugs anywhere….then walking in and out of traffic on and Interstate and killing one trooper and wounding another is incomprehensible. It is absolutely impossible to understand how you can condone and support the unbridled use of substances that separates families, fosters violence, and destroys communities. Paraphrasing: Many libertarians argue that we should legalize recreational drugs in the name of freedom and personal autonomy. Drug prohibition, they argue, infringes on personal freedom by denying individuals the liberty to do what they want with their own bodies. This is mistaken. In fact, it is drug legalization that infringes on freedom. Drug prohibition, not legalization, is the real pro-liberty position. Let me explain. The Foundations of Freedom All should agree that one of the essential responsibilities of government is to protect and promote personal freedom. To that end, governments have an interest in restricting activities that impair, destroy, or otherwise undermine personal freedom. Now, freedom cannot flourish unless certain background conditions are met. Consider an analogy with markets. If a government wants to protect and promote markets, then it must safeguard the conditions that make a market economy possible. These conditions include the protection of life, exchange, contracts, and private property. Without these prerequisites in place, it would be all but impossible for markets to flourish. The same is true of freedom. If the government has a responsibility to protect and promote freedom, then it must also protect and promote the conditions that make it possible. On this point, one essential ingredient of personal freedom is rationality. Choices can only be free if they are made by a person whose cognitive faculties are functioning in the right way. Reason confers on our actions a certain order and intelligibility that make them explicable and coherent. It is what makes our actions ours, such that we are responsible for them. Our ability to act freely is diminished or destroyed if we are unable to deliberate and think coherently, or if we are subject to overwhelming coercive forces. In other words, freedom isn’t just the bare ability to do something; it is the ability to act under the influence of properly functioning cognitive faculties. This point is pivotal in making sense of the legal concepts of consent, coercion, and competence. Young children are unable to enter into legally binding contracts because their cognitive capacities are not fully developed. Likewise, insanity defenses are based on the understanding that cognitively disabled or insane persons cannot be held criminally liable for their actions. There cannot be freedom without rationality. Accordingly, since the government has a responsibility to protect personal freedom, it must also protect and promote a culture that is conducive to clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking. The government, therefore, has a responsibility to restrict activities that impair, destroy, or otherwise undermine clear thinking. Recreational Drug Use Undermines Freedom Recreational drug use interferes with clear thinking. The very activity is centered around the consumption of an intoxicating substance that impairs one’s cognition. The whole point is to impair one’s ability to think clearly, which in turn impairs one’s ability to act freely. Thus, recreational drugs should be legally restricted because their use is incompatible with the vision of a freedom-respecting liberal state. There are two ways in which drugs affect cognition. First, there are the immediate effects of consuming certain drugs. The immediate effects of hallucinogens such as LSD and PCP include rapid mood swings, delusions, hallucinations, paranoia, and a distorted sense of time and self. Heroin produces euphoria followed by nausea and clouded mental functioning. The immediate effects of marijuana—which is often heralded as a “safe” drug—include anxiety, dysphoria and paranoia, altered judgment, cognitive impairment, and psychomotor impairment. Second, there are the long-term effects of drug use. Many drugs have addictive effects that impair the freedom of drug users by exerting a powerful influence over their future actions. Drug addicts who become physically and psychologically dependent on drugs have their sense of self-control diminished or even destroyed. These addictive effects can bleed into other areas of an addict’s life, affecting his ability to work, learn, care for himself, interact with others, and form relationships. They may impel him to act destructively in order to fuel his addiction, thereby affecting the freedom of others besides himself. Opponents of drug legalization typically focus on the long-term effects of drug use and their spillover effects to third parties, specifically children and teenagers. These are very serious concerns, to be sure, but the immediate effects of drug use are by themselves enough to show that recreational drug use is intrinsically antithetical to the good of freedom and personal autonomy. The opponent of legalization need not appeal to third party spillover effects to make his case. Let’s sum up the argument so far. One of the government’s chief responsibilities is to protect and promote freedom. In order to do this, it must also protect and promote the underlying conditions that make freedom possible, one of these being clarity of thought. The government therefore has an interest in cultivating a culture that encourages clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking. Since recreational drug use impairs the user’s ability to reason, governments should therefore enact legal restrictions on recreational drugs. In other words, if you value freedom, then you should oppose the legalization of recreational drugs. Drug Prohibition: Myths and Realities So far I’ve been defending drug restrictions. But the term “restriction” is vague. What kind of restrictions should the government adopt? Answer: the government should prohibit those substances that have no legitimate use aside from recreation. In addition to making them difficult to obtain, prohibition serves to drive up the cost of drugs, which in turn reduces demand by making it more expensive. It’s simply a matter of supply and demand: the more expensive you make something, the less willing people are to buy it. The added threat of legal punishment also serves to drive down demand. Conversely, if something is cheap, legal, and widely available, then people are more inclined to buy it. Drug legalization would make drugs both cheaper and more available, which in turn increases use. A 2015 study in the Journal of Health Economics found that medical marijuana laws increase marijuana use in both adults and adolescents. In adults aged 21 and older, the frequency of binge drinking also increased. Similarly, a 2017 study published in JAMA Psychiatry found that “medical marijuana laws appear to have contributed to increased prevalence of illicit cannabis use and cannabis use disorders.” Increased availability is also associated with increased use of other drugs, including alcohol. Prohibition makes drugs more expensive and less available, which in turn reduces drug use. Alcohol prohibition, which many think ended in failure, actually reduced per capita alcohol consumption by about 30 to 50 percent. Cirrhosis death rates, admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis, and arrests for drunk and disorderly conduct also declined dramatically. While is true that alcohol prohibition did ultimately fail, it failed for political reasons. In terms of reducing alcohol use, prohibition was a success. And given that excessive alcohol consumption impairs clear thinking (in addition to the $250 billion annual cost that it imposes on the nation), it is worth asking whether we should bring back some form of stringent alcohol regulation for reasons considered earlier. Of course, not all drugs are used recreationally. Alcohol can be consumed as a mild social lubricant without the intention to get drunk. But this is not true of marijuana, as the whole point of non-medical marijuana use is to get high (and, as we will see, most cases of so-called “medical” use are indistinguishable from recreational use). Nobody smokes a joint wanting to avoid the high. So too with heroin, cocaine, and other drugs. These drugs would be the target of prohibition, since their paradigmatic use is abuse, unlike alcohol. It is true that there will still be some who will go through the effort to illegally obtain drugs even if prohibition is enacted. Perfect compliance, however, isn't the standard of success when it comes to lawmaking. Laws against murder, assault, and theft don’t stop all of these crimes, but nobody is proposing that we legalize these things. Where Libertarians Go Wrong Where many libertarians go wrong in their support for drug legalization is in their conception of freedom. If we think of freedom as just the bare ability to make choices, then it is understandable why one might think that drug restrictions infringe on personal freedom, since such restrictions do limit our ability to make a range of choices. But not all choices are worth respecting. As I noted earlier, we cannot respect freedom without also respecting the conditions that make freedom possible. One such condition is the preservation and maintenance of properly functioning cognitive faculties. The free choices we should respect, therefore, cannot seek to undermine this condition. Since recreational drug use seeks to undermine clear thinking, the choice to partake in such an activity should not be respected. This is not, as some liberal political theorists might object, to adopt a “moralized” conception of freedom. Rather, what is being appealed to are structural conditions needed to make sense of respecting freedom under any conception of the good life. Indeed, it would be bizarre to argue that the state’s goal of promoting freedom is served by allowing its citizens to impair their own freedom. The initial decision to engage in recreational drug use may be free, but the end result is the diminution of freedom. One cannot realize his freedom by suppressing it, any more than one can become healthy by becoming ill. The idea that recreational drug use can be justified by an appeal to freedom or liberty is thus self-defeating in the same way that drinking seawater to remedy thirst is counterproductive to its own goal. Some argue that there is a moral right to use drugs that is derived from our right of ownership over our own bodies. According to libertarian philosopher Michael Huemer, “it is hard to see how anyone who believes in rights at all could deny that . . . drug use, considered merely as altering the user’s body and mind, is an example of the exercise of one’s rights over one’s own body and mind.” There are numerous problems with Huemer’s argument. For one, it does not follow from the fact that one owns himself that his rights over his own body are absolute and unlimited. Many philosophical traditions have held that we have duties of self- respect to ourselves, such as duties to preserve our own health and personal integrity, and to develop our talents. If there are such duties, then they would seem to count against a moral entitlement to debase one’s cognitive functioning. Appeals to bodily autonomy hinge on the background moral theory we adopt, and Huemer’s conception of self-ownership is no different. Huemer presupposes a controversial philosophical anthropology that needs to be justified, and he does not give us any reason why we should accept it. Nor will it do to argue, as some libertarians do, that the defender of drug prohibition must also be committed to bans on fatty foods, soft drinks, and the like. The argument I have given here pertains only to activities that are intrinsically destructive to clear thinking, which unhealthy foods (which typically are only unhealthy when consumed excessively) do not affect. So this objection simply doesn’t apply. What about Medical Marijuana? My focus has been on recreational drug use, but it is worth briefly discussing so- called “medical” applications of drugs (specifically marijuana), since these are wedge issues that many pro-legalization advocates exploit to sneak in full recreational legalization. There is research showing that cannabis or cannabinoids can help with pain management, nausea and vomiting, and multiple sclerosis spasticity. However, this same research has also found strong evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids can negatively affect respiratory health, lead to the development of schizophrenia or other psychoses, and increase one’s risk of being in a motor vehicle crash. So the putative benefits of marijuana must be weighed against the negative health effects of marijuana use. Additionally, there isn’t really an essential need for medical marijuana, given that there are plenty of other medicines that can address the ailments that marijuana may help with. Thus, while I am open in principle to allowing certain kinds of medical marijuana (provided that it go through the same rigorous process by which other medicines are approved), it would appear to be unnecessary. And, given the health risks of marijuana, it would be ill-advised and reckless to legalize marijuana under the guise of medicine. Indeed, medical marijuana is ripe for abuse. In states with medical marijuana programs, the overwhelming majority of medical marijuana users are young male adults who claim “pain” as the reason for which they need marijuana. Only a tiny percentage use marijuana for other reasons. Pain, of course, is a very vague reason that is easy to fake, so it provides an avenue for recreational users to obtain marijuana under the false banner of medicine. It seems then that medical marijuana programs provide a smokescreen for recreational use that amounts to de facto legalization. So there is a case to be made for extending drug prohibition to so-called medical marijuana. The Bottom Line To be clear, the argument I’ve offered here is not that recreational drug use should be restricted because it is unhealthy or immoral. Rather it is that recreational drug use impairs and undermines the conditions for freedom, and so the legalization of recreational drugs is incompatible with the vision of a freedom-respecting state. As John Stuart Mill said, “the principle of freedom cannot require that [one] should be free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his freedom.” A society that values freedom must cultivate a culture that encourages clear thinking and discourages impaired thinking. For that reason, recreational drugs should be legally prohibited. Libertarians, therefore, should stand opposed to drug legalization.
Roughly 135 cops died in 2016, making it the deadliest year for police officers in at least five years, Fox News has found.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#2. To: Deckard (#1)
Tough break for the Milwaukee cop who was killed, but he knew the risks going in.
The use of “moral equivalence” is a form of equivocation and a fallacy of relevance often used by ignorant libertarians. It is a effort to draw comparisons between different and often unrelated things in order to make a point and support an agenda. It is used to draw attention to an unrelated profession by comparing it to a different bad event, in an attempt to say one is not as bad as the other. Or, it may be used in an attempt to claim one isn't as bad as the other by comparison. Drawing a moral equivalence in this way is a logical fallacy. It is a rationalization device primarily used by asshole libertarians when stupidly failing to use logic and fully acknowledging the reality of a situation.
#3. To: Deckard (#1)
Learn About the Dangers of Being a Police Officer
#4. To: Gatlin (#3)
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#5. To: Deckard (#4)
#6. To: Deckard (#4)
Yeah, we get it.
Nah, you don’t get it. Growing up, our parents and grandparents would have never thought to disregard or disrespect authority, especially law enforcement. We live in a world now where sayings such as “eff the police” and “they’re all pigs” are a common occurrence in our society. My question is, why has it become so likely to bash and disrespect people who risk their lives everyday to serve and protect our communities?
#7. To: Deckard (#4)
Yeah, we get it.
Stop constantly using the collective pronoun “we”.
#8. To: A K A Stone (#5)
And you worship drugs Dexter.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#9. To: Deckard (#1)
Still - being a cop is less dangerous than so many other occupations.
A couple hours ago, an Arizona state trooper was shot dead and another wounded on Interstate 10.
#10. To: Deckard, A K A Stone (#8)
I believe that free citizens should have the right to determine on their own what substances they ingest.
And I believe that all libertarians have the right to commit suicide, but that doesn’t mean that it’s a smart thing to do.
#11. To: Gatlin (#9)
You really need to stop your radical FUCKING WAR on cops....you cop-hating libertarian SOB.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#12. To: Gatlin (#10)
And I believe that all libertarians have the right to commit suicide
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#13. To: Deckard (#12)
And I believe that all libertarians have the right to commit suicide. Nah, I am no libertarian.
#14. To: Gatlin (#13)
(Edited)
I will die and go to hell...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#15. To: Deckard (#11)
You really need to stop your radical FUCKING WAR on cops....you cop-hating libertarian SOB.
I am not angry.
#16. To: Gatlin (#15)
(Edited)
You posts and your lack of compassion...
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#17. To: Deckard (#8)
I believe that free citizens should have the right to determine on their own what substances they ingest.
Libertarian, here is a CLASSIC case showing one of YOUR “citizens” “ingesting” a substance(s).
#18. To: Deckard (#16)
You posts and your lack of compassion.. . Compassion?
#19. To: Deckard (#16)
As far as drugs - adults should be free to make their own choices.
#20. To: Deckard (#14)
I will die and go to hell.
#21. To: Gatlin (#19)
As far as drugs - adults should be free to make their own choices.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Trump: My People Should ‘Sit Up in Attention’ Like Kim Jong-un’s Staff.
#22. To: Deckard (#21)
So...smoking a little ganja in the privacy of your own home is tantamount to killing a trooper.
Nope, you don’t “got” it. The libertarian version of freedom should not be just the essential ability to do something when you want to…it must be the ability to act under the influence and guidance of correctly functioning cognitive faculties. If you value freedom, then you should stand in opposition to the legalization of, and unbridled use of, recreational drugs.
The Libertarian Case for Drug Prohibition
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]