a ftp thread.

[Mike]

How about this Leo? Would you defend him?

Andrew Laeddis!

Fuck yea

[Broncojohnny]

Really? This again proves how little you know.

So, it "is going to result in meeting someone with a gun"? I and other officers have done this exact thing hundreds of times and I've NEVER had this happen to me. So you are saying your statement is an absolute truth? Puh-lease...

And what about no-knock warrants? They sure as hell don't ID before breaching the door and going in. Once inside, they announce, but in this case, there is nothing to indicate that they made entry before the shooting.

The guy answered the door with, and pointed a gun at officers. I'd say that's out of the ordinary.

Alan, quit while you are far behind.

And it isn't like you would tell the truth if it had happened to you huh little Matty? You have already demonstrated that you are a liar, I don't know why you would think you have any credibility, much less with anecdotal evidence.

[Forever_frost]

Really? The government garnished your checks?

Post up a copy of your leave and earnings statement that supports this. I'd LOVE to see it.

Nope, because I didn't shoot anyone's property. Just shot people. Though I did think I was getting a statement of charges for the damage to my NVG's. When was the last time cops worried about anything they broke?

[03trubluGT]

Would you defend the Leo's just the same if that person they killed had been a member of your family?

Please explain how I directly defended the actions of these officers.

I, just as usual, provided logical and legal explanation(s) of what could have happened and the process involved.

Never did I say that they were 100% right, or that there was no other way to do what they did except for the way they did it. Matter of fact, I said that it could have been done better, but what choice are you given when you come face to face with someone carrying a gun? It will be more than likely that this case will go to a Grand Jury for either an indictment or a No Bill.

But, again as usual, misinterpretations abound and people jump to conclusions without knowing what they are talking about.

[03trubluGT]

And it isn't like you would tell the truth if it had happened to you huh little Matty? You have already demonstrated that you are a liar, I don't know why you would think you have any credibility, much less with anecdotal evidence.

Back it up Alan.

Prove I lied and show my lack of credibility or you will be very close to libel.

[ELVIS]

LOL, "I know you're right, so what!" And who says I don't have any attachments?

true. eric introduced me to his new boyfriend a few weeks ago.

matt, so al, eric and bcoop are scared of you?

god bless.

[talisman]

Back it up Alan.

Prove I lied and show my lack of credibility or you will be very close to libel.

The comedy just never fucking stops on this site!

[03trubluGT]

Nope, because I didn't shoot anyone's property. Just shot people. Though I did think I was getting a statement of charges for the damage to my NVG's. When was the last time cops worried about anything they broke?

I thought you said "we" as in you were included...

Here:

Hell, I wasn't even allowed to do those things in Iraq. Anytime our weapon fired we had to pay some family, if we destroyed a door, we had to pay to build it better. If we opened fire in a house, we paid the family. Cops? Do what they want.

So, what is your definition of "we"?

Officers have to pay for damaged/lost equipment if that's what the chain of command dictates.

[03trubluGT]

true. eric introduced me to his new boyfriend a few weeks ago.

matt, so al, eric and bcoop are scared of you?

god bless.

Brent and Eric, yes.

Alan not as much, but he's having seizures as we speak.

[03trubluGT]

The comedy just never fucking stops on this site!

You are so correct.

Just look at this. Page 5!

[talisman]

Brent and Eric, yes.

Alan not as much, but he's having seizures as we speak.

lmao, why would I be afraid of you? Please explain it.

[Mike]

Please explain how I directly defended the actions of these officers.

I, just as usual, provided logical and legal explanation(s) of what could have happened and the process involved.

Never did I say that they were 100% right, or that there was no other way to do what they did except for the way they did it. Matter of fact, I said that it could have been done better, but what choice are you given when you come face to face with someone carrying a gun? It will be more than likely that this case will go to a Grand Jury for either an indictment or a No Bill.

But, again as usual, misinterpretations abound and people jump to conclusions without knowing what they are talking about.

I'm jumping to conclusions? Here I took the liberty of putting most of your on topic posts below. How the fuck can most of these be interpreted as anything but defending them? You didn't provide "logical" explanations to anything, you responded like a pompous ass with a hard on for your brothers in blue.
I guess you sidestepped your way around saying they did it 100% right, but you sure as fuck made it clear that the victim did it 100% wrong.

So I'll rephrase the question, would your replies be any different if the victim had been a member of your family?

I guess uniforms with patches and badges that say "Police" aren't good enough...

Care to quote where it says that?

The article I read says:

"When we knocked on the door, the door opened and the occupant of that apartment was pointing a gun at deputies and that's when we opened fire and killed him," Lt. John Herrell said.

No one ever looks through an apartment peephole anymore?

I guess he had time to point it at them, but no time to realize that they were the police? Come on.....

Responsibility? I'm sure that the city will be quite responsible.....

What, no apology for blasting me as "genius" when you were in the wrong???

I'm not surprised......


There isn't a curfew for knock and talks, or investigations, or the serving of warrants, etc.... If they had a warrant, they wouldn't bother with knocking.

Visual cues are much faster than verbal. There should be no need to explain this.




If you can't see who is at the door and you open it anyway, then that's on you. People should be smarter than that.



So you are implying that both parties already had guns drawn and pointed? I guess the cops were quicker on the trigger?



As an agent of the city, everyone knows where the deep pockets are.


There is no disputing that this went horribly wrong, and I wished that things like this did not happen. There is no easy fix, or there would be one in place.

This is the only place where you kind of admitted they might have fucked up. Kudos

Is self defense murder?

LOL! Let me point a loaded gun at you and see what your reaction is.....

Are you seriously believing what you are typing???

A misleading title at that.


According to the info given, the police followed him to a complex where he ditched his motorcycle. They start a search going from apartment to apartment and someone answers the door with a drawn gun. I'm so sure that you would let someone shoot at you, but that's OK.

If the police didn't get an answer, they would have gone to the next one. If they weren't in hot pursuit, they could not have just kicked in a door. The fact that they went to an apartment that the pursued wasn't in tells me that they had lost him.

You really need to learn how these things work before you start spouting off. It makes you look worse than you already do.

I'll submit a memo to make the visual clues louder to those that have just been woken up.

If you aren't awake enough to see a full uniformed officer, maybe you shouldn't carry a God damned gun to the front door!

Jus' sayin'....

[Forever_frost]

I thought you said "we" as in you were included...

Here:



So, what is your definition of "we"?

Officers have to pay for damaged/lost equipment if that's what the chain of command dictates.

We. Military. Service members.

Article 139 claims arc limited to damage, loss, or destruction of real or personal property.

The property damage, loss, or destruction must be caused by acts of military members that involve riotous or willful conduct, or demonstrate such a reckless and wanton disregard for the property rights of other persons that willful damage or destruction is implied. Only damage that is directly caused by the conduct will be compensated.

A claim that a marine accidentally bumped into and broke a mirror in the course of a drunken brawl with a Navy SEAL would be cognizable. Even though the marine did not specifically intend to break the mirror and you could characterize the act as simple negligence, the marine's conduct was riotous and damage resulted from it.

[idrivea4banger]

You guys are the ones hung up on my 9-5.

Period.

And what is this "talking down"? So it's acceptable for Brent, Eric, Alan, Henry et al to do it but not me? Don't you see the double standard?

This is another perfect example of you people not being able to separate my professional life from my online life.

I don't see it as them talking down but more or so pointing out the retards. You hide behind your badge and think you're so much better than the normal folk. That badge means shit when you continue to act like a total moron on here. You're just another LEO with the billy bad ass syndrome.


Why the fuck am I even responding to this nonsense?!?!

[Forever_frost]

Yeah, Matt put the full onus on the owner of the apartment. Not once did he say "Damn, that officer shot an innocent guy. He should go to jail."