Only the police should be allowed to have guns.
/s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s /s
Posted on 09/08/2013 6:17:52 AM PDT by benasawin
Don’t worry porky, by the time your boys arrive on the scene, the gun won’t be pointed at anyone anymore.
What Chicago Police Superintendent Gary McCarthy is saying: Chicago police are free to murder anyone they want, any time, any place, any where, without consequence. Innocent civilians defending themselves against thugs and gang members or criminals — it doesn’t matter. My cops are above the law. And as a bonus, we will shoot your dog(s) too.
At first I thought this was another John Semmens satire piece but after reading, truth is stranger than fiction!
“We spend six months in the police academy, six months of field training and ongoing training on a regular basis and the fact is once in a while we’re going to shoot someone with a cellphone; we’re going to shoot somebody with a flashlight and none of that is okay. But now you take John Q. Civilian, you give them six weeks or 10 weeks of training and you say ‘have at it?”
So just because highly trained cops don’t know the difference between a cellphone or flashlight and a weapon average civilians will surely go around shooting people holding those objects?
Only the police should be allowed to have guns.
“...the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire...”
And, a law abiding, licensed to carry civilian should respond how when they meet a cop?
You reap what you sow.
They won’t stop and frisk ‘gangstas’ because that would violate their rights (and it might be dangerous for them?) but they will level their sidearms at legally armed citizens with carry permits. Because we are ‘soft targets’? Like dogs?
What we got here is .... a failure to communicate (guns up)!
Liability lawyers are wetting themselves with glee, while City attorneys soil themselves from fear. They should demand this clown’s resignation; he is trying to intimidate people from exercising legal rights, by threatening to murder them.
So, when the CPD murders the first CCW licensee, it can be shown easily that the Police Department’s training was flawed, inconsistent with the law, and likely to result in the death of innocent citizens behaving lawfully — and that they knew that in advance but did nothing to change it. That constitutes willful gross misconduct. Massive damage awards and Chicago bankruptcy coming up.
Chicago juries should refuse to convict anyone who shoots a cop as long as this asshat is in charge of the dept.
Lawyer-up!
Here's how it will work in Chicago. Officer asks if you have concealed weapon. You say yes. He pulls his gun, points it at you and says drop the weapon. As you go to reach for the weapon (to drop it) he shoots you and claims you drew on him. That is why it is imperative that no matter what the officer says, you do not touch your weapon if the officer is aiming at you. You will get shot. Just put your hands on your head and await the beating.
Yeah, I love one of the liberal talking points. “If private citizens have guns, and there’s a mass shooting, then when we finally show up two hours later to collect bodies and fill out paperwork, if the incident is still in progress we might shoot the wrong person!”
“The quote in the article says that, if you draw down on a police officer you will probably get shot.”
You need to read that again because it says nothing about drawing down on a cop. It also says nothing about probability. It states a certainty.
That can ruin you day.
—
Or the rest of your life:
107-year-old man killed in police shootout in Arkansas, authorities say
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/08/justice/arkansas-107-year-old-man-death/index.html … …
SWAT TEAM insanity
The author quotes the superintendent saying: "So I’ll train our officers that there is a concealed carry law, but when somebody turns with a firearm in their hand the officer does not have an obligation to wait to get shot to return fire and we’re going to have tragedies as a result of that." (Emphasis added.)
It also says nothing about probability. It states a certainty.
The author states: "And now his highly trained officers will shoot at someone carrying a gun, regardless of whether or not that person has done anything wrong."
I didn't see where the author quoted the superintendent saying police will shoot at someone for merely carrying a gun. It's the author's statement.
You know, it seems that states that are serious about the second amendment need to pass laws limiting police actions against citizens exercising their rights AND granting rights of self defense to citizens who are defending themselves against illegal cop actions.
This police chief obviously needs to be removed from office and prohibited from carrying and owning firearms due to extreme mental instability.
“They should demand this clown’s resignation; he is trying to intimidate people from exercising legal rights, by threatening to murder them.”
Rahm Emmanuel, Chicago’s Mayor, is replacing McCarthy as Police Chief. He’s already on his way out. Probably why he is so belligerent and sour grapes.
What if the officer is the one who told you to remove the gun from it's holster and then shoots you for doing so?
Or, what if two cops do it tag team and one officer screams drop the weapon while other screams put your hands on your head. If you reach to remove the weapon, the one who told you to put your hands on your head will shoot you. I hope you don't think these scenarios are somehow out of the realm of likelihood.
Unless the cops are given specific procedures on dealing with CCW's they will shoot first and ask questions later. AND, they will never publish what those procedures are because that would take plausible deniability out of the cops hands and empower the CCW. Exactly the opposite of what they want.
“Really!?!?!
Well, jackass. That is a two way street.
Your officers don’t really want to kill innocent people.
You’re gonna create some real anger problems and alcoholics within your ranks, as men struggle with their concience.”
I wouldn’t count on cops with a conscience. What guys like that need is citizens who think the same way, and shoot on sight. If it is a cop, well...as he said, tragedies happen.
Or maybe they need an electorate that suddenly decides to hamstring the local police with new rules of engagement.
But the moron better understand, the streets run red with innocent blood, no one is going to care about his justifications or arrogant attitudes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.