To: csvset
You know, the Second Amendment also covers swords... so merely having one was no reason for them to taze him.
4 posted on
12/11/2009 3:30:34 PM PST by
OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
To: OneWingedShark
You know, the Second Amendment also covers swords... so merely having one was no reason for them to taze him. Yes...I thought it was good that the reporter/editor made it clear why the police were there and that they tased after he swung the sword at them.
8 posted on
12/11/2009 3:40:05 PM PST by
Gondring
(Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
To: OneWingedShark
You know, the Second Amendment also covers swords... so merely having one was no reason for them to taze him.How about swinging it at a police officer? Think that might change the situation just a leetle bit? Read the article.
To: OneWingedShark
You know, the Second Amendment also covers swords... so merely having one was no reason for them to taze him. True but attempting to kill the officers with it certainly did. I assume the only reason they did not just shoot him was because he was a mental case and not a normal criminal.
20 posted on
12/11/2009 4:26:33 PM PST by
usurper
(Spelling or grammatical errors in this post can be attributed to the LA City School System)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson