Posted on 12/05/2014 5:58:11 AM PST by governsleastgovernsbest
There is some good debate and conversation happening in the wake of the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases. But there is also plenty of nonsense. Consider this gem from the New York Times editorial of this morning about police arrests: "there can never be a justification for any lethal assault on an unarmed man." How absurd.
In Ferguson, there is evidence that Michael Brown was attempting to wrest the officer's gun away. Should Darren Wilson have waited until Brown was successful before defending himself? Whatever the facts from Staten Island, if a single officer finds himself in a struggle with a suspect the size of Eric Garner, is he not entitled to fight for his own life?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
NOW you’re getting it! See, it’s easy to be a liberal. Just disengage your brain and use of logic. Viola! Pretty soon you will start to say things like;
Printing money with nothing to back it is a perfectly fine way to run an economy.
Having sex in the oval office isn’t that bad.
If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.
I’m a grown man. I am under no obligation to BOX anyone. You approach me or my loved ones in a threatening manner and I will use whatever technology I see fit to put your underdeveloped brain on the sidewalk.
COUNT ON IT!
Why do we bother with trials of anybody? Just ask the plaintiff for his opinion.
Questions of fact are for a jury to decide. Sure looked like a choke hold to my eyes.
I wouldn’t bet everything on it, but I believe it’s possible that Obama and Holder somehow manipulated this decision to keep their race narrative alive.
If the un-armed person is Chuck Norris, you have already lost...
Then tell that to the black flash mobs playing the Knockout Game.
If you ever needed an example of why NYT thinking is incompatible with reality, this is it. Ignoring simple, obvious facts of life and the whole of the history of living things, this NYT writer suggests that we return to a state where the physically strong dominate the weak. Physical strength was the deciding factor in all interpersonal conflicts before the introduction of firearms, especially handguns.
Without handguns, gangs win and the elderly, weak, and children lose. Women become subordinate to physically stronger males in all matters.
The NYT writer and all fellow travelers are dragging people toward a societal vision that looks a lot like the brutal oppression of the dark ages.
Or you could try to run to home base or tag somebody else.
Reading the NY Times makes you stupider.
So if this guy’s wife is getting strong arm raped....
(Oh, I’m sorry, thats presumptuous to think he is married to a woman.)
So if this guy’s mother is getting strong arm raped, and he was standing there with a gun, he would say “sorry mom, I can’t shoot him, try peeing yourself”
Nine members of the NY Grand Jury were non-white.
Idiots.
As a people we could agree to do things this guys way, or we could simply demand that animals behave themselves and have a civilization. It’s up to us.
Who approves this incindiary crap for publication
Doesn’t Marxism just make you warm all over?
Pray America is waking
Any form of physical contact has the potential to be lethal. Garner died of a heart attack, not strangulation - a “non-lethal” taser or pepper spray could easily have led to the same outcome.
Even if he really had no arms.
Hope they never need a cop.
I get the feeling there’s a broader narrative other than the one being forced on us. There’s more going on than just “liberal vs conservative” or one race against another.
So, if a 5’2” woman is attempting to fend off a domestic violence assault from a 6’4” d.bag is she allowed to reach for a gun?
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.