3 cops, 3 armed citizens gets a call for more backup.
30 cops, 50 armed citizens gets an amazing attempt at de-escalating the issue before the shooting starts.

wait, you think 50 citizens showing the cops that they have guns will DE-ESCALATE the situation?

Shoot out at the OK Corral

you think 30 cops are going to take on 50 armed individuals?

http://media.southparkstudios.com/me...y_arrested.jpg
Oh, I'm sorry! I thought this was America! I thought I was in America! What, is this a communist country or something?

/necessary South Park reference

You can reverse the effects of tear gas with onions. Just slice into one and put it near your eyes. Instead of the onions making you cry like they normally would they would neutralize the effects of the tear gas. Of course, this can only help so much. :thumbsup:

dk - you take my "quote" out of context. It was from a quote byObieX. It was my point that Cubans do not have arms. I do not not see the "thug mentality" by the police; but again, I do not know the whole story. Nor does anyone else watching this short clip. I DO know that the Miami police would not respond w/this force for such a small number of people. True question - what is the whole story, or is it just a story?

That's a question for the courts to decide. Not some half baked, martyr wannabe, pseudo revolutionary with a gun. You do know, don't you, that it's rhetoric, such as yours, that fuels the anti second ammendment crowd? And, it's times like this that I sometimes have to wonder my own self.

I predict, dksuddeth, that one day we will be hearing of you in the news. Only, thing is, we'll never know that it was you.

Y'know, I'm curious. What is it with you? Did you get one to many traffic ticket? Did you get busted for an open container law? Were you caught carrying controlled substances? Were the police called to tell you to turn down your god-awful music? What? What is it, that fuels this hatred, of yours, toward the police?

It is not my problem that the anti second amendment people have issue with people like me who would stand up and fight for their rights. That is wholly and totally their issue. They have to deal with that.

belive me, if there's an incident in the news concerning me, you'll know. my last name is in my signon. I'll even tell you my whole name. It's Duane Suddeth. I'm not worried about being tracked, monitored, or investigated.

The few issues I've had with law enforcement have been completely my fault. The police i've dealt with have been nothing but professionals. I have no issue with those cops i've had personal dealings with. It's all of the episodes of violence and violation of rights of others that I have problems with. I've had speeding tickets where I was certainly speeding. I've been busted for DUI righteously. I've never had a single incident where I've been wrongly persecuted by law enforcement. I do not hate the police in general. What I do hate is the arrogance of some of law enforcement that abuses their badge. I also hate that 'thin blue line' that prompts good police officers to staunchly defend their fellow police officers even though they KNOW they are wrong.
It is that mentality of the inability to police their own brothers and sisters in blue that makes me part of what I am.

There are many posts of yours from other sites that refute your current claims
of not hating the police in 'general'.

One of your posts from another site.

"deadly force against police officers in self defense
Reply
These are the applicable sections:

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;

(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;

(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless

(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and

(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or

(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:

(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or

(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in
using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is
justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide
or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the
other's life in an emergency.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

With the above sections of law, can deadly force be lawfully justified against a texas peace officer, provided the criteria in 9.32, 9.33, or 9.34 are met?"

It's almost like you have a weird suicide by cop deathwish to be this blatant,
or you're addicted to the adrenaline rush of all the catastrophic 'what if' scenarios.

Sorry to turn this personal, but many other people on TFP are expressing
deep concerns about your attitudes and possible acting out behavior.

then you are misreading my posts. I don't hate police in general. I hate police that don't follow the law themselves and think that their badge elevates them above the law.

'texas penal codes of self defense 9.31 thru 9.34'
I'm not sure why you feel these are indicative of hatred towards law enforcement. These are laws which legalize and justify self defense against the unlawful use of force by citizens and law enforcement. please explain further why you feel these are pertinent.

I have no suicide wish, nor am I addicted to that specific dose of adrenalin. I've very simply decided to not let myself be abused by those in authority who have no idea what the limits of their authority actually are. If you have concerns about those of us who will not acquiesce to the demands of abused authority, perhaps it isn't us you should be looking at.

Regarding the title... yeah, it's still 'Merica.


...

Sooooo... what exactly would lead you to believe that this is any more rampant than "Wolverines!"-screaming nutjobs violating the rights of lawful citizens?

...

Hmmm... you should totally read the book I just finished for my silly little capstone program:

POLICE: Streetcorner Politicians by William Ker Muir. ISBN 0-226-54633-0.

It deals with the paradoxes related to the use of coercive power in a the law enforcement institution at both the ground level and the top of the totem pole. Machiavelli'd. It was quite the illuminating read, especially to someone who doesn't really like cops all that much (odd given my future profession). Maybe it'd help you understand that they're not all out to get you because, well... really... they've got better things to do. And they have bosses who don't like to do paperwork anymore than you like getting a free ride in the backseat of a cruiser. I've also heard all of this from a guy who's been a badge-carrying Government Drone for 30+ years. If anybody should be a heartless stormtrooper... it's him. He doesn't have it and I can't figure out why... maybe it's because he's got other hobbies?

...

You gotta work with me, bro... I'm pro-gun and anti-The Man as much as the next guy who read 1984 but I just fail to see how a few bad apples mean the end of the orchard. It's easy to take isolated incidents of humans being human and turn it into a conspiracy of ignorance masquerading as common sense. There's a lot of people in the US. It's the most violent country on the planet (thanks, Baraka) and frankly I'm surprised our system is as good as it is given the exceptionally rough nature of the police/citizen contact patch.

So some cops fucked up. Sure, it sucks but until we replace them with Cyberdyne Systems Model 101s... we're stuck with the fallible human operating the fallible system. Lotsa loose tolerances in design (by design, as well) and discretion... and you know what that means: it breaks sometimes.

It's why we have laws. Police that break the law can be held accountable.

Jumping to the point where you are gunning them down because they broke the law, it a leap I cannot make.

could you imagine what would happen if 10 cops were killed by gun carrying protesters. Seriously? Seriously?

wow that's some fancy thinking or lack there of you got going on there:rolleyes:

---

-+-{Important TFP Staff Message}-+- While TFP certainly does not try to censor anyone nor take away their fundamental rights of speech, TFP in no way condones or endorses acts of violence in any manner. Staff and board are not responsible for the actions of members in real life.

---------- Post added at 10:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 AM ----------

I also want to point out that I despise police who believe they *ARE* the law because they carry a gun and a badge; however, I'm also of the belief that it is much more poetic to sue the police in civil court as well as sending them to prison if they abuse the laws. I'm sure the prison population would enjoy having fun with corrupt cops.

Well, that was the most "demotivational" staff message I've ever seen.

The scenes I see from this G20 event get even more an more crazy. Police surround everyone and tell them to leave but won't let them leave. :shakehead:

They did that at the RNC too, samcol. Then, because nobody left (because they couldn't), they just arrested everybody, including many members of the press, and dismissed the charges later.

Their response to the obligatory wtf was essentially "Man, that shit was crazy, did you guys see how we handled that RNC thing? We were so organized and the situation was soooo complicated. We're awesome!!"

Did I mention that Minneapolis' police department has paid out over $9.5 million dollars in the last 4 years to settle misconduct charges? And that recently official MPD policy had to be changed to make it clear to certain overly enthusiastic members of the MPD (because apparently it was ambiguous) that it actually isn't okay to beat the ever living shit out of someone who is laying on their stomach in a passive state? This policy came about not because the chief suddenly realized "Hey, my officers are kicking the shit out of people for no good reason, and not only is that a violation of civil rights, but it is also costing my city upwards of $2 million a year." Nope. The big change came about because in two separate incidents in as many weeks, the police got themselves caught on camera beating the shit out of completely passive, defenseless people and this caused something of a stir amongst certain members of the general public.

..

sigh.

I agree that there was not enough information in the video. That said, police are there to enforce the law. If laws were broken, then people (demonstrators or police) need to be punished through fines/arrest/dismissal. Enforcing laws is not totalitarian. If the laws are totalitarian, then it is the right and the duty of all citizens to find a peaceful solution to change those laws, and as long as the Constitution exists, that avenue is always there.

Where is your anger at this?

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Cindy Sheehan arrested at White House anti-war protest - Blogs from CNN.com

Oh that's right...you don't care if it's liberals getting arrested for protests.

just to continue this and see if anyone is still of the opinion that our government should always be listened to.

Scenes From a Crackdown - Reason Magazine