Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

...And another...

Yet another unarmed black man shot by cops. This time he was mocked while dying.

“He shot me! He shot me, man. Oh, my god. I’m losing my breath.” ~Eric Harris, down and in the process of being cuffed

“Fuck your breath! Shut the fuck up!” ~Officer Sociopath

How many more of these do we need to see?  How many?!




161 comments:

  1. So, you didn't really read about this one, did you? I'll admit the mocking was way over the top, but the guy was "unarmed" because he sold his gun to an undercover cop who then attempted to arrest him before he ran away. When the criminal gets killed in the line of his duty, then they get what they deserve. Get over your "unarmed black man killed" shit. This time he earned what he got. Either that or YOU support him with your (not mine) tax money for the next 50 years in our overcrowded prison system. Fucking liberals are ruining this country.

    " How many?!"

    In this instance.... as many as needed to stop criminals from selling weapons to people on the street.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. You're a real piece of shit, aren't you?

      Delete
    2. Eric Harris: 6 FELONY convictions. "convicted felon who had served time in prison for assault and battery on a police officer, had sold methamphetamine to a task force twice in the past week and was to be considered armed and dangerous.", "Harris was not armed, but Clark said Harris “was absolutely a threat when going down,” because he hadn’t been searched. Clark said Bates left his vehicle with a pepper ball gun in his left hand and a firearm in his right hand.".
      ( http://heavy.com/news/2015/04/robert-bates-tulsa-reserve-deputy-sheriff-arrested-charged-manslaughter-shooting-eric-harris-oklahoma-accident-video-volunteer-cop-insurance/ )

      And I'm supposed to feel sorry for him? What if the guns he has sold are used to kill your son or wife? You gonna support his dead ass then? Please try to get a grip on reality, here. This guy was no innocent teenager smoking pot then getting killed by the neighborhood watch guy. And it isn't like the guy who owed $50K in child support who got shot in the back 8 times. And it isn't like the guy who just robbed a store before getting shot. Or the guy starting fights at a mass transit station. He was a hardened criminal with an extensive record for violence and mayhem. Why should I feel sorry for this guy for one second? He put himself into that situation and got what he asked for.

      Delete
    3. Fifty years for illegally selling a firearm seems excessive. I find it interesting that you think that people should be killed instead of given trials, though.

      William, previously: "You've made every excuse in the world to send him directly to jail without trial. Don't you believe in the American justice system? Why can't you let it work? Ahh, never mind. I understand why you seem to hate American Justice."
      http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/going-to-trial.html?showComment=1334543311412#c8081050594387040005

      Delete
    4. I don't understand what you're crying about. you'll get another conviction for "killing an unarmed black man by police". You'll have that trophy on your wall. Only this time, the cop may have saved an untold number of lives. But, the cop will go to jail all because of your misplaced hatred of ... of what, Eddie? What the hell are you so mad about where you will defend a hardened unrepentant criminal getting killed by the police who are trying to arrest him after he attempted to sell his guns to the police?
      What the hell is YOUR problem, Eddie? You're the real piece of shit.


      Delete
    5. "Fifty years for illegally selling a firearm seems excessive."

      That's because you not smart enough to know that with 6 felony convictions the sentences are usually a little stiffer.
      Besides that, nobody cares what you find interesting.

      Delete
    6. "That's because you not smart enough to know that with 6 felony convictions the sentences are usually a little stiffer."

      That doesn't make fifty years anything less than excessive.

      "Besides that, nobody cares what you find interesting."

      Nobody cares about your opinion of liberals, yet you keep yapping.

      Delete
    7. "Nobody cares about your opinion of liberals, yet you keep yapping."

      Obviously, you and Eddie do, or you wouldn't keep worrying about it. Anything else off topic you want to discuss? It only took you one post to go off-topic this time. That ties your ongoing record and continual habit.

      Delete
    8. "Obviously, you and Eddie do, or you wouldn't keep worrying about it."

      Obviously, you care about what I find interesting, since you keep commenting on it.

      "It only took you one post to go off-topic this time."

      I responded to what you said. That means that you were off-topic.

      Delete
    9. "I responded to what you said. That means that you were off-topic."

      I find it interesting that you're too stupid to realize I was talking about your FIRST comment (even though I said that).
      Anything of substance? Or are you done now?

      Delete
    10. "I find it interesting that you're too stupid to realize I was talking about your FIRST comment (even though I said that)."

      I know what you were talking about. I was responding to what you said, so it couldn't have been "off-topic".

      Delete
    11. Ok, nothing of substance (or on topic) so I take it you are done.

      Run away now.

      Delete
    12. Pointing out your hypocrisy is both substantial and relevant to your comment. I have nothing to run away from.

      Delete
    13. Well then, talk about how this current situation involves a hardened criminal with an extensive arrest/conviction record is being classified as "an unarmed black man killed by police" as if he had done nothing to put him into the situation where he could be killed for his actions.

      Or, you can talk about substance and relevance for all I care.

      I expect the later, because you don't seem like you're too 'up' on actual news that is happening, you seem more concerned about your appearance to others.

      Delete
    14. "Well then, talk about how this current situation involves a hardened criminal with an extensive arrest/conviction record is being classified as "an unarmed black man killed by police" as if he had done nothing to put him into the situation where he could be killed for his actions."

      Why do you favor executing anyone instead of having a trial? He was on the ground when he was shot with another officer on top of him. If you want to argue that's appropriate instead of an arrest and a trial, that would be your argument to make before it's mine to dispute. That's not how the system works.

      "I expect the later, because you don't seem like you're too 'up' on actual news that is happening, you seem more concerned about your appearance to others."

      I addressed what you said. If that involved my "appearance to others", then that should be a clue to you that you went off-topic.

      Delete
    15. "because he hadn’t been searched"

      So... When in doubt, take him out? Is that you're philosophy? ANOTHER way of saying that would be: They had NO FUCKING IDEA if he was armed, so they EXECUTED HIM. (Oh, but I'm sure that Race played NO FACTOR in that at all, even with all the white serial killers they manage to bring in alive and unharmed, huh?)

      "What if the guns he has sold are used to kill your son or wife?"

      Like the guns used in Sandy hook? Like the guns used in Aurora? Like the guns used at Virginia Tech? Like the Guns used at Columbine? Like the gun used by your fallen hero George Zimmerman? Like the guns that accidentally kill so many children each year? Will? FUCK YOU. You don't get to have it both ways. Unless you support tougher gun control measures, and stricter gun laws, you don't get the privilege of making that argument. FUCK. YOU.

      "Eddie? What the hell are you so mad about where you will defend a hardened unrepentant criminal getting killed by the police who are trying to arrest him after he attempted to sell his guns to the police?"

      I can think of several reason, you un-American lump of sweaty ballsack:

      1) NONE of his convictions were for a capital offense, including the one he was now likely facing.

      2) ALL people, regardless of past conviction or the current level of evidence against them have the right to a trial. The Police DO NOT have the legal authority to suspend that! (What the hell is wrong with you?!)

      3) They had him in custody. There was no threat. There was no reason - no justification on the basis of self-defense - to shoot him. And even if there was DOUBT, DOUBT does not justify taking a human life! If you're going to shoot someone at PBR, you'd better be SURE he was a threat! (Again: What the hell is wrong with you?!)

      4) When a conviction for a new offense is made, even in capital cases, the sentence in not carried out by the local police. EVER. What fucking country do you live in?!

      5) As usual, you have yet to say even a single thing that invalidates any of these points, any of his Constitutional Rights (you DO remember the Constitution, yes?) or any of his basic humanity. HIS legal rights are the same as YOURS, buddy. And NOTHING - that you've siad here or otherwise - changes that.

      Final word, unless you have something that doesn't amount to an endorsement of vigilante, lynch-mob justice on the part of agents of a government you don't seem to trust with literally ANYTHING else: Unlike YOU, apparently, I don't just pay lip-service to the Rule of Law, I actually think it MEANS something. And finally: I'm not so profoundly stupid as to say I want "small government," and then turn around and suggest that cops should just KILL PEOPLE whenever they fell like it.

      You are exhibit one in the Liberal observation that Conservatives stop being pro-life the minute your're born.

      And you really are a piece of shit.

      Delete
    16. "Why do you favor executing anyone instead of having a trial?"

      Who was executed without a trial? As far as I know everyone on death row has had their trial(s). Perhaps you haven't read the specifics of this case either.

      BTW, when did execution become on-topic here?

      Delete
    17. "Who was executed without a trial?"

      If the police kill people in order to spare the taxpayer from paying for fifty years of prison, that would be executing them without a trial. Do you need to go back and read your previous comments?

      Delete
    18. "Unless you support tougher gun control measures, and stricter gun laws, you don't get the privilege of making that argument. FUCK. YOU."

      I DO support tougher gun laws and control measures. That's why I'm not so upset over someone selling guns on the street getting killed while he attempts to do his business.

      "They had him in custody. There was no threat."

      I still take it you haven't read what he has done. Do you even have a clue what meth will do to a person? Do you have a clue how uncontrollable someone under the influence of meth can be? Apparently you DO NOT ! !

      "As usual, you have yet to say even a single thing that invalidates any of these points, any of his Constitutional Rights (you DO remember the Constitution, yes?) or any of his basic humanity."

      The killing was a fucking accident. There was no "execution" or "vigilante" endorsement or "lynch-mob justice" happening in THIS case. The shooter is going to be prosecuted for his ACCIDENT. You are WAY off base on this one.

      "And you really are a piece of shit."

      Appreciate that uninformed opinion relating to THIS case.
      .

      Delete
    19. "If the police kill people in order to spare the taxpayer from paying for fifty years of prison, that would be executing them without a trial."

      So, my opinion tells you what the cops were thinking?

      "Do you need to go back and read your previous comments?"
      .
      You mean this statement: " Either that or YOU support him with your (not mine) tax money for the next 50 years in our overcrowded prison system."? And that tells you what the cops were thinking ... IN WHAT FUCKING WAY?

      Delete
    20. "So, my opinion tells you what the cops were thinking?"

      No, it tells me what you were thinking; that people should be executed without a trial.

      Delete
    21. "No, it tells me what you were thinking; that people should be executed without a trial."

      He wasn't executed. So, that's not what I was thinking. Having a hard time following along, huh?

      Delete
    22. "He wasn't executed."

      It doesn't matter. You have no problem with him being killed, because it saves the taxpayers money from having to incarcerate a hardened criminal. Any other view, according to you, shows how liberals are supposedly ruining things.

      If you want to elaborate on your view, go ahead. In the meantime, it's quite clear that you think that criminals should be executed in order to save money, whether that was the case here or not.

      Delete
    23. " it's quite clear that you think that criminals should be executed in order to save money, whether that was the case here or not."

      Yes, convicted criminals worthy of the death penalty should be executed.

      Delete
    24. "Yes, convicted criminals worthy of the death penalty should be executed."

      Or who sold a firearm illegally, according to you.

      Delete
    25. "Or who sold a firearm illegally, according to you."

      That's your uninformed and inaccurate opinion of what I've said. Nothing unexpected there. You do that often.

      Delete
    26. "That's your uninformed and inaccurate opinion of what I've said."

      You'll have to explain what you do think, and how it's supposed to line up with your previous comment. If you think that he should have gotten a trial, then you must be complaining about what happened here.

      Delete
    27. "You'll have to explain what you do think, and how it's supposed to line up with your previous comment."

      I've already done that. If you don't like what I've said then you can ignore me.

      " If you think that he should have gotten a trial, then you must be complaining about what happened here."

      And, I've already explained what happened here and you have several videos you can watch to see what happened. If you don't like my opinion then whine to someone else. I'm not here to pamper you and your crazed thinking process.

      Delete
    28. "I've already done that."

      No, you have not.

      "If you don't like my opinion then whine to someone else."

      So you're not accountable for what you say? Color me surprised.

      Delete
    29. "So you're not accountable for what you say?"

      What have I said that you haven't misinterpreted and came to a wrong conclusion? Why should I defend myself to people like YOU? Let someone with a little intelligence question me and I'll respond in kind. When I get someone stupid questioning me then you get what you deserve.

      "No, you have not."

      Sure I have: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/04/and-another.html?showComment=1429122955310#c1078679607909437382
      and here also: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/04/and-another.html?showComment=1429100505434#c2204974169363944065
      and here also: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/04/and-another.html?showComment=1429065906047#c6386669335948332681

      Notice a pattern there? I'm responding to an intelligent poster.

      Delete
    30. "What have I said that you haven't misinterpreted and came to a wrong conclusion?"

      As far as you've shown, I haven't misinterpreted anything.

      "Why should I defend myself to people like YOU?"

      The same could be said to you, yet I don't have any problem justifying my comments.

      "Let someone with a little intelligence question me and I'll respond in kind."

      See the immediately preceding comment.

      "Notice a pattern there?"

      Yes, all of them are consistent with the interpretation that you have no problem with people being shot and killed by police in order to save taxpayer money.

      Delete
    31. "Yes, all of them are consistent with the interpretation that you have no problem with people being shot and killed by police in order to save taxpayer money."

      And that would be more of your misinterpretations. I've consistently said the guy should have expected this result for doing what he did. I've NEVER insinuated I have no problem with people being shot and killed by police in order to save taxpayer money. Just the criminals who are killed acting in their dangerously criminal behavior.
      Would you feel safe if you were selling meth and guns to cops?
      BTW, since you've neither read any articles or seen any videos on this situation, the reports say he "attempted" to sell the cop a gun. That means he may have still had it on him ... while possibly being on meth. But, since you don't care about the specifics of THIS case that doesn't factor into your hate-filled comments.

      Delete
    32. "I DO support tougher gun laws and control measures."

      Riiight... You just... Don't vote for any politicians who do. Talk is cheap, Will.

      "The killing was a fucking accident."

      Yeah, and there's a word for it when you accidentally shoot and kill someone: MANSLAUGHTER.

      And that charge is particularly apt, based on the cops proceeding to go about business as usual as the man lay dying. As far I'm concerned they should both be charged and made examples of. I read the article. I'm familiar with this case. I see nothing here to justify letting this man die. And how could they NOT KNOW that he was shot? You ever discharge a firearm? It's fucking LOUD. Couple that with the dude screaming "He Shot ME!" And, you know... THE FUCKING BLOOD.

      If, after accidentally shooting him, they did everything they could to SAVE him - as they are required to do by law under ANY circumstances when they shoot someone - I would happily relegate this to same dustbin as that one post-Ferguson man who was shoot while LEVELING A SHOTGUN AT THE COPS. (And Thank God that was on camera! Makes it easy! EVERY cop should wear a camera for that very reason!) (My cousin THE COP strongly supports that!)

      But they didn't. They proceeded to cuff him, and process him like nothing had happened.

      The SHOOTING was an accident. The KILLING? Even if I grant your assertion that it was due to an absurd level of incompetence? It's still manslaughter. And *I* say, based on their words and deeds, that their incompetence was deliberate.

      Keep rationalizing though. Your white skin will no doubt continue to protect you from them for some time yet.

      Delete
    33. "I've consistently said the guy should have expected this result for doing what he did. I've NEVER insinuated I have no problem with people being shot and killed by police in order to save taxpayer money. Just the criminals who are killed acting in their dangerously criminal behavior."

      Yes, "criminals" would be a category of "people".

      "Would you feel safe if you were selling meth and guns to cops?"

      I wouldn't expect to be shot if I was unarmed and on the ground.

      "BTW, since you've neither read any articles or seen any videos on this situation, the reports say he "attempted" to sell the cop a gun."

      Because the cop wasn't an actual client. Also, you already know that I've read about this, because I informed you that Harris was on the ground with another officer on top of him when he was shot.

      "That means he may have still had it on him ... while possibly being on meth."

      Are you on meth? They didn't find a gun on him. If he had shown them the gun, and then run with it, then they would know that he still had it. If he didn't ever have a gun, then they wouldn't have tried to arrest him, because they wouldn't have any evidence. The undercover officer had the gun when the rest of the group attempted to arrest Harris. CNN's article on the incident makes that fairly clear.

      "But, since you don't care about the specifics of THIS case that doesn't factor into your hate-filled comments."

      That's a hilarious bit of projection on your part, considering your tone.

      Delete
    34. "Yeah, and there's a word for it when you accidentally shoot and kill someone: MANSLAUGHTER."

      Yeah and the guy is charged with that. He isn't charged with EXECUTING him. So you can take your "hyperbole" and shove it. Like I said in my first post.

      "If, after accidentally shooting him, they did everything they could to SAVE him - as they are required to do by law under ANY circumstances when they shoot someone - I would happily relegate this to same dustbin as that one post-Ferguson man who was shoot while LEVELING A SHOTGUN AT THE COPS."

      Yeah, right. Like anyone is going to believe that one.

      "Your white skin will no doubt continue to protect you from them for some time yet."

      Not if I get caught selling meth and guns to cops, it won't. Your racist attitude is totally out of place in THIS case.

      "Riiight... You just... Don't vote for any politicians who do. Talk is cheap, Will."

      So I'm supposed to vote for a democrat who wants to kill babies so that I can say I have better gun control? Sorry, dude that ain't going to happen.

      Delete
    35. "I wouldn't expect to be shot if I was unarmed and on the ground."

      Is that what I asked. IS THAT WHAT I ASKED, STUPID SHIT?

      " The undercover officer had the gun when the rest of the group attempted to arrest Harris. CNN's article on the incident makes that fairly clear."

      Ahh, so he already sold the gun to the cops. Then ran away. Did they KNOW he didn't have any more on him? Huh? HUH?

      "That's a hilarious bit of projection on your part, considering your tone."

      Shut the fuck up you whiny little crybaby who said I approve of executing people in light of a trial.

      One more time: Would you feel safe if you were selling meth and guns to cops?

      Delete
    36. "Is that what I asked. IS THAT WHAT I ASKED, STUPID SHIT?"

      My, what a hateful tone you have. Why would you expect to be shot if you were unarmed and on the ground? Your question suggests that criminal activity gives the police a license to kill at will, and I'm giving you a chance to back out of that position.

      "Ahh, so he already sold the gun to the cops. Then ran away. Did they KNOW he didn't have any more on him? Huh? HUH?"

      Why would that justify shooting him, if he was already on the ground with another officer on top of him? Do you imagine that's protocol, or what? If he did actually have another weapon, then they would find it once they searched him. No death required in that scenario.

      "Shut the fuck up you whiny little crybaby who said I approve of executing people in light of a trial."

      You already admitted it: "Just the criminals who are killed acting in their dangerously criminal behavior." You have no problem with those people being killed in order to save taxpayer money, by your own words.

      And, again, your hateful comments are noted, while you haven't demonstrated any such thing for me. Projection, as I said.

      Delete
    37. "My, what a hateful tone you have."

      My how ignorant you are.

      "Why would that justify shooting him, if he was already on the ground with another officer on top of him?"

      So .. yet another question you won't answer.

      "You already admitted it:"

      Where's "executed" in my statements? ANY of them?

      "And, again, your hateful comments are noted, while you haven't demonstrated any such thing for me."

      Crybaby. Ignoring the question again? Go figure.

      Delete
    38. "My how ignorant you are."

      Non sequitur.

      "So .. yet another question you won't answer."

      Your question was nonsensical. By that logic, any suspect can be shot if police don't know for absolute certain that they don't have a weapon on them. I pointed out the flaw in your reasoning, while you dodged my question.

      "Where's "executed" in my statements?"

      I didn't say that it was. You just prefer "killed", as if that's better?

      "Crybaby. Ignoring the question again? Go figure."

      I addressed your question. You haven't stepped up.

      Delete
    39. "Non sequitur."

      I think you're lying (again). Prove it.

      "I pointed out the flaw in your reasoning, "

      There is no flaw in my reasoning and you haven't pointed out shit Try again, little man.,, Another request that you'll ignore.

      "Your question was nonsensical. "

      Prove it. Not being able (or willing) to answer it doesn't count. Just answer it, moronl

      "I didn't say that it was."

      That's right. That means you misquoted me or you're lying. Which is it?

      "I addressed your question."

      You didn't ANSWER the question, though. Go figure.

      Delete
    40. "I think you're lying (again)."

      You've never proven "lying" once. And it's a non sequitur because it doesn't follow. Your reply didn't address what I said.

      "There is no flaw in my reasoning and you haven't pointed out shit"

      If that was true, you would have been able to address my question.

      "Prove it."

      I did. The police rarely know for certain that a suspect is unarmed, yet it's not protocol to simply shoot people just in case they aren't. Your question rests on the premise that any uncertainty somehow justifies lethal force, even when the suspect is on the ground with another officer on top of them.

      "That means you misquoted me or you're lying."

      I didn't claim to be quoting you. And if you can explain how the term isn't fair, do so. You haven't yet. All you've done is whined about it, as if that's supposed to be compelling in and of itself.

      "You didn't ANSWER the question, though."

      I showed how your question was invalid. I'm not obligated to answer invalid questions, obviously. You'll just have to get over that one.

      Try stepping up and answering some questions, instead of pretending that I have something to answer for here. It's your job to clarify your words.

      Delete
    41. "Your reply didn't address what I said."

      Well then, 80% of the shit you say doesn't address what I have said, so all of your shit is non sequitur.

      "If that was true, you would have been able to address my question."

      I did, by saying there is no flaw in my reasoning.

      "I did. The police rarely know for certain that a suspect is unarmed, yet it's not protocol to simply shoot people just in case they aren't. "

      And if you knew even the slightest about this case you would know that what happened was NOT according to protocol. But you are stupid and you think the guy was executed.

      "I didn't claim to be quoting you. "

      Thanks for admitting that you lied.

      "I'm not obligated to answer invalid questions, obviously. "

      You're not obligated to answer any question. But, it shows how you run away from the crux of the case when you refuse to answer key questions.

      Which would lead to ... run away now, if you can't keep up with what is going on and only answer with non sequitur answers.
      Do you like being a stupid bitch or does it come natural for you to lie like you just admitted to doing?

      Delete
    42. "Well then, 80% of the shit you say doesn't address what I have said, so all of your shit is non sequitur."

      Actually, I do address what you say. You just pitch a fit over your failed arguments.

      "I did, by saying there is no flaw in my reasoning."

      Empty assertions are insufficient.

      "And if you knew even the slightest about this case you would know that what happened was NOT according to protocol."

      Then why did you think it was relevant that they didn't know for sure that he was unarmed?

      "Thanks for admitting that you lied."

      There was no admission, because I didn't lie. You approve of the police executing criminals. You whine about the term, but you haven't explained what's supposedly inappropriate about it.

      "But, it shows how you run away from the crux of the case when you refuse to answer key questions."

      You already admitted that I addressed your question, so you can't claim that I'm running away from anything.

      "Do you like being a stupid bitch or does it come natural for you to lie like you just admitted to doing?"

      More hateful comments? Who could have seen that coming?

      Delete
    43. "Actually, I do address what you say. You just pitch a fit over your failed arguments."

      By changing what I say and interpret it as "execution". Sorry, you fail miserably on this point.

      "Empty assertions are insufficient."

      Your empty mind allows you to use that excuse.

      "Then why did you think it was relevant that they didn't know for sure that he was unarmed?"

      As I've said previously, they would have to go on the assumption that he is still dangerous and armed.

      "There was no admission, because I didn't lie."

      You didn't deny that part while you excused your way out of the other part. Did you just forget to notice that or are you just plain stupid? I have to assume the later.

      "More hateful comments?"

      Like I said ... stupid people get stupid comments. Show yourself to be slightly more educated and I'll talk with you as if you were. Not likely to happen though, because you are limited.

      Delete
    44. "By changing what I say and interpret it as "execution"."

      There's no change involved. That's what you advocate. You haven't explained what your problem is what that term.

      "As I've said previously, they would have to go on the assumption that he is still dangerous and armed."

      But you admit that it's not protocol to shoot people just because of that. So you have no point.

      "You didn't deny that part while you excused your way out of the other part."

      I denied your accusation. Describing your view is not dishonest, and you haven't even attempted to explain how you're disputing your view that criminals should be executed by the police.

      "Did you just forget to notice that or are you just plain stupid? I have to assume the later."

      You mean "latter".

      "Like I said ... stupid people get stupid comments."

      I said "hateful", pointing out the hypocrisy of your earlier comment. Try to keep up.

      Delete
    45. "There's no change involved. That's what you advocate."

      Where have I advocated the execution of anyone other than the proven/sentenced guilty criminals? Obviously you're lying about what I advocate. Worse yet, you're just making shit up so you won't look like the complete dolt that you are for calling this situation an "execution". You can't back up your claims, so you try to pass the blame on to someone else. Never saw that coming from the liberal.

      "So you have no point."

      Oh I have a point.. One that I've expressed several times already. It isn't my fault you aren't smart enough to understand or comprehend what is being said.

      "You mean "latter"."

      No, I meant later.

      "I said "hateful""

      I said "stupid". Which you are for changing my comments to insinuate that I support executing people who haven't been condemned to death yet.


      BTW, I hear the cop is going to contest his charges. This should be very interesting watching you liberals cry about how he "executed" (your opinion, not mine) the drug/gun dealer.

      Delete
    46. "Where have I advocated the execution of anyone other than the proven/sentenced guilty criminals?"

      Sentenced? There's no sentencing if it's the police shooting people, obviously.
      You: "I've NEVER insinuated I have no problem with people being shot and killed by police in order to save taxpayer money. Just the criminals who are killed acting in their dangerously criminal behavior."

      "Worse yet, you're just making shit up so you won't look like the complete dolt that you are for calling this situation an "execution"."

      I didn't call this situation any such thing. I'm talking about your viewpoint.

      "One that I've expressed several times already."

      That you think that people can be shot as long as the police don't know that they're unarmed, yes.

      "No, I meant later."

      That would be especially stupid of you.

      "I said "stupid"."

      I know, after I said "hateful". Try to keep up.

      "Which you are for changing my comments to insinuate that I support executing people who haven't been condemned to death yet."

      If someone is killed during criminal behavior, there's no problem for you. At some point, you'll have to explain how that's inconsistent with my description.

      "This should be very interesting watching you liberals cry about how he "executed" (your opinion, not mine) the drug/gun dealer."

      I didn't say anything like that about this case. You made that up.

      Delete
    47. "You: "I've NEVER insinuated I have no problem with people being shot and killed by police in order to save taxpayer money. Just the criminals who are killed acting in their dangerously criminal behavior.""

      Hmm, don't see the word "execute" in there.

      "That would be especially stupid of you."

      Non sequitur.

      "I didn't say anything like that about this case. You made that up."

      Prove it.

      " At some point, you'll have to explain how that's inconsistent with my description."

      At some point you'll have to admit what a stupid shit you are for calling an accidental killing an "execution".




      Delete
    48. "Hmm, don't see the word "execute" in there."

      Again, I never said that you used that word.

      "Non sequitur."

      No, when talking about two clauses, the terms are "former" and "latter". It's not "later", which is a completely different word. That's why your insistence on "later" would be especially stupid of you.

      "Prove it."

      That would be your job, since you're the one who made the claim. You're failing, so far.

      "At some point you'll have to admit what a stupid shit you are for calling an accidental killing an "execution"."

      I never called an accidental killing any such thing. I've been talking about your viewpoint. Try to keep up.

      Delete
    49. "No, when talking about two clauses, the terms are "former" and "latter". It's not "later", which is a completely different word. That's why your insistence on "later" would be especially stupid of you."

      Are you crying again? Or you admitting defeat already?

      "That would be your job, since you're the one who made the claim. "

      No, it's your job to prove me wrong. Until you do that, I am correct.

      "I never called an accidental killing any such thing."

      Looks like you did here: "Why do you favor executing anyone instead of having a trial?" even though I never said I favor anyone being executed without a trial.
      And here: "If the police kill people in order to spare the taxpayer from paying for fifty years of prison, that would be executing them without a trial." after I asked who was executed. That's just more of your uninformed, misguided, liberalized thought process at work. I never said anything about execution ... you brought that up (and Ed, who apparently has the same weird thought process in action).

      Delete
    50. "Are you crying again? Or you admitting defeat already?"

      Neither. You wanted to insist on using "later" instead of "latter", so I was explaining how that doesn't make you look particularly intelligent.

      "No, it's your job to prove me wrong."

      No, it is not. You made the claim, so you have to back it up.

      ""Why do you favor executing anyone instead of having a trial?" even though I never said I favor anyone being executed without a trial."

      Yes, "anyone". That would be a general question, not restricted to this case at all. In other words, it was about your viewpoint. Besides, you did say that you favor criminals to be executed without a trial, because only country-ruining liberals want to put people like Harris into the overcrowded prison system for fifty years. You even emphasized it by stating that it's just criminals that you have "no problem" with police shooting and killing.

      ""If the police kill people in order to spare the taxpayer from paying for fifty years of prison, that would be executing them without a trial." after I asked who was executed."

      And "people" would be plural, so obviously I wasn't talking about Harris. Again, a general question about your views.

      "I never said anything about execution ... you brought that up (and Ed, who apparently has the same weird thought process in action)."

      You still haven't attempted to explain what's inappropriate about that term. The quote above accurately reflects your stated attitude, and "executing" is the proper word for that concept. Your whining isn't compelling. Make an actual argument if you want to convince anyone that you're being misrepresented in some way.

      Delete
    51. "Yes, "anyone". That would be a general question, not restricted to this case at all."

      So, you bring the term in and use it generally claiming it covers all killings by cops. Even the ones that the criminal is shooting at the cops and get killed. Even the cases where the criminal is in the process of killing average citizens and the cops kill the criminal. Hmm, that's an interesting stance to take. Also, why are you taking this off-topic wanting to discuss all killings by police as if they are ALL executions? This article is about ONE person. If you have such a hard time following along with the conversation, you should let us know and we'll talk a lot slower so that you can catch up with what is ACTUALLY being discussed.

      "And "people" would be plural, so obviously I wasn't talking about Harris."

      You have still not answered the question. If you weren't talking about this case then you are off-topic still by discussing all other cop killings when this article is about just ONE. You can easily go to the article Ed has going that covers the many other protested cop killings if you had a serious concern over anyone's (someone's) view.
      But, the fact remains ... you still haven't answered the question: who was executed?

      "You still haven't attempted to explain what's inappropriate about that term. ... Make an actual argument if you want to convince anyone that you're being misrepresented in some way."

      You mean like I did right here: "And that would be more of your misinterpretations. I've consistently said the guy should have expected this result for doing what he did. I've NEVER insinuated I have no problem with people being shot and killed by police in order to save taxpayer money. Just the criminals who are killed acting in their dangerously criminal behavior."? If you'd learn how to read instead of putting words into my mouth, you'd have an easier time having an adult conversation. Otherwise you continue to look like the whiny little crybaby that you are. And since you've already admitted to losing this argument (based on your spelling corrections) I have to ask: are you going to run away again or are you actually going to answer questions that are asked? I certainly don't expect the later because you've shown a propensity for ignoring the key questions.




      Delete
    52. "The quote above accurately reflects your stated attitude, and "executing" is the proper word for that concept."

      Using your stated definition of execution, that would mean the Pres. Obama has executed several hundred (if not thousands) of "people" during his drone attacks all around the world. That's very interesting for you to take such a stance against the President of United States. I sure hope the SS doesn't find out that a current military member is calling his boss an executioner. So you have no problem with the Pres. of the US executing people? Interesting viewpoint you have. Even more interesting than the one you label me as having.

      Delete
    53. "So, you bring the term in and use it generally claiming it covers all killings by cops. Even the ones that the criminal is shooting at the cops and get killed. Even the cases where the criminal is in the process of killing average citizens and the cops kill the criminal."

      No, we're talking about your view that the police have free rein to shoot and kill unarmed people. If the police must shoot someone in order to protect the public, that's a completely different matter.

      "This article is about ONE person."

      Your comment wasn't restricted to one person.

      "You have still not answered the question."

      You mean the question that you asked in your previous paragraph above?

      "But, the fact remains ... you still haven't answered the question: who was executed?"

      We're talking about your views.

      "If you'd learn how to read instead of putting words into my mouth, you'd have an easier time having an adult conversation."

      The quote you provided proves that you accept the idea of the police shooting and killing unarmed people. That doesn't challenge my use of "executing", it validates it.

      "And since you've already admitted to losing this argument (based on your spelling corrections) I have to ask: are you going to run away again or are you actually going to answer questions that are asked?"

      I've never "run away", so there would be no "again" possible. And I address your questions, while you admittedly ignore mine. By the way, since you missed it, the "spelling" correction was to highlight your incessant cries of "stupid", while you haven't demonstrated any stupidity on my part and you put your own ignorance on display.

      "Using your stated definition of execution, that would mean the Pres. Obama has executed several hundred (if not thousands) of "people" during his drone attacks all around the world."

      Why are you trying to go off-topic? I've also never endorsed drone attacks, but that's a much more complicated matter involving collateral damage vs. mission objectives. And if you're referring to terrorists, that's also not the same as unarmed criminals that could simply be arrested. It's an invalid comparison, no matter what.

      "I sure hope the SS doesn't find out that a current military member is calling his boss an executioner."

      That's amusing, considering your phrase "putting words in my mouth" from your previous comment.

      Delete
    54. "No, we're talking about your view that the police have free rein to shoot and kill unarmed people. If the police must shoot someone in order to protect the public, that's a completely different matter."

      My view isn't "free rein". And it isn't a different matter if the criminal is still being executed, as you would say. So it is YOU that holds the view that cops can execute people as they want. I have steadfastly denied holding those views and given proper explanations for my denials.

      "The quote you provided proves that you accept the idea of the police shooting and killing unarmed people. That doesn't challenge my use of "executing", it validates it."

      You have now validated that you think people should be executed by police without trial.

      "Why are you trying to go off-topic?"

      It isn't off-topic. We're talking about executions.

      "And if you're referring to terrorists, that's also not the same as unarmed criminals that could simply be arrested."

      So you favor executing people without an effort to arrest them? Hmmm, interesting considering how you hold so much disdain for the viewpoint you've assigned to me. Which is a bit different than my stated 'only the arrested/convicted criminals who commit worthy crimes should be executed' viewpoint. And then ....
      If they aren't people, what are they? Are they unborn humans who can be executed without any reprisal (your viewpoint)? Or are they animals that can be executed willy-nilly (again, your viewpoint)? If they are people, then they apply to your stated viewpoint that our government representatives can execute people as they see fit without even attempting to arrest them.

      THAT is a very heinous viewpoint to hold, barby. Even worse than the one you assign to me. At least I don't admit to holding those viewpoints, you do admit it and even brag about it as if you're proud to execute people without even having to arrest them.

      Delete
    55. "My view isn't "free rein"."

      Of course it is, because you have "no problem" with the police shooting unarmed criminals.

      "And it isn't a different matter if the criminal is still being executed, as you would say. So it is YOU that holds the view that cops can execute people as they want."

      That didn't even make sense. Try to clarify your mess.

      "I have steadfastly denied holding those views and given proper explanations for my denials."

      You haven't explained anything, you've only made assertions. Your quote still shows that you have "no problem" with unarmed criminals being executed by police.

      "You have now validated that you think people should be executed by police without trial."

      No, because I think an arrest should always be made whenever possible. You trying to lump all situations together and hold me accountable for it isn't going to change the truth of the matter.

      "It isn't off-topic."

      Who was talking about drones on this thread before you brought them up? Nobody? Then you went off-topic, by your own standard.

      "We're talking about executions."

      But I didn't say that drone attacks qualified, so you're off-topic.

      "So you favor executing people without an effort to arrest them?"

      Terrorists? That's obviously a much different scenario than unarmed people, and I never said that I approved of it.

      "Which is a bit different than my stated 'only the arrested/convicted criminals who commit worthy crimes should be executed' viewpoint."

      Why do you use "arrested/convicted"? You do realize that makes no sense if you're only talking about convicted criminals, right? Because everyone who was convicted was arrested at some point beforehand. Besides that, you can say that you think that only convicted criminals should be executed, but that's still inconsistent with your comment about liberals ruining this country because we want to put someone like Harris in jail for fifty years, as opposed to him being shot and killed.

      "If they aren't people, what are they?"

      I didn't say they weren't people.

      "Are they unborn humans who can be executed without any reprisal (your viewpoint)?"

      You're going off-topic again. But, obviously, a fetus is not a protected individual.

      "Or are they animals that can be executed willy-nilly (again, your viewpoint)?"

      Where did I suggest that was my viewpoint?

      "If they are people, then they apply to your stated viewpoint that our government representatives can execute people as they see fit without even attempting to arrest them."

      I never said that I approve of drone attacks, though. You're making things up to deflect from your atrocious lack of morality.

      Delete
    56. "I never said that I approve of drone attacks, though. You're making things up to deflect from your atrocious lack of morality."

      And I've never said I have no problem with the police shooting unarmed criminals. I had qualifiers in my statement (just like you did). If you're going to take my qualifiers out and make things up, then there is no reason I can't do the same. So, when the qualifiers are left out you approve of executing people without a trial.

      "But I didn't say that drone attacks qualified, so you're off-topic."

      Government officials are the topic, though, and that would include the top government official who is executing people without a trial (your standard). And, since there is no war going on in Syria or Iraq or anywhere else (for the US) then it would be executing people (again, your standard) and you stated you approve of that.

      "Who was talking about drones on this thread before you brought them up?"

      We're talking about killing people right? Well drones kill people (armed and unarmed), and since you call killing "execution" then it is on topic. Sorry you fail again.

      "That didn't even make sense. Try to clarify your mess."

      Ok, how's this: And, it isn't a different matter if the criminal is still being executed, as you would say. So it is YOU that holds the view that cops can execute people as they want. Because you said it would be ok if the police must shoot someone.

      Delete
    57. "And I've never said I have no problem with the police shooting unarmed criminals."

      You: "I've consistently said the guy should have expected this result for doing what he did. I've NEVER insinuated I have no problem with people being shot and killed by police in order to save taxpayer money. Just the criminals who are killed acting in their dangerously criminal behavior."

      "If you're going to take my qualifiers out and make things up, then there is no reason I can't do the same."

      You haven't attempted to demonstrate any altering of your quote on my part. You provided the same quote yourself, as if it was a defense.

      "Government officials are the topic, though, and that would include the top government official who is executing people without a trial (your standard)."

      No, the military and local police are two completely different entities. You're off-topic. And I haven't stated any standard which applies to drone attacks, either.

      "And, since there is no war going on in Syria or Iraq or anywhere else (for the US) then it would be executing people (again, your standard) and you stated you approve of that."

      That's a lie. I didn't state that I approved of any such thing.

      "We're talking about killing people right?"

      Not in military exercises, no.

      "Because you said it would be ok if the police must shoot someone."

      If they must shoot someone, then it's justified. Shooting someone who is unarmed is not justified. It's a very clear distinction.

      Delete
    58. "No, the military and local police are two completely different entities."

      So what? They are still representatives of our government. No difference in this situation. Besides, the President isn't in the military.

      "That's a lie. I didn't state that I approved of any such thing."

      Sure you did. See my statement about you taking "qualifiers" out of my statement as you claim I believe certain things.

      "Not in military exercises, no."

      Qualifiers. Makes no difference, since you have determined that qualifiers don't need to be included in beliefs. That make it quite clear that you approve of executing people without a trial as you have stated.

      "If they must shoot someone, then it's justified."

      So you admit that cops can shoot and execute someone without having to go to trial. I'm pretty sure that contradicts what you've said earlier. But, I'm sure you'll find some way to deny that.

      "Shooting someone who is unarmed is not justified. "

      So shooting Osama Bin Laden was not justified? He was unarmed and gunned down by US government representatives (cops / military: no difference). AND didn't go to trial. Executed as you would say. That means you just admitted you support government officials executing people without having to go to trial. Keep digging.

      Delete
    59. "So what? They are still representatives of our government."

      They have different purposes and rules.

      "Besides, the President isn't in the military."

      He's the Commander in Chief of the military. It's not even clear that any illegal orders were given regarding the drones, since illegal orders can be refused.

      "Sure you did. See my statement about you taking "qualifiers" out of my statement as you claim I believe certain things."

      No, I didn't. I provided the quote where you say you have "no problem" with the police killing unarmed criminals. You've failed to show where I took any "qualifiers" out of your comment.

      "So you admit that cops can shoot and execute someone without having to go to trial."

      Not if they're unarmed.

      "I'm pretty sure that contradicts what you've said earlier."

      I can guarantee that it doesn't contradict anything that I've said.

      "So shooting Osama Bin Laden was not justified?"

      Again, terrorists and military exercises make for a different scenario. Try to focus on unarmed criminals, since you believe they can be killed with impunity and I do not.

      Delete
    60. "They have different purposes and rules."

      So what? If you're going to change my statements to mean "execution" then you have to explain what the difference is.

      "He's the Commander in Chief of the military. It's not even clear that any illegal orders were given regarding the drones, since illegal orders can be refused."

      He's a civilian in charge of government. All government employees would eventually fall under his (and other government leaders) directives. If you want to explain the difference between one type of execution and another go right ahead.

      "No, I didn't. I provided the quote where you say you have "no problem" with the police killing unarmed criminals. You've failed to show where I took any "qualifiers" out of your comment"

      That is obviously a lie and you're defending your lie. Doesn't bode well for YOUR morals.

      "Not if they're unarmed."

      You removed all qualifiers, so "unarmed" in inconsequential. Giant failure on your part.

      "Again, terrorists and military exercises make for a different scenario."

      Killing is execution according to you. So, no difference. Try to focus on your own misquotes and strange moral ideals.

      Delete
    61. "So what? If you're going to change my statements to mean "execution" then you have to explain what the difference is."

      I didn't "change" anything. That would be the proper description for what you're advocating.

      "If you want to explain the difference between one type of execution and another go right ahead."

      I'm not the one calling everything "execution". You are.

      "That is obviously a lie and you're defending your lie."

      Prove it.

      "You removed all qualifiers, so "unarmed" in inconsequential."

      I didn't remove any such thing. You were talking about an unarmed person, and you made a general comment based on the situation.

      "Killing is execution according to you."

      No, it isn't. Straw man argument on your part. And you've been informed enough times, so any continuation of your claim can be taken as a lie.

      Delete
    62. "I didn't "change" anything. That would be the proper description for what you're advocating."

      And that would mean it is a proper description for what YOU'RE advocating.

      "I'm not the one calling everything "execution". You are."

      You and Ed are the ones who call this situation an execution. So, yes, you do need to explain the difference.

      "I didn't remove any such thing. You were talking about an unarmed person, and you made a general comment based on the situation."

      Again, you are lying. Bring my statement that shows that and we'll find out the truth..

      "No, it isn't. "

      Yes it is. You're the one (and Ed) who call this situation an execution, not me. Tell me ... what does "execute" mean?


      Delete
    63. "And that would mean it is a proper description for what YOU'RE advocating."

      No, it wouldn't. And I haven't advocated anything.

      "You and Ed are the ones who call this situation an execution."

      No, I'm talking about your generalized comments, not this situation.

      "Again, you are lying."

      Again, prove it. You brought the same quote that I did, where you admitted that you have "no problem" with unarmed criminals being killed.

      "Tell me ... what does "execute" mean?"

      Your premise is flawed. I didn't say that this situation was an execution.

      Delete
    64. "I didn't say that this situation was an execution."

      Perhaps you don't remember saying this: "Why do you favor executing anyone instead of having a trial?" Then went on to explain why it would be an execution IN THIS SITUATION. However, a few posts ago, you admitted that cops CAN execute someone (anyone) if they want. So, there is no flaw in my premise.

      Delete
    65. "Perhaps you don't remember saying this: "Why do you favor executing anyone instead of having a trial?""

      Yes, anyone would mean "anyone". As in, even criminals. It's a general question.

      "Then went on to explain why it would be an execution IN THIS SITUATION."

      Funny how you don't have a quote to back that up. My point was that your comments go beyond "accident", obviously. If the police are allowed to kill an unarmed criminal "for his actions" and in order to save taxpayer money, that would be an execution. It involves the purpose for the killing.

      Since you've forgotten, you: "When the criminal gets killed in the line of his duty, then they get what they deserve. Get over your "unarmed black man killed" shit. This time he earned what he got. Either that or YOU support him with your (not mine) tax money for the next 50 years in our overcrowded prison system. Fucking liberals are ruining this country."

      That doesn't rely on it being accidental in any way. If you have some explanation of how your comments can only apply if it's an accident, then you should provide it.

      "However, a few posts ago, you admitted that cops CAN execute someone (anyone) if they want."

      That's a lie. You're attributing "execution" to situations that I am not, and I'm not accountable for your confusion.

      Delete
    66. "Funny how you don't have a quote to back that up."

      You mean like the next sentence after the quote I just provided? OK, here: " He was on the ground when he was shot with another officer on top of him.". That obviously means you were talking about this situation and not something in general. Or you can go here and read the whole comment: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/04/and-another.html?showComment=1429109225949#c5750164472809345532
      Which is also where you attributed "execution" to this situation and confused what I said with your own confusion of my comments.

      "That doesn't rely on it being accidental in any way."

      I know that. It's fairly obvious what I'm saying there. That if a criminal wants to commit a crime that would put him/her in danger of being killed then they knowingly and willfully take that risk and accept the possibility of it happening.

      "That's a lie. You're attributing "execution" to situations that I am not, and I'm not accountable for your confusion."

      Well, you attributed "execution" to this situation and I did not, and I'M not accountable for your confusion. So, it isn't a lie. If execution works for you, it also works for me. If you deny execution is a valid word to use for your statement where you agree cops can kill someone, then it isn't valid in your use of the word.

      Delete
    67. "That obviously means you were talking about this situation and not something in general."

      No, it means that it's a problem whether it's an accident or not. Again, your comments didn't rely on it being an accident.

      "Which is also where you attributed "execution" to this situation and confused what I said with your own confusion of my comments."

      You haven't demonstrated any confusion on my part.

      "I know that."

      Then, obviously, you should know that I was addressing your general attitude about police killing unarmed criminals.

      "That if a criminal wants to commit a crime that would put him/her in danger of being killed then they knowingly and willfully take that risk and accept the possibility of it happening."

      If being unarmed is supposed to constitute a legitimate "risk", then you believe that the police can kill with impunity.

      "Well, you attributed "execution" to this situation and I did not, and I'M not accountable for your confusion."

      I did no such thing.

      "If execution works for you, it also works for me."

      If you want to call other situations "execution", that's your choice. I'm not responsible for it, though, so stop trying to hold me accountable for it.

      Delete
    68. "If being unarmed is supposed to constitute a legitimate "risk", then you believe that the police can kill with impunity."

      You make it sound as if the police KNEW there was no gun in his possession. How do you come to that conclusion? CNN?

      "You haven't demonstrated any confusion on my part."

      Other than the part where you call an accidental killing of a person an execution and won't call a purposeful killing of a person an execution.

      "If you want to call other situations "execution", that's your choice. I'm not responsible for it, though, so stop trying to hold me accountable for it."

      Waaaa ... crybaby. I'm just trying to hold you to a standard that is consistent. I should have known better, though, you're a liberal. You get to flip-flop as you please in order to feel good about ... who knows what. Too bad, you got snookered again.

      Delete
    69. "You make it sound as if the police KNEW there was no gun in his possession."

      You already admitted that it isn't protocol to shoot people just because they aren't sure if they're armed or not. So, what would the risk be for anyone who is unarmed? Criminals are supposed to expect police to commit unwarranted violence, or what?

      "Other than the part where you call an accidental killing of a person an execution and won't call a purposeful killing of a person an execution."

      Except neither of those things happened as you describe them, of course.

      "Waaaa ... crybaby. I'm just trying to hold you to a standard that is consistent."

      My standard is consistent, you're just crying because you don't like it.

      "You get to flip-flop as you please in order to feel good about ... who knows what."

      You: "You've made every excuse in the world to send him directly to jail without trial. Don't you believe in the American justice system? Why can't you let it work? Ahh, never mind. I understand why you seem to hate American Justice."
      And, you: "When the criminal gets killed in the line of his duty, then they get what they deserve. Get over your "unarmed black man killed" shit. This time he earned what he got. Either that or YOU support him with your (not mine) tax money for the next 50 years in our overcrowded prison system. Fucking liberals are ruining this country."

      So, when I say that a white woman is obviously guilty of a crime, you go off on a bender about skipping trials. But, when a black man is obviously guilty of a crime, you think that the police can simply shoot him whether he's armed or not. Nice flip-flop on your part.

      "Too bad, you got snookered again."

      What deception are you admitting, now?

      Delete
    70. " Criminals are supposed to expect police to commit unwarranted violence, or what?"

      I don't know if it would be expected, but it would certainly be a possibility.

      "So, when I say that a white woman is obviously guilty of a crime, you go off on a bender about skipping trials."

      When did that happen?

      "What deception are you admitting, now?"

      Apparently, you don't know what snookered means.

      Delete
    71. "I don't know if it would be expected, but it would certainly be a possibility."

      Unnecessary violence would always be a possibility. By that logic it's risky to drive, because a police officer could pull you over and shoot you for no reason.

      "When did that happen?"

      I already linked to it.

      "Apparently, you don't know what snookered means."

      No, I very much do. It's obvious that you have no clue what it means.

      Delete
    72. "By that logic it's risky to drive,"

      Yes, it is risky to drive. Millions of people have been killed (executed) that way. Where are all the crybaby antics about the black people who have been executed by white drivers? Which proves I'm the one being logical, here, not you.

      " By that logic it's risky to drive, because a police officer could pull you over and shoot you for no reason."

      I'm sure Ed has an article going that covers that. It COULD happen.

      Snookered: 1. Slang
      a. To lead (another) into a situation in which all possible choices are undesirable; trap.

      You are such a moron. I lead you right into that one when you said this situation was an execution and then denied other killings are executions. Since you used execution because it means to kill. Now you can't find a way out of that.

      Delete
    73. "Where are all the crybaby antics about the black people who have been executed by white drivers? Which proves I'm the one being logical, here, not you."

      So, the lack of "crybaby antics" proves that you're being logical? Hilarious.

      "I'm sure Ed has an article going that covers that. It COULD happen."

      But it's not likely, and it's not acceptable.

      "I lead you right into that one when you said this situation was an execution and then denied other killings are executions."

      You didn't lead me anywhere. You're misrepresenting what I said, as demonstrated, and I'm not accountable for your behavior.

      Delete
    74. "You're misrepresenting what I said, as demonstrated, and I'm not accountable for your behavior."

      I haven't misrepresented what you said any more than how you have misrepresented what I've said. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

      "But it's not likely, and it's not acceptable."

      I know. So why are you discussing cop shooting drivers instead of discussing this article on an armed criminal with history of drug abuse and violence being shot by cops as he tries selling guns to someone on the street?

      Delete
    75. "I haven't misrepresented what you said any more than how you have misrepresented what I've said."

      Of course you have, because you've been claiming that I've been labeling all killing as "execution". On the other hand, you've confirmed that you think police are justified in shooting unarmed criminals, which means I never misrepresented you.

      "So why are you discussing cop shooting drivers instead of discussing this article on an armed criminal with history of drug abuse and violence being shot by cops as he tries selling guns to someone on the street?"

      Because neither warrants a police shooting, obviously.

      Delete
    76. "Because neither warrants a police shooting, obviously."

      Who said anything about "warrants"?

      "On the other hand, you've confirmed that you think police are justified in shooting unarmed criminals, which means I never misrepresented you."

      This situation isn't the same as you are describing. This situation the 6-time felon was armed and possibly high on meth. So, perhaps you've been discussing a completely different article than this one. Since this situation doesn't resemble ANY of your possibilities that describe how you think it happened.

      Delete
    77. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    78. "Who said anything about "warrants"?"

      You said that he got what he deserved. How would it not be warranted, according to you?

      "This situation the 6-time felon was armed and possibly high on meth."

      He wasn't armed. Did you really forget that?

      Delete
    79. "You said that he got what he deserved. "

      I didn't say warranted. Different words have different meanings. Like execution and killing. When you change the meaning of what I say into being an execution, then you must accept me changing what you say is acceptable killings by police as being executions. Besides, you've already admitted there are times that cops are allowed to execute someone (anyone) if the public is endangered.

      "He wasn't armed. Did you really forget that?"

      The cops didn't know that. Have you forgotten that?

      Delete
    80. "I didn't say warranted."

      Again, how would it not be warranted, according to you? If it isn't, then you must have a complaint about it.

      "Besides, you've already admitted there are times that cops are allowed to execute someone (anyone) if the public is endangered."

      That's hardly an admission, considering that the public wasn't being endangered here.

      "The cops didn't know that."

      That doesn't warrant a shooting, by your own previous admission. Besides that, you claimed that he "was armed", that that it was a possibility.

      Delete
    81. That should be "not that it was a possibility".

      Delete
    82. "That doesn't warrant a shooting, by your own previous admission."

      By YOUR admission it does. The public was in danger, he was selling guns to the public and meth earlier in the week. He just didn't know that it was an undercover cop, for all he knew he was selling that gun to any-ole average Joe or Barbie. So, the facts show that you support this type of killing by police as an acceptable execution because the public was in danger.

      Thanks for playing.

      Delete
    83. "By YOUR admission it does. The public was in danger, he was selling guns to the public and meth earlier in the week."

      No, danger to the public would have to be immediate in nature. I never suggested anything otherwise.

      Delete
    84. "No, danger to the public would have to be immediate in nature. I never suggested anything otherwise."

      Oh, so you're changing what you did say and adding something you didn't say. Besides, the public may have been in immediate danger, the 6-time felon had guns in his possession and possibly high on meth while out in open public view trying to sell those guns and meth. Do you know how someone (anyone) acts when high on meth?

      Delete
    85. "Oh, so you're changing what you did say and adding something you didn't say."

      I'm making a clarification that shouldn't be necessary for rational adults. If you're not talking about immediate danger, then you would have to think that police could shoot anyone that they arrest for assault or drunk driving.

      "Besides, the public may have been in immediate danger, the 6-time felon had guns in his possession and possibly high on meth while out in open public view trying to sell those guns and meth."

      It's not a mystery whether immediate danger exists or not. Remember, you already admitted that people can't be shot simply based on the possibility of being armed. If the police can't positively identify any danger, then it's not immediate in nature.

      "Do you know how someone (anyone) acts when high on meth?"

      Yes, almost as irrationally as you do.

      Delete
    86. " If the police can't positively identify any danger, then it's not immediate in nature."

      He was selling guns to the cops. Of course they KNEW he was armed and dangerous and possibly high on meth (he had attempted to sell meth to cops earlier in the week). So, I am right ... this was not an execution as you described it. Meaning you are wrong.

      "Yes, almost as irrationally as you do."

      Then that proves my point that the convicted felon was possibly an immediate danger to anyone (someone). And that proves the guy killed was not executed as you claimed.

      Delete
    87. "He was selling guns to the cops. Of course they KNEW he was armed and dangerous and possibly high on meth (he had attempted to sell meth to cops earlier in the week)."

      He wasn't "armed and dangerous", since he handed over his only weapon.

      "Then that proves my point that the convicted felon was possibly an immediate danger to anyone (someone)."

      Again, it's not a mystery. Shooting people isn't a preventive measure.

      Delete
    88. "He wasn't "armed and dangerous", since he handed over his only weapon."

      So, you admit the guy had a gun IN his hand? That would make him armed and dangerous.

      Delete
    89. "So, you admit the guy had a gun IN his hand? That would make him armed and dangerous."

      Not when he was shot. It's not retroactive, either.

      Delete
    90. "Not when he was shot. It's not retroactive, either."

      And the shooting was obviously accidental. No execution as you claimed.

      Delete
    91. "And the shooting was obviously accidental."

      Maybe it was, but it's still a problem. I didn't claim that it was an execution, but you continue to prove that you have no problem with the police killing people when there's no immediate danger at hand.

      Delete
    92. "Maybe it was, but it's still a problem."

      Yes it is a problem.

      " I didn't claim that it was an execution, but you continue to prove that you have no problem with the police killing people when there's no immediate danger at hand."

      Yes you did claim that, and I've brought the quotes to prove it. And, no, I've never claimed "no problem" within the parameters that you are using.

      Delete
    93. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    94. "Yes it is a problem."

      So you would prefer that he had been arrested and put in prison?

      "Yes you did claim that, and I've brought the quotes to prove it."

      No, you haven't.

      "And, no, I've never claimed "no problem" within the parameters that you are using."

      What "parameters"? You: "I've consistently said the guy should have expected this result for doing what he did. I've NEVER insinuated I have no problem with people being shot and killed by police in order to save taxpayer money. Just the criminals who are killed acting in their dangerously criminal behavior."

      Delete
    95. "So you would prefer that he had been arrested and put in prison?"

      My preferences, if different than yours when you claim the cops have a right to kill anyone to protect the public, are irrelevant to THIS situation.

      "No, you haven't."

      Right here, you did: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2015/04/and-another.html?showComment=1429109225949#c5750164472809345532

      "What "parameters"?"

      You: but you continue to prove that you have no problem with the police killing people when there's NO IMMEDIATE DANGER at hand.
      Me: Just the criminals who are killed acting in their DANGEROUSLY CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR."
      (Highlights mine)
      Obviously what I have no problem with are vastly different than your claims of what I have no problem with. Misinterpreting what I DO say are not my concern. It simply shows your futility in this discussion.

      Delete
    96. "My preferences, if different than yours when you claim the cops have a right to kill anyone to protect the public, are irrelevant to THIS situation."

      Funny how you can't answer a perfectly straightforward question. We're talking about your views, so your views are clearly not irrelevant.

      "Right here, you did:"

      Your lies were already debunked.

      "You: but you continue to prove that you have no problem with the police killing people when there's NO IMMEDIATE DANGER at hand.
      Me: Just the criminals who are killed acting in their DANGEROUSLY CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.""

      Those are two different things, obviously.

      "Obviously what I have no problem with are vastly different than your claims of what I have no problem with. Misinterpreting what I DO say are not my concern."

      If you have a problem with the police shooting unarmed criminals, then why did you tell Eddie to get over it, as if it wasn't something to complain about?

      Delete
    97. "Your lies were already debunked."

      Your statements clearly show otherwise.

      "Those are two different things, obviously."

      Yes, I know. That's why your misinterpretations of what I've said are of no concern of mine.

      "If you have a problem with the police shooting unarmed criminals, then why did you tell Eddie to get over it, as if it wasn't something to complain about?"

      Because he was acting in a DANGEROUSLY CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

      "Funny how you can't answer a perfectly straightforward question."

      Your question is irrelevant to this situation, therefore not worthy a response.

      Delete
    98. "Your statements clearly show otherwise."

      No, they don't.

      "That's why your misinterpretations of what I've said are of no concern of mine."

      That made no sense at all. You've been defending the killing of someone because he previously had a gun on him, which means that there was no immediate danger. What misinterpretation are you even pretending to claim?

      "Because he was acting in a DANGEROUSLY CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR."

      Then why is the shooting a problem, according to you?

      "Your question is irrelevant to this situation, therefore not worthy a response."

      It's not true just because you say it. Why are you scared to answer the question?

      Delete
    99. I'm not scared to answer anything relevant. They were trying to arrest him to send him to jail and trial when the ACCIDENT occurred. If he hadn't continued being a dangerous threat then the taser would not have been needed. This situation was not an execution as you and Ed claim it was.

      Delete
    100. "If he hadn't continued being a dangerous threat then the taser would not have been needed."

      That doesn't warrant getting shot, though. It's still the officer's responsibility, and therefore his failure (if an accident at all) is a problem.

      "This situation was not an execution as you and Ed claim it was."

      I didn't claim it was. I'm saying that you support the police shooting unarmed criminals whether it's an accident or not, and you've confirmed that.

      Delete
    101. " I'm saying that you support the police shooting unarmed criminals whether it's an accident or not, and you've confirmed that."

      Well, you're wrong then. I've never confirmed that I support the "police shooting unarmed criminals". And, you can't bring any quotes that show otherwise.

      "That doesn't warrant getting shot, though."

      I know. That's why you hear the officer yelling "taser" before he accidentally shot his real gun. And, yes it is the officers responsibility. He will have his day in court to find out if he is guilty or not of the crime he is charged with.

      "I didn't claim it was."

      Sure you did. You inflected your own opinion of the shooting as to being my opinion. That is wrong and you've been called on it. You continue to defend your position, so that makes it doubly wrong. How deep do you plan on digging that hole before you admit your error?

      Delete
    102. "I've never confirmed that I support the "police shooting unarmed criminals"."

      Of course you did: "That if a criminal wants to commit a crime that would put him/her in danger of being killed then they knowingly and willfully take that risk and accept the possibility of it happening."

      As if the original quotes weren't enough: "When the criminal gets killed in the line of his duty, then they get what they deserve. Get over your "unarmed black man killed" shit. This time he earned what he got. Either that or YOU support him with your (not mine) tax money for the next 50 years in our overcrowded prison system. Fucking liberals are ruining this country."
      And: "you'll get another conviction for "killing an unarmed black man by police". You'll have that trophy on your wall. Only this time, the cop may have saved an untold number of lives."
      And: "I've consistently said the guy should have expected this result for doing what he did. I've NEVER insinuated I have no problem with people being shot and killed by police in order to save taxpayer money. Just the criminals who are killed acting in their dangerously criminal behavior."

      Along with all of your other tap-dancing about possibilities of being armed and other justifications for shooting people, of course.

      "And, yes it is the officers responsibility. He will have his day in court to find out if he is guilty or not of the crime he is charged with."

      So what are you whining about, if you agree that he should be tried and held responsible?

      "Sure you did. You inflected your own opinion of the shooting as to being my opinion."

      No, that never happened.

      Delete
    103. "Of course you did:"

      See? You bring quotes that are completely different than "police shooting unarmed criminals". I said: ""When the criminal gets killed in the line of his duty" and " criminal wants to commit a crime that would put him/her in danger of being killed" and "Just the criminals who are killed acting in their dangerously criminal behavior.". There is no "police killed an unarmed black man" or "police killed unarmed criminal" in any of those. That is simply your misinterpretation of what I actually said. You've been fucking lying and defending your lies to no ends. THAT is why I said "Fucking liberals are ruining this country.". Because your ilk can't understand fucking English so you want to mix fucking French in with it and claim everyone is speaking your stupid language. Well screw you people.

      "So what are you whining about, if you agree that he should be tried and held responsible?"

      I didn't think you were smart enough to understand what my whine was. Perhaps if you go back to my FIRST comment you'll figure it out. But, I doubt it. You haven't the intelligence.

      "No, that never happened."

      Liar.

      Delete
    104. "No, that never happened."

      Right here it did, Mr Stupid: "Why do you favor executing anyone instead of having a trial?"
      That was your FIRST on topic statement after I begged you to please discuss THIS case. WHY did you use "executing"? Simple direct question that you will definitely ignore. WHY did you use "instead"? What I said is plainly clear, just read the statements of mine that you brought. And none of them implied what you conjured up as something I believe.

      Delete
    105. "There is no "police killed an unarmed black man" or "police killed unarmed criminal" in any of those."

      They include unarmed criminals, obviously, since you've been bending over backwards to justify the shooting of someone who may be armed.

      "I didn't think you were smart enough to understand what my whine was."

      In other words, you're contradicting yourself.

      "That was your FIRST on topic statement after I begged you to please discuss THIS case."

      You made a general comment, so my response is not specific to this case.

      "WHY did you use "executing"?"

      Because if you think that unarmed criminals (note the plural, per your quotes) should be killed in order to avoid costly prison terms, then that would be the police executing criminals. It's very straightforward.

      "WHY did you use "instead"?"

      They don't usually have trials for dead people.

      "What I said is plainly clear, just read the statements of mine that you brought."

      I have, and every single one of them advocates allowing police officers to kill without justifiable cause in order to save taxpayer money. The one about how this officer may have saved lives is especially clear.

      You have no other explanation. You're just going to attack me and whine because you don't like to be held accountable for your lack of morality.

      Delete
    106. "They include unarmed criminals,"

      When you take things out of context they can mean almost anything. Honest people don't do that, though. You should try being honest.

      "You made a general comment, so my response is not specific to this case."

      That's a lie, as I proved already. Your next sentence after that quote proves you were talking about THIS situation only.

      "It's very straightforward."

      Well, your premise is completely wrong then. Since I never said or implied they "should be killed". You're basing your entire illogical rant on a misinterpretation. That's not very honest of you.

      "I have, and every single one of them advocates allowing police officers to kill without justifiable cause in order to save taxpayer money. "

      Liar. All of them advocate that the criminal is responsible for their own actions. That is the biggest difference between normal people and liberals: we (normal people) understand there are consequences for your actions, your ilk (liberals) feel everyone else is responsible and will continually lie and misinterpret in order to achieve that.

      "You have no other explanation. "

      I just explained it. And, yes I will attack the liar any time I want. Do you have a problem with that?

      So, since you refuse to discuss honestly, I take it you have nothing else to say ... other than further lies. So, run along liar.

      Delete
    107. "When you take things out of context they can mean almost anything."

      Show the context that you're claiming helps you.

      "That's a lie, as I proved already. Your next sentence after that quote proves you were talking about THIS situation only."

      No, I also addressed this situation, but I was talking about your generalized viewpoint. The use of "anyone" in my quote proves that.

      "Since I never said or implied they "should be killed"."

      You very strongly implied it by complaining about liberals wanting to put Harris in prison for fifty years. What would the alternative be?

      "Liar. All of them advocate that the criminal is responsible for their own actions."

      Which would mean that police have no responsibility for any shooting, since it's the criminal's responsibility. You aren't setting up any contrast, otherwise, since everyone else thinks he should have been arrested.

      "That is the biggest difference between normal people and liberals: we (normal people) understand there are consequences for your actions, your ilk (liberals) feel everyone else is responsible and will continually lie and misinterpret in order to achieve that."

      Harris was certainly responsible, which means he should have been arrested instead of shot. You're the one who opposes people like Harris going to prison, remember?

      "I just explained it."

      No, you didn't.

      "And, yes I will attack the liar any time I want. Do you have a problem with that?"

      You would have to prove your claim of "liar", which would be a first for you.

      Delete
    108. Are you just acting stupid or does it come natural?

      Either way, I'm done with you, liar. You can spin that any way you want, but I just showed how you've lied throughout this entire conversation.

      Delete
    109. "You can spin that any way you want, but I just showed how you've lied throughout this entire conversation."

      You haven't shown anything except that you have no problem with unarmed criminals being killed by police in order to save taxpayer money. I accept your surrender.

      Delete
    110. " I accept your surrender."

      Let the spinning begin.

      I hear FOX News is looking to hire pundits. The way you lie you could get a job there very quickly. Too bad you'd have to move out of Jersey when FOX News jumps at a chance to hire a habitual liar such as yourself.

      You're so stupid .... (audience: how stupid is he?) ... you didn't even know what snookered meant until I brought the definition, then you never mentioned it again ... (audience: ah ha ha ..what a liberal).

      Delete
    111. "You're so stupid .... (audience: how stupid is he?) ... you didn't even know what snookered meant until I brought the definition, then you never mentioned it again ... (audience: ah ha ha ..what a liberal)."

      I knew what it meant. I pointed out that you didn't lead me anywhere, because all you did was misrepresent me. I'm clearly not displeased with my position, while you had to dodge a straightforward question about whether or not you would prefer Harris to have been arrested and tried. Obviously, I led you into a position where you didn't have an answer which helped you out.

      "Too bad you'd have to move out of Jersey when FOX News jumps at a chance to hire a habitual liar such as yourself."

      I don't live in New Jersey. Every time you bring up your failed claim, it only proves that you're nothing more than a troll.

      Delete
    112. "I'm clearly not displeased with my position, while you had to dodge a straightforward question about whether or not you would prefer Harris to have been arrested and tried"

      See? You're lying again. I answered that question. Go back and look.

      "I knew what it meant."

      No you didn't. You thought it required some kind of deception.

      "I don't live in New Jersey."

      Then you won't have to move so far when FOX News hires your lying ass.

      Delete
    113. "I answered that question."

      You: "My preferences, if different than yours when you claim the cops have a right to kill anyone to protect the public, are irrelevant to THIS situation."

      That would be a dodge, obviously.

      "No you didn't. You thought it required some kind of deception."

      And it does: "to trick or deceive (someone)" (merriam-webster.com).
      Or: "to deceive, cheat, or dupe" (dictionary.com).
      You used the British version, which is hardly to be expected from someone who has as much trouble with their own dialect as you do. Besides that, it still involves deception, unless you're actually talking about a game of billiards or something similar. Because, obviously, you "leading" me somewhere without my knowledge would involve you disguising your intent to do so. So, even assuming that you're in the habit of speaking as if you're British, "snookered" is consistent with my comment.

      Delete
    114. "That would be a dodge, obviously."

      How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb?
      Amazingly, just 2, but they would need a public school taught 8 years old to teach them how to put the rubber on.

      Delete
    115. "How many liberals does it take to screw in a light bulb?
      Amazingly, just 2, but they would need a public school taught 8 years old to teach them how to put the rubber on."

      Non sequitur. Anything else?

      Delete
    116. How can a fact be a "non sequitur"?

      Delete
    117. Even if you established a "fact", it would have to logically follow what was said before it. It's not a complicated concept.

      Delete
    118. How do you know when a liberal won't understand a joke?

      You tell him one.

      Delete
    119. "You tell him one."

      You called it a "fact".

      Do you have anything on-topic or substantial in any way, or should I expect this level of childishness from you from now on?

      Delete
    120. What kind of paint does a liberal use when they paint themselves into a corner?

      Invisible, that way they can deny it happened.

      Delete
    121. How deep of a hole does a liberal dig before they admit their mistake and move on?

      No body knows, yet.

      Delete
    122. How many liberals look a fluorescent light bulb and think they might "get lucky" tonight?

      All of them.

      Delete
    123. "How deep of a hole does a liberal dig before they admit their mistake and move on?"

      That's funny, just from the hypocrisy of it. But you being unintentionally amusing is just par for the course.

      Delete
    124. What's the difference between a democrat and a republican?

      Nothing

      Delete
    125. What's the difference between a liberal and a democrat?

      Nothing

      Delete
    126. I oppose the existence of political parties entirely, so your aim is clearly off with that one.

      Delete
    127. How do you know when a liberal won't understand a joke?

      You tell him one.

      Delete
    128. You don't get any better with repetition.

      Delete
    129. You know how to keep a liberal in suspense?

      I'll tell you tomorrow

      Delete
    130. Do you know who's dumber ... a liberal or an atheist?

      Me neither

      Delete
    131. Your pettiness is amusing. Feel free to do better, whenever you feel up to it.

      Delete
    132. You could put a 100 atheists in a room with a 100 typewriters for a 100 years and they would need overtime to come up with Mary Had A Little Lamb.

      Delete
    133. Do you really think that you're accomplishing something, or are you just desperate to get the last word?

      Delete
    134. When an atheist wants to get noticed, he goes to a liberal blog site ... hoping someone notices

      Delete
    135. Then he realizes even liberals don't like them

      Delete
    136. And then they go to the courts and demand that everyone listen to them ... as if they are important.

      Delete
    137. I'm sure that you have a profound argument in mind, William. Note the sarcasm.

      Delete
    138. You know how to tell when a liberal is lying?

      Trick question, they never stop lying

      Delete
    139. You know how to tell when a liberal has to deal with facts?

      They use words like "projection" and "ad hominem"

      Delete
    140. Or, alternately, there could be some fault with you. Imagine that.

      Delete
    141. Happy 4-20 all you liberals

      Delete
    142. You know how you can tell a liberal is lying?

      He posts on a blog

      Delete
    143. You know how you can tell an atheist is lying?

      He's the same poster

      Delete
    144. I'm just curious how long you're going to go on, at this point.

      Delete
    145. A liberal walks into a bar and says: give me a latte
      The bartender says: we don't serve your kind here
      The little started crying

      Delete
    146. "The little started crying"? Hilarious.

      Delete
    147. Well, at least you know who I was talking about

      Delete
    148. Your fictional liberal, yes.

      Delete
    149. What does a liberal call his reflection in the mirror?

      that's right ... fictional

      Delete
    150. I don't drink lattes. Another lie on your part.

      Delete
    151. I never said you did. Another misinterpretation on your part.

      Delete
    152. Then your liberal was fictional, as I said.

      Delete
    153. I don't have any liberals, fictional or non. So another lie on your part.

      Delete
    154. You relayed your fantasy about a liberal ordering a latte at a bar. That liberal was fictional, as I said.

      Delete
    155. I said the "little" started crying, (and he still is). Are you so egotistical that you think everyone is talking about YOU? Well, you made it to my point and you proved it so amazingly. You got snookered again.
      Thank you and good night.

      Delete
    156. "Are you so egotistical that you think everyone is talking about YOU?"

      When you clearly imply that you're talking about me, I'm inclined to believe that you are talking about me.

      Delete