- Jan 2, 2015
- 11,556
- 5,728
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
.
Last edited:
Brilliant article by John Gibbs over at the Federalist.
Brilliant article by John Gibbs over at the Federalist.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/11...ail&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-cbe167ab22-83889421
I consider the quoteOk, I took the time to read the entire article. It is an excellent piece. I agree with it 100%.
Now I've read the negative comments on this thread, but not one person addressed the substance of the article. Just some name calling and such. If you think Gibbs is wrong, please respectfully point it out. Lose the emotion and snark. Just state your cases against the piece objectively and logically. I'd really like to hear what people have to say.
as an emotional appeal to the article.Ok, I took the time to read the entire article. It is an excellent piece. I agree with it 100%.
An excellent piece. Words that needed to be spoken. Words that needs to be put in action. Words that our Government and Media needs to use, adopt, and enforce.Brilliant article by John Gibbs over at the Federalist.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/11...ail&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-cbe167ab22-83889421
Explain yourself. What did Gibbs say that you think is crazy talk. Be specific. Point to the article, quote it, and explain why you think he's wrong.
I was being sarcastic.
Unfortunately, a good percentage of the U.S. population believes that you should be able to resist arrest, spit on law enforcement personnel, run from them, fight with them and break all kinds of other laws with no repercussions whatsoever.
I agree with much of what is said in this article. However, the author ignores several recent shootings of black men by police that appear to be entirely unjustified. Phil Castile and Gregg Gunn appear to be such shootings. The vast majority of police are good people who do their job and put their lives at risk. A small handful--and I do mean a very small handful--are bad people who should not be police. I wish the author had included a paragraph addressing such people.
I don't believe that I said that these police did not deserve due process, only that the killing of these particular black men appeared to be unjustified. As to whether it was justified is for a judge and/or jury to decide, not me. Other than my suggested addition you won't get an argument from me on this particular article. I agree with most of what he said, he just failed to mention that there are a few bad cops out there, and that some of these shootings were apparently not justified.We all agree that some cops are bad. What we can't assume is that they were motivated by racism. If cops unjustifiably shoot and/or kill someone, we need due process, don't we? Would we like the worst assumed of us? They deserve to be innocent until proven guilty, like the rest of Americans.
ahhh, my bad then. I agree.I was being sarcastic.
Unfortunately, a good percentage of the U.S. population believes that you should be able to resist arrest, spit on law enforcement personnel, run from them, fight with them and break all kinds of other laws with no repercussions whatsoever.
I was being sarcastic.
Unfortunately, a good percentage of the U.S. population believes that you should be able to resist arrest, spit on law enforcement personnel, run from them, fight with them and break all kinds of other laws with no repercussions whatsoever.
You can run from them. You can spit on them. You'll catch extra charges, but those aren't death sentences. If a guy spit on me--a non-cop--I don't have the right to blow him away, and neither do the police. I'd go to jail for shooting the guy in the face. The cop should likewise go to jail for doing the same.
Did you read the entire article?Well John Gibbs is certainly an idiot.