Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

How many more radical left narratives need to be completely destroyed before they just start telling the truth?  
 

it’s like a bottomless pit. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

I thought I had read that the boyfriend made a statement that he did not hear the police identify themselves and do we know if the boyfriend had a visual ID on the police before shooting?  Is it possible that there was some mis-communication here?  Police at door say they are police with warrant and enter and Breonna and Boyfriend don't hear that, assume it's an intruder and boyfriend fires. 

 

Any way you look at it, it's terrible that this woman lost her life. 


 

Going strictly off of what the AG said today, the police identified themselves outside the apartment, waited several minutes and then entered. Upon entering they were met with Taylor and the BF standing at the end of the hall and he had his gun raised and fired immediately. 
 

It was actually difficult for me to find the transcript of then AG’s statement, but here it is: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.courier-journal.com/amp/3507419001

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, whatdrought said:


 

Going strictly off of what the AG said today, the police identified themselves outside the apartment, waited several minutes and then entered. Upon entering they were met with Taylor and the BF standing at the end of the hall and he had his gun raised and fired immediately. 
 

It was actually difficult for me to find the transcript of then AG’s statement, but here it is: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.courier-journal.com/amp/3507419001


This wouldn’t happen if they legalized drugs.

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 hour ago, keepthefaith said:

 

I thought I had read that the boyfriend made a statement that he did not hear the police identify themselves and do we know if the boyfriend had a visual ID on the police before shooting?  Is it possible that there was some mis-communication here?  Police at door say they are police with warrant and enter and Breonna and Boyfriend don't hear that, assume it's an intruder and boyfriend fires?

 

Any way you look at it, it's terrible that this woman lost her life. 

Do you know if the boyfriends gun was legal? I really don't know, just wondering.

Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

S-O-R-O-S

 

 

 

There is an audio clip in the above article.

 

Quote

Holly Zoller, a member of the George Soros-funded “The Bail Project,” is the woman responsible for bringing a U-Haul truck filled with riot shields, umbrellas, and other gear for the street criminals, aiding and abetting rioters in the city of Louisville. Members of The Bail Project are closely tied to infamous financier and nation-wrecker George Soros.

...

A clever anonymous caller pretending to be U-Haul called her and got her to admit to bringing supplies to the illegal riot taking place in the Kentucky city today. The truck contained shields, masks, goggles, and other riot gear.

...

Holly Zoller delivers riot gear, rioters do riot things and get arrested using her supplies, and her organization helps them get bailed out.

 

 

 

Edited by Hedge
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Posted
5 minutes ago, Wacka said:

One of these days, someone is going to be armed and start opening fire.

 

Sadly, really expect that is what the organizers of these events are hoping for.

 

Pretty sure they're actually disappointed that they've only gotten their own shot by "the other side" in Kenosha to date.

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Sadly, really expect that is what the organizers of these events are hoping for.

 

Pretty sure they're actually disappointed that they've only gotten their own shot by "the other side" in Kenosha to date.

Agreed.  They’re instigators.  They take the broken, mentally unstable and lost and give them a cause.  They pay them in hopes they’ll become a martyr.  That’s what this seems to be about.  Getting these kids who have no idea what they’re getting themselves into, close enough to the flame.  
 

 

A pawn never knows how disposable they truly are when measured against the greater objective - winning.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
Just now, DFT said:

Agreed.  They’re instigators.  They take the broken, mentally unstable and lost and give them a cause.  They pay them in hopes they’ll become a martyr.  That’s what this seems to be about.  Getting these kids who have no idea what they’re getting themselves into, close enough to the flame.  
 

 

A pawn never knows how disposable they truly are when measured against the greater objective - winning.

 

The profile of the ricin lady, the Oregon shooter and the shot Kenosha protesters certainly fit this description.

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Posted
12 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


What was the point since you think I missed it. You stated there was a "Big difference between serving a warrant and an imminent danger situation." They served a warrant (and foolishly knocked) so the guy started shooting. That is imminent danger. They shot back.

They CHOSE to serve a warrant at 0100 in the morning in a populated apartment building.  There are a million ways to arrest someone without possibly initiating an armed confrontation in a densely populated building where it is GUARANTEED the majority of residents will be at home.

 

I said nothing whatsoever about the officers returning fire - they were certainly well within their rights to defend themselves.  The question for me has VERY OBVIOUSLY been whether or not they should have served this warrant, in this manner, in the first place.

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Alaska Darin said:

They CHOSE to serve a warrant at 0100 in the morning in a populated apartment building.  There are a million ways to arrest someone without possibly initiating an armed confrontation in a densely populated building where it is GUARANTEED the majority of residents will be at home.

 

I said nothing whatsoever about the officers returning fire - they were certainly well within their rights to defend themselves.  The question for me has VERY OBVIOUSLY been whether or not they should have served this warrant, in this manner, in the first place.


Is it generally safer to serve a warrant on a drug dealer at 1am or 3 am  versus 10am, noon, 2pm?

 "There are a million ways to arrest someone without possibly initiating an armed confrontation in a densely populated building where it is GUARANTEED the majority of residents will be at home." On a drug dealer?  Was the man generally armed? Did he frequently use human shields? Did he have body guards willing to shoot? 

As I said, I am not LEO. If you are, especially if you are in drug enforcement, it would be helpful to know how and when they could have served this warrant that there would be an absolute guarantee that the drug dealer would not start shooting. Perhaps a middle of the night no-knock where they actually do not knock?
 

Edited by Buffalo_Gal
×
×
  • Create New...