Pages: 1 2 3

 

2011-09-05 08:25:43
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA
POLK COUNTY FLORIDA SHERIFF, GRADY JUDD

An illegal alien, in Polk County , Florida , who got pulled over in a routine traffic stop, ended up "executing" the deputy who stopped him. The deputy was shot eight times, including once behind his right ear at close range. Another deputy was wounded and a police dog killed. A state-wide manhunt ensued.
The murderer was found hiding in a wooded area. As soon as he took a shot at the SWAT team, officers opened fire on him. They hit the guy 68 times.
Naturally, the liberal media went nuts and asked why they had to shoot the poor, undocumented immigrant 68 times.

Sheriff Grady Judd told the Orlando Sentinel "Because that's all the ammunition we had." 

^^^^^^^^^
got this in my email, I thought it was good, but I doubted it was true, figured it was just some more email spam bullshit.

To my surprise I Snoped it and it is true.

We got a new hero next to Sheriff Joe!!

They shot the guy with no remorse 68 and told it like it was to the media. Investigation reveals no wrong doing by the sheriffs office.  Case closed! I love it.
2011-09-05 08:29:10
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5941|College Park, MD
Honestly, opening fire at cops is going to get you killed. Especially when you already killed one before. But yes, I'm sure the family will sue.

e: Oh! What a surprising piece of information! Apparently the (late) perp had quite the record, including failing to appear in court after being released on bail:

http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp

At least it turns out the DOJ cleared them of any wrongdoing. Probably wouldn't have happened under our current one though...

Last edited by Hurricane2k9 (2011-09-05 08:33:47)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2011-09-05 08:54:33
PrivateVendetta
I DEMAND XMAS THEME
+704|6431|Roma
excellent
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/29388/stopped%20scrolling%21.png
2011-09-05 09:08:19
rdx-fx
...
+955|6831
Took 68 shots to drop the guy?

Can someone please spend some money on marksmanship training for these guys?!
2011-09-05 09:11:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

PrivateVendetta wrote:

excellent
It is.

I appreciate the fact that this sheriff told it like it was and the media could choke on it if they liked. I also love the idea that it is so offensive to those that would worry more about the piece of shit criminal than the cops he shot.
2011-09-05 09:12:18
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

rdx-fx wrote:

Took 68 shots to drop the guy?

Can someone please spend some money on marksmanship training for these guys?!
pretty sure it didn't take 68 shots...but why chance it?
2011-09-05 09:21:01
Hurricane2k9
Pendulous Sweaty Balls
+1,538|5941|College Park, MD

rdx-fx wrote:

Took 68 shots to drop the guy?

Can someone please spend some money on marksmanship training for these guys?!
zombies
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg
2011-09-05 10:15:56
mikkel
Member
+383|6841
I love these chain e-mails. As soon as there's even a hint of anyone questioning the necessity of shooting a man 68 times, the tear machine kicks into full gear, and the "liberal media" gets a reaming by senseless drones who are so caught up in their hatred that they miss the obvious point and start forcefully presenting completely unrelated arguments. Then all the little Lowings everywhere sit in front of their monitors, clap their little hands, and feel better about hating the world around them except for the few like-minded people that they get along with.
2011-09-05 10:22:41
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6650|'Murka

Please educate the rest of us on "the obvious point" that was missed.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-09-05 10:24:44
mikkel
Member
+383|6841

FEOS wrote:

Please educate the rest of us on "the obvious point" that was missed.
That it's a question of moderation, not a question of guilt.
2011-09-05 10:29:17
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5825

I think the "Because that's all the ammunition we had." is a clever way of disguising the fact the SWAT team needed to discharge 68 rounds to kill one guy because of poor marksmanship as rdx pointed out.
2011-09-05 10:44:31
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

mikkel wrote:

I love these chain e-mails. As soon as there's even a hint of anyone questioning the necessity of shooting a man 68 times, the tear machine kicks into full gear, and the "liberal media" gets a reaming by senseless drones who are so caught up in their hatred that they miss the obvious point and start forcefully presenting completely unrelated arguments. Then all the little Lowings everywhere sit in front of their monitors, clap their little hands, and feel better about hating the world around them except for the few like-minded people that they get along with.
actually, I hate those emails, and when I get one the first thing I do is try and debunk it. To my surprise this one was real. I didn't have a problem with them questioning the necessity of shooting the guy 68 times.  I fully expected it. I merely pointed out how much i loved the response.

and I can promise you,  I have seen more of this world to pass judgement on than you have, some of it I hate some of it I love.  I just happen to hate the liberal part.
2011-09-05 10:45:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Macbeth wrote:

I think the "Because that's all the ammunition we had." is a clever way of disguising the fact the SWAT team needed to discharge 68 rounds to kill one guy because of poor marksmanship as rdx pointed out.
ummm I doubt it, because if there are 68 holes in the guy, I am sure the first 1 or 2 probably did the trick.
2011-09-05 10:46:24
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

mikkel wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Please educate the rest of us on "the obvious point" that was missed.
That it's a question of moderation, not a question of guilt.
moderation? like moderately dead compared to all the way dead?
2011-09-05 10:48:22
mikkel
Member
+383|6841

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I love these chain e-mails. As soon as there's even a hint of anyone questioning the necessity of shooting a man 68 times, the tear machine kicks into full gear, and the "liberal media" gets a reaming by senseless drones who are so caught up in their hatred that they miss the obvious point and start forcefully presenting completely unrelated arguments. Then all the little Lowings everywhere sit in front of their monitors, clap their little hands, and feel better about hating the world around them except for the few like-minded people that they get along with.
actually, I hate those emails, and when I get one the first thing I do is try and debunk it. To my surprise this one was real. I didn't have a problem with them questioning the necessity of shooting the guy 68 times.  I fully expected it. I merely pointed out how much i loved the response.
Yeah, and then you added the ill-conceived quip about how the liberal media focuses more on a criminal than an officer. Don't pretend that you don't have an opinion beyond the response.

lowing wrote:

and I can promise you,  I have seen more of this world to pass judgement on than you have, some of it I hate some of it I love.  I just happen to hate the liberal part.
I don't doubt that you've found more of the world to hate than I have. That doesn't make your hatred any more or any less sensible.

Last edited by mikkel (2011-09-05 10:49:41)

2011-09-05 11:02:24
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6685|The Land of Scott Walker
Pretty sure we can agree on disliking folks who kill policeman on routine traffic stops can't we?
2011-09-05 11:07:03
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I love these chain e-mails. As soon as there's even a hint of anyone questioning the necessity of shooting a man 68 times, the tear machine kicks into full gear, and the "liberal media" gets a reaming by senseless drones who are so caught up in their hatred that they miss the obvious point and start forcefully presenting completely unrelated arguments. Then all the little Lowings everywhere sit in front of their monitors, clap their little hands, and feel better about hating the world around them except for the few like-minded people that they get along with.
actually, I hate those emails, and when I get one the first thing I do is try and debunk it. To my surprise this one was real. I didn't have a problem with them questioning the necessity of shooting the guy 68 times.  I fully expected it. I merely pointed out how much i loved the response.
Yeah, and then you added the ill-conceived quip about how the liberal media focuses more on a criminal than an officer. Don't pretend that you don't have an opinion beyond the response.

lowing wrote:

and I can promise you,  I have seen more of this world to pass judgement on than you have, some of it I hate some of it I love.  I just happen to hate the liberal part.
I don't doubt that you've found more of the world to hate than I have. That doesn't make your hatred any more or any less sensible.
the liberal media part was part of the email, I merely cut and pasted it. That is not say I thought it was wrong however.

I don't hate the world mikkel. Far from it.  I have enjoyed my travels. In fact if there is any hatred to be seen here it is yours.
2011-09-05 11:13:43
mikkel
Member
+383|6841

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

actually, I hate those emails, and when I get one the first thing I do is try and debunk it. To my surprise this one was real. I didn't have a problem with them questioning the necessity of shooting the guy 68 times.  I fully expected it. I merely pointed out how much i loved the response.
Yeah, and then you added the ill-conceived quip about how the liberal media focuses more on a criminal than an officer. Don't pretend that you don't have an opinion beyond the response.

lowing wrote:

and I can promise you,  I have seen more of this world to pass judgement on than you have, some of it I hate some of it I love.  I just happen to hate the liberal part.
I don't doubt that you've found more of the world to hate than I have. That doesn't make your hatred any more or any less sensible.
the liberal media part was part of the email, I merely cut and pasted it. That is not say I thought it was wrong however.
No, your commentary regarding media was your own. It's right here:

lowing wrote:

I appreciate the fact that this sheriff told it like it was and the media could choke on it if they liked. I also love the idea that it is so offensive to those that would worry more about the piece of shit criminal than the cops he shot.

lowing wrote:

I don't hate the world mikkel. Far from it.  I have enjoyed my travels. In fact if there is any hatred to be seen here it is yours.
You have no fewer than five threads on the front page complaining vociferously about large swathes of people. You aren't going to get far by calling people hateful for calling you out on it.

Last edited by mikkel (2011-09-05 11:14:23)

2011-09-05 11:20:57
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

actually, I hate those emails, and when I get one the first thing I do is try and debunk it. To my surprise this one was real. I didn't have a problem with them questioning the necessity of shooting the guy 68 times.  I fully expected it. I merely pointed out how much i loved the response.
Yeah, and then you added the ill-conceived quip about how the liberal media focuses more on a criminal than an officer. Don't pretend that you don't have an opinion beyond the response.


I don't doubt that you've found more of the world to hate than I have. That doesn't make your hatred any more or any less sensible.
the liberal media part was part of the email, I merely cut and pasted it. That is not say I thought it was wrong however.
No, your commentary regarding media was your own. It's right here:

lowing wrote:

I appreciate the fact that this sheriff told it like it was and the media could choke on it if they liked. I also love the idea that it is so offensive to those that would worry more about the piece of shit criminal than the cops he shot.

lowing wrote:

I don't hate the world mikkel. Far from it.  I have enjoyed my travels. In fact if there is any hatred to be seen here it is yours.
You have no fewer than five threads on the front page complaining vociferously about large swathes of people. You aren't going to get far by calling people hateful for calling you out on it.
I did say media, I didn't say liberal media....Which ever aspect of the media that took offense to his words is who I am talking about. I will leave it up to you to decide which aspect of the media that applies to.


I do? lets see, I got one on a racist congressman, I got one on a new crime wave called gender crime, I got one on GB appeasement of libya  and I got one praising a sheriff who set aside political correctness and spoke the truth. So, one complains about a racist, one about crime stats, one about policy, and one about a sheriff. Sorry not a single one of those complains about any "large swathes of people".
2011-09-05 11:33:48
mikkel
Member
+383|6841

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:


the liberal media part was part of the email, I merely cut and pasted it. That is not say I thought it was wrong however.
No, your commentary regarding media was your own. It's right here:

lowing wrote:

I appreciate the fact that this sheriff told it like it was and the media could choke on it if they liked. I also love the idea that it is so offensive to those that would worry more about the piece of shit criminal than the cops he shot.

lowing wrote:

I don't hate the world mikkel. Far from it.  I have enjoyed my travels. In fact if there is any hatred to be seen here it is yours.
You have no fewer than five threads on the front page complaining vociferously about large swathes of people. You aren't going to get far by calling people hateful for calling you out on it.
I did say media, I didn't say liberal media....Which ever aspect of the media that took offense to his words is who I am talking about. I will leave it up to you to decide which aspect of the media that applies to.
Own up to your comments instead of running away and hiding behind whether or not it's "media" or "liberal media."


lowing wrote:

I do? lets see, I got one on a racist congressman, I got one on a new crime wave called gender crime, I got one on GB appeasement of libya  and I got one praising a sheriff who set aside political correctness and spoke the truth. So, one complains about a racist, one about crime stats, one about policy, and one about a sheriff. Sorry not a single one of those complains about any "large swathes of people".
You're complaining about "socialists," the entirety of the United Kingdom, as well as individual people and the concepts they represent. That's a large swathe of people. Not that it matters. It isn't exactly a forum secret that you're very passionate about the things that you hate. Before you drag this out and make it a parallel and irrelevant discussion, I'll just say that you're free to consider me hateful for calling you out on your disingenuous commentary. Let's leave it at that.
2011-09-05 11:45:22
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

the liberal media part was part of the email, I merely cut and pasted it. That is not say I thought it was wrong however.
No, your commentary regarding media was your own. It's right here:

lowing wrote:

I appreciate the fact that this sheriff told it like it was and the media could choke on it if they liked. I also love the idea that it is so offensive to those that would worry more about the piece of shit criminal than the cops he shot.
You have no fewer than five threads on the front page complaining vociferously about large swathes of people. You aren't going to get far by calling people hateful for calling you out on it.
I did say media, I didn't say liberal media....Which ever aspect of the media that took offense to his words is who I am talking about. I will leave it up to you to decide which aspect of the media that applies to.
Own up to your comments instead of running away and hiding behind whether or not it's "media" or "liberal media."


lowing wrote:

I do? lets see, I got one on a racist congressman, I got one on a new crime wave called gender crime, I got one on GB appeasement of libya  and I got one praising a sheriff who set aside political correctness and spoke the truth. So, one complains about a racist, one about crime stats, one about policy, and one about a sheriff. Sorry not a single one of those complains about any "large swathes of people".
You're complaining about "socialists," the entirety of the United Kingdom, as well as individual people and the concepts they represent. That's a large swathe of people. Not that it matters. It isn't exactly a forum secret that you're very passionate about the things that you hate. Before you drag this out and make it a parallel and irrelevant discussion, I'll just say that you're free to consider me hateful for calling you out on your disingenuous commentary. Let's leave it at that.
Can't help it if you have decided it was liberal media that takes offense to things like that sheriffs comments. I did in fact however say media. The rest is your assumptions. I personally have my own as well.

I have complained about socialists, as an ideology, like I have maintained throughout my stay here, I take individuals on a one by one basis.  By questioning the policy of a govt. does not make it a personal attack on the individuals of the UK. you are taking that way too personally.

I see, so when I speak out I am being hateful. when you do it, you are merely exposing others...thats not a very rational or consistent point of view. Nor is it very fair to those you are in discussion with.
2011-09-05 11:45:58
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5598|London, England
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-09-05 11:52:59
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6650|'Murka

Macbeth wrote:

I think the "Because that's all the ammunition we had." is a clever way of disguising the fact the SWAT team needed to discharge 68 rounds to kill one guy because of poor marksmanship as rdx pointed out.
Did you miss the part where it said they HIT him 68 times?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-09-05 11:54:29
mikkel
Member
+383|6841
I'm not going to bite, lowing. Let's try this again.

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I love these chain e-mails. As soon as there's even a hint of anyone questioning the necessity of shooting a man 68 times, the tear machine kicks into full gear, and the "liberal media" gets a reaming by senseless drones who are so caught up in their hatred that they miss the obvious point and start forcefully presenting completely unrelated arguments. Then all the little Lowings everywhere sit in front of their monitors, clap their little hands, and feel better about hating the world around them except for the few like-minded people that they get along with.
actually, I hate those emails, and when I get one the first thing I do is try and debunk it. To my surprise this one was real. I didn't have a problem with them questioning the necessity of shooting the guy 68 times.  I fully expected it. I merely pointed out how much i loved the response.
Yeah, and then you added the ill-conceived quip about how the liberal media focuses more on a criminal than an officer. Don't pretend that you don't have an opinion beyond the response.
I've striked out the "liberal" part for you. Hopefully you can stay on track now.
2011-09-05 11:57:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

mikkel wrote:

I'm not going to bite, lowing. Let's try this again.

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

actually, I hate those emails, and when I get one the first thing I do is try and debunk it. To my surprise this one was real. I didn't have a problem with them questioning the necessity of shooting the guy 68 times.  I fully expected it. I merely pointed out how much i loved the response.
Yeah, and then you added the ill-conceived quip about how the liberal media focuses more on a criminal than an officer. Don't pretend that you don't have an opinion beyond the response.
I've striked out the "liberal" part for you. Hopefully you can stay on track now.
lol, is there something there I have said that isn't true? In this case, or countless others where concern for the criminal outweighs that of the victim or the police?

Oh and you didn't strike it out "for me", you struck it out because I didn't say it.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-05 11:58:19)

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard