"What is wrong" was already asked....

Agree, If he was doing time for assault, I'm sure it was a felony conviction.

What state allows felons to carry ? He was probably well known to police as well.

So the cops see a convicted felon with a gun in his hand. mmm. Just a guess
 
From the article Woody linked to:
"He said he was able to grab the handgun, then leave through a side door that led to the cafeteria. Holding the gun upside down — and clutching it with both hands — he said it was there that he encountered an officer with a rifle who told him to drop the weapon.

"I started bending down to put it on the ground," Garces said. "I didn't want to drop it. It would go off. That's when he shot me."

Somewhere, at some point, this guy who got shot must have heard something about when the policeman with the gun tells you to do something, you do it. DOH!!
 
"Garces went for his weapon" Doesn't make it crystal clear who's weapon it was. I assumed it was jailbirds
 
scoflaw said:
"Garces went for his weapon" Doesn't make it crystal clear who's weapon it was. I assumed it was jailbirds
Click to expand...
Gofirstclass said:
Yeah, that article was not clearly written.
Click to expand...
Did you read it all?

Tony Garces was still reeling from his injuries on Tuesday, nearly two weeks after he disarmed a possible church shooter in Amarillo, Texas and was then shot by police…..On the morning of Feb. 14 Garces wrestled a handgun away from a man who had entered the chapel at Faith City Mission and threatened to hold church attendees hostage….But a responding officer fired at Garces, striking him twice, once in the back and once above his collar bone….the Amarillo Police Department appeared to confirm Garces' account, saying an initial investigation determined that police fired at a man who'd disarmed a would-be hostage taker in a church with 100 people in its chapel
 
OK Woody, so what's the point your trying to make ? Yup, we have a boatload of crazy murderers in the country. We all know that.

One of your previous posts said to ban assault rifles and high capacity mags. Doesn't look like that would have solved the last 2 articles you posted. Appears though you have your teeth into this issue. Keep it coming
 
Woody, I can't fault the cops. They responded to the church on some kind of a "man with a gun" call. Given the high number of copy cat incidents around the country following the shooting in FL, you can bet they were on high alert and tense.

So they show up, see a man with a gun, tell him to drop the weapon and he doesn't. Well the outcome to that scenario is going to happen that way just about every time.

As to your post #126,
6image01068.jpg
 
scoflaw said:
OK Woody, so what's the point your trying to make ? Yup, we have a boatload of crazy murderers in the country. We all know that.

One of your previous posts said to ban assault rifles and high capacity mags. Doesn't look like that would have solved the last 2 articles you posted. Appears though you have your teeth into this issue. Keep it coming
Click to expand...
I've never said to ban assault rifles. Did you read the link in post #126?
 
Gofirstclass said:
Woody, I can't fault the cops. They responded to the church on some kind of a "man with a gun" call. Given the high number of copy cat incidents around the country following the shooting in FL, you can bet they were on high alert and tense.

So they show up, see a man with a gun, tell him to drop the weapon and he doesn't. Well the outcome to that scenario is going to happen that way just about every time.

As to your post #126,
6image01068.jpg
Click to expand...
By your response it doesn't look like you even read the link in post #126.
 
Woody, you stumped me. In my post #128 I was referring to the man in the church that was shot by the cop when he didn't drop the gun when ordered.

Your post in #126 linked to an article about a serial killer in Kansas City, MO.

Am I missing a link between those two totally unrelated incidents?
 
Gofirstclass said:
Woody, you stumped me. In my post #128 I was referring to the man in the church that was shot by the cop when he didn't drop the gun when ordered.

Your post in #126 linked to an article about a serial killer in Kansas City, MO.

Am I missing a link between those two totally unrelated incidents?
Click to expand...
Both are related to what we're discussing in this thread. The first one was a comment on adding more guns to the schools, especially when you add late to the game police that are 'tense'.
Gofirstclass said:
As to your post #126,
6image01068.jpg
Click to expand...
This is the last paragraph of the serial killer article. See the connection?

Following Scott’s arrest, local news outlets dug up his alleged past threats regarding race. In 2014, Scott was a student at an alternative school when he allegedly threatened to “shoot the school up, Columbine-style.” According to municipal court documents, he also spoke of wanting to kill himself and to “kill all white people.”
 
Gofirstclass said:
Woody, you stumped me. In my post #128 I was referring to the man in the church that was shot by the cop when he didn't drop the gun when ordered.
Click to expand...

Except he did try to drop the gun, but he wasn't fast enough for the overly tense cop who shot him in the back anyway.

Point being there's no way in hell I'd ever want to be a teacher with a handgun in a school.
 
Woody, I'm not sure I'm following your linking of the article about Locklear to this thread.

If you're saying the cops were wrong to search her house please consider these things:
-Ms. Locklear has a long history of drug and alcohol abuse and mental instability. This has been widely displayed by her for years.
-On the night the cops arrested her she fought with them and said the next time they came to her house she would shoot them.
-there is/was a firearm registered to her.
-the cops had to complete an affidavit wherein they presented their "case" to get the search warrant, then had to present that to a judge before getting the warrant.
-the judge issued the warrant and they searched her house.

So, back to your providing this link, am I missing something here? Are you saying the cops were justified in getting the warrant and searching her house or were they in error?
 
Gofirstclass said:
Woody, I'm not sure I'm following your linking of the article about Locklear to this thread.

If you're saying the cops were wrong to search her house please consider these things:
-Ms. Locklear has a long history of drug and alcohol abuse and mental instability. This has been widely displayed by her for years.
-On the night the cops arrested her she fought with them and said the next time they came to her house she would shoot them.
-there is/was a firearm registered to her.
-the cops had to complete an affidavit wherein they presented their "case" to get the search warrant, then had to present that to a judge before getting the warrant.
-the judge issued the warrant and they searched her house.

So, back to your providing this link, am I missing something here? Are you saying the cops were justified in getting the warrant and searching her house or were they in error?
Click to expand...
Think about how this could be related to the subject of this thread.

The local Florida authorities at one point had said they couldn't do anything because 'Cruz' hadn't done anything wrong yet. They knew about his threats.

The serial killer made threats to 'shoot up his school', to 'kill all white people', the authorities were aware of it. Nothing was done.

If the police can go after the actress because of her threats, why not the crazies threatening to shoot up schools?
 
Aha, now I see your connection and I agree with you. It appears that in both cases you mentioned that the cops and mental health authorities dropped the ball. Completely.

I hope they (cops and MH authorities) learn from their errors and omissions.
 
If the police can go after the actress because of her threats said:
Because she made the threats directly to the cops and also on the recorded line.

Big dif
Click to expand...
 
UnleashedBeast said:
Anyone who does not study history would think this is preposterous, as I can see with the stability of your government.
Click to expand...

I am aware that is a founding principle...I was wondering how real this purpose is really still believed to be.

I don't quite understand the sentence quoted above. In the first part I think you are saying that based on the history of past governments and rulers on Earth, all future governments everywhere will eventually become tyrannical, and this extrapolation would be obvious to anyone that has studied history, but preposterous to anyone that hasn't.

I am not sure what you are saying with the second part: "as I can see with the stability of your government." Are you saying it is stable and the government has learned from history, or it isn't stable and hasn't learned? I don't see the attempted point being made.

Without studying history overly far back, deeply, or broadly, one could easily contend that societies on Earth as a whole have vastly improved over the ages. There are still some backwards ones that refuse to move forward, and the reading audience can conclude for themselves which ones they are, yet there are others that have actually progressed well beyond their flawed roots with proper vision and leadership.
 
bajturner said:
I am aware that is a founding principle...I was wondering how real this purpose is really still believed to be.

I don't quite understand the sentence quoted above. In the first part I think you are saying that based on the history of past governments and rulers on Earth, all future governments everywhere will eventually become tyrannical, and this extrapolation would be obvious to anyone that has studied history, but preposterous to anyone that hasn't.

I am not sure what you are saying with the second part: "as I can see with the stability of your government." Are you saying it is stable and the government has learned from history, or it isn't stable and hasn't learned? I don't see the attempted point being made.

Without studying history overly far back, deeply, or broadly, one could easily contend that societies on Earth as a whole have vastly improved over the ages. There are still some backwards ones that refuse to move forward, and the reading audience can conclude for themselves which ones they are, yet there are others that have actually progressed well beyond their flawed roots with proper vision and leadership.
Click to expand...

You, nor I, will live long enough to see America buckle to tyranny. America is less than 300 years old, and look at the vast change of direction since its founding. The Roman empire fell hard after 500 years. Canada seems to be very stable, however I am not a citizen studying your politics. I could be wrong, it may be corrupt as our government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,116
Messages
1,426,392
Members
61,028
Latest member
ddbyrd329
Back
Top