Militarization of Police

No Charges for Officer in Submachine Gun Killing; Promised to 'Blow' Victim's 'Head Off'

|

Officer Steve Gilley of the Downey Police Department will not face charges from the Los Angeles District Attorney's office for the October 2011 submachine gun death of Michael Nida in Downey, Calif.

The prosecutor who investigated the killing said that Nida ignored warnings from police, including one from Gilley who promised to "blow [Nida's] head off." From the LA Times:

Prosecutor Stephanie Sparagna, however, wrote that Nida repeatedly resisted arrest and ran from police three times. He also ignored warnings from police, including one from the officer that he would "blow his head off" if Nida did not show his hands.

Sparagna found that Gilley reasonably feared Nida and was armed and dangerous, even though he eventually was determined not to be the robbery suspect and was unarmed. Sparagna said Gilley was required to make a split-second decision.

"Given the rapidly evolving, dangerous situation that confronted Officer Gilley, we conclude that Officer Steven Gilley was justified in using deadly force to prevent Nida's escape," she wrote in the report released Tuesday.

The killing of Michael Nida, 31, led to protests at the site of the shooting and in front of the Downey city council. Reason TV covered the story in "Cops with Machine Guns: The Killing of Michael Nida."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

111 responses to “No Charges for Officer in Submachine Gun Killing; Promised to 'Blow' Victim's 'Head Off'

  1. As a cop, you can shoot a guy carrying a closed pocket knife four times in the back and the worst that happens to you is you might get fired, but only after a lengthy public outcry. If you actually expect charges to be filed… yeah.

    1. I needs me a badge, baby!

  2. As much as I am concerned with police militarization, I’m having a problem with your use of the term “machinegun” to lend a pearl clutching shock to the story. A cop can kill a person just as easily with a handgun, shotgun, or even taser.

    As a person who owns and shoots machineguns frequently, I have no question that “regular” firearms are just as deadly, and their abuse by authorities just as shocking. This really isn’t a very good play for reason.

    1. I agree, but must say that considering the marksmanship of your average cop the idea of him wielding an automatic rifle is alarming.

      What was the gun? Fuck man, if it’s a M4 carbine and they’re using FMJs they could be endangering people all over a motherfucker.

    2. Thank you for posting this. I was thinking of writing something along the same lines but thought it would make me look like a pedant in the middle of an earthquake. You did it well, though. Props.

    3. Hey, if citizens aren’t allowed to own fully automatic weapons, then cops shouldn’t be allowed to have them, either.

      And, yes, full auto weapons are illegal for CA citizens to own. I don’t regard the ability to own one if you get permission from the state, which is given entirely at the discretion of the state, to mean that it is not illegal for CA citizens to own full auto weapons.

      1. Yeah, you can get a carry permit in California, if the Sheriff thinks you have a “good reason,” too.

        With a few exceptions (a few Sheriffs are shotgun rocking chair libertarians), there is no such thing as a “good reason”. Sometimes “I’m a celebrity” counts, and occasionally, “I donated a shitload to the Sheriff’s election campaign” counts. But “I track down and apprehend armed bail jumpers” doesn’t count in LA county, for example, despite LA’s rather significant number of violent criminals.

  3. Sparagna found that Gilley reasonably feared Nida and was armed and dangerous, even though he eventually was determined not to be the robbery suspect and was unarmed.

    So let me get this straight: an unarmed person who is not even the suspect and resists arrest needed to be subdued not by wrestling him to the ground, pepper spray, or even getting whacked with a nightstick, but by shooting him multiple times.

    People like this (resisting arrest, not obeying commands) are the new dogs. They’re a living thing a cop can shoot and kill and get away with it.

    1. Why don’t you know? Those commands are straight from God’s cops’ lips to your ears.

      Disobeying a police officer means you risk death. It’s what the Founders would have wanted.

      Remember the article I posted from PoliceOne the other day. That was an article from a contributor, not just comments. It clearly stated that their job/goal is NOT to help the public, but to “go home” at the end of every night, since theirs is the single most dangerous job in existence.

    2. Drones mow men like grass
      Gun barks; dog and owner fall
      Just Stop Resisting

      1. That was beautiful

      2. i registered and will stop lurking, just to say thanks for this.

      3. The Haiku inspired me:

        Cops are immune if
        training, procedure followed
        and fuck you that’s why

        Also:

        “Sparagna found that Gilley reasonably feared Nida and was armed and dangerous…”

        This sentence means Gilley feared Nida and GILLEY was armed and dangerous.

  4. Fuck you pig

  5. OT, but important: Lucy seems to be leaving Reason, if her Twitter posts mean anything. I don’t know for sure that’s what they mean, but I have a sudden feeling of loss.

    https://twitter.com/LucyStag

    1. I actually went on her twitter account earlier today because I hadn’t seen any post from her recently, now I know why. Well, good luck Lucy in whatever you do:)

    2. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

    3. It’s a shame; I haven’t seen much from her here recently, and always enjoyed her style.

    4. YOU CAN”T LEAVE, ALL THE PLANTS WILL DIE!

        1. Lighten up, Francis.

    5. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MY BELOVED LUCY NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

      1. She even mentioned you by name.

        1. She did more than mention Warty.

        2. Of course she did. She my bottom bitch.

    6. Well, I don’t accept her resignation.

      1. How does one tear up a tweet and hand it back to someone dramatically?

        1. Cut and paste her tweet piecemeal, and in the wrong order with random gaps between the pieces.

          1. Yeah, either ^^this^^ or get your computer to a DOS prompt and type in “fdisk”

            1. Isn’t it “fdisk c:”?

    7. I will never love again. All new people on the the Reason staff henceforth are my enemy utterly.

      1. Then they’ll have something in common with rest of the current staff.

        /sick burn!

  6. “Sparagna found that Gilley reasonably feared Nida and was armed and dangerous […]”

    Notice whom “armed and dangerous” actually describes in that sentence (at least the way it is presented).

    1. Well, it’s true. Chalk this up to a Freudian slip, maybe?

  7. Given the rapidly evolving, dangerous situation that confronted Officer Gilley…

    Dangerous of his own making. It’s like the workplace harassment policies, where it’s not so much relevant if harassment is actually taking place as how the “victim” perceives it. Gilley thought he was in danger therefore he was in danger. Let’s see how that defense works for most civilians.

    1. You mean like Zimmerman?

      1. I would support that. Under that standard, cops can’t shoot anyone till they are under them on the ground being beat bloody.

  8. And nothing else happened.

  9. Fuck fuck fuck fuck.

    FUCK.

    I really have very little hope for the future of this country. All I can see is the coming fascism and the jibbering idiots who are happily voting it in.

    1. No, no, no, JW. It can’t be fascism, because the uniforms are blue, not brown. Jeez, don’t you know anything about history at all?

  10. I was in Chik-fil-a today getting a couple of sammiches and I was sitting there on my laptop eating slowly. As you all know, CFA’s are always packed at lunchtime, and as I was sitting there slightly zoned out with work, a guy nudges me on the shoulder and asks me if I’m almost done. As I turn around, I notice that it’s one of Fresno County’s finest (Sheriff’s Dept) in his polo shirt that looked like he slept in it and a pair of cargo pants. I looked down at my tray and noticed there was but a scrap of food left but I was pissed by then, so I told the guy it was none of his business. He proceeded to pull his loosely tucked shirt up so I could see his badge and gun and I told him I didn’t give a fuck that he was a cop. He told me technically I was loitering, and I told him technically that was none of his fucking business unless the manager asked me to leave. After about 5 more minutes, I got up to go, making sure I offered my table to a woman with her child as the cop stood there fuming in the area between the two sets of doors.

    As I walked out, I told him his little badge and gun didn’t give him license to be a fucking asshole. He told me to watch my mouth. I told him to watch his as the entire ordeal had been recorded on my iphone and his harassment of me could be illegal, as was his implied threat of violence by pointing out his badge and gun.

    Anyway, I walked past him as he was still running his mouth, but I was a bit of a pussy because I walked to Jo-An (cont)

    1. (cont) Fabrics and waited for about 20 minutes before I left since I didn’t feel like getting pulled over 2 minutes after leaving and getting beat down on the freeway for contempt of cop.

      Jesus Christ, these motherfuckers get worse and worse every day. It’s to the point that I can’t even sit down in a restaurant without one of them telling me it’s time to go so they can sit down.

      I’m sure there are good cops out there. But the other 98% make it hell on them.

      1. You hid out in Jo-An Fabrics?

        I’m not making fun of you for hiding out. I would have probably done the same thing.

        Except I would have done it in a straight place.

      2. Jo-Ann Fabrics? Wow. That was a pussy move. You could have at least gone to a sporting goods store and started checking out shotguns.

        But seriously, this calls to mind the situation I was in earlier this year (or last year, I forget), when I was at an intersection, and a cop pulled into the intersection at the same time as I (my view was blocked by a box truck to my right). He jammed on his brakes and proceeded to cuss me out, face turning purple and arms gesticulating wildly, from behind his closed window, while blocking the entire intersection. I defused it by politely gesturing to him that he could go. He stared my down for another 5 seconds and then went. I made sure to stay behind well his SUV–he seemed like he was really looking for an excuse to fuck someone up.

        Anyway, glad you made it out of that OK. I have met a bunch of LEOs in my life, and I can only think of one (old time cop, retired), who I would trust as a friend or even want around me.

        1. I beat you to it by one minute, db. Glad you had the same thought. Here’s your man-card back, and you can move along now.

        2. DON’T TALK SHIT ABOUT JO-ANN FABRICS!!!!!

      3. And why the fuck do you seem to have the same stores and restaurants that we do?

        What’s the point of visiting other places if I’m just going to see the same goddamn TGI Fridays, only this one’s in Illinois!!!

        1. Listen, assholes. The only places within walking distance were an In-N-Out and Jo-Ann Fabrics. I wasn’t about to walk into In-N-Out because I would have had to get a double double, and I had just eaten 2 Chik-Fil-A’s. Jo-Ann was the only reasonable place to go. Plus, I once was in there with Banjos and let the worst-smelling fart I’ve ever smelled in my entire life. Seriously, it was an eye-watering affair. And the beauty was, there were a bunch of dumbasses from a sorority and fraternity at Fresno State buying shit for their gay little sweatshirts in there and some of them actually started retching at the foulness.

          Do you remember the “nothing” from The Neverending Story? It was worse than that.

          1. Glory days well they’ll pass you by
            Glory days put water in a young girl’s eye
            Glory days, glory days

          2. That’s really cool of you to take the blame for Banjos like that.

        2. There is only one restaurant: TGI Chiappletuesdigan’s Housegarden

      4. Fabrics and waited for about 20 minutes before I left since I didn’t feel like getting pulled over 2 minutes after leaving and getting beat down on the freeway for contempt of cop.

        Sloopy, I think that it’s the height of arrogance to believe that someone would pass up a chik-fil-a sandwich to bust your ass.

        1. do we go to chik-fil-a because we’re gay or to hate gays? My kulturkrieg compass broke.

          1. It’s the processed chicken. We’re all about the chicken parts.

  11. BFYTW

    We really do need to start abbreviating that.

  12. To whom do you suppose Downey PD’s “Officer of the Year” award will go?

  13. as usual, and considering the proper metrics to consider – the facts and circumstances known/perceived by the person using force – the correct conclusion is drawn.

    this is actually pretty similar to the case where i was proned out at gunpoint back when i was in college. no, i didn’t rob the convenience store, but i matched the description and was terry stopped. the difference? I complied, was cuffed, searched, and after a few minutes i was cleared. god knows i very well may have been shot if i , as a robbery suspect, pulled the shit Nida pulled here.

    i hope his family gets a nice fat $$$$ from the police, but i am glad to see they made the correct decision vis a vis criminal charges.

    1. You pull out that stoopid goddamn story of you getting drawn on in every freakin’ cop-murder thread as if it’s pertinent.

      Also, it’s telling that you think the taxpayers should get reamed when a cop fux up.

      No, there’s no us v them thing going on with cops. None at all.

      You know what the facts are, officer?

      A goddamn coward shot and killed a citizen for no good goddamn reason. The coward in question was supposedly so afraid that the man had a weapon, that his voice may have of trembled when he was spitting out his John McClain wannabe line. And the coward claimed this fear because what else was he gonna say, “Yes, I shot that man in cold blood because I am a sociopathic fuck that shouldn’t be trusted with a firearm, let alone the responsibility of being a cop.” Sure, and if you believe that I got a nice bridge that you might be interested in.

      Those are the facts.

      How many citizens have you shot in the back, officer? Did it make you feel like a man? Didja have brewskis and exchange high-fives with the D.A. afterwards?

      1. ill ignore the trolling aspects of the post

        other than that, it most definitely IS pertinent that i was stopped at gunpoint as an armed robbery suspect, in a thread ABOUT A GUY WHO THE POLICE ATTEMPTED TO STOP AT GUNPOINT AS AN ARMED ROBBERY SUSPECT

        it is about as pertinent as could be

        the rest of your post is equal parts hogwash. i just thank god we live in a system where rule of law reigns and emotional appeals like yours mean jack

        the only coward here is NIDA, for refusing to stop and face the criminal justice sysem.

        he got justifiably shot

        there most definitely IS an “us vs. them” thing with the cops and with the anti-cop bigots. with MOST of society, there is no such thing

        1. the only coward here is NIDA, for refusing to stop and face the criminal justice sysem. he got justifiably shot

          You’re out of your mind. Cowards running from cops should not be killed. Period. Anyone who believes this doesn’t deserve to exist within the boundaries of an open and free society. Granting police with excessive authority to kill (aside from verified dangerous scenarios) undermines the nature of a society that should not be ruled with enforcement strategies that promote fear in the citizenry.

          I’ve read enough of your stuff to see you do have a reasonable side- unfortunately, it’s coupled with some serious authoritarian bullshit marbles rolling around in your skull as is the case with a lot of cops, which is why many of these people find it hard to relate to citizen critiques of their performance.

          1. ^^^^THIS!

            It’s not Judge fucking Dredd, yet, but Dunphy is here making the case. Apparently, a guy who runs must be guilty, and is then justifiably shot in the back by a badged coward who gets to claim he’s in fear of his life due to the threat of a guy who is literally RUNNING AWAY from him. It seems Nida rolled the dice and lost, but I can’t blame him for running. Who wouldn’t be afraid of the cops? Looking at the news from the last year or so, we’ve got Tasering diabetics, beating mentally handicapped guys to death, killing dogs for sport almost every other day, raping women and planning their slow torture, death and cannibalistic consumption!?!?! I mean what’s left? All you have to do is ask yourself how you honestly feel when you see a black and white in your rearview. I know I am terrified.

        2. the only coward here is NIDA, for refusing to stop and face the criminal justice sysem.

          Right? How dare he not trust the cops. What possible reason could he have had for not trusting the cops? It’s not like they shoot unarmed innocents regularly and get away with it.

        3. As it is with Obama’s drone-kill-dead proximate innocents, the guy on the receiving end of a police bullet is guilty by reason of being dead.

    2. I don’t believe you think the proper conclusion was drawn, at least from a moral, ethical or legal perspective.

      I am, however, willing to believe you think the proper conclusion was drawn from a partisan police perspective, which holds that police should be excused if any fanciful scenario could be imagined which would justify the cops action.

      1. Dunphy’s apologist posts remind me of this starting at 2:48.

      2. there was only ONE conclusion drawn:

        were CRIMINAL CHARGES warranted

        that conclusion was correctly decided.

        no conclusion was drawn as to anything else.

        1. I would love it if a prosecution in such a case as this would create a “chilling effect” and perhaps instill a little more deliberation than is commonly seen by cops in these “split-second decisions” which really ought not be. That excuse-phrase is always trotted out when there was literally no thought at all on the officer’s part, and someone innocent died as a result. All this “officer safety” and “go home at the end of your shift” crap has got to end. You took the job, you signed up for the risk so you could be a hero. Own it.

    3. as usual, and considering the proper metrics to consider – the facts and circumstances known/perceived by the person using force – the correct conclusion is drawn.

      I have serious doubts, myself, that if a mere “civilian” had gunned down somebody who was unarmed, it would just be waved off. Unless, perhaps, the person was actually attacking them, and this guy was trying to get away from the man who killed him.

      Apparently, though, the rule is that cops can shoot someone who is not posing an immediate threat of death or injury to anyone at all, which I think is pretty undeniably a double standard.

      1. If a serf, I mean a civillian had verbally assaulted someone let alone used a firearm on them then you can bet the mortgage that this prosecutor would have spared no (tax payer funded) costs to make sure that said civilian was put away for life or worse.

        Remember the days when cops were actually afraid of being held accountable for killing someone unjustifiably? Back in the 80s I was convinced that the police were getting screwed by the law because the thugs could do anything while the police were always restrained and getting in trouble for the littlest of things. Now I see how that was done deliberately so as to condition the public to accept empowering the police with virtually unlimited discretion. If a cop can gun down an unarmed citizen and not face any accountability then what’s to stop more from shooting people who just pisses them off? Whats to stop a cop from stalking the spouse of a woman he likes and killing said spouse so that the women is free from the marriage bond?

        There is supposed to be a fine line that errs on the side of caution and yet we see this line has been all but removed entirely empowering the police to act almost without restraint.

        To those of you making excuses for Office Gilley, be sure to remember how you stood up for his actions when the day comes that some cop guns down someone you love and does it without just cause.

    4. How about their damn dad/husband/brother/cousin/friend back, fucknugget?

      Didn’t think so, the fact that you think this is in ANY WAY okay…

      Make the shooter ANYONE but a fuckin’ fucknugget cop, though, right?

      1. Damn, officer Fucknugget, you managed to make a professional writer temporarily illiterate with rage…

        I bet you get bonus points for that at the monthly “fuck you that’s why” meeting.

    5. “..but i am glad to see they made the correct decision vis a vis criminal charges.”

      If the goal is to encourage police to be more brital and not fear being held accountable for using excesisve force then yes you would be right. However in the real world the police are supposed to be above the fray and use force ONLY when it is warranted. Its one thing when a cop shoots omeone who is holding a fake fun and so the officer can;t tell its fake its another matter entirely to shoot someone in the back who has no weapon.

      Can you say “baahhahh”? I knew you would.

  14. considering the proper metrics to consider

    TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES + fact pattern.

    1. yea. what people who actually consider justification pay attention to. glad i could edumacate as to what matters and what doesn’t

  15. The best way to fight obesity is to give the fat financial incentives. Make the fat pay.

  16. Southern California is not a safe place to live, and the police here make me feel less secure.

    1. ah yes, FEELings. the emotional appeal. i see that often with antiRKBA people…” i don’t feel safe with people carrying guns who aren’t police”

      feelings don’t mean jack.

      it’s an appeal to emotion

      1. So, let me see if I grok this: an officer’s feelings as to his own safety are part of the totality of the circumstances and the fact pattern to be used for judging a situation when a man without a weapon is gunned-the-fuck-down by a cop.

        A citizen’s feelings as regard to her own safety, uttered as a general criticism as to how unsafe she feels in a certain area, mean shit because they are an appeal to emotion.

        I see how that goes and what you did there.

        1. God damn you for beating me to the punch!

        2. Vielen Dank, Herr P.

      2. Don’t be a cunt dunphy. The officer in question, “feared Nida and was armed and dangerous, even though he eventually was determined not to be the robbery suspect and was unarmed.” Just like a citizen may express feelings of fear about police officers.

        But we’re just citizens, huh dunphy? You cunt.

      3. feelings don’t mean jack.

        So when a cop fears for his safety and kills an unarmed citizen, his feelings are not to be considered because they don’t mean jack?

        1. Oh, wait. I get it.

          You’re saying that the feelings of non-cops don’t mean jack shit.

          Only a cop’s feeling matter.

          Yeah. Fuck you.

      4. K. The LAPD make me less secure in FACT. Because they empty/reload/empty 90+ rounds at single targets.

        Feelings ARE irrelevant, but I’m still terrified of these clowns.

  17. Was dunphy always like this? He seems to be morphing, slowly, into a policeone commenter. Kind of a really ugly moth-like metamorphasis, it is.

    1. Yeah, I’m really worried about him. Before, he came across as more of a misguided idiot than an out-and-out proponent of excessive force and the double standard. Since his surgery, he’s pretty much gone off the rails and is vocally supportive of cops that are obviously in the wrong (both morally and, if we were in a just society, criminally). His apologia his reached new levels of idiocy.

      It’s a bizarre metamorphosis. Perhaps all cops go through it at some point in their career. Kinda like a “cop puberty,” when their cop balls drop and they start acting like they’re above the law and applaud abuse of the very people who pay their salaries. Only they know for sure, as their “brotherhood” takes pains to keep many facets of their professional lives secret…quotas, letting cops go when they commit offenses, investigation into misconduct, evidence of officer malfeasance, damning dashcam tapes, sworn statements, etc.

      1. It’s like the new guys in the office keep their nose buried in their work until they learn that no one will notice or care if they take regular naps on the job.

        Only in this case instead of taking naps, cops take lives.

    2. Was dunphy always like this?

      Yes. He’s rational when cops aren’t involved, so you only usually see it in these stories. Fools a lot of newtimers for quite awhile. But he treats stories of cops like an dedicated obama fanboy treats stories about drones.

      1. He’s basically Pig Tony at this point. He’s usually predictable as to his response (though instances where even dunphy agrees the cop screwed up are always amusing) and so I’m not sure why you guys continue to engage with him.

        I guess it’s useful as a window into the mind of the stereotypical LEO, for those who don’t feel like traipsing over to Police One and the like.

        Re-reading the OP and Reason and Balko’s anecdotes of police shootings is really depressing. They don’t even need throw-down weapons anymore, if all it takes to justify a LEO-involved shooting is a “furtive movement” or anything less than instantaneous obedience to the wrong LEO’s order. The sad thing is, go and read the comments of your local newspaper on an article dealing with a LEO shooting, and you’ll find that most of the commenters are happy with the state of affairs.

        We aren’t in a police state yet—stating such is insulting to victims of East Germany and the like—but we’re well on the path towards one. And it looks like most people are cool with that.

        1. How can the terrorists be stopped unless there is a cop on every corner demanding papers?

          If you don’t like it then you support the terrorists.

        2. I guess it’s useful as a window into the mind of the stereotypical LEO,

          It’s way worse than that. He’s better than the stereotypical LEO. On almost every metric.

          Scared now? You should be.

          1. That is the worst part.

  18. Its stupid punk cops like this I LOVE to hear about in the news that get clipped in the line of duty. This worthless POS should not be allowed to carry a gun!

    http://www.Anon-UA.tk

    1. When skynet is happy to see you dead, you have real problems.

  19. Allowing this sort of police activity to exist within the borders of American society will eventually lead to the demise of the ‘free and open’ culture which promotes ethics and stability.

    Frankly, this ruling should result in public outrage. Giving police excessive authority ultimately ends in violence and tragedy. The military mind common to those who end up in policing doesn’t grasp limitation which is why it should always be heavily constrained. The violent mind has a place in free society but it should remain narrowly confined and implicitly restricted.

  20. Bill Gates says throwing more money at the school system isn’t way to go.

    Lefty fans are pissed!

    stopthe
    351 Fans
    09:08 PM on 03/06/2011
    This is why people like Gates should be heavily taxed. Because they end up wasting their fortune on philanthropy that is ill-informed and self serving .When you are the richest man in the US you should at least be able to hire someone to inform you about the real costs in education.

    Perhaps if we accorded more status to teachers than we do to people who have been lucky enough to earn a fortune, we would attract and keep more high quality teachers.

    1. oops, wrong article. should’ve been in AM links

  21. Few of the contributors below have kind words for either President Obama or Gov. Romney, but many are stoked by state-level intiatives seeking to legalize the production, sale, and use of marijuana; to recognize gay marriage; and to otherwise limit Focusing on a single, less-than-important utterance by the president is a great way of missing the bigger picture, which has been painted in terrifying detail by journalists such as The Daily Beast’s Eli Lake. Lake has documented how jihadists had attacked Western targets in Benghazi months before the 9/11 attack, that U.S. sources realized the 9/11 attack was a planned operation long before the public learned that fact, that the ambassador feared for his safety, that security had been reduced, and more coach outlet Via CNN and other sources, we continue to learn more about the constant screwups and miscommunications plaguing our presence in Libya. What kind of world are we living in when politicians (including Republicans!) seem more fixated on a throwaway line in a speech rather than a serious investigation of why American diplomats are being killed?coach outlet Those are the sorts of questions that the presidential debates – and ensuing media colloquies – would be better off asking. And not just about Libya but the bigger question of U.S. foreign policy.

  22. So basically, from this we have learned that if you demand someone prove he is unarmed and he refuses, and then runs away from you, it poses a direct threat to your life.

    I wonder how a citizen arguing that he had no choice but to defend his life after a kid eggs his house and runs would play out in Los Angeles?

  23. I always come back to how our military is restricted. Soldiers in Afghanistan cannot legally shoot someone until they are fired on. Not just fired on but you must identify and be able to say exactly who was shooting at you not just hear a car backfire and open up on full auto into the nearest crowd.

    The Police should be held to the same standard. Especially swat officer who are sometimes more heavily armed and armored than our soldiers in an active war.

    1. Military is restricted in using hollowpoints too, but evidently not the Dept. of Education, Agriculture and Homeland Security who all have received millions of such rounds for their departments. Those, my friend are not for the Taliban, those are for your ass.

  24. Michael Nida earned himself a Darwin award. Act like a perp, and the cops are going to treat you like a perp.

  25. Holy crap. What is going on with our country’s law enforcement? Cops are machine gunning down innocent people and our prosecutors are high . . . IN COURT: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/…..int-court/

  26. One hour we do not speak. I thought a lot. Finally, still feel like saying it’s the fox is not possible, we Cheap Football Cleats can not find evidence that the gray-haired woman does not show fox, but no evidence, just to prove that the fox can transform himself into a cheap ugg boots for women white-haired woman. And to compare with each other, or scientific concepts prevail.

  27. Obama and Romney are. “We have to help these nations create civil societies,” Romney said. Obama concurred, even while incongruously declaring that “we http://www.drdrebeatsbydreau.com/ can’t continue to do nation building in these regions.”

  28. He’s the best of both worlds: A leader who can move an audience but who always stresses that you and your choices – as opposed to some nutty coercive agenda – come first. He’s the perfect candidate for a post-best-and-the-brightest DIY world. We don’t need a maximum leader, we http://www.cheapfootballcleatspro.com/ need someone who will set and enforce simple rules for a complex world.

  29. The majority of football coaching sessions tend to follow a similar pattern that covers all of the basics, But a Football well know coach outlet online with good reviews Coach needs to know the particular requirements of his team, Football training sessions usually start with a warm up. The majority of football coaching sessions tend to follow a similar pattern that covers all of the basics, But a Football Coach needs to know the particular requirements the authorized Cheap Air Jordan Shoes really wonderful of his team, Football training sessions usually start with a warm up

  30. The majority of football coaching sessions tend to follow a similar pattern that covers all of the basics, But a Football well know coach outlet online with good reviews Coach needs to know the particular requirements of his team, Football training sessions usually start with a warm up. The majority of football coaching sessions tend to follow a similar pattern that covers all of the basics, But a Football Coach needs to know the particular requirements the authorized Cheap Air Jordan Shoes really wonderful of his team, Football training sessions usually start with a warm up

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.