One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Grand Jury Refuses to Indict Man Who K**led Cop
Page <prev 2 of 2
Feb 10, 2014 11:28:18   #
jay-are
 
pana wrote:
Of course they aren't.
:roll:


And of course, we can't make a judgment before we have the whole story.

Do you disagree that the story was released without all the facts in order to stir up emotion and manipulate readers?

Reply
Feb 10, 2014 11:39:27   #
pana Loc: are we there yet?
 
I believe the article was written because during the raid a cop died and if not that it would have gotten very little coverage.
News is when something of interest happens. It is not required to not be reported till after a trial or other information is available.
Many times not all the information is released right after news happens. Example: a death where family members have not yet been notified.
You are grabbing at straws trying to cover a lame argument now.

Reply
Feb 10, 2014 11:51:54   #
jay-are
 
pana wrote:
I believe the article was written because during the raid a cop died and if not that it would have gotten very little coverage.
News is when something of interest happens. It is not required to not be reported till after a trial or other information is available.
Many times not all the information is released right after news happens. Example: a death where family members have not yet been notified.
You are grabbing at straws trying to cover a lame argument now.


The straw I am grabbing is that it is propaganda and intended to manipulate, not just a story, if it is missing some facts.

Consider it and accept it or reject it, your choice. Just something to consider and think about.

Reply
 
 
Feb 10, 2014 11:59:24   #
pana Loc: are we there yet?
 
jay-are wrote:
The straw I am grabbing is that it is propaganda and intended to manipulate, not just a story, if it is missing some facts.

Consider it and accept it or reject it, your choice. Just something to consider and think about.


The fact that you are saying is missing isn't available. Your assumption of the writers motivation behind the story is clear.
I try to stay away from assuming what peoples motivations for doing something are especially when I don't know them.

Reply
Feb 10, 2014 12:09:11   #
jay-are
 
pana wrote:
The fact that you are saying is missing isn't available. Your assumption of the writers motivation behind the story is clear.
I try to stay away from assuming what peoples motivations for doing something are especially when I don't know them.


You originally admitted that you assumed the cops were purposely violating law, since there were multiple other stories of similar behavior.

The t***h is that you are willing to assume the story is true, while I assume the story is false. That is the difference between us, not that I assume and you don't.

Reply
Feb 10, 2014 14:52:42   #
pana Loc: are we there yet?
 
jay-are wrote:
You originally admitted that you assumed the cops were purposely violating law, since there were multiple other stories of similar behavior.

The t***h is that you are willing to assume the story is true, while I assume the story is false. That is the difference between us, not that I assume and you don't.


You make all kinds of assumptions I see. Post where I said the cops were acting illegally. You don't seem to know the difference in illegal and unconstitutional. :D
I bet you think our form of government is a democracy to don't you? You people always get that one wrong.

Reply
Feb 11, 2014 08:33:43   #
martychristiansoldier Loc: PA
 
pana wrote:
If these cops don't have enough evidence based on what they already have then no knock search warrants are being given out to freely. If they are worried the person might destroy the evidence then they are breaking into homes on evidence that MIGHT exist.
"
It is any husband and father’s greatest fear. You’re sleeping in your bed in the middle of the night when a group of intruders breaks in. Are they here to rob you? Are they here to bring physical harm to your wife or children? To k**l you and your family?

I think many of us believe that in a moment like that our response would be almost reflexive – we’d grab wh**ever we could and fight to defend our family.

That doesn’t sound too controversial – does it?

In Texas this exact situation played out. A man found his home broken into in the middle of the night by a group of armed men. His first reaction? He grabbed his gun (which he owned legally) and opened fire on the armed men.

decideThe problem for this homeowner? The armed men who had kicked down his door were police officers executing a warrant. The police had a warrant to search for marijuana and illegal weapons.

A local grand jury declined Wednesday to indict Henry Goedrich Magee for the December death of Burleson County Sgt. Adam Sowders, who was part of a group of investigators executing a search warrant for Magee's rural home.

Sowders and other officers entered the home about 90 miles northwest of Houston without knocking just before 6 a.m. Authorities were looking for guns and marijuana…

'This was a terrible tragedy that a deputy sheriff was k**led, but Hank Magee believed that he and his pregnant girlfriend were being robbed,' DeGuerin said in an interview Thursday.

'He did what a lot of people would have done,' DeGuerin added. 'He defended himself and his girlfriend and his home.'

While the District Attorney believes that the police did act correctly and announced themselves prior to their entrance, she understands that the jury thought there was not enough evidence to show that the homeowner knew that it was the police entering his home that early morning. While the police claim to have announced themselves, this continues the growing trend of execution of “No-Knock” warrants. If the police enter a premises without announcing themselves first – more of these “accidental” deaths will continue to happen… on both sides.




Just a few years ago, police in Atlanta k**led an innocent woman in her home while executing a “no-knock” warrant raid on the wrong residence.

“No-knock” raids are utilized in an effort to catch offenders by surprise – but when being executed on average American citizens, they are more likely to put everyone in danger. Police and suspect included. How many of us law abiding citizens own firearms? Our first response to a no-knock raid would be to grab our gun and shoot… especially in the dark of the night, when we are all that stand between our families and violence.

Our government and police forces MUST stop “No-Knock” raids. For everyone’s sake.
If these cops don't have enough evidence based on ... (show quote)

In this corrupt world we live in, someone finally got it right.

Reply
 
 
Feb 11, 2014 08:59:41   #
pana Loc: are we there yet?
 
martychristiansoldier wrote:
In this corrupt world we live in, someone finally got it right.


:thumbup:

Reply
Feb 11, 2014 09:55:08   #
Skyhook
 
Anyone can purchase uniforms and badges on the internet and yell, "COPS!" as the door is smashed in.

Then, there's this : http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/17587-militarized-police-the-standing-army-the-founders-warned-about

I think that we may be seeing the tip of an iceberg which may have the same effect on civilization in the USA as one did for the Titanic.

Reply
Feb 11, 2014 10:02:50   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Skyhook wrote:
Anyone can purchase uniforms and badges on the internet and yell, "COPS!" as the door is smashed in.

Then, there's this : http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/17587-militarized-police-the-standing-army-the-founders-warned-about

I think that we may be seeing the tip of an iceberg which may have the same effect on civilization in the USA as one did for the Titanic.


You are correct. Impersonating the Police has a hefty penalty, but so does home invasion. You don't have to fool anyone for very long to get the drop on them. The f**e uniforms don't even have to be very accurate.

Reply
Feb 11, 2014 10:25:33   #
Skyhook
 
banjojack wrote:
You are correct. Impersonating the Police has a hefty penalty, but so does home invasion. You don't have to fool anyone for very long to get the drop on them. The f**e uniforms don't even have to be very accurate.


I haven't seen much evidence our militarized police forces have taken that into consideration.
(I h**e lawsuits for the most part, but the surviving family members of that cop's family should perhaps think about suing the department for establishing such an i***tic policy.)

Reply
 
 
Feb 11, 2014 11:59:36   #
Loki Loc: Georgia
 
Skyhook wrote:
I haven't seen much evidence our militarized police forces have taken that into consideration.
(I h**e lawsuits for the most part, but the surviving family members of that cop's family should perhaps think about suing the department for establishing such an i***tic policy.)


The policy was established at higher than Department level

Reply
Feb 11, 2014 12:27:39   #
pana Loc: are we there yet?
 
Mostly spelled out in the NDAA. That was when they came out and labeled us all as terrorists with less rights then a POW.
tHIS IS JUST ONE ARTICLE THAT ADDRESSES THIS EVIL LAW.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/20835/why-the-ndaa-bill-is-even-scarier-than-you-thought

Reply
Feb 13, 2014 10:45:31   #
jay-are
 
pana wrote:
You make all kinds of assumptions I see. Post where I said the cops were acting illegally. You don't seem to know the difference in illegal and unconstitutional. :D
I bet you think our form of government is a democracy to don't you? You people always get that one wrong.


You need to look up the difference between the words "to" and "too." And study when each is used, and what each means. They are two different words and have two completely different meanings. You can't use "to" to mean also, or an excessive amount of something. If that is what you mean, you must use the word "too." Thank you.

Reply
Feb 13, 2014 11:05:12   #
pana Loc: are we there yet?
 
jay-are wrote:
You need to look up the difference between the words "to" and "too." And study when each is used, and what each means. They are two different words and have two completely different meanings. You can't use "to" to mean also, or an excessive amount of something. If that is what you mean, you must use the word "too." Thank you.


Did you do the study I recommended for you to do? I did not see a report on the difference in a democracy and a republic posted. I wont be reading your posts or wont continue to teach you till you complete the first assignment I have given you. Pm me when you have completed it and I will see how you did.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.