User Profile: 2GodBeTheGlory

2GodBeTheGlory

Member Since: September 02, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • September 26, 2016 at 6:07pm

    Re: “I promise there will be nothing to worry about” – Like the women who was raped on the side of the highway by a state trooper? I guess she had “nothing to worry about”.

  • September 26, 2016 at 6:05pm

    All LEO should be disbanded but elected. Sheriff’s are the only true LEO (constitutional) in the county. Why? Because they are elected by the people and directly accountable to the people.

    Responses (1) +
  • [3] September 26, 2016 at 5:58pm

    Most of the deputies in my county are good folk who obey the supreme law of the land. However, there are a few that really screw things up.

    Part of the problem of trust is that SCOTUS authorized LEO to lie to citizens. Then, many police departments starting using the “it’s good police work to lie to citizens”. So then police lie to citizens, then lie on the stand. I can’t trust a liar, can you?

  • [2] September 26, 2016 at 9:09am

    @companion,

    Then you believe our founders of this country to be criminals.

  • [2] September 24, 2016 at 7:01pm

    @comapnion,

    Get behind me, Satan.

  • [2] September 24, 2016 at 7:00pm

    @comapnion,

    RE: “But no Christian in the New Testament went out of their way to disobey the civil authorities;” – First, you attempt to say that neither Paul nor Peter broke civil law. I maintain that they did (no matter how wrong the law is). I reveal that Nero, the Emperor of Rome sent the order (law) to have Peter and Paul killed for the crime (at the very least) of being Christian. I’ve taught you how in the Old Testament that Danial did break the law (Kings Decree) and was thrown into the lions den to be devoured (killed in an horrible way). Now you attempt to lower the standard by using “went out of their way”. However, I will remind you that in Saudi Arabia, today, if you walk the street with a Holy Bible and attempt to teach it, you will be breaking the law. If you attempt to have a Christian congregation in China, you are breaking the law. In many countries, it is illegal, by law, to do the things that God tells us to do. Remember, as a Christian, we should be Christ like, meaning to reflect what Christ did. You claim that we should obey all laws of men citing scripture as your basis without understanding said scripture. There are many “mysteries of scripture” that you need to understand. Might I recommend that you read the New Testament in the original Greek? I also recommend that you review ALL scripture through the eyes of Jesus.

    RE: “The man who was killed ignored the commands of the officers to freeze” – again you bear false witness

  • [9] September 24, 2016 at 10:08am

    Looks like a wooden stock “hunting” rifle. That’s not possible in a “Gun Free” zone as it’s illegal for lawful citizens to carry such an “evil, killing” thing in said “safe environment”.

  • [6] September 24, 2016 at 10:05am

    @Glock29

    Reasonable explanation. I would not be surprised given Scott’s track record, although I don’t know the extent of his head injury.

  • [2] September 24, 2016 at 9:50am

    @companion,

    Re: “Where in the SCRIPTURES did Paul and Peter break Roman law?” – Again, you are being willful. Nero, the Emperor of Rome signed the order to kill Peter. Nero was the civil law of the day. Nero went after ALL Christians, supposedly to pin the massive fires he was starting throughout Rome in order to make a new “glorious Rome”. However, it does not detract that the Emperor was the civil law of the day, and therefore Peter and Paul where subjected to said law. Was the law just? No, however, that was the law. Similar with Daniel. Yes, in Daniel’s case there where some people that didn’t like that Daniel had the kings ear and In order to get rid of Daniel, they obtain the kings decree (law), that no prayer but to the king was lawful. Daniel, of course, being a servant of God ignored said law and continued to pray.

    Re: “The man got himself killed due to his arrogant attitude toward authority, and ignoring the commands of the police, who were actually attempting to avoid such a terrible result.” – You have just born false witness against this man. With all the evidence that we do have, from the initial 911 call, to his very actions on video, you PRESUME him to willful, yet the evidence and facts clearly suggest otherwise. Repent.

    Shall we decree that anyone who doesn’t do exactly what LEO says that they should be put to death?

  • [2] September 24, 2016 at 9:10am

    @companion & @BillyHall,

    Since you both disagree with my statement, tell me the difference? Tell me why it is different that the founders accessed, stored, trained, and maintained MILITARY GRADE firearms and when said lawful government issued a lawful order to destroy same, the citizens of said lawful government did shoot and kill the lawful government employees of the day. The founders where functioning against the law.

  • [2] September 23, 2016 at 7:06pm

    @companion,

    Are you intentionally being difficult?

    Paul and Peter broke Roman law for being a Christian. Thus the reason why they where put to death. You claim that broke no law, yet Nero, the Emperor of Rome had them both killed by law. Now you are trying to tell me that they broke no law. So, if that being the case, why did the Emperor of Rome, who was the law, make a LAWFUL decree to kill Peter and Paul?

    Oh, and while we are at it, why did Daniel get thrown into the lions den in order to be killed in an horrific way? Did Daniel follow mans law or God’s. Was in put in the den because he followed mans law?

  • [2] September 23, 2016 at 6:53pm

    @mike79,

    So, your assertion is that the window was down, mine is that it’s up. Further, look at the blood on the side of the car. At the distance of the camera, blood will not necessarily reflect, just like the window. However, look at the frames before he makes it too the windows.

    I haven’t watch one news station or video other than the released video. I’ve pulled it down and utilized kdenlive to run each video, frame by frame. I recommend that you do the same then lets compare notes. I was most drawn to the audio form T. Turnbourgh’s dash cam and the video from the helicopter. It’s also interesting to note that the video proprots to be 720p, however, the quality is no where near.

    RE: “audio” – At the distance that Officer Turnbourgh vehicle to the shooting,there should be negligible difference between shot heard and impact. However, even if I gave you an additional 100 feet worth of delay, that would still mean that the shot occurred well BEFORE he put his hands down, not after.

    I believe the prosecutor is going to throw the case (they usually do), however, it will be interesting to see if other video exists that hasn’t been released yet.

  • [1] September 23, 2016 at 3:08pm

    @angeleyes63,

    RE: “Regarding the investigations, do you suspect the investigations are also tainted?” – Well, look at it this way;

    - Would you trust a co-pilot to investigate a crash
    - Would you trust congress to investigate one of their own
    - Would you trust City Council members to investigate their own
    - Would you trust a doctor who works with another doctor to investigate

    Remember this, police are authorized, by SCOTUS, to lie to citizens. Many police departments consider it “good police work” to lie to citizens. I can’t trust a liar, can you?

    I’m not saying that there are not good police officers and investigators, however, how can I trust any of them when I have seen so many videos of police lying to citizens?

  • [-1] September 23, 2016 at 2:20pm

    @adimeroll,

    Like the women who was raped by a trooper on the side of the highway?

    We should always obey our masters, for the law says so…….oh……wait…….where is that in law?

  • [2] September 23, 2016 at 2:11pm

    @BillyHall & @companion,

    So then, can I surmise that both of you feel that our founders where murderous criminals for killing their own government employees who where just doing their job and uphold the law?

    I doubt either one of you will respond, as usual.

  • [1] September 22, 2016 at 10:52pm

    @angeleyes63,

    Are you in the camp that video does not tell the whole story and that the officers assertion is above that of video? If so, then you have some real issues. Why? Because I took all the video and put it together myself. Using my own hands, my own selected tools, and watched each frame of each camera and listened to all available audio. This is where I suggest you direct your view, not from the “official” review. I recommend you pay special attention to the audio from Officer T. Turnbourgh’s dash cam. Make sure you sync the helicopter video to the patrol car to ensure that you are accurate before making your call with your own eyes.

    Now, if you claim that the video is false, then you might have something. However, I would have to have substantial proof of your claim before making that leap.

    I am always passionate about the truth. Especially when it’s an officer involved shooting. Why? Glad you asked. Because I believe in what the founders tried to do, and how they believed. They feared government and wanted each and every one of us to always question those that would attempt to destroy liberty. It’s necessary to ensure impartiality that I do not believe can be derived by co-workers of the shooter. I’ve seen many cases where “internal affairs” out and out lied in cases in order to protect said co-workers. No, I believe that the founders wanted a truly impartial review controlled by the people, not the self described “experts”.

  • [3] September 22, 2016 at 10:35pm

    @DGDrew,

    Take a look for yourself, all the patrol cars lights are on. Oh, BTW; why would an officer come onto a scene of a vehicle in the center of a two way road and not turn on their lights?

  • [6] September 22, 2016 at 9:50pm

    @DGDrew,

    Re: “The next few minutes with other officers present they had to assess the level of threat of this noncompliant , possibly armed suspect” – You might attempt to file that with an ignorant person or the mass public, but try that with a tactically trained (military), and you are going to get slapped down, hard. Before the “suspect” hit the deck, you advance. There where 4 LEO, drawn, against one person who appeared to be having mental problems. Even with an active shooter, you advance as they are going down. Why? Because that’s your window to secure the threat. Why is it that you think that EVERY LEO shooting on camera reveals that the officers IMMEDIATELY advance on the suspect after the shooting? That’s the opportunity to secure the threat. You don’t shoot then back up, then wait for just one officer, without a firearm drawn (and no one else covering), to secure the threat. You NEVER believe the threat is naturalized until they are secure. Why? Because IF, as it’s suspected, the individual was on some kind of drug, then a single shot may not kill them. The “threat” might be playing possum, and wait to attack.

    Oh, and bright one, tell us in your expert opinion, why these officers where so stupid to bunch up in an open area against one “threat”? If he had a firearm, he would have a much greater chance of hitting a stupid officer then if they had separated.

    I highly recommend you go to a school that teaches urban tactics.

  • [8] September 22, 2016 at 9:11pm

    @AmericanByChoiceandProudOfIt,

    Absolutely correct. The people who hate me, hate that I call out anyone that is a liar, no matter what the color of their skin or the clothes they put on. It makes no difference to me if the person wears a badge, 50 years on the bench, or drug dealer. Our system was only suppose to bring to trial those that hurt others, then let the jury decide if the harm was justified. Anything else was considered “inherently evil”.

    So many evil people who hate the constitution here who claim to be LEO reveal their true position: “You can’t understand because your not LEO. You don’t understand what it’s like to be in that position.” – Yet I’ve been in combat with REAL professionals attempting to kill me. If this guy really wanted to kill an officer, he would not have waited until three other officers came onto the scene. If he really wanted to kill the officer, the tactically challenged, not following SOP, not situationally aware, finger on the trigger, children would have been dead. Don’t attempt to tell me that the shoot was good when you didn’t even follow your own SOP, and my own eyes reveal that the shooting was NOT reasonable.

  • [3] September 22, 2016 at 8:49pm

    @snixy,

    I guess you didn’t think that people would ACTUALLY look at the stats you provided. Your assertion is, of course, wrong. Your source asserts from 2006 to 2015 that 521 officers where killed from being shot (does not differentiate between officer to officer shooting from criminal), yet the CDC reports from their mortality data sheet that in 2014 (table 10) shows “legal intervention” killed 515 people. That’s just one year, not the 521 from 2006 to 2015.

123 To page: Go