Liberty University

User Profile: USAF_SP


Member Since: October 25, 2012


  • [9] September 24, 2014 at 9:06pm

    In my military police training I was always taught it takes 3 things to justify the use of deadly force: Opportunity, Intent, and Capability. In a split-second, anyone can argue that they didn’t have time to discern a toy gun from a real gun. Okay, so that requirement is met. Let’s look at Opportunity. Yep, he was in the store walking around with a “weapon.” Okay, so that requirement was met. Lastly Intent. Did the subject display physical signs or make any statements that could be considered threatening to anyone? Not from what I saw. Swinging a weapon back and forth slightly with the muzzle pointed to the ground is hardly an aggressive stance. Simply not heeding orders to drop the weapon doesn’t count either as a good attorney could argue the victim was hard of hearing or even that the victim didn’t realize the cops were addressing him since in his mind he was only carrying around a toy.

    I’ll grant you, that last one is a bit of a stretch, but in any case, the requirement of Intent was never sufficiently shown for me to decide to take someone’s life. As others have said, there are other ways they could have handled it; not the least of which would be to hang back and observe for 20 seconds while ensuring the immediate area was clear of innocents.

    Just my thoughts.

    Responses (3) +
  • [17] September 18, 2014 at 9:29pm

    Really? Whatever happened to freedom of religion? Are you now advocating that your religion is somehow more right or righteous than someone else’s religion? If so, where does it end? Not all Christians believe the same things. Should the Catholics be able to stop the Baptists from disseminating their thoughts, beliefs, or pamphlets? What about 7th Day Adventists? Or Latter Day Saints? Who decides who is the “correct” denomination? You? The government?

  • [12] September 1, 2014 at 2:25pm

    Let me start out by saying that I am a veteran of the first Gulf War, and will proudly stand up and defend this nation, our ideals, and our troops if and when I see a need to. One of those ideals is FREEDOM. If you, I, or anyone else decides to sit during the Pledge of Allegiance, it well within your rights to do so; paid for by the lives, blood, sweat, and tears of those who have served in the past. Considering how this Mayor and Council acted, I would NOT stand up and pledge allegiance to ANYTHING they were a part of. Are we at a point now where “allegiance is mandatory?” What about “To the republic for which it stands?” What does our republic stand for these days? Allowing illegals and our enemies to flood across the border? Letting one of our Marines sit in a Mexican jail? Allowing 3 Americans to sit in a N. Korea Jail? Running guns to Cartels? Using the IRS as a strong arm against political rivals? Running guns in the middle east and then allowing an ambassador and Navy Seals to be killed to silence it? Forcing the citizens to purchase a product? These are not what my vision of America stands on. I only hope that Ted Cruz and company can clean up this mess or it will be a long time (if ever) I will STAND to support THIS CURRENT country.

  • [15] August 20, 2014 at 8:03pm

    I just love how the person filming kept saying “he could have tazed him.” I am absolutely not a police sympathizer, I will honor the good ones and call out the bad ones. In this case, the shooting is justified. The guy had a knife and was approaching the officer on the left and ignoring their instructions. Opportunity + Intent + Capability = authorization for deadly force. I’m also quite tired of arm chair police officers stating they should have used all these non-lethal forms to subdue someone like this. Are you willing to bet your life on a one shot and have to reload if you miss tazer? Now, maybe if they had a K-9, things might have been different. But these guys were justified. Sadly, it’s a pretty clear case of suicide by cop. Really bad timing, though.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] August 20, 2014 at 7:44pm

    For those saying “send in the National Guard” be careful for what you ask for. Are we to the point that we’ve all been warned about where we as citizens demand our government come to our rescue, and they oblige; that having been the plan all along? I will not pretend I have the answer, but I’m quite certain that the government isn’t it.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] June 19, 2014 at 9:48pm

    Can a Muslim, any Muslim, please answer this question? Why if Allah is Omnipotent and Omniscient does he need man-based hit squads? Now, I admit, I am an Atheist. But it seems to me that if it is Allah’s will, Allah wouldn’t really need to leave it up to some non-bathed ideologues to deal with the infidels. If He can create the heavens and earth, and all living things, if he can destroy a whole universe on a whim, why would he need help hunting down and taking out Fareed and Achmed the Allowites. Just sayin.

    Responses (1) +
  • [22] May 20, 2014 at 9:11pm

    This is why I’m sick of people saying “sue the police department for a fortune….The ONLY people who lose is the taxpayers as they end up footing the bill for part of the settlement and higher insurance premiums for the police department. No, it’s time to take overzealous policing to a new place- to that of criminal law. It is unlawful for a police officer to violate the 4th amendment. It is unlawful to do a lot of the actions that we’ve read about lately on the Blaze; from shooting dogs in peoples own gated back yards, to arresting people for filming public servants. We need elected officials and DA’s who are statesmen and stateswomen to file criminal charges against these officers. Maybe when a few start serving jail time the rest might get the picture that the police are NOT above the law. If anything, they should be held to a higher standard, as they are supposed to be familiar with the laws in the states, counties, and towns in which they serve.

  • April 18, 2014 at 10:00pm

    Not much different than at Sears. If a price ends in .88 then it’s an item on the way out of their lineup. Particularly useful when you’re about to purchase a large item, you can tell if you’re getting a good deal on model soon to be outdated, or if you should wait for the new model which is coming out soon.

  • April 9, 2014 at 11:47pm

    You would venture wrong. The Air Force has it’s own security and law enforcement personnel. They don’t take chances when priority resources are at stake.

  • March 28, 2014 at 10:39am

    @warmonger….bssed on your comment I will ask the same question I would ask extremist muslims: if God is omniscient and omnipotent, why does he need people to do his dirty work. Couldn’t he easily just wish it and it would be done? Killing in the name of God = poor excuse for inexcusable behavior.

  • March 25, 2014 at 5:57pm

    @SPQR1, spoken like a true follower of Caesar. Or at least a true follower of “Rules for Radicals” where you just discredit anyone who challenges you.

    Responses (3) +
  • March 24, 2014 at 2:34pm

    @tired…I have walked the beat and these thugs were wrong, and they used excessive force, in this case lethally, and should be tried as murderers. They teach, or at least they did back in my day, that in order to justify deadly force three things must be present: opportunity, intent, and capability. At various points in the video, I can clearly see 2 of the three, and they even change. But at no point does he display all three. He’s turning AWAY when the shots were fired, meaning no intent. You cannot use deadly force as simply the last item in a checklist of increasing measures just because your other methods failed. If non lethals of one type fail, try another. Pepper spray, stun guns, all sorts of stuff could have been deployed and deployed again until subdued.

  • March 14, 2014 at 7:20pm

    Oh, and before you go all “blinded by your faith” on me…as many on here know. I’m an atheist. I still stand with these young men, and applaud that they will proudly display their religious verses. It’s their RIGHT to practice freedom of religion (yes, even in the military.) What isn’t a right, last time I checked, is the right not to be offended. Miley Cyrus offends me, but I don’t have a right to say she can’t be on TV. Nancy Pelosi offends me, and if I hear her speak, I turn the channel. If I hear someone praying, I am not offended anyway. I am glad they have that right, just as I have the right to keep on a-walkin while they do it.

  • March 14, 2014 at 7:15pm

    I suppose you want those same Cadets, years later now Field Grade Officers to blindly follow orders to confiscate the weapons of Americans during a period of Martial Law due to some event? Or worse, shoot at those same people when they don’t disperse like good little serfs.

    No thanks. I’ll take a “thinking” Cadet corp in any branch of the service, any day over mindless, order-following lemmings. They’re going to be Officers for goodness sake. Good for them that they show they have some testicular fortitude to stand up for their values, beliefs and morals.

    This ex NCO is one who would be proud to salute any one of these Cadets for standing up for what they believe in!

  • March 14, 2014 at 7:10pm

    As an Air Force veteran from the first Gulf War, I call you out on your understanding of discipline. The Air Force does not want, and never has wanted Airmen who blindly follow orders. That’s why it’s okay in the Air Force to ask “Why?” when given an order that doesn’t make sense. The Air Force has the highest enlistment standards of all branches, period. Because of that, they are able to leverage the intelligence and common sense of the individuals in a command. When you wield authority out of fear, you get compliance. When you wield authority out of well-earned respect, you get results. All good Officers and Enlisted men in all branches of the service know this.

  • March 14, 2014 at 7:03pm

    Why is the picture of a Master Sgt.? In the land of the Air Force Academy it’s not the NCO’s you want to focus on, LOL.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 14, 2014 at 6:57pm

    Call me crazy, but I’m not jumping on this guys bandwagon. When I read the article, something very specific stuck out to me: “What I was able to do in a day or two as an academic administrator takes weeks or months in the federal government…….The Op-Divs, as the front-line offices are called, get our budgets and then have to go hat-in-hand to the administrative support people in the “immediate office” of OASH to spend it, almost item by item.”

    What? You mean someone in the government was actually being concerned and doing a little evaluation before spending money? GOOD FOR THEM!

    What? You mean life in the real world is different than this professors world in academia? You mean there are things like budgets and profits and taxes and such? Sheesh. Why? It’s soooo much easier to live in academia where everything resides in the land of theory rather than reality.

    Glad he quit. Just another liberal who can’t comprehend the real world.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 14, 2014 at 6:48pm

    Here’s a simple little test. Remove all forms of government handouts. Period. Let the local churches and charities decide who needs help and gets their monies. Betcha those who really do need help get it from their community. And I betcha that that those lazy punks like these suddenly find motivation to work when they’re cold and hungry. Obviously none of us were around in the 1800′s but how many of us would wager that there weren’t many young men that just “hung out” all day? Seemed to work for us back then. See. We can learn from our great grandparents decades and centuries later.

  • March 13, 2014 at 8:18pm

    But why it expected that males must maintain self control at all times, while these (and I use the term very loosely) “women” feel as if they have carte blanche to get physical when they get upset? Double standards much?

  • March 11, 2014 at 8:41pm

    @Southern. You’re absolutely right and yet so, so, wrong at the same time. You’re right in the fact that these companies shouldn’t be required to give away their products for free. What you’re wrong about is that we need the FDA approval process to be years and million-dollars long, and we allow tort cases in the millions. Let those serving on death row volunteer for these studies in exchange for life in prison. A few will die due to side effects, oh well. They were going to be executed anyway. This is a frigging CHILD. Look at his face and tell me you don’t feel the pain his parents must be feeling. If the FDA process wasn’t so crazy, and the drug company wasn’t afraid of crazy lawsuits, the drugs would be much cheaper, more available, and I’m sure they would go out on a limb to save this precious child.

    Responses (1) +