crkinnh

I was in London during the time period you posted this, the simple answer is no. The only armed officers I had seen (and I looked) were in front of Westminster, Downing Street, and Buckingham Palace.

Actually, in the US we have something called the 5th Amendment. You do not have to talk to investigators here, regardless of whether you are a cop or not. However, you are right in the fact that you would likely be in a cell by now (that is unless you went home on bail).

I'm sorry, but your definition is wrong. Here's Cornell University's definition: homicide n. the killing of a human being due to the act or omission of another. Included among homicides are murder and manslaughter, but not all homicides are a crime, particularly when there is a lack of criminal intent. Non-criminal homicides include killing in self-defense, a misadventure like a hunting accident or automobile wreck without a violation of law like reckless driving, or legal (government) execution. Suicide is a homicide, but in most cases there is no one to prosecute if the suicide is successful. Assisting or attempting suicide can be a crime. It's only dangerous in the fact that your hearing will negatively be impacted, you might get a burn or two from brass, but that's about it. Take a look at my previous post where the trooper fires 60 rounds out of an M4 (yes, M4 not AR15) while pursuing a suspect. Actually, as you see above with the definition from Cornell University (a famous and renowned law school here in the states), my definition is much closer to the legal one.

No a homicide is any killing, that's why a shooting in self defense in stand your ground states is called a justifiable homicide. It doesn't do that, I haven't taken the course yet, but over at Sig Sauer Academy they have an entire lot of classes specifically for shooting inside of cars. One of my best friends has taken a few of those classes for shooting in cars. Shooting in cars happens more often than you think, and here's a situation where the trooper does it with a rifle https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c5_1478044259 ------------------------------------------------------------ From everything that I've seen guys, this is definitely unjustified. I'm pretty sure you guys are smart enough to know why their body cams were off, which isn't nefarious like a lot of people want to believe.

Welcome to the "CNN is fake news" party, enjoy your stay.

I was confused for a second considering how long ago it was, but yeah surprisingly you're right. I'm just as surprised as you are.

I'd say be very careful as to what infowars says, PJW isn't bad, but god forbid infowars isn't guilty of the same thing the MSM does. Fox News is also hit or miss like the rest of the MSM, in fact they are the MSM.

They're both the ultimate appeal to authority and argumentum ad populum, I don't like 'em.

Then don't quote the UN yourself?

That's something I can get behind, just make them a territory rather than a state, I don't want them to vote.

I'm going to answer this for him because I automatically know his thinking more than likely. If he's coming at this from a neocon perspective, which I was one at one point, then he's going to say that all of these countries go against the interests of the US and Europe. He's going to want to go to war with Syria because they are a dictatorship, regardless of whether or not they are the best government in Syria as of now. He's going to want to go to war with Russia because they "are aggressive", which is really because they are being backed into a corner, and their economy is being destroyed. He might say because there was "aggression in Crimea" too, despite the fact that they had an election there which won by a landslide (without any problems in bribery or shadiness). He's almost guaranteed to say we should go to war with North Korea. I can't even blame him there, it's bound to happen sooner or later, but now it might be because of the nuclear program that directly threatens South Korea, Australia, Japan, and the US (as well as our territories in the Pacific). Note: just realized he meant the soldiers not him, but oh well, my point stands

According to the UN and the US Dept of State, they got rid of all their chemical weapons (at least as inspected) in or before 2013. No, they were alleged to have conducted this type of attack. It's been widely disproven that the Syrians have conducted chemical attacks. The attacks from before were conducted by crudely produced chemical rockets, and the Syrians actually produced evidence of the cache they came upon in the same area not long after the original attack. Furthermore, Turkish Police in a raid not long after seized a chemical weapons cache that was going to Syrian Rebels. The only reason the UN has instituted sanctions is because of a coalition of countries including ourselves that doesn't care about evidence to the contrary, we just want to remove Assad's government, and Russia's last ally in the region. No, a neocon cannot be a libertarian, and this is coming from someone who turned from a neocon to a libertarian. Not many people beg to go to war. Although with the French, it would be the Foreign Legion. It was either this or a land invasion that would've lasted years, and would've caused a total of 10 million deaths with the allies alone, nevermind the Japanese military or civilian casualties. They don't deserve to be nuked, but it can be entirely justifiable. If they are backed into a corner, all bets of a fair fight are gone. If they are winning on the other hand, a situation where tens of millions of both of our sides alone are going to die, then a hundred thousand deaths or so would be getting off easy.

Not being hypocritical isn't being centrist, it's being intellectually honest. For a libertarian, you're sounding very Neocon to me. The Syrian Government hasn't done anything bad to us, they represent no threat to us, and they also will at least keep out the rise of terrorism in their country should they stay in power (which at this rate is the case). They still have yet to have a chemical attack that actually can be proven to be carried out by them as opposed to the rebels. This last supposed attack has yet to provide any slice of evidence it was the Syrian Government. The doctor who attested it was the Syrian Government, well, he is a terror suspect in the UK. The White Helmets also handled the bodies and wounded in ways inconsistent with chemical warfare, oh and wore dust masks. This makes me doubt the claims very seriously, if this did actually occur, those who responded would be dead. Oh and this aside, comparing this situation to the Japanese is a major false equivalence.

Yup, at least I've been consistent though. The amount of hoops my brother jumps through is insane.

By tipping off the Syrian and Russian governments in advance to warn them of our attack it did nothing except project an image to the rest of the world and his critics save for those two. Now, I never understood this logic. I was vehemently against Obama, but even then like now I understood the difference between military action, war, and conflict. My views on military conflict and the powers of the commander in chief has always been consistent, therefore I can say even though I oppose this expensive firework show, he did not require the consent of Congress. The president has the sole power in our government to command the military, therefore has the power to order it as he sees fit so as long as it is a constitutional action. The reason he did not require Congressional approval was because this was not an action of war, rather conflict. We are not at war with Syria, this was a one off attack. Even conflict is different than war in that it is between a non state entity, is not a prolonged conflict with a state, or against a state (usually not prolonged) without the extended powers of a declaration of war (as such is limited).