HardwareDJ

Tunnel extension.

She got out of the last one. Must have hired George Stein.

Soooo, are you waiting for the police?

So it is in your best interest to be respectful of all people.

When did I say it was ok to shot someone in the back? I am pretty sure I already said that the cop was wrong in this case and should do jail time. He should have just let him run off because he already had the guys license and backup was on the way. But a decision was made and he will have to live with that decision. Just like a decision was made to run away from the police because he had a broken tail light and to resist arrest and he will have to live with his decision the rest of his life.

How do you know it is a killer cop? Or right because all of them are. But then I am not a criminal so I have nothing to fear and I have no reason to run from the police. I am an adult and take resposibility for my actions.

Anything is possible in my way of thinking.

It's all fine and good till the County Tax Assessor comes to visit.

Innocent people don't run.

Very easily. The guy was shooting turned to run when the police started shooting at him and got hit in the back. Only takes a second for that to happen but some people can't seem to fathom how fast things really happen. Kind of like the 20 foot rule.

If people try to go through the mud from 92 onto E Paulding they will be in for a BIG surprise when they go through the mud puddle which is actually a very large hole at least a foot deep or more. I saw a big U-haul stuck there because he tried to make a right turn and was impatient and tried to go around traffic on the right and went in the hole. The hole is so deep that the rear bumper of the truck got stuck on the ground and the rear tires were in the hole not touching ground. That tells you how deep it is.

See, right there is the problem. People like you and CC and the "black community" want to go on saying he was killed for a busted tail light. Which could not be father from the truth. Matter of fact it is an attempt to avoid the truth and chance the narrative to fit your agenda. Say it enough times people will forget the real reason behind why he ended up getting killed. You want people to think the police pulled him over for a broken tail light then just walked up to him and shot him. Let's just ignore the facts that he was a criminal who was attempting to escape from the police and res

You folks are funny. Funny how you people never seem to want to hold anyone accountable for their actions except the police. This guy was not a model citizen just minding his own business. He was a criminal who made the decision to run from the police because he was not man enough to accept his punishment for his actions. He was responsible for putting the police in the position to kill him. Should he have been killed? Absolutly not the officer made a very poor decision and will have to live with that decision the rest of his life. No different then Scott made the decision that got him

Of course if all the people had just showed a modicum of respect toward the police they would still be alive and kicking today. It's not the broken tail light or loose cigs or any other thing that caused peoples death. It was their disrespect towards law enforcement. None of the cases listed by the OP had to turn out the way they did. The suspect made a concious decision to not respect the police and the situation escalated out of control because of that decision. A simple "yes sir" "no sir" can go a long way to keeping someone alive.

FYI The downside of the fitbit, which I have, and the similiar devices is they measure "movement" so your steps are usually more then what you actually did.

ok then.

Your right.

Because we all know you stalk that poor little boy.

I think most people would understand that the intend was the same. The owners are against something so they said they will not provided it for their employees regardless of the law based on their personal belief. (the key word is personal belief) Of course they never said that their employees could not use it, just they would not provided it because they are personally against it. But to take it a step further if they are that serious about their beliefs they should not allow anyone to work for their company who does not share the same belief. I think it is hypocritcal of them to say

Sad part is I almost believed it. Well all except the HBO taping part.

Is there a test for that?

It's the old ladys fault for not opening the door when he knocked and the other person should not have been in the way of his car.

I believe the intent of the law was to protect business from being forced by the Government to do buisness with people who did not share their beliefs. This might seem odd based on what I have previously said but I do not think the Goverment should force a business to do business with another person if doing so goes against their relgious beliefs. Example a Muslim business owner should not be forced by the Government to do business with a pig farmer because that would go against the Muslims religious beliefs. So the law would protect ALL religious beliefs not just a particular group w

Exactly but that is what works because it takes the focus off the real reason.

So we can agree to disagree. If you refuse service for someone because you both do not share the same personal belief then IMHO you are telling that person that the only way you can do business with them is if you share the same belief. Seems to me that is forcing your belief on them, either believe the same as me or hit the door. Which is stupid, money is money regardless if it comes from a Gay, Black or other, it all spends the same. Any business owner who refuses service based on personal beliefs should not be in business. Of course I thought they already had laws that said you