2 officers shot at Dallas Texas police protest

There is public record of one but the police are investigating to make sure he didn't lie on his original application.

 

Let the national broken tail light association deal with it. The NRA agrees with me that the circumstances and the appearance of what went down is disturbing. Let's see how the investigations play out - praise for justice carried out, condemn a miscarriage of justice. It's premature to say much other than the cops haven't figured out how to protect and serve as they should.

If there is an active shooting going on, and a person carrying a weapon like the ones being used who also matches the description of the shooter, sure, detain him.

People in Texas openly carry guns to all sorts of protests without incident. There's no 2nd amendment issue here.

 

There was never a description of the shooter issued by law enforcement. It was assumed that because of the type of protest it was that the shooter had to be black.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/08/3796589/dallas-misidentified-suspect/

The Dallas Police Department and the Dallas Police Association, the largest union representing the city’s police department, both tweeted a photo during the event of a young, black suspect holding a gun. The photo was plastered across national news.

Under Texas law, people can legally carry openly in most public places, including on the streets where the protests occurred.




This is one of our suspects. Please help us find him! pic.twitter.com/Na5T8ZxSz6

— Dallas Police Depart (@DallasPD) July 8, 2016

 

The police did what they did during the Boston marathon bombing. They looked at surveillance camera footage, cell phone pictures/movies submitted by the public, etc., and identified the bombers. The Dallas police got it wrong. There's nothing egregious about that.

 

The Dallas Police never released a description of the shooter like you are claiming they did.

Here is their twitter feed - https://twitter.com/DallasPD

"Who also matches the description of the shooter"

He was a black man with a gun, that's what made him of interest to the police but at that time there was no description of the shooter like you are claiming there was.

 

The Dallas Police Department and the Dallas Police Association, the largest union representing the city’s police department, both tweeted a photo during the event of a young, black suspect holding a gun.

The photo was plastered across national news. (And here you are denying it)

 

http://mashable.com/2016/07/08/dallas-police-shooting-mark-hughes-black-lives-matter/#5Ry9BUTCxaqm

Dallas police slammed for tweeting picture of 'suspect'



Hughes was later interviewed by KTVT and expressed his shock at seeing his picture being plastered all over the place: “I can’t believe it. I can’t believe it. The crazy thing about it is that, I was down here, I couldn’t get down to my vehicle because of the roadblock. And in hindsight, 20/20, I could have easily been shot.”

 

No I'm not, you are saying that photo matches a description of the shooter released by police. I'm saying very clearly that the police released the photo but never said the person matches a description of the shooter. They never released a description of the shooter like you are claiming they did.

 

The photo IS the description. How much more descriptive can they be?

 

You said if the person in the picture matches the description given by police they should detain him.

Now you're saying the photo IS the description.

So if a photo matches a photo that person is a suspect?!? That doesn't make any sense. What if the picture was of a white man with a gun? According to you as long as the picture matches the picture then that person is a suspect. Again, that doesn't make any sense. Print one copy of a picture, print a second copy of the same picture, check to see if the copies match, we have our suspect!



Won't you gimme two pics,

gimme two pics, mister

gimme two pics for the jail door,

gimme two pics,

gimme two pics, mister

and you won't see that black man no more!


I know you love to argue about silly shit like this but come on, this is ridiculous. Isn't something about Hillary you could rant about?

 

The oceans are dead - strike 1
The NRA was silent - strike 2
You can't even quote what I did say - strike 3

You need a mulligan?

The police tweeted his picture and said he was a suspect. He voluntarily gave up his gun and turned himself in.

Yep, the cops were fine, they weren't being racist, and they violated nobody's 2nd amendment rights.

Now you wanted the NRA to speak up about it for no good reason. If you don't get it, maybe a third grader can explain it to you. It ain't rocket science.