Capitol Hill shooting

What, you prefer to live thinking there's a potential suicide bomber living on the house next to yours?

Trust nobody. Shoot first. All it takes to survive.

Here, we don't think that way. It's quite simple. But then again, it's hard to explain the way of thinking things. On the other hand, though, there's a lot of awful people here, too. If that's what you were implying on the video. But not enough to fear them.

You do realize that spain was notorious for refugees of the Britain underworld to go to right? And your opinion loses all credibility when the first reaction of the f`ucking video is to try to detain the person when she almost runs over an officer (In fact I think she did seriously injure one at one point).

So no, our first instinct is not shoot to kill, unless being shot at. In fact, almost any self defense class will teach you that a wounded man is more dangerous when armed, it's common sense in fact. You sound so uneducated on the subject it's hilarious.

One of the purposes of using InfoWars as a source was for me to observe the general Southperrian reaction to its "extremist" interpretation of another incident of police brutality. As expected, I received very negative responses when I posted links to an alternative media source that approaches the topic from a different angle. If, instead, I had posted links to The Washington Post or The New York Times (news sources that most people would regard as neutral, when in fact they're actually biased too), or if I had named the title of this thread to one that does not sound so controversial, this sort of reaction would not have been exhibited.

How about the fact that Alex Jones and most republican radical speakers have lost majority of their listeners because even the racists are finding them bat pomegranate crazy.

You have been trained to instantaneously perceive your typical mainstream media (which does include those seemingly "credible" newspaper articles such as the ones I just referenced above) as a "reliable source", and all other sources as radical, misinformed, and having no basis.

If you actually took the time to actually look at my post you'll see that I have posted a youtube video, which is not in any form related to any mainstream outlet. By watching the video you see this is anything but an execution as that retard exaggerates, they responded as they should have, and I haven't even READ any stories regarding it, do you know why? Because unlike majority of dumb asses who still don't understand the concept that most news stories documenting events like this are going to be inaccurate as their primary concern is speed and not accuracy.

I have in fact listened to some of alex jones rants, they are the epitome of bigotry, racism, and are so fu`cking off the rocker that most people have stopped listening to him.

Then, I am subsequently attacked for "not having done enough research", or labeled as a mere conspiracy theorist. (I didn't even give my own opinion toward how I feel about this incident, or why I decided to choose these sources in particular to engage a discussion, when I started this thread. But I guess it's implied that I must completely agree with the content of the sources that I use.)

I sincerely believe it is up to the reader to use his/her discretion in finding the truth in news, and I happen to be one of the increasing number of people that tends to side with alternative media. While I don't completely agree with the way Alex Jones makes his hyperbolic assertions, I do agree with the underlying idea of what he has to say about these incidents that involve the government. Their reports may be exaggerated, and their views may be overemphasized, but it is with the good intention of pushing their agenda to expose and publicize the corruption of the shadow government that is destroying the inherent liberties and freedoms of the American people.

There is a youtube video with no affiliation to any news outlet showing you that the officers attempted to safely get the women. Instead she ran them over. You jump the wagon that they executed her because your general news source says so. I listen to TYT, I agree with their perspective in a lot of things, but there are things that I find they inaccurately post, such as anything relating to that florida shoot out with whatever that kids name is. You have essentially defaulted to one outlet and let it manipulate you into this cynical perspective that most of the time is unjustifiable.

Yes, it's a source that I've placed my trust in for a very long time. I'm not going to ask why you think it's not credible though.

If I did consider the vehicle to have been used as a weapon, then under that definition of it being considered a "potential threat" to them, I would actually agree with you that what the police had to do was necessary, and therefore, justified. I know it's futile to question the legality of it, but it's just absurd to me how that woman was essentially being treated as a domestic terrorist.

SHE CRASHED INTO A BARRIER AND RAN OFF RATHER THAN RESPONDING TO THE OFFICERS PLEA TO GET OUT OF THE VEHICLE. SHE EVEN ATTEMPTED TO RUN SOME OF THEM OVER IN AN ATTEMPT TO ESCAPE, ITS ALL ON TAPE, SHE WAS A THREAT. I'm not sure if you ever driven around DC but having a driver like that is a danger to everyone, including monuments.

Here, however, I see it as more of a case where an unarmed woman is shot down by the police, in front of her own child, because she was in a state of frenzy and took a few wrong turns. When you have a swarm of armed grown men in uniform yelling with their guns pointed at you, a fight-or-flight response (escaping the imminent danger, which is the police) is just natural. I interpreted it as the government reminding their slaves people that they will be kill

So you blame it on instincts? What about her "motherly" instinct to protect the child which would be to leave the f`ucking car. That would be my response, and anyone with a frekin brain would yield, especially if it was an "accident". Do you really want to vote on this, whether to surrender or drive away in a car with your child? Cus it wont be in your favor.

Lastly she was armed with a CAR, she was not unarmed, the legal term is vehicular man slaughter, which she in fact committed.

Also, I just feel that it's a bit irresponsible to say that I did not do a thorough job of researching; after reading through what was available and juxtaposing their content, I decided to share the articles that I found to be closer to the truth. Honestly asking, is there something wrong with what I've done? Or are you just expressing your disagreement with what I've posted?

The irony is your research is sabotaged from the get go from the limited information and inaccuracies to begin with. These "alternative" news stations in fact have less resources, and even share a lot of their insiders with the mainstream. Do you realize that the women was declared unarmed by the media before the alternative, which would mean their dependency on mainstream media is just as much as ours. An 'alternative' news station is not a source, it's an analysis, they cut through the bull pomegranate. Alex jones is confused by his part of the food chain and tries to emphasis "patriotic" perspectives to get you angry and wild. Using terms like "unarmed", and "execution" when it was anything but. The officers initial thought was "Get out of the car" her response was to attempt to run them over.