Should Officer Nicholas Reardon have let Ma'Khia Bryant stab her intended victim?

Should Officer Nicholas Reardon have let Ma'Khia Bryant stab her intended victim?

  • Yes, he should have let Ma'Khia Bryant stab her intended victim

    Votes: 8 36.4%
  • No, he was right to shoot her and prevent Ma'Khia Bryant from stabbing her intended victim

    Votes: 14 63.6%

  • Total voters
    22
  • Poll closed .
Maybe one should ask the right question, and not put up some childish poll question like the right has a tendency to do what they lack any rational answers. Why is it the only outcome seems to be killing the offender? Is the officer so incompetent that he must fire 4 times center mass to prevent another from being stabbed? And maybe fools like you should post an example of what "typical training" is rather then just blow smoke out your $%#.

Not blowing smoke, just stating facts.
 
so actively trying to kill another person with a knife is not enough to use lethal force, but being a dumbass in the capitol while unarmed is asking for an execution on the spot.

you really are stupid

Proving once again just how stupid the right wing is, the one who shot Babbitt had no idea if she was unarmed, or not.. She was told to back off, and refused to do so. And no one has said her death was the proper response save for ass wipes like you when the person is Black.

As to the 16 year old, granted she was rather large for her age, however, the proper response would have been a wounding strike to stop her forward progression, or perhaps the use if a taser. But it seems that now it is only killing the aggressor that is the solution.
 
Proving once again just how stupid the right wing is, the one who shot Babbitt had no idea if she was unarmed, or not.. She was told to back off, and refused to do so. And no one has said her death was the proper response save for ass wipes like you when the person is Black.

As to the 16 year old, granted she was rather large for her age, however, the proper response would have been a wounding strike to stop her forward progression, or perhaps the use if a taser. But it seems that now it is only killing the aggressor that is the solution.

when you make the conscious decision to carry a firearm, you train with it. You don't train to 'wound', you train to stop the threat........That's called 'well regulated'.........

the ironic part of all this is that if the cop had gone for the taser and the girls intended victim died of her stab wounds, you'd be whining about the cop not stopping her in time.......

you should probably find someplace near you that gives out tactical training so you get a taste of what it's actually like and what it requires
 
:fap:


Maybe one should ask the right question, and not put up some childish poll question like the right has a tendency to do what they lack any rational answers. Why is it the only outcome seems to be killing the offender? Is the officer so incompetent that he must fire 4 times center mass to prevent another from being stabbed? And maybe fools like you should post an example of what "typical training" is rather then just blow smoke out your ass.

What would you have done, Mature Masturbator?
 
If the other person was Black, of course. Police shouldn't try to impose their 'Anglo-Saxon' laws on People of Color.
Now, if the person was White, yeah, I don't see a problem with saving someone's life from being stabbed to death.



but only if they shot the white lady, no matte who the aggressor with the knife is


#staywoke
 
I voted no but from looking at it from a media stand point and how liberal will react I think he should of just kept driving by and let a social worker handle it
 
I knew cops when the rules were changed to eliminate warning shots and then when they decided to empty guns into people. They told me it was to eliminate the other side who might dispute the cops story. They killed people to preserve their jobs.

really you buy that lol
seriously your one of the dumbest mf I have ever heard talk a complete moron , your so dumb you make hunter Biden look smart
 
I read he shot her 4 times in the chest. That is not stopping her. That is killing her.




You fire until the threat stops. you don't fire once, see if she's still stabbing the other girl,

shoot again, wait and see if she is still stabbing the other girl.


and on and on, the other girl would have been dead. You people have no concept.
 
Proving once again just how stupid the right wing is, the one who shot Babbitt had no idea if she was unarmed, or not.. She was told to back off, and refused to do so. And no one has said her death was the proper response save for ass wipes like you when the person is Black.

As to the 16 year old, granted she was rather large for her age, however, the proper response would have been a wounding strike to stop her forward progression, or perhaps the use if a taser. But it seems that now it is only killing the aggressor that is the solution.

a wounding strike lol your a moron your know that don't you
 
:fap:


Proving once again just how stupid the right wing is, the one who shot Babbitt had no idea if she was unarmed, or not.. She was told to back off, and refused to do so. And no one has said her death was the proper respons.

Is that so?
 
I knew cops when the rules were changed to eliminate warning shots and then when they decided to empty guns into people. They told me it was to eliminate the other side who might dispute the cops story. They killed people to preserve their jobs.

:coolstorybro:
 
Do you have a point pertinent to this thread? That was certainly not one. Babbit was committing sedition in the capital of the nation.

Sedition is a serious felony punishable by fines and up to 20 years in prison and it refers to the act of inciting revolt or violence against a lawful authority with the goal of destroying or overthrowing it.


:laugh:
 
You fire until the threat stops. you don't fire once, see if she's still stabbing the other girl,

shoot again, wait and see if she is still stabbing the other girl.


and on and on, the other girl would have been dead. You people have no concept.

hes another idiot like old moron really they are both ignorant and have no common sense at all. they need bitch slapped
 
I vote yes. He could shoot her after she stabbed her victim to death. That eliminates TWO idiots from society! It's a win-win two-fer!

What if the victim was innocent? Now what I saw was a dude kicked to the ground a girl that had a knife in her hand.
Now..I'm not a huge man, but I could grab a woman up to like 250 lbs and control her hands if I wanted to.
Women are not as strong as men.

WTF ever happened to people breaking fights up?

LOL!
I remember in Jr. High, there'd be 2 blacks selling wolf tickets to each other and like 20 people apiece holding them back.
I remember thinking if they was to let them go, they ain't gonna do shit! :laugh:
 
Last edited:
Do you have a point pertinent to this thread? That was certainly not one. Babbit was committing sedition in the capital of the nation.

No counts of sedition have been rendered.

Not one.

Do you think criminals should be allowed to attempt murder without fear of being killed by cops in the process? That’s a pertinent question.
 
No counts of sedition have been rendered.

Not one.

Do you think criminals should be allowed to attempt murder without fear of being killed by cops in the process? That’s a pertinent question.

So what, ..Sedition
Crime if 2 or more people within the jurisdiction of the US ..oppose by force the authority of the US government to prevent, hinder or delay by force the execution of any law if the US.
That is the statutory definition and it fits perfectly. The charges have not all been made. But it is clearly and inarguably sedition.
Will they charge it is the end? I think the congresspeople who aided it should be the first to answer the charge.
The cop could have used his taser. He could have shot 1 bullet. He could have tackled her.
 
Back
Top