| Users Online Now: 1,149 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 71,301 | |
| Pageviews Today: 125,987 | Threads Today: 55 | Posts Today: 653 |
| 01:12 AM | ||
| Users Online Now: 1,149 (Who's On?) | Visitors Today: 71,301 | |
| Pageviews Today: 125,987 | Threads Today: 55 | Posts Today: 653 |
| 01:12 AM | ||
Concerning recent Terror Attacks/Violent Crimes | |
| Archaic Smile Offer Upgrade  User ID: 74558399  United States06/05/2017 03:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Anonymous Coward User ID: 74661623 United States06/05/2017 03:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
| Archaic Smile (OP) User ID: 74558399 United States06/05/2017 03:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Does anyone else not notice this? After reading just about any article on an violent event the attackers are most often said to have had prior encounters with law enforcement, along with being on law enforcement radar for a particular time. Is that not troubling? What is allowed and what isnt seems to be making the case for Life and Death. Especially concerning those with priors... And at another time, when they raised a question about fortifications, he said that a city is not unfortified whose crowning glory is men and not bricks and stones. -Plutarch, Moralia |
| X1811 User ID: 74892059 United States06/05/2017 03:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | After almost every single terror attack or violent crime committed by a person or persons, police usually come out and say that the person or people involved had a previous history with police and they were at once point either being tracked or surveilled. Quoting: Archaic Smile My question is, doesnt this make Law enforcement look bad when after almost every violent crime, the perpetrator(s) have a history with police? Yet somehow they were not caught or tracked beforehand to prevent them from doing what they did. I think it's to make you scrutinize the event less. "Oh he was so bad the police were onto him." All characters and events in this forum --even those based on real people-- are entirely fictional. All celebrity comments are impersonated...poorly. The above post contains coarse language and due to the content it should not be viewed by anyone. |
| Archaic Smile (OP) User ID: 74558399 United States06/05/2017 03:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | After almost every single terror attack or violent crime committed by a person or persons, police usually come out and say that the person or people involved had a previous history with police and they were at once point either being tracked or surveilled. Quoting: Archaic Smile My question is, doesnt this make Law enforcement look bad when after almost every violent crime, the perpetrator(s) have a history with police? Yet somehow they were not caught or tracked beforehand to prevent them from doing what they did. I think it's to make you scrutinize the event less. "Oh he was so bad the police were onto him." Yeah, sort of like an additive to sedate you. I get that... What I dont get is the simple fact its in almost every single article about a violent attack concerning the perp. And no one seems to be raising questions and the manner in which certain law enforcement were permissible of the subject to simply walk free or be given multiple second chances... Does this not make anyones head turn? Last Edited by Archaic Smile on 06/05/2017 03:58 PM And at another time, when they raised a question about fortifications, he said that a city is not unfortified whose crowning glory is men and not bricks and stones. -Plutarch, Moralia |
