August 29th, 2010, 02:40 PM #1
Preacher Shot Checking on His Property
Police Shoot And Kill Spokane Preacher - KCPQ
So the preacher is checking on his property since there's been an issue going on there, which is why the cop is there. But the cop is unmarked / incognito. Did the preacher have a gun, and then a horrible accident ensued? Or was the cop just the acceptable lazy coward that so many promote as good protocol for our men in blue? You know, shoot first, or if any threat to their own becomes present, because they shouldn't have to risk their well being just for their job. Or maybe the gun was a "drop weapon"?
No matter, it's a horrible accident at best. My condolences to the family. May the investigation provide the truth of the matter, regardless of the consequences.
August 29th, 2010, 03:58 PM #2
"Detectives say a handgun was found ( PLANTED )on the ground near Creach. "
August 29th, 2010, 04:07 PM #3
Pastor Wayne Scott Creach Shot and Killed by Spokane Cop - Seattle News - The Daily Weekly
"At 11 o'clock, my father got out of his bed responding to what he thought was a burglar and he took a gun," Creach's son Alan told a local TV station.
A Spokane Valley Police Officer shot and killed Pastor Scott Creach in the parking lot of Creach's business late Wednesday night. According to Creach's family, he heard what he thought was a burglar at the Plant Farm just before 11 P.M., grabbed his gun and went outside to investigate. His wife reports hearing a shout followed by gunshots.
An autopsy Thursday revealed Creach died from a single gunshot wound to the chest. The police officer, whose name has not yet been released, was in the parking lot that night looking for suspicious activity. He was in an unmarked patrol car, but was wearing his uniform. It's not clear yet what led to the shooting and that part of the investigation has been handed over to the Spokane Police Department.
August 29th, 2010, 04:17 PM #4
So how exactly does your post provide any sort of rebuttal to mine, or do you just like to sound like you're arguing?
As for an agenda, I'm guessing your rage caused you to skip over my post or otherwise not understand, which may also be the reason for your response sounding as though you were arguing against me, but at the same time providing no substance for any real argument. In fact, your post stands to affirm my first mentioned likelihood, with a twist of details.
Go check some facts at thiswebsiteisnotbiased.com, Gomer.
August 29th, 2010, 04:30 PM #5
That was not the intention of my post. The intention of my post was to provide ACTUAL INFORMATION. Rather than doing so yourself... you chose to link to the bare minimum of a story and then waxed poetic about various flea-brained hypotheticals. Those are your stock in trade.
August 29th, 2010, 04:46 PM #6
Wow, idiot & flea-brained. You're far too entrenched with your prior-hypothesis and predisposition to have an intelligent or civil discussion - you know that, right? And your buttons are far too easy to press. I hope we don't find your girlfriend (or boyfriend) in the dumpster one day.
August 29th, 2010, 04:54 PM #7
So to clarify Gomer's round of insults, I am an idiot, and my hypotheticals are flea-brained, because:
1) Cops (or any in authority) do not plant evidence to cover their mistakes or even their intentional misdoings. To hypothesize such possibility is idiotic & flea-brained. Perhaps we can get him to give us a scale - would that fall under impossible, Gomer? Or just close thereto?
2) People are not allowed to be armed, or bear arms, particularly in defense of their persons or property, else they are a vigilante (for only the cops & similar authorities have that right) and deserve to be shot - cops shouldn't even have to deal with armed citizens. Therefore the slain person had no other expectation other than to be slain when he picked up his arm (though I will agree that's an elevated possibility when doing so).
Would you like to correct any of this, Gomer? And would you like to articulate my other hypotheses so that we may discuss what makes them that of an idiot, and of flea-brained composure?
Last edited by SiliconJon; August 29th, 2010 at 04:59 PM. Reason: ALWAYS editing, damnit...get it right the first time, BRAIN!
August 29th, 2010, 05:05 PM #8
I didn't say that you were an idiot but that what you posted was idiocy. You know what they say about the shoe though.
Try to read this slowly. What you posted was idiocy and your hypotheticals flea-brained because 5 seconds in google reading a few additional stories would have shown that what you had posted had no merit. Instead of actually seeking the answers to your questions, you framed your post as a position from which to launch insults at the police (e.g. "lazy coward" and "drop weapon"). THAT, is the idiocy.
August 29th, 2010, 05:07 PM #9
And I won't be a hypocrite and call your hypothesis idiotic, for it, too, has some argument behind it given the facts, but you do realize that as the facts stand that is by no means the only viable hypothesis, and even if it turns out true that does not take affect retroactively and make it the only hypothesis now, from an action in the future. Of course, the same goes with my hypothesis - if it were discovered the cop planted evidence under the CYA philosophy it would not travel backwards in time to make one of my hypothesis the only valid one. And again, that was not my only hypothesis, but since they were all flea-brained I guess we should pigeonhole them all and put your omniscience on the banner behind the speaker on the aircraft carrier.
August 29th, 2010, 05:09 PM #10
And since when is seeking progress and/or answers through conversation the wrong way to go about doing things! Good lord, Gomer.
August 29th, 2010, 05:15 PM #11
August 29th, 2010, 05:15 PM #12
(though I do agree that the drop weapon hypothesis was quickly extinguished )
August 29th, 2010, 05:16 PM #13
Granted there are some [who show such a problem exists], for that I dare not argue against. Would you like to use your quoted headline as an argument that no such problem exists? Or would you like to properly address my statement in the growing amount of people who support such behavior even if it eventually proves to be unrelated to this article?
Nahhh....I know what you want. Here, I'll throw you a bone:
Mr Poopy Pants!
Don't worry, we all get that frustrated at least once in a while. Your girl is probably safe :P
Last edited by SiliconJon; August 29th, 2010 at 07:38 PM. Reason: clarifying text added in brackets
August 29th, 2010, 07:57 PM #14
August 29th, 2010, 08:06 PM #15
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By EXreaction in forum DebateIMO: Politics, Religion, ControversyReplies: 84Last Post: December 29th, 2010, 03:04 PM
By John Prophet in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 3Last Post: November 5th, 2004, 04:34 PM
By RedFury in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 5Last Post: August 22nd, 2004, 11:36 AM
By no1_vern in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 1Last Post: July 4th, 2003, 08:48 AM
By daveleau in forum IMO CommunityReplies: 6Last Post: July 8th, 2002, 02:37 PM