White Police Officer executed by criminals in Illinois with her own gun

Message to White Law Enforcement (Video)
It's becoming harder and harder to justify staying in that profession in these areas. Between the out of control crime and politicians/activists looking for any excuse to charge police.

Kansas City Star News

"Sgt. Rittmanic was pleading with them to, 'Just leave, you don't have to do this, please just go, please don't, please don't,'" Rowe said, WMAQ reported. "She was desperately pleading for her life."

Standing over her, Sullivan shot Rittmanic twice in the neck with her own gun, prosecutors say."

What does the color of her skin have to do with it?

Uh boy

https://gnet-research.org/2021/02/17/odysee-the-new-youtube-for-the-far-right/

(Hopefully they're prosecuted)

Seems like something that happened in Minneapolis a couple of years ago.

Of course, if guns were highly regulated to the point that the police didn't have these murder weapons on their hips it wouldn't have happened.

Trapper Gus wrote:Of course, if guns were highly regulated to the point that the police didn't have these murder weapons on their hips it wouldn't have happened.

That is the single dumbest statement I've ever seen you make, Trapper. Well done.

so.. a good guy with a gun didn't stop a bad guy with a gun?

who would've thought?

Are they able to paint such a thorough picture of the scene through body cam footage? Funny how that's perfectly preserved on the rare occasions that police are attacked, but so often "lost" or "corrupted" when it is the police doing the attacking.

Also worth noting that they are seeking the death penalty here, whereas it's a win if you can just get an officer fired when they execute someone.

Thoughts and prayers for the officers and their families.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:Of course, if guns were highly regulated to the point that the police didn't have these murder weapons on their hips it wouldn't have happened.

That is the single dumbest statement I've ever seen you make, Trapper.  Well done.

100% logical, but then many don't believe in basic truths.

The basic reason the Police have to carry guns on their person is that everyone else has guns.

Eliminate the guns and then the police don't need to carry on their body.

Cameron for the win.

So is this a call to get ladies out of the law enforcement because they can't hack it? Or only white ladies?

Yes, a cop killed is a tragedy, just like everyone else killed is a tragedy.

White/her makes me question your motives on posting this.

I'm currently watching a bunch of mostly white police officers getting attacked, injured on Jan 6th last year. Did those "blue lives matter" the same to you? Should the cause of that riot, or any person involved, go to prison for the rest of their lives (or at least more than a handful of months) because of it?

Are you a hypocrite?

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

That is the single dumbest statement I've ever seen you make, Trapper.  Well done.

100% logical, but then many don't believe in basic truths.

The basic reason the Police have to carry guns on their person is that everyone else has guns.

Eliminate the guns and then the police don't need to carry on their body.

Eliminate guns, and we can eliminate the police, as well. After all, won't the unicorns keep the peace?

Robert J Sakimano wrote:so.. a good guy with a gun didn't stop a bad guy with a gun?

who would've thought?

Yup. This is the lie the NRA has been peddling for decades. You need a gun to protect yourself. If two armed cops can’t protect themselves, how can some citizen with 30 minutes of training do any better?

PennSpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:so.. a good guy with a gun didn't stop a bad guy with a gun?

who would've thought?

Yup. This is the lie the NRA has been peddling for decades. You need a gun to protect yourself. If two armed cops can’t protect themselves, how can some citizen with 30 minutes of training do any better?

Rambo movies count as training, right? We've all seen matrix avoid the bullets and John wick killing 30 guys with a 9 round clip.

Mas Macho.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

100% logical, but then many don't believe in basic truths.

The basic reason the Police have to carry guns on their person is that everyone else has guns.

Eliminate the guns and then the police don't need to carry on their body.

Eliminate guns, and we can eliminate the police, as well. After all, won't the unicorns keep the peace?

Interesting idea. Let's start will highly regulating guns so the police don't need to carry on their bodies.

Not that in the highly racist country we will be doing that anytime soon, and the race card here is that the police powers were created partly to control black people.

PennSpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:so.. a good guy with a gun didn't stop a bad guy with a gun?

who would've thought?

Yup. This is the lie the NRA has been peddling for decades. You need a gun to protect yourself. If two armed cops can’t protect themselves, how can some citizen with 30 minutes of training do any better?

30 minutes?

I tell you what. Go Google CPL requirements in the state of Michigan, and then get back to us with some actual facts.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Eliminate guns, and we can eliminate the police, as well. After all, won't the unicorns keep the peace?

Interesting idea. Let's start will highly regulating guns so the police don't need to carry on their bodies.

Not that in the highly racist country we will be doing that anytime soon, and the race card here is that the police powers were created partly to control black people.

News flash: Guns are highly regulated now and it's not working.

PennSpartan wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:so.. a good guy with a gun didn't stop a bad guy with a gun?

who would've thought?

Yup. This is the lie the NRA has been peddling for decades. You need a gun to protect yourself. If two armed cops can’t protect themselves, how can some citizen with 30 minutes of training do any better?

America is a stupid country.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:
News flash: Guns are highly regulated now and it's not working.

News Flash: Plumbers are highly regulated. CDL Drivers are highly regulated. Gun owners aren't.

Until there are laws that require insurance, continuous education, liability of gun ownership, they are no where near regulated enough.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Interesting idea. Let's start will highly regulating guns so the police don't need to carry on their bodies.

Not that in the highly racist country we will be doing that anytime soon, and the race card here is that the police powers were created partly to control black people.

News flash: Guns are highly regulated now and it's not working.

No they aren’t. There are more regulations involved in driving a car than owning a gun.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:
News flash: Guns are highly regulated now and it's not working.

News Flash: Plumbers are highly regulated. CDL Drivers are highly regulated. Gun owners aren't.

Until there are laws that require insurance, continuous education, liability of gun ownership, they are no where near regulated enough.

Just because something isn't regulated the way YOU want it to be, doesn't mean that it isn't well regulated.

PennSpartan wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

News flash: Guns are highly regulated now and it's not working.

No they aren’t. There are more regulations involved in driving a car than owning a gun.

Huh. I hadn't thought about that. I guess you're right. And there aren't any fatal car accidents any more, so I guess more regulation is the answer?

Oh. Wait.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:No they aren’t. There are more regulations involved in driving a car than owning a gun.

Huh. I hadn't thought about that. I guess you're right. And there aren't any fatal car accidents any more, so I guess more regulation is the answer?

Oh. Wait.

Most states you have to take a test to drive a car. Some require classes before you can. All place at least a 30 day wait between a written test and the physical test of driving.

I’d settle for that.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:No they aren’t.  There are more regulations involved in driving a car than owning a gun.

Huh.  I hadn't thought about that.  I guess you're right.  And there aren't any fatal car accidents any more, so I guess more regulation is the answer?

Oh.  Wait.

A typical numbskull response.  Laws don’t stop people from committing crimes.  A stop sign on a road doesn’t force you to stop.   Laws hold those people accountable for their crimes.  So if you run a stop sign and get caught, you’ll probably pay a fine.  Understand now, stooge?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:

News Flash: Plumbers are highly regulated. CDL Drivers are highly regulated. Gun owners aren't.

Until there are laws that require insurance, continuous education, liability of gun ownership, they are no where near regulated enough.

Just because something isn't regulated the way YOU want it to be, doesn't mean that it isn't well regulated.

If the only thing between me and a shooting spree is the fucking moron working the back counter at Dunhams...

Btw and fwiw, I own at least 6 guns....(some may be my kids officially)
No one officially knows about any of them in this "highly regulated" environment.

PennSpartan wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Huh.  I hadn't thought about that.  I guess you're right.  And there aren't any fatal car accidents any more, so I guess more regulation is the answer?

Oh.  Wait.

A typical numbskull response.  Laws don’t stop people from committing crimes.  A stop sign on a road doesn’t force you to stop.   Laws hold those people accountable for their crimes.  So if you run a stop sign and get caught, you’ll probably pay a fine.  Understand now, stooge?

No. Not in the slightest.

It's illegal to shoot and kill people now. What other measures would you like to pass?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
A typical numbskull response.  Laws don’t stop people from committing crimes.  A stop sign on a road doesn’t force you to stop.   Laws hold those people accountable for their crimes.  So if you run a stop sign and get caught, you’ll probably pay a fine.  Understand now, stooge?

No. Not in the slightest.

It's illegal to shoot and kill people now. What other measures would you like to pass?

Let’s ask the parents of the four Oxford kids. Not the friends and cohorts of the shooters parents. Thanks.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
A typical numbskull response.  Laws don’t stop people from committing crimes.  A stop sign on a road doesn’t force you to stop.   Laws hold those people accountable for their crimes.  So if you run a stop sign and get caught, you’ll probably pay a fine.  Understand now, stooge?

No. Not in the slightest.

It's illegal to shoot and kill people now. What other measures would you like to pass?

As I indicated, you’re not that bright. I’m not surprised you didn’t understand my example with the stop sign. There’s lots of gun laws I’d like to pass. For example, a gun OWNER would be just as responsible as the person pulling the trigger of that gun in a shooting. Think that might get gun owners to be a little more responsible and secure with their firearms?

Forget  "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"...

This good guy with a gun couldn't stop a bad guy without gun.

DWags wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

No. Not in the slightest.

It's illegal to shoot and kill people now. What other measures would you like to pass?

Let’s ask the parents of the four Oxford kids. Not the friends and cohorts of the shooters parents. Thanks.

Emotional response without facts or logic. Sorry. Doesn't count. Try again.

PennSpartan wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

No. Not in the slightest.

It's illegal to shoot and kill people now. What other measures would you like to pass?

As I indicated, you’re not that bright. I’m not surprised you didn’t understand my example with the stop sign. There’s lots of gun laws I’d like to pass. For example, a gun OWNER would be just as responsible as the person pulling the trigger of that gun in a shooting. Think that might get gun owners to be a little more responsible and secure with their firearms?

Solid personal attack. I am appropriately chagrined.

But since you like automotive analogies so much, let's follow this path. If I steal your car, and drive through a crowd of kiddos on the sidewalk, are you going to jail?

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

DWags wrote:

Let’s ask the parents of the four Oxford kids. Not the friends and cohorts of the shooters parents. Thanks.

Emotional response without facts or logic. Sorry. Doesn't count. Try again.

Nah, it really does, I already said that at the very least we should at least mirror what it takes to get a driver's license. I gave an example of idiot parents handing a kid thier gun and encouraching him to hide buying ammo on line form school officials.

BTW, many kids and adults flunk their first driver's test. Nothing wrong with that and no shame in it. But an effort is made to at least put better drivers out on the road.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
As I indicated, you’re not that bright.  I’m not surprised you didn’t understand my example with the stop sign.  There’s lots of gun laws I’d like to pass.  For example, a gun OWNER would be just as responsible as the person pulling the trigger of that gun in a shooting.  Think that might get gun owners to be a little more responsible and secure with their firearms?  

Solid personal attack.  I am appropriately chagrined.

But since you like automotive analogies so much, let's follow this path.  If I steal your car, and drive through a crowd of kiddos on the sidewalk, are you going to jail?

No, because cars and guns aren’t the same thing.  Rape laws don’t really apply to shoplifting, and arson laws don’t work well with kidnapping. Are you starting to see how laws work, now? And are you related to RQA?  He likes to play these word games, too.

DWags wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Emotional response without facts or logic. Sorry. Doesn't count. Try again.

Nah, it really does, I already said that at the very least we should at least mirror what it takes to get a driver's license. I gave an example of idiot parents handing a kid thier gun and encouraching him to hide buying ammo on line form school officials.

BTW, many kids and adults flunk their first driver's test. Nothing wrong with that and no shame in it. But an effort is made to at least put better drivers out on the road.

Why do you hate the poors and minorities? You know any licensing of self defense weapons will only harm those folks. Rich white people will still have their hand cannons.

I mean... that's what we hear about having to show ID for voting. I would think it would doubly apply to any such thing you're proposing.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:
Why do you hate the poors and minorities?  You know any licensing of self defense weapons will only harm those folks.  Rich white people will still have their hand cannons.

I mean... that's what we hear about having to show ID for voting.  I would think it would doubly apply to any such thing you're proposing.

That is true... rural white America was FIRMLY behind gun regulations when the scary black people had them on display.

Ronnie Reagan hated guns

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

DWags wrote:

Nah, it really does, I already said that at the very least we should at least mirror what it takes to get a driver's license. I gave an example of idiot parents handing a kid thier gun and encouraching him to hide buying ammo on line form school officials.

BTW, many kids and adults flunk their first driver's test. Nothing wrong with that and no shame in it. But an effort is made to at least put better drivers out on the road.

Why do you hate the poors and minorities? You know any licensing of self defense weapons will only harm those folks. Rich white people will still have their hand cannons.

I mean... that's what we hear about having to show ID for voting. I would think it would doubly apply to any such thing you're proposing.

Isn’t it amazing that Conservatives have proposed so many new laws for voting, but none for guns? How many people die while voting?

PennSpartan wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Why do you hate the poors and minorities? You know any licensing of self defense weapons will only harm those folks. Rich white people will still have their hand cannons.

I mean... that's what we hear about having to show ID for voting. I would think it would doubly apply to any such thing you're proposing.

Isn’t it amazing that Conservatives have proposed so many new laws for voting, but none for guns? How many people die while voting?

Cops at the Capitol do when Congress is counting votes. Look this guy asks for solitons. He’s on the side of those moron parents who encouraged their kids to shoot Oxford high school up. Propose anything and he will flail about. Ma riiiiights. Whatever. I’m waiting for the racist refrain of “Chicago has all kinds of laws and they’re shooting everyone everywhere. (Like Gary Indiana isn’t five minutes away.).

At least a three week waiting period. Pass a written test and physical test in the meantime and divert money away from police departments buying tanks and use it for social programs and mental health.

DWags wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Isn’t it amazing that Conservatives have proposed so many new laws for voting, but none for guns? How many people die while voting?

Cops at the Capitol do when Congress is counting votes. Look this guy asks for solitons. He’s on the side of those moron parents who encouraged their kids to shoot Oxford high school up. Propose anything and he will flail about. Ma riiiiights. Whatever. I’m waiting for the racist refrain of “Chicago has all kinds of laws and they’re shooting everyone everywhere. (Like Gary Indiana isn’t five minutes away.).

At least a three week waiting period. Pass a written test and physical test in the meantime and divert money away from police departments buying tanks and use it for social programs and mental health.

And a mental competency test.