Crazy CAC Shoots Up Planned Parenthood & Taking Hostages
Options
DarcSkies
Members Posts: 13,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
Police in Colorado Springs, Colorado, responded early Friday afternoon to reports of an active shooter near a Planned Parenthood.
The shooter has been "contained," Lt. Kirk Wilson, a Colorado Springs police spokesman, told The Gazette. Three officers were injured. In a tweet, the department said the situation is still "not stable."
Denise Speller, a manager at Supercuts, spoke to The Huffington Post on Friday afternoon while on lockdown inside her store. The Supercuts is in a strip mall just down the road from the Planned Parenthood.
"Cops came flying through the parking lot, they almost hit each other they were driving so fast," she said. She added that she "heard multiple shots fired" and "saw an officer go down" before she and others went and hunkered down in a back room.
"We can’t go near the windows," she said, "We can’t stop shaking and crying."
Brigitte Wolfe, who works at a restaurant next door, told the Denver Post she saw at least a dozen police cars.
"We were looking out the window and we had an officer wave us back inside," Wolfe said.
At least one of the injured officers suffered a bullet wound to his hand, according to CBS Denver.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/active-shooter-reported-in-colorado-springs-near-planned-parenthood_5658a87be4b079b2818a6d86?6kbdfgvi
...he has a right to do what he wants with "his body" even if it does result in the death of a human being....riiiiight?
...So will we be turning away Christian refugees because of this...or no?
NOTE: I have no idea if he's white, conservative, or Christian but...I mean...lets be honest for a second...am I right or am I right?
Comments
-
was his home broke,
was he on ? ,
was his family oppressed,
maybe if those people getting abottions take time to use protection they wouldnt be in this situation,
maybe their parents should have taught them respect -
what about Ape on Ape crime tho?
-
So a guy who is against murder goes in to murder people?
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »So a guy who is against murder goes in to murder people?
Yes....Cuz Jesus -
>"White male 6 feet tall, boots, hunting outfit."
Make no mistake, the types that'll shoot up a planned parenthood facility or bomb an abortion clinic due to their religious beliefs are terrorists.
-
Nothing like upholding your radical views on protecting the sanctity of life by trying to ? a buncha muthafuckas.
-
I ain't scared of Al Qaeda I am scared of Al Cracka
-
Stomp Johnson wrote: »Nothing like upholding your radical views on protecting the sanctity of life by trying to ? a buncha muthafuckas.
I bet you in his mind he'd rationalize it as killing sinful murderers. -
Do Jesus tell him to do that? No of course not. Not that it matters at a time like this fact his should be brought up on terriost charges
-
Stomp Johnson wrote: »Nothing like upholding your radical views on protecting the sanctity of life by trying to ? a buncha muthafuckas.
I bet you in his mind he'd rationalize it as killing sinful murderers.
Well they are sinful murderers. BUt that becomes irrelevant when you are acting from the standpoint of a religion that is SUPPOSEDLY peaceful. -
he'll be captured alive
-
Abortion is murder if he only kills the doctors or nurses... Then it is what it is
-
Abortion is murder if he only kills the doctors or nurses... Then it is what it is
Murder is more of a legal term. A fetus is a HUman Being but HUman Beings are not protected under the Constitution PERSONS are. Are the Constitutional interpretation of a PERSON is somebody who is actually up and walking around. Not a human being still in the development stages of being an infant.
That little caveat aside. I agree. Killing the nurses and doctors is just fine by me. You have to be a special kind of "Aint ? " to make a living helping ? ? their unborn. -
The good news is 3 cops were shot..
-
I wish black people would stop using abortions as a form of birth control
-
I'm waiting on the this is a distraction people
-
Was this an separate incident?
I'm reading that he was shooting at cops and this happens to be near PP, he's not directly targeting it. -
Abortion is murder if he only kills the doctors or nurses... Then it is what it is
Murder is more of a legal term. A fetus is a HUman Being but HUman Beings are not protected under the Constitution PERSONS are. Are the Constitutional interpretation of a PERSON is somebody who is actually up and walking around. Not a human being still in the development stages of being an infant.
That little caveat aside. I agree. Killing the nurses and doctors is just fine by me. You have to be a special kind of "Aint ? " to make a living helping ? ? their unborn.
Close.. But according to your definition, a human born lame on both feet is not a person. In truth, a PERSON is someone born of a nation, therefore has a nationality. If the mother and father have a nationality then the being inside them is of that same nationality, per naturalization.
Therefore, according to the Constitution, abortion is only legal for someone that is not a PERSON (I.E. without a nationality), but if one recognizes and honors their patriarchal or matriarchal lineage, they are murdering an innocent being of their own nation whether they are walking or not. Which is of course unconstitutional and inhumane, according to the Constitution and Law. But one that does not honor their mothers or fathers (matriarch or patriarchal lineage) then they are dead to the Law, therefore the baby is dead as well. -
This paper suggests that medically the term a 'human being' should be defined by the presence of an active human brain. The brain is the only unique and irreplaceable ? in the human body, as the orchestrator of all ? systems and the seat of personality. Thus, the presence or absence of brain life truly defines the presence or absence of human life in the medical sense. When viewed in this way, human life may be seen as a continuous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero (eight weeks gestation), until the occurrence of brain death. At any point human tissue or ? systems may be present, but without the presence of a functional human brain, these do not constitute a 'human being', at least in a medical sense. The implications of this theory for various ethical concerns such as in vitro fertilisation and abortion are discussed. This theory is the most consistent possible for the definition of a human being with no contradictions inherent. However, having a good theory of definition of a 'human being' does not necessarily solve the ethical problems discussed herein.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4078859 -
Judah Back wrote: »Abortion is murder if he only kills the doctors or nurses... Then it is what it is
Murder is more of a legal term. A fetus is a HUman Being but HUman Beings are not protected under the Constitution PERSONS are. Are the Constitutional interpretation of a PERSON is somebody who is actually up and walking around. Not a human being still in the development stages of being an infant.
That little caveat aside. I agree. Killing the nurses and doctors is just fine by me. You have to be a special kind of "Aint ? " to make a living helping ? ? their unborn.
Close.. But according to your definition, a person born lame on both feet. In truth, a PERSON is someone born of a nation, therefore has a nationality. If the mother and father have a nationality then the being inside them is of that same nationality, per naturalization.
Therefore, according to the Constitution, abortion is only legal for someone that is not a PERSON (I.E. without a nationality), but if one recognizes and honors their patriarchal or matriarchal lineage, they are murdering an innocent being of their own nation whether they are walking or not. Which is of course unconstitutional and inhumane, according to the Constitution and Law. But one that does not honor their mothers or fathers (matriarch or patriarchal lineage) then they are dead to the Law, therefore the baby is dead as well.
I said what I said because one of the associate justices of the supreme court said that a fetus is not protected under the Constitution.
Giving the unborn Constitutional rights opens up a pandoras box of sorts.
And I didnt mean literally up and walking around. I meant acting independently of direct contact with the mother. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »This paper suggests that medically the term a 'human being' should be defined by the presence of an active human brain. The brain is the only unique and irreplaceable ? in the human body, as the orchestrator of all ? systems and the seat of personality. Thus, the presence or absence of brain life truly defines the presence or absence of human life in the medical sense. When viewed in this way, human life may be seen as a continuous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero (eight weeks gestation), until the occurrence of brain death. At any point human tissue or ? systems may be present, but without the presence of a functional human brain, these do not constitute a 'human being', at least in a medical sense. The implications of this theory for various ethical concerns such as in vitro fertilisation and abortion are discussed. This theory is the most consistent possible for the definition of a human being with no contradictions inherent. However, having a good theory of definition of a 'human being' does not necessarily solve the ethical problems discussed herein.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4078859
The problem with this is a brain dead person is not an actual human being when we all know they are.
A dead giraffe is still a giraffe even though there wouldn't be an brain function.
This seems like a theory invented solely for the purpose of excusing abortion and asking the reader/thinker to ignore the accepted science.
Because the bottom line is a human being is simply the product of a sperm that has fertilized an egg. Which is called a zygote.
Zygote = HUan Being at the beginning stages of it's life
Fetus = Human being at beginning stages of life + several weeks
Infant = HUman Being between 0-1.99 years old
Toddler = Human being 2-4 years old
Child = HUman being 4-12 year
Pre-teen = HUman Being 12-13
Teenager...etc etc etc
The thing with theories like this is they ignore the science and choose instead to speak of ethics. Truth is not subject to ethics. Either something is or it is not.
A fetus is a human being. Why? Because One Human EGG + One human Sperm = a human being. Whether there is brain function or not. We just so happen to have labels for each part of the development process. -
But....what about black on black crime??!
-
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »This paper suggests that medically the term a 'human being' should be defined by the presence of an active human brain. The brain is the only unique and irreplaceable ? in the human body, as the orchestrator of all ? systems and the seat of personality. Thus, the presence or absence of brain life truly defines the presence or absence of human life in the medical sense. When viewed in this way, human life may be seen as a continuous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero (eight weeks gestation), until the occurrence of brain death. At any point human tissue or ? systems may be present, but without the presence of a functional human brain, these do not constitute a 'human being', at least in a medical sense. The implications of this theory for various ethical concerns such as in vitro fertilisation and abortion are discussed. This theory is the most consistent possible for the definition of a human being with no contradictions inherent. However, having a good theory of definition of a 'human being' does not necessarily solve the ethical problems discussed herein.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4078859
The problem with this is a brain dead person is not an actual human being when we all know they are.
A dead giraffe is still a giraffe even though there wouldn't be an brain function.
This seems like a theory invented solely for the purpose of excusing abortion and asking the reader/thinker to ignore the accepted science.
Because the bottom line is a human being is simply the product of a sperm that has fertilized an egg. Which is called a zygote.
Zygote = HUan Being at the beginning stages of it's life
Fetus = Human being at beginning stages of life + several weeks
Infant = HUman Being between 0-1.99 years old
Toddler = Human being 2-4 years old
Child = HUman being 4-12 year
Pre-teen = HUman Being 12-13
Teenager...etc etc etc
The thing with theories like this is they ignore the science and choose instead to speak of ethics. Truth is not subject to ethics. Either something is or it is not.
A fetus is a human being. Why? Because One Human EGG + One human Sperm = a human being. Whether there is brain function or not. We just so happen to have labels for each part of the development process.
Idk, I agree with it, if there is no brain activity, or cerebral cortex, it ain't really human(it maybe was or has the potential to be). The mind is what defines us, there has to be a line somewhere. -
BiblicalAtheist wrote: »BiblicalAtheist wrote: »This paper suggests that medically the term a 'human being' should be defined by the presence of an active human brain. The brain is the only unique and irreplaceable ? in the human body, as the orchestrator of all ? systems and the seat of personality. Thus, the presence or absence of brain life truly defines the presence or absence of human life in the medical sense. When viewed in this way, human life may be seen as a continuous spectrum between the onset of brain life in utero (eight weeks gestation), until the occurrence of brain death. At any point human tissue or ? systems may be present, but without the presence of a functional human brain, these do not constitute a 'human being', at least in a medical sense. The implications of this theory for various ethical concerns such as in vitro fertilisation and abortion are discussed. This theory is the most consistent possible for the definition of a human being with no contradictions inherent. However, having a good theory of definition of a 'human being' does not necessarily solve the ethical problems discussed herein.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4078859
The problem with this is a brain dead person is not an actual human being when we all know they are.
A dead giraffe is still a giraffe even though there wouldn't be an brain function.
This seems like a theory invented solely for the purpose of excusing abortion and asking the reader/thinker to ignore the accepted science.
Because the bottom line is a human being is simply the product of a sperm that has fertilized an egg. Which is called a zygote.
Zygote = HUan Being at the beginning stages of it's life
Fetus = Human being at beginning stages of life + several weeks
Infant = HUman Being between 0-1.99 years old
Toddler = Human being 2-4 years old
Child = HUman being 4-12 year
Pre-teen = HUman Being 12-13
Teenager...etc etc etc
The thing with theories like this is they ignore the science and choose instead to speak of ethics. Truth is not subject to ethics. Either something is or it is not.
A fetus is a human being. Why? Because One Human EGG + One human Sperm = a human being. Whether there is brain function or not. We just so happen to have labels for each part of the development process.
Idk, I agree with it, if there is no brain activity, or cerebral cortex, it ain't really human(it maybe was or has the potential to be). The mind is what defines us, there has to be a line somewhere.
So a brain dead zebra isn't a Zebra?
NO. It's still a Zebra - just a brain dead one
*shrug*
A stillborn baby is still a baby. Just happens to be a stillborn one.
-
So a brain dead zebra isn't a Zebra?
NO. It's still a Zebra - just a brain dead one
*shrug*
A stillborn baby is still a baby. Just happens to be a stillborn one.
No it was a zebra, now it's a carcass. It's sounds harsh and callous especially in regards to human beings because we have feelings and thoughts and memories.
