Featured LA Police on Tactical Alert After Cop Car Fired Upon ....

Man hush. You are a hoot. :laugh: You didn't have any inside information that was just so secretive you couldn't disclose it at the time.

Wonder how many folks have noticed how you've taken to trying to elevate yourself and your writing after so many have called you on the inconsistencies that you just don't expect to see with anyone whose published a pamphlet, let alone a book.

You made up some stuff because of your puffed up ego and need to garner attention to yourself. Creative leap? :laugh:

 

I will not apologize. Reporters do not and should not use creative license when reporting the news. That was my entire point and I stand by it.

Furthermore, by definition, "creative license" is not equivalent to "making a deduction."

I wonder what your reaction would be if the one or both of the suspects turned out to be white?

 

You were correct in asserting it was gang-related.
You were wrong that these gang members were out to kill cops. Turns out the police drove into a gunfight that was already occurring.
You were wrong in asserting that most reporters use creative license to report the news.

That is all.

 

With all this inside information he has, he should be able to tell us if they are or aren't white,

And if he thought it was gang related, it didn't make much sense to lead off

like it was related to the protests unless there is another incendiary motive.

 

You didn't provide facts. You said so yourself that you exercised your "creative license" and spoke of your creative leap. How is that factual? That's pure Star Trek type fiction.

 

I didn't say it wasn't gang related. I said your first post in the thread invalidates your "secret information" claim because you started off hyping it as another protest motivated police shooting.

So either you're intentionally trying to be incendiary or you intentionally lie.

 

There's no need to try and hide from it now. You intentionally tried to tie this story of more people shooting at police to the protest.

Back peddlers often fall and break stuff.

So again, if your secret information told you it was gang related, you INTENTIONALLY are trying to be incendiary or you're just a liar.

And EVERYBODY should question the why?

 

Here are some threads where you posted that "What do you want? Dead Cops" was a part of a protest.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2177406&postcount=1

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2174993&postcount=28

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2174434&postcount=1

Here is a thread titled "Calling for Dead Cops is Not Peaceful Protesting. It was started by you:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2172722&postcount=1

And here is your OP:

So, don't try to deny that you originally thought the shooters were caught up in the spirit of the protesters.

 

Waiting to see what silly picture he has for this one.

 

:applause::applause: Thank you. That's why I say he's intentionally trying to be incendiary or he's just a liar.

And got the gall to ask for an apology.

 

hard to follow what's going on, but are you saying there weren't any calls for dead cops during the protests ?

 

No, not at all. I'm refuting RD2's contention that he knew all along this was a gangland shooting unrelated to the protesters and their rallying cry of "What do you want? Dead cops".

In his opening post of this thread he clearly thinks the shooting is inspired by the protesters. Then he uses creative license and opines that it's gang related. Then, after I point out that the cops happened to stumble onto the scene and got caught in a crossfire he claims he knew all along it was not related to protesters.

 

Thanx, and yup.:thumbs: