Texas cops SUCK !!!

[Reservoir Dog]

Uvalde school massacre could have been stopped sooner, DOJ report finds
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/18/us/attor ... index.html

‘Cascading failures’ in police response to Uvalde school shooting, DoJ report finds
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... doj-report

DOJ report finds 'cascading failures' and 'no urgency' during Uvalde, Texas, shooting
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/police-r ... t/46433425

[CHEEZY17]

Has Dodgin' Dot looked into this? We may get a different conclusion since he thinks the DOJ is incapable of evaluating the facts.

[dot]

Has Dodgin' Dot looked into this? We may get a different conclusion since he thinks the DOJ is incapable of evaluating the facts.

Interesting. Hack can't address the facts here either. I wonder why it is you consistently run away when they aren't on your side.

[CHEEZY17]

Has Dodgin' Dot looked into this? We may get a different conclusion since he thinks the DOJ is incapable of evaluating the facts.

Interesting. Hack can't address the facts here either. I wonder why it is you consistently run away when they aren't on your side.

Oh, this is should be good!
What facts do you think I'm not addressing here? Do you think I disagree with the DOJ's conclusions?
Well, sorry bud. Disagreeing with the DOJ after they evaluated the facts is YOUR territory.

[Antknot]

The failure of the law enforcement there was obvious back in 2022.

[CHEEZY17]

The failure of the law enforcement there was obvious back in 2022.

I think it would be near impossible to find anyone that was good with how that was handled.

[dot]

Oh, this is should be good!
What facts do you think I'm not addressing here? Do you think I disagree with the DOJ's conclusions?

Considering you wouldn't even comment on the subject until challenged, it's plainly obvious to even you that you didn't address the failures from law enforcement in the Uvalde shooting. Dumb partisan hack is gonna hack.

[CHEEZY17]

Oh, this is should be good!
What facts do you think I'm not addressing here? Do you think I disagree with the DOJ's conclusions?

Considering you wouldn't even comment on the subject until challenged, it's plainly obvious to even you that you didn't address the failures from law enforcement in the Uvalde shooting. Dumb partisan hack is gonna hack.

Just admit you were were wrong about yet another thing.

[Animal]

The failure of the law enforcement there was obvious back in 2022.

that's what i'm thinking. it took Merrick Garland and his crack staff 2 years to do their jobs and figure it it took the cops 70 minutes to do their jobs in Uvalde.

[dot]

Just admit you were were wrong about yet another thing.

Has Dodgin' Dot looked into this? We may get a different conclusion since he thinks the DOJ is incapable of evaluating the facts.

Zero acknowledgement, deflection from the start. Are you ever going to not make this easy for me?

[CHEEZY17]

Just admit you were were wrong about yet another thing.

Has Dodgin' Dot looked into this? We may get a different conclusion since he thinks the DOJ is incapable of evaluating the facts.

Zero acknowledgement, deflection from the start. Are you ever going to not make this easy for me?

Just admit you were were wrong about yet another thing.
What facts do you think I'm not addressing here? Do you think I disagree with the DOJ's conclusions?
Well, sorry bud. Disagreeing with the DOJ after they evaluated the facts is YOUR territory.

[dot]

Just admit you were were wrong about yet another thing.

I wasn't. You did what I said, as shown. Yet again, that was easy.

[CHEEZY17]

Just admit you were were wrong about yet another thing.

I wasn't. You did what I said, as shown. Yet again, that was easy.

LOLZ
OK, lets play your little game.

Who here, aside from Dodgin' Dot, thinks I was in any way trying to justify the reaction of the police, avoid the facts or disagree with the DOJ's conclusions with this statement:

Has Dodgin' Dot looked into this? We may get a different conclusion since he thinks the DOJ is incapable of evaluating the facts.

[dot]

LOLZ
OK, lets play your little game.

Who here, aside from Dodgin' Dot, thinks I was in any way trying to justify the reaction of the police, avoid the facts or disagree with the DOJ's conclusions with this statement:

Has Dodgin' Dot looked into this? We may get a different conclusion since he thinks the DOJ is incapable of evaluating the facts.

What part of that addresses a single thing about Uvalde? Critical thing here, you're gonna have to be honest for once. In what way did that address anything about Uvalde? Because without addressing the subject, you're avoiding it. Like I said, that was easy. Dumb disingenuous partisan hack.

[CHEEZY17]

LOLZ
OK, lets play your little game.

Who here, aside from Dodgin' Dot, thinks I was in any way trying to justify the reaction of the police, avoid the facts or disagree with the DOJ's conclusions with this statement:

Has Dodgin' Dot looked into this? We may get a different conclusion since he thinks the DOJ is incapable of evaluating the facts.

What part of that addresses a single thing about Uvalde? Critical thing here, you're gonna have to be honest for once. In what way did that address anything about Uvalde? Because without addressing the subject, you're avoiding it. Like I said, that was easy. Dumb disingenuous partisan hack.

Not specifically mentioning something in a post does not equal "avoiding it" you retard.
Especially a post meant in its entirety to mock you.

[dot]

Not specifically mentioning something in a post does not equal "avoiding it" you retard.

Except for the part where you literally don't even talk about it. But hey, called this one too.

Critical thing here, you're gonna have to be honest for once.

[CHEEZY17]

Not specifically mentioning something in a post does not equal "avoiding it" you retard.

Except for the part where you literally don't even talk about it. But hey, called this one too.

Critical thing here, you're gonna have to be honest for once.

Thats because it was a post where the sole intention was to mock you and it clearly did that. Mission accomplished as you seem to be incredibly butthurt over it.

[dot]

Thats because it was a post where the sole intention was to mock you and it clearly did that. Mission accomplished as you seem to be incredibly butthurt over it.

Am I? All I'm doing is pointing out what you did which is avoid the subject from the jump. I mean, if you're gonna claim you didn't do that, then you're kinda gonna need to not have avoided the subject from the jump. Hack is gonna hack.

[CHEEZY17]

Thats because it was a post where the sole intention was to mock you and it clearly did that. Mission accomplished as you seem to be incredibly butthurt over it.

Am I? All I'm doing is pointing out what you did which is avoid the subject from the jump. I mean, if you're gonna claim you didn't do that, then you're kinda gonna need to not have avoided the subject from the jump. Hack is gonna hack.

What I'm going to claim is that I made an incredibly successful post mocking you and it clearly made you butt-hurt. So now, because your little feewings got hurt, youre trying to pathetically claim that in a post specifically designed solely to mock you and nothing more I am avoiding something.
Well, sorry bud. Disagreeing with the DOJ after they evaluated the facts is YOUR territory.

[dot]

What I'm going to claim is that I made an incredibly successful post mocking you and it clearly made you butt-hurt.

Wouldn't be the first time you were being intellectually dishonest. But it still won't change the fact that you didn't address Uvalde at all, and when called out as doing such, you denied it which was factually false. Hack is gonna hack.

[CHEEZY17]

What I'm going to claim is that I made an incredibly successful post mocking you and it clearly made you butt-hurt.

Wouldn't be the first time you were being intellectually dishonest. But it still won't change the fact that you didn't address Uvalde at all, and when called out as doing such, you denied it which was factually false. Hack is gonna hack.

I created a post with the sole intent of mocking you. That intent proved successful as your hurt feewings demonstrate. Me not specifically mentioning something does not equal "avoiding" it. Sorry that is so difficult for you to understand.
Avoiding something means dodging the things you cant answer and it looks like your reaction to difficult questions such as:
Do you think the legal authorities made a mistake in their evaluation of the January 6th rioters?
Do you think the legal authorities dont have access to the definition?
Do you think you understand "insurrection" better than the authorities?

Let the avoiding begin! C'mon Dodgin' Dot, do your thang!

[dot]

I created a post with the sole intent of mocking you.

Which completely avoided the thread's subject. Which is what I said you did. Which you denied. Which is factually false. Any which way you slice it, I was right and you're still throwing your tantrums. Hack is gonna hack.

[CHEEZY17]

I created a post with the sole intent of mocking you.

Which completely avoided the thread's subject. Which is what I said you did. Which you denied. Which is factually false. Any which way you slice it, I was right and you're still throwing your tantrums. Hack is gonna hack.

The intent of my post was to mock you; which it did spectacularly because it clearly made your butt-hurt flare up. Not specifically mentioning something does not equate to avoiding it. Sorry thats a difficulut concept for you. Its weird how you want to accuse me of avoiding things, which is not true, when you must realize in your post you completely avoided everything like I said you would. Your quote of my post proves your avoidance. You consciously and purposely avoided pointed questions just like you always do. Thats why you are Dodgin' Dot.
Lets prove Dots avoidance again!
Do you think the legal authorities made a mistake in their evaluation of the January 6th rioters?
Do you think the legal authorities dont have access to the definition?
Do you think you understand "insurrection" better than the authorities?
C'mon Dodgin' Dot prove me right for the thousandth time!

[dot]

The intent of my post was to mock you;

Which completely avoided the thread's subject. Which is what I said you did. Which you denied. Which is factually false. Any which way you slice it, I was right and you're still throwing your tantrums. Hack is gonna hack.

Still easy.

[CHEEZY17]

The intent of my post was to mock you;

Which completely avoided the thread's subject. Which is what I said you did. Which you denied. Which is factually false. Any which way you slice it, I was right and you're still throwing your tantrums. Hack is gonna hack.

Still easy.

Easy to mock you? It sure is.