• ravelin@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 day ago

    I would still rather have the coward cops in charge than the active shooter

    • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      15 hours ago

      I want more options. The coward cop is perfectly willing to compromise and work across the aisle with the shooter to kill fewer kids because the idea of zero murdered children is a radical idea to the cowardly cop. He’s like “I’ll get to the bottom of this situation find out how many kids he needs to kill. If he says five I’ll get him down to three. Then we’ll work together with the parents of these kids and find out whose kids will live, together as a nation.”

      People who want no kids killed in the situation are exremists, according to the cowardly cop, who want him to pass a purity test like “stop the shooter before he kills more kids”

      So I want an option that says “I will actively stop school shooters frol shooting schools” but people who want the cop aren’t willing to betray the cop’s legacy and admit he needs to be fucking fired yesterday, so the next shooter, if there’s a school left, will actually be stopped or the new cop can be actually held accountable for failing so horribly without an army of unthinking drones defending them.

    • notarobot@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Having the coward cop In Charge means that the shooter will eventually be in charge. Because the coward is a coward