• The Shot You’ll Never Forget Giveaway - Enter To Win A Barrel From Rifle Barrel Blanks!

    Tell us about the best or most memorable shot you’ve ever taken. Contest ends June 13th and remember: subscribe for a better chance of winning!

    Join contest Subscribe

Anti Gun groups hijack police shooting settlement to fight against your rights

W54/XM-388

Online Training Member
Full Member
Minuteman
Legend
  • Oct 1, 2005
    14,965
    33,937
    Dallas, TX
    So in the ongoing saga of the Muslim Somali that shot the Australian SJW....

    After he was convicted, the city "settled" with the victims families, by paying out more taxpayer money to the tune of 20 million...

    But wait for it... it gets better....

    The city stipulated that the families pay $2 million of that taxpayer money back to local SJW groups that don't like citizens having guns.

    "The settlement, which will be paid by the city's self-insurance fund, calls for Damond's family to donate $2million to a local foundation's fund aimed at addressing gun violence. "



    Yep the city government there is full of it.
     
    So in the ongoing saga of the Muslim Somali that shot the Australian SJW....

    After he was convicted, the city "settled" with the victims families, by paying out more taxpayer money to the tune of 20 million...

    But wait for it... it gets better....

    The city stipulated that the families pay $2 million of that taxpayer money back to local SJW groups that don't like citizens having guns.

    "The settlement, which will be paid by the city's self-insurance fund, calls for Damond's family to donate $2million to a local foundation's fund aimed at addressing gun violence. "



    Yep the city government there is full of it.

    This is looking more like the better option all the time.

    7071681
     
    The city is giving/granting the family 20 million..... period.

    What they(THE FAMILY) do with that money, from that moment on, is COMPLETELY up to them, is it not? If the city wants someone else to have 2 million dollars, then that is up to the city to give it, AS WELL AS answer for the giving of it.

    To imply that a 3rd party MUST pay off x dollars to a 4th party is INCOMPREHENSIBLE and CORRUPT.
     
    The city is giving/granting the family 20 million..... period.

    What they(THE FAMILY) do with that money, from that moment on, is COMPLETELY up to them, is it not? If the city wants someone else to have 2 million dollars, then that is up to the city to give it, AS WELL AS answer for the giving of it.

    To imply that a 3rd party MUST pay off x dollars to a 4th party is INCOMPREHENSIBLE and CORRUPT.

    They can stipulate anything in the settlement. If the family accepts, it's binding.