Monday, December 14, 2020

Kansas City Gunfire Continues Tonight

The cold doesn't stop the violence in Kansas City as more gunfire echoes through the inner city amid the freezing late night . . . Take a look:

KCPD investigate life-threatening shooting in 2500 block of Montgall

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - Kansas City, Missouri, police are investigating a life-threatening shooting that occurred Monday night in Kansas City, Missouri. Officers responded around 8:30 p.m. to the 2500 block of Montgall Avenue, where the victim was located. There is no additional information at this time. This is a developing story.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

#177.

Anonymous said...

Montgall? No way.

Anonymous said...


It was those pesky NRA members shooting up the neighborhood.

Nancy Peelosi

Anonymous said...

Aye yes, two blocks away from that dreaded East Patrol Police station at 26th Wabash. It’s been at least 5 years since they threw out the residents to make way for police occupation. Well, this is the fruit of that endeavor. Enjoy!

Anonymous said...

^^ Black folks still showin. you knowin' True Dat Bitch.

Anonymous 4787 said...

They’re just mad because they don’t have anybody asking them for money or even asking them for money on a public street/public sidewalk and they’re also mad at the city of Kansas City, Missouri because nobody was asking them for money near a highway.

They just have issues because nobody was asking them for money on a public sidewalk/public street or near a highway and they’re just mad at the city of Kansas City, Missouri that’s located at 414 E. 12 St. in Kansas City, Missouri.

That they’re just mad at city Council.

Anonymous 4787 said...

They’re just upset because nobody was chasing them.

They also upset at 414 E. 12th St. in Kansas City, Missouri that nobody was asking them for money on a public street/public sidewalk or near a highway.

They are just upset because city Council had already spread word body is asking for money public street/public sidewalk or near a busy highway.

They are just having issues because no one here wasn’t asking for money.

Anonymous 4787 said...

To me they were just trespassing on my property and just being peeping toms but trying to get that video camera inside my window.

They are just jealous creatures and they are just jealous of individuals.

Anonymous 4787 said...

But when it’s regarding a public street/public sidewalk and individuals asking for money.

Before a private security official/private security guard/5 security officer starts working on private property and a public street/public sidewalk was not a concern for a private security Official.

But before actually serving the general public that a individual applies for a license at 635 Woodland Avenue, Suite No. 2104 in Kansas City, MO 64106 (816)-889-6600 that the city of Kansas City, Missouri has already completed a background check on the private security official before actually serving on private property. The license just represent state section 84.720 revised statues of the state of Missouri.

But private security officials wasn’t concerned of what’s occurring on a public street/public sidewalk because private security officials doesn’t serve the general public but just a private citizen.

Anonymous 4787 said...

But private security officials/private security guard/private security officer wasn’t concerned of what happens on a public street/public sidewalk.

Before a individual was hired as a private security guard. The individual applies for a license with the city of Kansas City, Missouri and the license support state section 84.720 revised statues of the state of Missouri. But the individual goes through a background check at 635 Woodland Avenue, Suite No. 2104 in Kansas City, MO 64106 (816)-889-6600 that support state section 84.720 revised statues of the state of Missouri.

The license that support state section 84.720 revised statues of the state of Missouri does not have to be shown to the general public unless asked by a police officer/customer/consumer and the license just support state section 84.720 revised statues of the state of Missouri.

The license also represents that the private security guard has the rights as the owner and has the same equal rights as the titled deed that was within advertising of Senate Bill 43 of the state of Missouri.

But the license at 635 Woodland Avenue, Suite No. 2104 in Kansas City, MO 64106 (816)-889-6600 just says that’s individuals have the same rights as the owner of the property deed and wasn’t too concerned of what happened on a public street/public sidewalk.

Anonymous 4787 said...

But because a private security guard wasn’t concerned of what happen on a public street/public sidewalk.

The license at 635 Woodland Ave., suite No. 2104 in Kansas City, MO 64106 (816)-889-6600 that support state section 84.720 revised statues of the state of Missouri that private property would just have to enforce the 28 section of the Missouri State Constitution with full support of senate Bill 43 of the state of Missouri.

That private property would just have to enforce the 28th Section of the Missouri State Constitution with full support of Senate Bill 43 of the state of Missouri.

Because with an advertising of the city limits that the security guard has the same rights as the property owner.

Anonymous 4787 said...

But before a private security official was hired with a individual/private citizen.

The individual must be able to pass a background check at 635 Woodland Avenue, Suite No. 2104 in Kansas City, MO 64106 (816)-889-6600 that support state section 84.720 revised statues of the State Of Missouri.

but Private security official/private security guard/private security officer has the same rights as the property owner of being approved that support state section 84.720 revised statues of the state of Missouri.

But once a private security guard has obtained a license at 635 Woodland Ave., Suite number 2104 in Kansas City, MO 64106 (816)-889-6600 then the individual will be hired officially working for a private citizen and not the general public of the city limits of Kansas City, Missouri but just a private citizen.

Because the license the support state section 84.720 revised statues of the state of Missouri gives the individual the same rights as a property owner that has the same rights as the property deed.

I would just encourage individuals to read the 28 section of the Missouri State Constitution with Hall support Senate Bill 43 of the state of Missouri. Before approaching private property and private security officials wasn’t worried about what happens on a public street/public sidewalk.

Anonymous 4787 said...

The license the support state section 84.720 revised statues of the state of Missouri does not have to represent to the general public because the private security guard only works for a private citizen and not for the general public.

Unless asked by a police officer or citizen or customer but the license does not have to be generally displayed to the general public Unless asked by someone.

Anonymous 4787 said...

But even with all these issues that’s occurring on the public street/public sidewalk.

These issues does not concern the campus/college campus/University campus/technical campus.

These issues on a public street/public sidewalk does not concern the campus at all and the campus just has the right to freedom of speech on campus.

These issues does not concern the campus security it does not concern the college campuses that supports the family educational ride and privacy act of 1974.

Senate Bill 43 of the state of Missouri also enforces the family educational right and privacy act in 1974 because Sam graduates does not want to be disturbed on private property.

That’s worth campus security can just enforce the the truth and caller ID act 2009.

Anonymous 4787 said...

These issues on a public street/public sidewalk does not concern the campus and the campus was not going to get involved in this type of drama on the public sidewalk/public street.

The campus has the right to enforce the family educational rights and privacy act in 1974 that enforces The truth and Caller ID act of 2009.

Campus security prefers not to get involved in the staff issues on a public street and the campus prefers not to get involved in the type of problems that supports the family educational rights and privacy act in 1974.

Anonymous 4787 said...

But the campus/college campus/University campus/technical campus does not have to respond with full support of the family education right in privacy 1974.

Because anything on the campus does not concern campus in general because it happened on a public street/public sidewalk and individuals from the campus does not have to respond with full support of the family educational ride and privacy act of 1974 that was the United States federal law.

Just by disturbing someone on a public street/public sidewalk and that individual could be a former student that was in full support of the family educational and privacy act of 1974.

The truth in caller ID active 2009 was also signed into US federal law and just be truthful about the caller ID.

Anonymous 4787 said...

But it does kind of remind me of Force one Security.

Force one Security was revoked by the board of police commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri for even practicing any type of security in general.

Because force one security thought they were police officers and 635 Woodland Avenue, Suite No. 2104 in Kansas City, MO 64106 (816)-889-66600 has already been informed Force one Security that they were never police officers and they only have the rights as property owners but not as city police.

The license that support force one security was revoked by the board of police commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri because they always thought that they were police officers and they were only having property rights as owners but not labeled as city police.

The license only support state section 84.720 revised statues of the state of Missouri that the Missouri legislator had already informed Force one Security that they were not police officers but only as a security guard that serves as a private citizen.

KCPD Private Security Licensing Unit sent to Force One Sexurity owner Lamont Semen and his attorney Susan Dill.

Anonymous 4787 said...

But it does kind of remind me of Force one Security.

That the board of police commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri at 635 Woodland Ave., Suite number 2104 in Kansas City, MO 64106 (816)-889-6600 has already informed force one security that they were never city police and they’re only having the same rights as a property owner.

Force one Security was going around and acting like they were the city police and acting like there was a training issue.

But the Missouri legislator that support state section 84.720 revised statues of the state of Missouri has also inform force one security that they were never police officers but only serving as a security guard for a private citizen that’s that force one security does not serve the general public of when working with a private citizen.

The Missouri legislator with support of the board of police commissioners of Kansas City, Missouri has already informed force one security that they were never police officers but only viewed as a security guard.

But force one security was going around and breaking multiple laws that the general voters had never approved up. That supports the 25th section of the Missouri state constitution of the voting act of 1965.