I can't help but feel we are on the verge of something--as a society. Before I felt it would be like most moments, boil a bit, then blow over...but if this cycle doesn't end, I don't know what the hell is going to happen. Just two cops, doing an anti-terrorism drill, then this psychopath walks up to the car and murders them. If this keeps up, I'm concerned we will end up with a police state.
Without properly addressing the concerns of the people this cycle will just continue. Stupid, ignorant people on both sides will take it out one some perceived enemy, until things like this happen. Both communities, both black and police, should work together to sort this out. By spouting rhetoric, or refusing to fix this this will happen again and again. How many innocent lives must be lost before this happens? Dozens, hundreds, thousands? At times it seems that the bad growth will topple the whole tree, but we must not let this happen. Most cops are good honest people. Most blacks are good honest people. We can kill this growth before it gets too far, but, it seems to me, we are too wrapped up in our own little worlds, of hate and prejudice to allow that to happen.
My thoughts on this is pretty much summed up here:
Spoiler:
[This is a time of shame] and a time of sorrow. It is not a day for politics. I have saved this one opportunity -- my only event of today -- to speak briefly to you about the mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.
It's not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one -- no matter where he lives or what he does -- can be certain whom next will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on and on in this country of ours.
Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr's cause has ever been stilled by an assassin's bullet. No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled or uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the people.
Whenever any American's life is taken by another American unnecessarily -- whether it is done in the name of the law or in defiance of the law, by one man or by a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence -- whenever we tear at the fabric of our lives which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children -- whenever we do this, then whole nation is degraded. "Among free men," said Abraham Lincoln, "there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal are sure to lose their case and pay the cost."
Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and we call it entertainment. We make it easier for men of all shades of sanity to acquire weapons and ammunition that they desire.
Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force. Too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of other human beings. Some Americans who preach nonviolence abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of rioting, and inciting riots, have by their own conduct invited them. Some look for scapegoats; others look for conspiracies. But this much is clear: violence breeds violence; repression breeds retaliation; and only a cleaning of our whole society can remove this sickness from our souls.
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is a slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books, and homes without heat in the winter. This is the breaking of a man's spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man amongst other men.
And this too afflicts us all. For when you teach a man to hate and to fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies that he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your home or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies -- to be met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated and to be mastered.
We learn, at the last, to look at our brothers as alien, alien men with whom we share a city, but not a community, men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in a common effort. We learn to share only a common fear -- only a common desire to retreat from each other -- only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force.
For all this there are no final answers for those of us who are American citizens. Yet we know what we must do, and that is to achieve true justice among all of our fellow citizens. The question is not what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of humane purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence.
We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions, the false distinctions among men, and learn to find our own advancement in search for the advancement of all. We must admit to ourselves that our own children's future cannot be built on the misfortune of another's. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or by revenge.
Our lives on this planet are too short, the work to be done is too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in this land of ours. Of course we cannot vanish it with a program, nor with a resolution.
But we can perhaps remember -- if only for a time -- that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short movement of life, that they seek -- as do we -- nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and in happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment that they can.
Surely this bond of common fate, surely this bond of common goals can begin to teach us something. Surely we can learn, at the least, to look around at those of us, of our fellow man, and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our hearts brothers and countrymen once again.
Tennyson wrote in Ulysses:
[Moved earth and heaven,] that which we are, we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts, Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Thank you, very much.
It is sad that a speech from over 40 years ago is still relevant today...
The simple truth is, too often, for too many people, violence is the easy way. They don't want to actually address/resolve their problems, as that is the hard way. It is easier to simply go and shoot a visible symbol of your problem. Kids don't like you at school? Shoot them up. Cops gave you a hard time? Shoot them up. Wife didn't make you a sandwich? Shoot her up.
And our society enables this far too often. Because the media falls all over themselves to tell the full story of the shooter, often nearly portraying them as victims of society (whether bullied, outcast, oppressed, didn't get the mental treatment they needed, etc.). Our culture grants near celebrity-status-immortality to serial killers and high profile criminals by remembering their names long after they're gone, and not one of their actual victims is ever remembered. As long as those who choose the path of violence are rewarded in this way, there will always be more and more walking that path.
Relapse wrote: I wonder if the murderer will be hailed as a hero.
Why?
Probably because some people have an irrational hatred of all police.
I don't know about that. If I was one of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people who grew up impoverished and with a largely adversarial relationship with the police, I don't think i would have an irrational hatred. It is pointless and self-defeating, but not irrational.
Probably because of all the "kill the cops" rhetoric in the protests happening, do ya think?
Just out of curiosity, do you remember that Nevada rancher you spent pages upon pages of comments defending? He threatened violence against police officers (federal and otherwise) who tried to bring him to justice over the multitude of laws he broke, going so far as to rally a group of heavily armed self-styled "patriots" who also threatened LEOs (while aiming weapons at them, no less). Joining their cause was conservative politicians and pundits in the media, hyping their anti-cop and violent rhetoric. Then do you remember when two people from his posse ambushed some cops at a CiCi's Pizza in Las Vegas and killed them?
Not hundreds of millions. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Americans, living in poverty, growing up with an adversarial relationship with police. This system is generations old now.
Probably because of all the "kill the cops" rhetoric in the protests happening, do ya think?
Just out of curiosity, do you remember that Nevada rancher you spent pages upon pages of comments defending? He threatened violence against police officers (federal and otherwise) who tried to bring him to justice over the multitude of laws he broke, going so far as to rally a group of heavily armed self-styled "patriots" who also threatened LEOs (while aiming weapons at them, no less). Joining their cause was conservative politicians and pundits in the media, hyping their anti-cop and violent rhetoric. Then do you remember when two people from his posse ambushed some cops at a CiCi's Pizza in Las Vegas and killed them?
Were they hailed as heroes?
I thought he was a wrong, also, and said so. What I hated was what I was hearing about the way family there said the feds were treating people
and affecting the living of the area. I did think about that as I was making my comments here. No way do I think anyone who guns down a cop as a hero.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Then do you remember when two people from his posse ambushed some cops at a CiCi's Pizza in Las Vegas and killed them?
To be fair, those two weren't really part of Bundy's "posse." They were specifically asked to leave a few days after they showed up because they were "too radical" (read: nuts).
Relapse wrote: I wonder if the murderer will be hailed as a hero.
Why?
Probably because some people have an irrational hatred of all police.
I don't know about that. If I was one of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people who grew up impoverished and with a largely adversarial relationship with the police, I don't think i would have an irrational hatred. It is pointless and self-defeating, but not irrational.
The fact that it is pointless and self-defeating has a big part to do with why it is irrational.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Then do you remember when two people from his posse ambushed some cops at a CiCi's Pizza in Las Vegas and killed them?
To be fair, those two weren't really part of Bundy's "posse." They were specifically asked to leave a few days after they showed up because they were "too radical" (read: nuts).
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Then do you remember when two people from his posse ambushed some cops at a CiCi's Pizza in Las Vegas and killed them?
To be fair, those two weren't really part of Bundy's "posse." They were specifically asked to leave a few days after they showed up because they were "too radical" (read: nuts).
More nutty than Bundy, that's impressive.
It's not that impressive, considering Bundy didn't murder any police officers.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Then do you remember when two people from his posse ambushed some cops at a CiCi's Pizza in Las Vegas and killed them?
To be fair, those two weren't really part of Bundy's "posse." They were specifically asked to leave a few days after they showed up because they were "too radical" (read: nuts).
More nutty than Bundy, that's impressive.
It's not that impressive, considering Bundy didn't murder any police officers.
It was meant in jest, making fun of the nuttiness of Bundy.
Hordini wrote: Probably because some people have an irrational hatred of all police.
I don't know about that. If I was one of the hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people who grew up impoverished and with a largely adversarial relationship with the police, I don't think i would have an irrational hatred. It is pointless and self-defeating, but not irrational.
The fact that it is pointless and self-defeating has a big part to do with why it is irrational.
The pointless and self defeating reasons are still rational reasons.
For something to be irrational, it has to be without reason. Do you believe that impoverished blacks have no reason to hate the police?
feeder wrote: For something to be irrational, it has to be without reason. Do you believe that impoverished blacks have no reason to hate the police?
I don't think anyone has a reason to hate all police. Some people have reasons to hate some police, and some reasons are even valid, but I don't consider a hatred of all police to be anything approaching rational. By the standard you're offering, you could claim that racism is rational as long as there is a reason for it, regardless of whether or not that reason is valid.
Surely nobody on either side would ever make statements such as "justice was served", "he deserved that", "good riddance" or any other statement like that following the death of another human being and celebrate said death as a "good thing"...
d-usa wrote: Surely nobody on either side would ever make statements such as "justice was served", "he deserved that", "good riddance" or any other statement like that following the death of another human being and celebrate said death as a "good thing"...
Oh, that's ridiculous. Of course people would, and rightly so. I certainly would. There exists an unfortunately large number of people out there whose deaths would make the world a much better place. Osama Bin Laden was one example. The ISIS members who cut peoples' heads off and enslave women and children would be another.
That said, I don't consider two NYPD officers sitting in their police cruiser to be among that group.
feeder wrote: For something to be irrational, it has to be without reason. Do you believe that impoverished blacks have no reason to hate the police?
I don't think anyone has a reason to hate all police. Some people have reasons to hate some police, and some reasons are even valid, but I don't consider a hatred of all police to be anything approaching rational. By the standard you're offering, you could claim that racism is rational as long as there is a reason for it, regardless of whether or not that reason is valid.
Do you believe impoverished blacks have no valid reason to hate police? I'm not trying to bait you into some silly "gotcha!" point scoring trap here, I am genuinely interested.
Personally, I can understand why there is so much hate on both sides here.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Then do you remember when two people from his posse ambushed some cops at a CiCi's Pizza in Las Vegas and killed them?
To be fair, those two weren't really part of Bundy's "posse." They were specifically asked to leave a few days after they showed up because they were "too radical" (read: nuts).
I know, and yet that doesn't stop some people here from lumping this donkey-cave that shot two cops in with the rest of the people who are protesting police brutality.
I thought he was a wrong, also, and said so. What I hated was what I was hearing about the way family there said the feds were treating people
and affecting the living of the area. I did think about that as I was making my comments here. No way do I think anyone who guns down a cop as a hero.
The point is people, motivated by the divisive rhetoric coming from Bundy and many of the pundits and politicians that supported him, committed a heinous crime. However, you are able to remove yourself from them because it's inconvenient to have that crime as a tally mark on your "side," which is fair enough because I know you don't agree with their actions. Yet your first response here is questioning whether or not this person would be "hailed as a hero" because of all of the "'kill the cops' rhetoric in the protests" (also, I'm not exactly sure where that information is coming from so please feel free to enlighten us) coming from "them," because in your eyes, all the people protesting police brutality would obviously be thrilled that two innocent police officers were gunned down.
What I am getting at is that it is possible to agree with the protesters in this case that police brutality is wrong but gunning cops down isn't the way to fix it, just like it was that feeling that Bundy was innocent and the Feds were in the wrong yet gunning cops down wasn't the way to fix it. Do you not see a similar set of circumstances here?
feeder wrote: For something to be irrational, it has to be without reason. Do you believe that impoverished blacks have no reason to hate the police?
I don't think anyone has a reason to hate all police. Some people have reasons to hate some police, and some reasons are even valid, but I don't consider a hatred of all police to be anything approaching rational. By the standard you're offering, you could claim that racism is rational as long as there is a reason for it, regardless of whether or not that reason is valid.
Do you believe impoverished blacks have no valid reason to hate police? I'm not trying to bait you into some silly "gotcha!" point scoring trap here, I am genuinely interested.
Personally, I can understand why there is so much hate on both sides here.
There's always reason to bad feeling on both sides. I have nothing but contempt for the police who were captured on video murdering Kelly Thompson
as he first said he couldn't breath, then after being continually tased and beaten, went unconscious yelling for his father. The bastards got off Scott free. I also think that Brown was a thief and bully and brought about his own demise by acting as such.
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: Then do you remember when two people from his posse ambushed some cops at a CiCi's Pizza in Las Vegas and killed them?
To be fair, those two weren't really part of Bundy's "posse." They were specifically asked to leave a few days after they showed up because they were "too radical" (read: nuts).
I know, and yet that doesn't stop some people here from lumping this donkey-cave that shot two cops in with the rest of the people who are protesting police brutality.
I thought he was a wrong, also, and said so. What I hated was what I was hearing about the way family there said the feds were treating people
and affecting the living of the area. I did think about that as I was making my comments here. No way do I think anyone who guns down a cop as a hero.
The point is people, motivated by the divisive rhetoric coming from Bundy and many of the pundits and politicians that supported him, committed a heinous crime. However, you are able to remove yourself from them because it's inconvenient to have that crime as a tally mark on your "side," which is fair enough because I know you don't agree with their actions. Yet your first response here is questioning whether or not this person would be "hailed as a hero" because of all of the "'kill the cops' rhetoric in the protests" (also, I'm not exactly sure where that information is coming from so please feel free to enlighten us) coming from "them," because in your eyes, all the people protesting police brutality would obviously be thrilled that two innocent police officers were gunned down.
What I am getting at is that it is possible to agree with the protesters in this case that police brutality is wrong but gunning cops down isn't the way to fix it, just like it was that feeling that Bundy was innocent and the Feds were in the wrong yet gunning cops down wasn't the way to fix it. Do you not see a similar set of circumstances here?
I see what you're getting at, but for myself, I say Bundy was wrong and I was worried about my family down there getting caught in something nasty.
feeder wrote: For something to be irrational, it has to be without reason. Do you believe that impoverished blacks have no reason to hate the police?
I don't think anyone has a reason to hate all police. Some people have reasons to hate some police, and some reasons are even valid, but I don't consider a hatred of all police to be anything approaching rational. By the standard you're offering, you could claim that racism is rational as long as there is a reason for it, regardless of whether or not that reason is valid.
Do you believe impoverished blacks have no valid reason to hate police? I'm not trying to bait you into some silly "gotcha!" point scoring trap here, I am genuinely interested.
Personally, I can understand why there is so much hate on both sides here.
I already said that some people have reasons to hate some police, and that some of those reasons are valid, but that I don't think anyone has a valid reason to hate all police. I'm not trying to dodge your question, I'm just not sure what you really want me to say if that doesn't answer your question sufficiently.
To those asking whether people would come out and call the cops' killer a hero.... Apparently "The Game" (some rapper or other, I don't know, and don't fething care) started up a gak storm online by expressing basically that sentiment.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: To those asking whether people would come out and call the cops' killer a hero.... Apparently "The Game" (some rapper or other, I don't know, and don't fething care) started up a gak storm online by expressing basically that sentiment.
Yep, I saw that, also. I figure it's predictable from someone like him in order to generate sales. Even now, he's probably crapping out a song in celebration, to be released next album.
d-usa wrote: Surely nobody on either side would ever make statements such as "justice was served", "he deserved that", "good riddance" or any other statement like that following the death of another human being and celebrate said death as a "good thing"...
Concerning the two LEO that got opted out right? ISIS/AQ/Taliban/other brand of extremist groups are the exemption right? For I have no qualms, notionally, executing the ones that rampage in the Pakistan school
I already said that some people have reasons to hate some police, and that some of those reasons are valid, but that I don't think anyone has a valid reason to hate all police. I'm not trying to dodge your question, I'm just not sure what you really want me to say if that doesn't answer your question sufficiently.
Ok, I see. You're right, of course. Just because someone wears the uniform doesn't mean he is a d-bag that abuses his power.
But if I grew up in an area where my every interaction with the police was hostile at best and downright violent at worst, I would quickly learn to hate and fear the uniform, and not think about the man wearing it. I would hate and fear all police, and with valid reason.
Brown's family released a statement Saturday saying it "condemns today's senseless killing of two NYPD officers." "We reject any kind of violence directed toward members of law enforcement," the statement said. "It cannot be tolerated. We must work together to bring peace to our communities."
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder called the deadly ambush "an unspeakable act of barbarism."
The Rev. Al Sharpton, who has led protests over the deaths of Brown and Garner, denounced the officers' killings. "I have spoken to the Garner family and we are outraged by the early reports of the police killed in Brooklyn today," Sharpton said in a statement. "Any use of the names of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, in connection with any violence or killing of police, is reprehensible and against the pursuit of justice in both cases."
I already said that some people have reasons to hate some police, and that some of those reasons are valid, but that I don't think anyone has a valid reason to hate all police. I'm not trying to dodge your question, I'm just not sure what you really want me to say if that doesn't answer your question sufficiently.
Ok, I see. You're right, of course. Just because someone wears the uniform doesn't mean he is a d-bag that abuses his power.
But if I grew up in an area where my every interaction with the police was hostile at best and downright violent at worst, I would quickly learn to hate and fear the uniform, and not think about the man wearing it. I would hate and fear all police, and with valid reason.
The kind of interaction that feels hostile. I don't know if I can give a textbook definition. You must know the difference between a hostile encounter and a cordial one.
The kind of interaction that feels hostile. I don't know if I can give a textbook definition. You must know the difference between a hostile encounter and a cordial one.
On a side, and somewhat related note, the 'cops lives matter' and 'black lives matter' bits popping up on the internet are really god damn annoying. I don't give a gak what color you are or your occupation, LIFE matters, not what you're getting paid to do.
On a side, and somewhat related note, the 'cops lives matter' and 'black lives matter' bits popping up on the internet are really god damn annoying. I don't give a gak what color you are or your occupation, LIFE matters, not what you're getting paid to do.
On a side, and somewhat related note, the 'cops lives matter' and 'black lives matter' bits popping up on the internet are really god damn annoying. I don't give a gak what color you are or your occupation, LIFE matters, not what you're getting paid to do.
On a side, and somewhat related note, the 'cops lives matter' and 'black lives matter' bits popping up on the internet are really god damn annoying. I don't give a gak what color you are or your occupation, LIFE matters, not what you're getting paid to do.
Now I bring you to no duh!
And I agree with you..
All human lives matter.
It is childish to think taking another life is justice. Because someone else took a life.
Thats Revenge. And as far as I am concerned homicide.
*cough* Death Penalty *cough*
I don't understand these types of people. Who believe violence is easier than just talking it out.
Any time one person kills another person it's homicide. That's what homicide is. It doesn't matter if it's manslaughter, murder, or self-defense or defense of others, it's still homicide. Homicide doesn't entail a moral judgement on the matter, and can be completely justified in some circumstances (specifically self-defense, or defense of others).
On another side note, the life of doctors matter. probably one of the most noblest of professions. Yet when they make mistakes we hold them accountable, we sue them, other doctors review them, and if they mess up bad enough they lose their job forever.
Yet police, when they make mistakes they're hailed as hero's with no accountability and if they lose their job to incompetence, they just go work someplace else. Worst of all when they make a mistake, great lengths are made to blame the victim.
In the interest of fairness, did the victims get tested for drugs? are their police records being reviewed to see if they were involved in any crimes? Maybe these cops beat their wives and thus deserved it. When these questions about the police victims get asked, we can start to see the injustice going on and why a entire population of americans might feel like second class citizens.
On another side note, the life of doctors matter. probably one of the most noblest of professions. Yet when they make mistakes we hold them accountable, we sue them, other doctors review them, and if they mess up bad enough they lose their job forever.
Yet police, when they make mistakes they're hailed as hero's with no accountability and if they lose their job to incompetence, they just go work someplace else. Worst of all when they make a mistake, great lengths are made to blame the victim.
In the interest of fairness, did the victims get tested for drugs? are their police records being reviewed to see if they were involved in any crimes? Maybe these cops beat their wives and thus deserved it. When these questions about the police victims get asked, we can start to see the injustice going on and why a entire population of americans might feel like second class citizens.
Heres the thing. I understand that.
But it is not right for me to throw it all away and come to a very biased viewpoint. A discussion on anything needs multiple viewpoints not the same. Otherwise it will just become an echo chamber that the debate is essentially becoming. I won't blame the dead. Because the dead doesn't care. But the families do. Any human that is killed is another that beckons to me, someone I could of met. Someone that had a lie like mine. No man is an island, Entire of itself, Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less. As well as if a promontory were. As well as if a manor of thy friend's Or of thine own were: Any man's death diminishes me, Because I am involved in mankind, And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; It tolls for thee.
On another side note, the life of doctors matter. probably one of the most noblest of professions. Yet when they make mistakes we hold them accountable, we sue them, other doctors review them, and if they mess up bad enough they lose their job forever.
Yet police, when they make mistakes they're hailed as hero's with no accountability and if they lose their job to incompetence, they just go work someplace else. Worst of all when they make a mistake, great lengths are made to blame the victim.
By overgeneralizing, you make a false claim. A mistake isn't the same mistake all the time. A mistake a doctor does is only attributed to him and his work, it's a completely different thing when it comes to incidents with police officers. Just take the case with the dead 12 year old as an example. While it was the officer who shot, it was the kid who decided to do not comply and reach for a weapon. This isn't blaming the victim if you have a close look at it, as a "victim" usually has no bearing in the outcome.
Two More Cops Shot After Yesterday's Brutal New York "Execution"
Just a day after the premeditated execution of two NYPD officers in New York by a deranged, suicidal psychopath, two more police officers have been shot in America today. In St.Louis, an off-duty officer was shot multiple times and remains in critical condition while in Tarpon Springs, Florida, 45-year-old officer Charles Kondek - a 17-year-veteran and father of 5 children - was shot and killed early Sunday morning.
As Fox Boston reports,
Florida authorities say a police officer was shot and killed in Tarpon Springs early Sunday.
Florida authorities say a police officer was shot and killed in Tarpon Springs early Sunday.
The Pinellas County Sheriff's Office said in a statement that police have arrested 23-year-old Marco Antonio Parilla Jr. on suspicion of first-degree murder.
The Tarpon Springs Police Department identified the fallen officer as 45-year-old Charles Kondek, a 17-year veteran of the local police department. Originally from New York, Kondek had previously served on the New York City Police Department for more than five years.
An off-duty St. Louis police officer was shot multiple times Friday. It happened near the intersection of Breman Avenue and North 25th Street at approximately 3:55 p.m.
Captain Michael Sack says the victim, a 28-year-old man with four years experience with the department, is in critical stable condition with injuries that are believed to be non-life threatening. Capt. Sack says the officer was shot several times in his lower extremities.
"An off duty officer had been driving down this street in his personal vehicle when he came across an occupant or occupants in another vehicle," described Capt. Sack. "We don't know what transpired, but the occupant or occupants of that other vehicle opened fire at the officer."
The officer was in surgery Friday evening, so the department says it wouldn't be able to interview him until Saturday.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And you know what's going to happen? Both sides are going to blame this on one-another, and nothing will happen to stop this cycle. As usual.
As Ian Fleming wrote, "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." Let's just hope that America's SWATified police forces don't decide that the time for war against enemies domestic has finally come, because as we noted previously in "Across America, Police Departments Are Quietly Preparing For War", they most certainly are ready:
Last I checked most police departments didn't have many machine guns. Some do have submachine guns, but I haven't seen any photos of police going around with actual machine guns.
That's interesting that they include "lights and accessories" in with night vision pieces. Certainly a great way to beef up the number as much as possible. I wonder if they consider ACOGs to be a "night vision piece" too.
And ooh, look at all the empty magazines. Wow, how scary.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not big on the militarization of police either, but that diagram is, quite frankly, foolish.
Machine gun is a pretty meaningless word. As defined by Mirriam-Webster, it just means a weapon which can fire many bullets rapidly. Any semi-automatic weapon would easily qualify by that.
Grey Templar wrote: Machine gun is a pretty meaningless word. As defined by Mirriam-Webster, it just means a weapon which can fire many bullets rapidly. Any semi-automatic weapon would easily qualify by that.
If we narrow it down to fire many rounds rapidly with a single prolonged pull of the trigger, I think that will be a sufficient definition.
Grey Templar wrote: No, thats the definition of an Automatic weapon. Not a Machine gun.
The thing is, the way people use term are often quite different than their actual meaning. People refer to them as machine guns, because that's what they think when you say machine gun. It's like "assault rifle", a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Even if it does not strictly fit those terms (i.e. no fully automaic), some guns are still refereed to as assault rifles. Or factoid, originally it was n assumption or speculation that is reported and repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact, now it's just trivial information.
And, according to wikipedia at least, a machine gun is a fully automatic mounted or portable firearm, usually designed to fire bullets in quick succession from an ammunition belt or magazine, typically at a rate of three to eighteen hundred rounds per minute.
But the Oxford dictionary definition is and it says:
A gun (originally mounted but now also hand-held) which is mechanically loaded and fired, and is capable of continuous fire.
A semi-automatic weapon is capable of continuous fire. You just need to continuously pull the trigger. And any modern fire arm is mechanically loaded, and all weapons are mechanically fired.
But the Oxford dictionary definition is and it says:
A gun (originally mounted but now also hand-held) which is mechanically loaded and fired, and is capable of continuous fire.
A semi-automatic weapon is capable of continuous fire. You just need to continuously pull the trigger. And any modern fire arm is mechanically loaded, and all weapons are mechanically fired.
That's not continuous fire. At this point you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
It'll be interesting to see what happens at the funerals of these officers. I wonder if any protestors will see that things are not right, either, that these men are getting killed and show up at the funeral in a show of healing.
I can hope this could somehow lead to good things.
Also he's been arrested already, and I bet they have enough evidence already to indict him. After just a few minutes even, shouldn't they take a month or so to gather all the evidence before going to the grand jury? It's to soon, maybe the won't have enough evidence to indict him.
Also he's been arrested already, and I bet they have enough evidence already to indict him. After just a few minutes even, shouldn't they take a month or so to gather all the evidence before going to the grand jury? It's to soon, maybe the won't have enough evidence to indict him.
Perhaps, but think of the chance to raise the moral level of the whole current situation. I hope both sides are considering this.
And ooh, look at all the empty magazines. Wow, how scary.
Yea it isn't as if they're going to fill them with bullets, I mean they have other uses, don't they ?
I don't care if they're filled with bullets or not. There is nothing scary about the number of magazines a police department has, especially considering the vast majority of police weapons take magazines. Every single armed officer in the country is going to be using at least two or three magazines at any time. Of course there are going to be a lot of magazines, and the idea that that is supposed to be shocking or scary is ridiculous.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And you know what's going to happen? Both sides are going to blame this on one-another, and nothing will happen to stop this cycle. As usual.
As Ian Fleming wrote, "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action." Let's just hope that America's SWATified police forces don't decide that the time for war against enemies domestic has finally come, because as we noted previously in "Across America, Police Departments Are Quietly Preparing For War", they most certainly are ready:
Oh, yeah, they're totally planning on upping the police brutality, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the military giving them stuff basically for free in large quantities. Must be a halliburton conspiracy to keep up the military industrial complex's profits now that Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down.
Dreadwinter wrote: How about the idea that the Police think they need to use at least two to three magazines at any time on Civilians?
What if they ever have to deal with a violent encounter involving more than one person? Or do you think officers should just be issued one bullet, similar to Barney Fife, to ensure that they never have the proper tools to deal with anything. Would you feel comfortable potentially going into harm's way with a single magazine? If you knew you might have to go into a fight with more than one person, who could easily all be armed, alone, with backup potentially minutes away, would you really want only one magazine?
Dreadwinter wrote: How about the idea that the Police think they need to use at least two to three magazines at any time on Civilians?
What if they ever have to deal with a violent encounter involving more than one person? Or do you think officers should just be issued one bullet, similar to Barney Fife, to ensure that they never have the proper tools to deal with anything. Would you feel comfortable potentially going into harm's way with a single magazine? If you knew you might have to go into a fight with more than one person, who could easily all be armed, alone, with backup potentially minutes away, would you really want only one magazine?
Wow, when did the US become a War Zone? Have you been watching too many action movies? You are treating this like every single time an officer puts on the badge he is going to be getting in to a gun fight with the Triad over millions of dollars worth of drugs. We have Swat teams for a reason, I'm not talking about serving warrants either. These types of incidents to not happen every day.
How often do you think these situations occur? Also, you should stop trying to prove your points with ridiculous scenarios that have never occurred.
the shrouded lord wrote: ebery single one of the people wholiked that post should be shot in the head. If possible I would volunteer to do so.
Whoa there buddy... I believe #BlueLivesMatter too, but the proper response is to point out the ridiculousness of that mindset.
Things like when ever DaBlasio appears, the police physically turns their back to him. That's the right way to do this.
Alright, this you need to explain to me, what did deblasio do? I heard the leader of the police union pretty much blame him for the attack, and I really don't understand it.
Dreadwinter wrote: How about the idea that the Police think they need to use at least two to three magazines at any time on Civilians?
What if they ever have to deal with a violent encounter involving more than one person? Or do you think officers should just be issued one bullet, similar to Barney Fife, to ensure that they never have the proper tools to deal with anything. Would you feel comfortable potentially going into harm's way with a single magazine? If you knew you might have to go into a fight with more than one person, who could easily all be armed, alone, with backup potentially minutes away, would you really want only one magazine?
No, they should not have to deal with violent criminals. They need to rely on an organization and pull back till a US Army/Marine unit arrives on scene to deal with the Insurg...eerrrr combatant. The risk is to high to have LEO go in under equip and under gun regardless of the situation.
Dreadwinter wrote: How about the idea that the Police think they need to use at least two to three magazines at any time on Civilians?
What if they ever have to deal with a violent encounter involving more than one person? Or do you think officers should just be issued one bullet, similar to Barney Fife, to ensure that they never have the proper tools to deal with anything. Would you feel comfortable potentially going into harm's way with a single magazine? If you knew you might have to go into a fight with more than one person, who could easily all be armed, alone, with backup potentially minutes away, would you really want only one magazine?
Wow, when did the US become a War Zone? Have you been watching too many action movies? You are treating this like every single time an officer puts on the badge he is going to be getting in to a gun fight with the Triad over millions of dollars worth of drugs. We have Swat teams for a reason, I'm not talking about serving warrants either. These types of incidents to not happen every day.
How often do you think these situations occur? Also, you should stop trying to prove your points with ridiculous scenarios that have never occurred.
So a police officer having to defend himself against multiple assailants is a ridiculous scenario that has never occurred?
Carrying a service pistol with two or three additional magazines does not make the US a war zone. Most police deaths happen in the course of normal traffic stops.
Just a little aside, but I'm kind of glad my cousin, who was a NY state trooper, retired this year. I really hope no more of this happens, on either side. The rhetoric spouting from both sides is ridiculous, and it looks like this is going to just get worse.
the shrouded lord wrote: ebery single one of the people wholiked that post should be shot in the head. If possible I would volunteer to do so.
Whoa there buddy... I believe #BlueLivesMatter too, but the proper response is to point out the ridiculousness of that mindset.
Things like when ever DaBlasio appears, the police physically turns their back to him. That's the right way to do this.
Alright, this you need to explain to me, what did deblasio do? I heard the leader of the police union pretty much blame him for the attack, and I really don't understand it.
@GovernorPataki Follow Sickened by these barbaric acts, which sadly are a predictable outcome of divisive anti-cop rhetoric of #ericholder & #mayordeblasio. #NYPD 8:17 PM - 20 Dec 2014
Frankly, law enforcement has lost faith and trust in City Hall and the system has veered dangerously toward the type of dysfunction which opens the door to anarchy.
DeBlasio is damaged goods... he needs to be recalled pronto. (if that's possible)
Dreadwinter wrote: How about the idea that the Police think they need to use at least two to three magazines at any time on Civilians?
What if they ever have to deal with a violent encounter involving more than one person? Or do you think officers should just be issued one bullet, similar to Barney Fife, to ensure that they never have the proper tools to deal with anything. Would you feel comfortable potentially going into harm's way with a single magazine? If you knew you might have to go into a fight with more than one person, who could easily all be armed, alone, with backup potentially minutes away, would you really want only one magazine?
Wow, when did the US become a War Zone? Have you been watching too many action movies? You are treating this like every single time an officer puts on the badge he is going to be getting in to a gun fight with the Triad over millions of dollars worth of drugs. We have Swat teams for a reason, I'm not talking about serving warrants either. These types of incidents to not happen every day.
How often do you think these situations occur? Also, you should stop trying to prove your points with ridiculous scenarios that have never occurred.
So a police officer having to defend himself against multiple assailants while knowing how many enemies he is going to be fighting and instead choosing to take only one single weapons magazine is a ridiculous scenario that has never occurred?
Carrying a service pistol with two or three additional magazines does not make the US a war zone. Most police deaths happen in the course of normal traffic stops.
WAIT A SECOND! ILL FIX THIS POST FOR YOU!
There you go, that pretty much set up the situation you presented to me. You were almost tricky enough to get me though, you sly dog you!
Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.
the shrouded lord wrote: ebery single one of the people wholiked that post should be shot in the head. If possible I would volunteer to do so.
Whoa there buddy... I believe #BlueLivesMatter too, but the proper response is to point out the ridiculousness of that mindset.
Things like when ever DaBlasio appears, the police physically turns their back to him. That's the right way to do this.
Alright, this you need to explain to me, what did deblasio do? I heard the leader of the police union pretty much blame him for the attack, and I really don't understand it.
In his speeches, he is painting the cops in New York as racist, trigger happy killers.
the shrouded lord wrote: ebery single one of the people wholiked that post should be shot in the head. If possible I would volunteer to do so.
Whoa there buddy... I believe #BlueLivesMatter too, but the proper response is to point out the ridiculousness of that mindset.
Things like when ever DaBlasio appears, the police physically turns their back to him. That's the right way to do this.
Alright, this you need to explain to me, what did deblasio do? I heard the leader of the police union pretty much blame him for the attack, and I really don't understand it.
@GovernorPataki
Follow
Sickened by these barbaric acts, which sadly are a predictable outcome of divisive anti-cop rhetoric of #ericholder & #mayordeblasio. #NYPD
8:17 PM - 20 Dec 2014
Frankly, law enforcement has lost faith and trust in City Hall and the system has veered dangerously toward the type of dysfunction which opens the door to anarchy.
DeBlasio is damaged goods... he needs to be recalled pronto. (if that's possible)
Makes sense then. NYC politicians are never not nuts it seems.
the shrouded lord wrote: Police should, if anything, have BETTER guns. I would prefer a thousand scum die than a single cop.
Really? That is pretty sick and twisted. I personally would prefer nobody die in this situation and instead we pull our heads out of our butts and stop shooting each other.
1. I'm australian.
2. most people my age here hate the cops.
3. while I would prefer that a criminal die than a police officer, my prior comment may have been...somewhat over the top.
4. no, now that i tihink more, the cops should not have better guns. they are fine the way they are.
Statements mad in the heat of the moment usually are, and that's the main problem here. People have not calmed down long enough to deal with anything
Although I will agree that many people my ages (late teens-early twenties) do seem to have an irractional hate of cops. For no reason other than it's "cool". And possibly because of pot possession.
the shrouded lord wrote: 1. I'm australian.
2. most people my age here hate the cops.
3. while I would prefer that a criminal die than a police officer, my prior comment may have been...somewhat over the top.
4. no, now that i tihink more, the cops should not have better guns. they are fine the way they are.
Fair enough, I clicked reply before looking at your flag. I had it in my head you were one of the UK guys.
I mean, no one wants the bad guy to get away, or the bad guy to kill the good guy. Don't get me wrong. A Dredd style attitude is too far the opposite direction as well though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Although I will agree that many people my ages (late teens-early twenties) do seem to have an irractional hate of cops. For no reason other than it's "cool". And possibly because of pot possession.
Hey, I'm 30 and have an irrational hatred of the cops.
Doesn't mean I'm cheering when one gets shot though.
Do they really, though? I don't know how old you are but most people I know, including the ones around my age (Late teens), who don't go around breaking the law don't hate them. Honestly more hate is directed towards Judges in my experience.
There is a difference between truly hating the cops, such as the man that performed these two terrible murders, and disliking some of the laws that the cops are bound to enforce.
If you cannot make the distinction between the two, you should not be involved in the argument. Do the responsible thing and excuse yourself from it.
Dreadwinter wrote: There is a difference between truly hating the cops, such as the man that performed these two terrible murders, and disliking some of the laws that the cops are bound to enforce.
If you cannot make the distinction between the two, you should not be involved in the argument. Do the responsible thing and excuse yourself from it.
Let's provide an example...
The Garner incident...
Why did NY felt it necessary to empower the police to arrest someone for selling loosies? It's a teeny-tiny black market infraction... why not just ticket the person? ala like parking tickets?
The more regulated an environment gets... the more likely you'd see what transpired to Garner.
Do they really, though? I don't know how old you are but most people I know, including the ones around my age (Late teens), who don't go around breaking the law don't hate them.
Honestly more hate is directed towards Judges in my experience.
oh, which state do you live in?
nearly all teenagers here seem to have a strong disdain for the police, one that irks me.
Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.
It's not the 'normal traffic stops' that they carry multiple magazines for. It's those extraordinary circumstances like this that police need to, and SHOULD be, carrying more than one magazine.
(And if you'll pay attention, you'll notice the criminal RELOAD his firearm.)
Not only that, but you do realize that IF the cars are "equipped with additional firepower" it's often locked in the trunk, yes? That's not exactly handy.
The notion that police officers should only be carrying the magazine that is in their firearm is, quite frankly, an absurd one.
Do they really, though? I don't know how old you are but most people I know, including the ones around my age (Late teens), who don't go around breaking the law don't hate them.
Honestly more hate is directed towards Judges in my experience.
oh, which state do you live in?
nearly all teenagers here seem to have a strong disdain for the police, one that irks me.
QLD, in Brisbane, too.
Though I live in the Northern-most suburbs, so that could play into it.
I'm west and closer to the city itself. ight have something to do with it, pot and cocaine are also more available here which may be another part of it.
Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.
It's not the 'normal traffic stops' that they carry multiple magazines for. It's those extraordinary circumstances like this that police need to, and SHOULD be, carrying more than one magazine.
(And if you'll pay attention, you'll notice the criminal RELOAD his firearm.)
Not only that, but you do realize that IF the cars are "equipped with additional firepower" it's often locked in the trunk, yes? That's not exactly handy.
The notion that police officers should only be carrying the magazine that is in their firearm is, quite frankly, an absurd one.
WOO! WE GOT A VIDEO! Finally, some evidence. Alright, lets look at this bad boy. Oh man, he DID reload his firearm after 7 shots. Then he didn't shoot anymore and ran away!
Wow, you really showed me with that situation. The cop clearly needed more firepower with that one weapon being fired at him and one magazine being used. GIVE THIS MAN A GRENADE!
Dreadwinter wrote: How about the idea that the Police think they need to use at least two to three magazines at any time on Civilians?
What if they ever have to deal with a violent encounter involving more than one person? Or do you think officers should just be issued one bullet, similar to Barney Fife, to ensure that they never have the proper tools to deal with anything. Would you feel comfortable potentially going into harm's way with a single magazine? If you knew you might have to go into a fight with more than one person, who could easily all be armed, alone, with backup potentially minutes away, would you really want only one magazine?
Wow, when did the US become a War Zone? Have you been watching too many action movies? You are treating this like every single time an officer puts on the badge he is going to be getting in to a gun fight with the Triad over millions of dollars worth of drugs. We have Swat teams for a reason, I'm not talking about serving warrants either. These types of incidents to not happen every day.
How often do you think these situations occur? Also, you should stop trying to prove your points with ridiculous scenarios that have never occurred.
So a police officer having to defend himself against multiple assailants while knowing how many enemies he is going to be fighting and instead choosing to take only one single weapons magazine is a ridiculous scenario that has never occurred?
Carrying a service pistol with two or three additional magazines does not make the US a war zone. Most police deaths happen in the course of normal traffic stops.
WAIT A SECOND! ILL FIX THIS POST FOR YOU!
There you go, that pretty much set up the situation you presented to me. You were almost tricky enough to get me though, you sly dog you!
Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.
It's not about knowing how many enemies you'll face. The point is you don't know what you're going to face that day, so it's better to be prepared. That's why most police officers carry two or three extra magazines.
What would your suggestion be, since you seem to be so concerned with police carrying two or three extra mags?
cincydooley wrote: I'm glad you could respond with so much mature sarcasm and hyperbole.
I'll just wrap it up here and say that I agree with all the other people on this thread that think you're wrong.
How do you want me to react when somebody provides me with something that I did not ask for and then tries to say "HA GOTCHA!"
Here is a quote from me! Look, it says exactly what I want.
Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.
There was no fatality. There was not more than 1 magazines worth of bullets fired. In fact, did the cop fire a shot? Do not act high and mighty here when you cant even give me what I want to continue your argument with me.
As for the people that are disagreeing with me, that is pretty much Hordini. Jihadin just made a joke. Did I miss somebody?
cincydooley wrote: I'm glad you could respond with so much mature sarcasm and hyperbole.
I'll just wrap it up here and say that I agree with all the other people on this thread that think you're wrong.
How do you want me to react when somebody provides me with something that I did not ask for and then tries to say "HA GOTCHA!"
Here is a quote from me! Look, it says exactly what I want.
Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.
There was no fatality. There was not more than 1 magazines worth of bullets fired. In fact, did the cop fire a shot? Do not act high and mighty here when you cant even give me what I want to continue your argument with me.
As for the people that are disagreeing with me, that is pretty much Hordini. Jihadin just made a joke. Did I miss somebody?
Here's a link to a video that meets your requirements. WARNING: It is quite graphic. link
You haven't answered my question yet though. How many magazines do you think police should carry? And why do you think two or three extra is too many? I'm pretty sure very few people think that two or three extra magazines is anything extreme. I'm guessing nobody else is engaging with you, not because they agree with you, but because your posts are ridiculous.
Let's all remember, no vocal disagreement does not necessarily mean agreement.
I agree that the militarization of police should stop, but the idea that a policeman having 2-3 clips/magizines/whateverthosethingareclled on his person is somehow bad is a mystery to me. It's not about being prepared for what's going to happen, but might happen.
cincydooley wrote: I'm glad you could respond with so much mature sarcasm and hyperbole.
I'll just wrap it up here and say that I agree with all the other people on this thread that think you're wrong.
How do you want me to react when somebody provides me with something that I did not ask for and then tries to say "HA GOTCHA!"
Here is a quote from me! Look, it says exactly what I want.
Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.
There was no fatality. There was not more than 1 magazines worth of bullets fired. In fact, did the cop fire a shot? Do not act high and mighty here when you cant even give me what I want to continue your argument with me.
As for the people that are disagreeing with me, that is pretty much Hordini. Jihadin just made a joke. Did I miss somebody?
Here's a link to a video that meets your requirements. WARNING: It is quite graphic. link
You haven't answered my question yet though. How many magazines do you think police should carry? And why do you think two or three extra is too many? I'm pretty sure very few people think that two or three extra magazines is anything extreme. I'm guessing nobody else is engaging with you, not because they agree with you, but because your posts are ridiculous.
I dunno, it might be because I am asking for evidence that they cannot provide or they agree with me. I like that you automatically assume that they are against me though. That is how that works, the people being silent are always against you.
As for the video, I am not sure it still meets my requirements. QUICK! BACK TO THE QUOTE!
Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.
I dunno, it might be because I am asking for evidence that they cannot provide or they agree with me. I like that you automatically assume that they are against me though. That is how that works, the people being silent are always against you.
Nope. Just in this instance, with our knowledge of their opinions about these types of matters from other threads.
But please, we'd still love for you to tell us how many magazines a LEO should be allowed to carry, and in which caliber, and whether or not that applies to only full sized weapons, or if it also applies to compact and sub-compact firearms.
I dunno, it might be because I am asking for evidence that they cannot provide or they agree with me. I like that you automatically assume that they are against me though. That is how that works, the people being silent are always against you.
As for the video, I am not sure it still meets my requirements. QUICK! BACK TO THE QUOTE!
Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.
How many shots did that cop fire?!
There are two officers shooting in the video. One was injured in the hand, and the other fires his whole magazine and then reloads. You can hear the reload if you pay attention closely during the lull in the shooting, right after the female officer says "Yes. You cover, I'll call dispatch!"
I dunno, it might be because I am asking for evidence that they cannot provide or they agree with me. I like that you automatically assume that they are against me though. That is how that works, the people being silent are always against you.
As for the video, I am not sure it still meets my requirements. QUICK! BACK TO THE QUOTE!
Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.
How many shots did that cop fire?!
There are two officers shooting in the video. One was injured in the hand, and the other fires his whole magazine and then reloads. You can hear the reload if you pay attention closely during the lull in the shooting, right after the female officer says "Yes. You cover, I'll call dispatch!"
Alright, so two police officers fire 2 1/2 rounds (Not sure how many she shot, I assume she got at least a few off) at a man in the open with AK47 while being pinned down behind their doors. (Again, assuming they did that, police videos really suck at capturing what is happening during an event)
That is still far away from needing 2-3 extra magazines per cop. At most, they needed one extra magazine between the two of them to take down a heavily armed assailant.
I dunno, it might be because I am asking for evidence that they cannot provide or they agree with me. I like that you automatically assume that they are against me though. That is how that works, the people being silent are always against you.
As for the video, I am not sure it still meets my requirements. QUICK! BACK TO THE QUOTE!
Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.
How many shots did that cop fire?!
There are two officers shooting in the video. One was injured in the hand, and the other fires his whole magazine and then reloads. You can hear the reload if you pay attention closely during the lull in the shooting, right after the female officer says "Yes. You cover, I'll call dispatch!"
Alright, so two police officers fire 2 1/2 rounds (Not sure how many she shot, I assume she got at least a few off) at a man in the open with AK47 while being pinned down behind their doors. (Again, assuming they did that, police videos really suck at capturing what is happening during an event)
That is still far away from needing 2-3 extra magazines per cop. At most, they needed one extra magazine between the two of them to take down a heavily armed assailant.
By 2 and 1/2 rounds do you mean 2 and 1/2 magazines? So, what if it had only been one police officer in the car (which is often the case)? Then you can start to see how 2 or 3 extra mags can be critical. Especially considering it takes most police officers quite a few shots to hit anything.
I dunno, it might be because I am asking for evidence that they cannot provide or they agree with me. I like that you automatically assume that they are against me though. That is how that works, the people being silent are always against you.
As for the video, I am not sure it still meets my requirements. QUICK! BACK TO THE QUOTE!
Also, can you give me some links to normal traffic stop fatalities for police where they have needed to fire more than 1 magazines worth of bullets? Also, its not like most cop cars are not equipped with additional firepower in case of such events. Like shotguns or rifles or things like that. They never have those handy. Not ever.
How many shots did that cop fire?!
There are two officers shooting in the video. One was injured in the hand, and the other fires his whole magazine and then reloads. You can hear the reload if you pay attention closely during the lull in the shooting, right after the female officer says "Yes. You cover, I'll call dispatch!"
Alright, so two police officers fire 2 1/2 rounds (Not sure how many she shot, I assume she got at least a few off) at a man in the open with AK47 while being pinned down behind their doors. (Again, assuming they did that, police videos really suck at capturing what is happening during an event)
That is still far away from needing 2-3 extra magazines per cop. At most, they needed one extra magazine between the two of them to take down a heavily armed assailant.
By 2 and 1/2 rounds do you mean 2 and 1/2 magazines? So, what if it had only been one police officer in the car (which is often the case)? Then you can start to see how 2 or 3 extra mags can be critical. Especially considering it takes most police officers quite a few shots to hit anything.
I did and no I still can not. I can see how 1 extra mag worked in this situation and he was not forced to use other weapons such as those I previously mentioned.
Two cops, one was wounded fairly early and probably did not get more than half a magazine off. The other got one full magazine off and then reloaded, finishing the man fairly quickly afterwards.
There has been discussion that there would be two different types of police. Tactical and Patrol.Tactical use weaponry. Patrol are well. Peacekeepers. They don't play war.
They report, deal with domestics. They are not sent in as a swat unit. tactical are trained to be semi-military, but only at high risk operations.
I did and no I still can not. I can see how 1 extra mag worked in this situation and he was not forced to use other weapons such as those I previously mentioned.
Two cops, one was wounded fairly early and probably did not get more than half a magazine off. The other got one full magazine off and then reloaded, finishing the man fairly quickly afterwards.
So you really, honestly, can't see the need for an officer to carry two or three extra pistol magazines? Something that officers have been doing basically since the introduction of semi-automatic pistols to police forces? You think they should be prepared for the best case scenario, with the bare minimum of equipment, rather than potential worst case scenarios that actually do happen from time to time?
What is wrong with an officer carrying two or three extra magazines? What is the downside? What problem does it cause?
Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.
Police officers in the US settle domestic disputes without using their firearms every single day. That doesn't mean that regular officers don't need to carry a firearm.
Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.
Police officers in the US settle domestic disputes without using their firearms every single day. That doesn't mean that regular officers don't need to carry a firearm.
I didn't say that. But in many areas the officers resort to them too quickly.
You can have a gun, you just can't have heavy weaponry.
Most domestic responses are usually good, but its the problem throughout the whole system with inadequately trained officers. There is now little difference between an officer and a militamen.
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators. The idea is kind of simple. Some times you need a hammer some times you need a warm blanket.
Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.
Police officers in the US settle domestic disputes without using their firearms every single day. That doesn't mean that regular officers don't need to carry a firearm.
I didn't say that. But in many areas the officers resort to them too quickly.
You can have a gun, you just can't have heavy weaponry.
Most domestic responses are usually good, but its the problem throughout the whole system with inadequately trained officers. There is now little difference between an officer and a militamen.
There are a lot of valid reasons for police to carry shotguns or patrol rifles (i.e., AR-15s) in their cars. And I'm getting the impression that you use the term militiaman like it's a bad thing (correct me if I'm wrong). And the police (more specifically, the sheriff's department in most counties) basically are the core of the militia. In the event of a disaster or emergency, they are the ones who are going to be equipped to respond first.
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.
Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.
Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.
What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.
Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.
What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?
Our M4's have three selection
Safe
Semi
Burst (3 round)
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.
Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.
Depends on what your calling military weaponry I guess, but I think that police should be the police and the army should be the army. You get problems when you mix them.
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
Yes because you need an assault rifle to settle a domestic dispute.
You don't need a gun to settle a dispute its called talking and being a good and lawful citizen.
Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.
I am given to understand through a brother in law, who was in law enforcement for about 18 years, that domestic disputes can be some of the worst and most dangerous calls to go in on.
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.
Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.
What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?
Nope.
I consider anything that a normal soldier has as standard issue. Should not be carried by an officer. AR-15 is a civilian rifle that is fine. As long as your not an idiot.
A 12-Gauge shotgun is not military issue that is civilain.
A Striker or better known as Armsel Striker. Is military grade and its buckshot could rip you apart.
yeah I highly doubt that a Police officer needs access to military vechiles, armored vechiles, mine trucks *
*unless specified in certain areas. IE a Police force needs to requisition temporary, but you don't need a bloody tank in your arsenal.....
Oh looky here.
I don't support any group that uses violence to prove a point.
The entire problem that if you don't train officers right they aren't going to know how to use the weaponry.
Most Soldiers know what they are doing when they are pulling the trigger.
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
Yes because you need an assault rifle to settle a domestic dispute.
You don't need a gun to settle a dispute its called talking and being a good and lawful citizen.
Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.
I am given to understand through a brother in law, who was in law enforcement for about 18 years, that domestic disputes can be some of the worst and most dangerous calls to go in on.
So you're saying that you need access to military grade weaponry, an armored vehicle, grenades, tear gas, full body armor, and an entire swat team to settle a domestic dispute.
Unless your expecting a warzone I don't think you need those weapons or an entire swat team to deal with it.
If crime is starting to decrease shouldn't the amount of weaponry you currently own being going down with that slope. Not I don't know... Up?
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.
Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.
What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?
Nope.
I consider anything that a normal soldier has as standard issue. Should not be carried by an officer. AR-15 is a civilian rifle that is fine. As long as your not an idiot.
A 12-Gauge shotgun is not military issue that is civilain.
The military does use 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Just FYI. My point is there is some overlap between what the military uses and what civilians are able to own and use, particularly when it comes to small arms.
The shotgun in that picture Jihadin posted can be bought by any civilian. There isn't anything special that makes it "military grade."
WOO! WE GOT A VIDEO! Finally, some evidence. Alright, lets look at this bad boy. Oh man, he DID reload his firearm after 7 shots. Then he didn't shoot anymore and ran away!
Wow, you really showed me with that situation. The cop clearly needed more firepower with that one weapon being fired at him and one magazine being used. GIVE THIS MAN A GRENADE!
The police are there to respond when things go wrong. And things do go wrong. Most of the time, they only go wrong a little bit. The average shots fired in the past few decades by NYPD during shooting incidents was 3-4 rounds, depending on the decade. But every once and a while, things go really, really wrong, and often there's no time to assemble a SWAT team to get into place, and it's the random patrol officer who has to deal with the situation. The vast majority of cops go their whole careers without firing their sidearm outside the range, but they still carry a sidearm (and a rifle or shotgun in their patrol car) because it's their responsibility and job to put themselves in harm's way when need be, and they can't do that while unarmed. From any rational, objective standpoint, if police are going to carry firearms there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have a second magazine.
To quote Theodore Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
You quite clearly don't know what you're talking about. Any input you can provide on whether or not the police are over or under equipped is going to be twisted by your lack of knowledge on the subject and what appears to be a rather large chip on your shoulder. Sure, it really doesn't matter if internet expert #538,544 decides he knows better than everyone else, but still, you're being as unreasonable as the suggestion to shoot anyone who doesn't like police.
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.
Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.
What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?
Nope.
I consider anything that a normal soldier has as standard issue. Should not be carried by an officer. AR-15 is a civilian rifle that is fine. As long as your not an idiot.
A 12-Gauge shotgun is not military issue that is civilain.
The military does use 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Just FYI. My point is there is some overlap between what the military uses and what civilians are able to own and use, particularly when it comes to small arms.
The shotgun in that picture Jihadin posted can be bought by any civilian. There isn't anything special that makes it "military grade."
I know. I didn't argue against that. I am arguing for them using guns that can tear people apart ALA The Striker which is used by police currently.
Military grade meaning it is meant for killing not enforcement.
The point of the gun on an officer is to deter. Not to use in case of a gunfight. Its a last resort. Not the only thing you can use. You have a night stick and a glock. And a shotgun in your car. There are some cases where you do need more, but thats why you have the national guard, anti-terrorist squads, a hit squad, a wet team for gods sakes. The polices job is simply to keep the peace and to be an example of how to follow the law, but not by any means necessary.
Officers are brought up with the thinking that an officer has to have a gunfight once in their life. We are taught as a society that police have them all the time. Do they? No because the crime rates are incredibly going down. Yet officers have access to military grade hardware, and keep getting this military grade hardware for no other reason.
A patrol officer should not be equipped with an ar-15 at all times. He is not going to be in firefights. A regular cop does not need to have a bullet proof vest period. It is only fear mongering to think so. In some areas. They do.
WOO! WE GOT A VIDEO! Finally, some evidence. Alright, lets look at this bad boy. Oh man, he DID reload his firearm after 7 shots. Then he didn't shoot anymore and ran away!
Wow, you really showed me with that situation. The cop clearly needed more firepower with that one weapon being fired at him and one magazine being used. GIVE THIS MAN A GRENADE!
The police are there to respond when things go wrong. And things do go wrong. Most of the time, they only go wrong a little bit. The average shots fired in the past few decades by NYPD during shooting incidents was 3-4 rounds, depending on the decade. But every once and a while, things go really, really wrong, and often there's no time to assemble a SWAT team to get into place, and it's the random patrol officer who has to deal with the situation. The vast majority of cops go their whole careers without firing their sidearm outside the range, but they still carry a sidearm (and a rifle or shotgun in their patrol car) because it's their responsibility and job to put themselves in harm's way when need be, and they can't do that while unarmed. From any rational, objective standpoint, if police are going to carry firearms there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have a second magazine.
To quote Theodore Roosevelt: "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
You quite clearly don't know what you're talking about. Any input you can provide on whether or not the police are over or under equipped is going to be twisted by your lack of knowledge on the subject and what appears to be a rather large chip on your shoulder. Sure, it really doesn't matter if internet expert #538,544 decides he knows better than everyone else, but still, you're being as unreasonable as the suggestion to shoot anyone who doesn't like police.
I still doubt you need a bloody assualt rifle if an AR-15 or a shotgun can do the job just as well. Police have no need for a high powered rifle. They only need civilain gear. Not military grade.
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.
Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.
What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?
Nope.
I consider anything that a normal soldier has as standard issue. Should not be carried by an officer. AR-15 is a civilian rifle that is fine. As long as your not an idiot.
A 12-Gauge shotgun is not military issue that is civilain.
The military does use 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Just FYI. My point is there is some overlap between what the military uses and what civilians are able to own and use, particularly when it comes to small arms.
The shotgun in that picture Jihadin posted can be bought by any civilian. There isn't anything special that makes it "military grade."
Benelli Tactical is a division of Beretta's Law Enforcement (LE) division. Benelli Tactical manages the sales of all Benelli tactical shotguns to law enforcement, government, and military entities. The M4 shotgun is sold in three configurations: M4 Entry with a 14 in barrel; M4 with an 18.5 in barrel; and M1014, which is an M4 with the "M1014" nomenclature on it for military usage only. M4 shotguns sold through Benelli tactical are available with the collapsible buttstock.
Benelli Tactical and Beretta LE have maintained the belief that the collapsible buttstock, while no longer illegal in the United States, is still only to be made available to law enforcement and government agencies. Benelli Tactical/Beretta LE will not sell these stocks to private individuals. Benelli Tactical does sell the stock piece for retrofitting the pistol grip stock for $150. The stock must be direct-shipped from Italy, however it and other aftermarket stocks are commercially available and not restricted by the United States.
Suggested retail price of the civilian version is around $1,899.[3] An NFA stamp is required to purchase or own the 14.5" barreled model only since this model is considered to be a Short Barreled Shotgun or SBS. Standard magazine capacity of the civilian version is 5+1, although it is possible to fit 6+1 and two shot extension tubes are sold by Benelli as well as some other companies. Some LE models have become available to private individuals on the secondary market.
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
We do have multiple types of police. I mean you have officers and swat for example. On top of that, some precincts divide there officers into groups of enforcers and de-escalators.
Basically. Officers should not have access to military grade weaponry.
What do you consider military grade weaponry? The military uses both 9mm pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. Are those military grade weapons? The military doesn't use AR-15s, but some police do. Is that a military grade weapon?
Nope.
I consider anything that a normal soldier has as standard issue. Should not be carried by an officer. AR-15 is a civilian rifle that is fine. As long as your not an idiot.
A 12-Gauge shotgun is not military issue that is civilain.
A Striker or better known as Armsel Striker. Is military grade and its buckshot could rip you apart.
yeah I highly doubt that a Police officer needs access to military vechiles, armored vechiles, mine trucks *
*unless specified in certain areas. IE a Police force needs to requisition temporary, but you don't need a bloody tank in your arsenal.....
Since when have any police forces ever used a tank? And if you try and call an MRAP a tank... just, don't.
Believe it or not, rare as they are, police do have to respond to violent situations. There are situations like this (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/nyregion/2-firefighters-killed-in-western-new-york.html?pagewanted=all) where someone is in a position where they can kill people who drive up in just anything. How are the police supposed to respond to a situation like that? If you've got an MRAP, you can get your SWAT team in place to take out the shooter in a much safer manner than swarming them with patrol cars and hoping the bad guy is a poor shot. There are absolutely unquestionably legitimate uses for most of the military equipment police have acquired. If you're going to criticize police militarization, then criticize cases in which this equipment was used improperly, not that the police have them. It's a tool that is very useful in certain, dangerous situations, and the police are getting the military surplus for incredibly cheap, so why wouldn't they have a SWAT vehicle for use in case something bad happens? As long as they use it appropriately.
Most Soldiers know what they are doing when they are pulling the trigger.
Guess what. Most cops Don't.
I'm sure you're basing this on your extensive personal experience training soldiers and officers as a civilian marksmanship instructor for various agencies, right?
Interesting statistic I dug up while looking up a few things on the subject. Did you know that of all the shots fired by the NYPD, 34% struck their target? That's actually pretty good shooting, far be it from poorly trained cops. As I mentioned above, the average number of shots fired was 3-4 rounds per shooting incident for the NYPD. That works out to the officer sees some threat, draws their firearm, fires 3-4 shots, hits the target, and the target goes down. Sure, Navy SEALs would probably do better, but I don't see those numbers backing up the idea that police can't shoot. Note that this is independent of whether or not these shootings were justified.
Granted, that's just the NYPD, but you should do a little more research before just blindly throwing out the claim that police are all incompetent. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to spend five minutes on google and find a counter-example, at the very least.
I still doubt you need a bloody assualt rifle if an AR-15 or a shotgun can do the job just as well. Police have no need for a high powered rifle. They only need civilain gear. Not military grade.
The difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 is primarily that the M-16 has a 3-round burst option that basically no one uses. Good shooters use rapid, aimed, semi-automatic fire instead. So, in a way, you're right, there is no reason for the police to use M-16's. Thing is, you only think that because you have this arbitrary idea in your head that anything labeled "military" should only be used by the military, regardless of actual utility.
One of the links I posted above was the North Hollywood Shootout, in which heavily armed bank robbers got into a massive firefight with local police. The police were armed with handguns and shotguns, and weren't able to effectively engage the bank robbers because they were so outgunned and the bank robbers were wearing body armor the handguns couldn't reliably penetrate. Several officers literally drove to a local gun store, borrowed a few AR-15's off the shelves, and used those. It took SWAT 18 minutes to arrive on scene, which is a fast response but a very long time for the officers waiting for backup.
The idea that the police have no purpose using anything military related is pretty absurd. If you say there should be careful oversight of their use of that equipment, then absolutely, I can agree with you. But absolutely nothing military related at all? You're being silly.
I'm sure you're basing this on your extensive personal experience training soldiers and officers as a civilian marksmanship instructor for various agencies, right?
Interesting statistic I dug up while looking up a few things on the subject. Did you know that of all the shots fired by the NYPD, 34% struck their target? That's actually pretty good shooting, far be it from poorly trained cops. As I mentioned above, the average number of shots fired was 3-4 rounds per shooting incident for the NYPD. That works out to the officer sees some threat, draws their firearm, fires 3-4 shots, hits the target, and the target goes down. Sure, Navy SEALs would probably do better, but I don't see those numbers backing up the idea that police can't shoot. Note that this is independent of whether or not these shootings were justified.
Granted, that's just the NYPD, but you should do a little more research before just blindly throwing out the claim that police are all incompetent. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to spend five minutes on google and find a counter-example, at the very least.
Thats not what I was saying I was saying that a soldier is trained to know if they pull a trigger they are going to kiill someone. Soldiers are trained to kill people.
OFFICERS ARE NOT TRAINED TO KILL PEOPLE.
Got it? Officers are not soldiers. They are peacekeepers. They are never meant to be soldiers. They shouldn't have to pull the trigger, in fact most cases they don't have to pull the trigger.
Since when have any police forces ever used a tank? And if you try and call an MRAP a tank... just, don't.
Believe it or not, rare as they are, police do have to respond to violent situations. There are situations like this (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/nyregion/2-firefighters-killed-in-western-new-york.html?pagewanted=all) where someone is in a position where they can kill people who drive up in just anything. How are the police supposed to respond to a situation like that? If you've got an MRAP, you can get your SWAT team in place to take out the shooter in a much safer manner than swarming them with patrol cars and hoping the bad guy is a poor shot. There are absolutely unquestionably legitimate uses for most of the military equipment police have acquired. If you're going to criticize police militarization, then criticize cases in which this equipment was used improperly, not that the police have them. It's a tool that is very useful in certain, dangerous situations, and the police are getting the military surplus for incredibly cheap, so why wouldn't they have a SWAT vehicle for use in case something bad happens? As long as they use it appropriately.
Your the one putting words in my mouth
Watch the video I dare you. Look to the part where they actually get to the part where a small town requisitioned a armored jeep to protect a pumpkin celebration. Or where they requisitioned a ww2 tank to protect a town in colorado. Because you know those places definitely needed it. NY and big cities need armored vehicles but they don't need tanks. If there is a problem way above the paygrade of cops, call the FBI task forces. THey will fly out pretty quickly.
In fact I remember reading that the reason the SWAT did not go into certain situations was because they were afraid of the hostages getting hurt. Sometimes the negotatior makes a bad call.
Infact most hostile situations like you are talking about are extremely rare. Infact they only happen if the team taking on the problem are professionals. Guess what happens when a professional hit squad is sent into a building you get rid of the police and replace them with special task forces AKA Anti-Terrorist Groups. The police are not meant to take on high risk operations. They are not John Mcclaine.
Thats not what I was saying I was saying that a soldier is trained to know if they pull a trigger they are going to kiill someone. Soldiers are trained to kill people.
OFFICERS ARE NOT TRAINED TO KILL PEOPLE.
Got it? Officers are not soldiers. They are peacekeepers. They are never meant to be soldiers. They shouldn't have to pull the trigger, in fact most cases they don't have to pull the trigger.
If an officer pulls a trigger they know that they are going to kill someone. And yes, officers are trained to kill people. That's not the only thing they are trained for, but it is one thing.
I still doubt you need a bloody assualt rifle if an AR-15 or a shotgun can do the job just as well. Police have no need for a high powered rifle. They only need civilain gear. Not military grade.
The difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 is primarily that the M-16 has a 3-round burst option that basically no one uses. Good shooters use rapid, aimed, semi-automatic fire instead. So, in a way, you're right, there is no reason for the police to use M-16's. Thing is, you only think that because you have this arbitrary idea in your head that anything labeled "military" should only be used by the military, regardless of actual utility.
One of the links I posted above was the North Hollywood Shootout, in which heavily armed bank robbers got into a massive firefight with local police. The police were armed with handguns and shotguns, and weren't able to effectively engage the bank robbers because they were so outgunned and the bank robbers were wearing body armor the handguns couldn't reliably penetrate. Several officers literally drove to a local gun store, borrowed a few AR-15's off the shelves, and used those. It took SWAT 18 minutes to arrive on scene, which is a fast response but a very long time for the officers waiting for backup.
The idea that the police have no purpose using anything military related is pretty absurd. If you say there should be careful oversight of their use of that equipment, then absolutely, I can agree with you. But absolutely nothing military related at all? You're being silly.
Yeah thats one case. Again small and rarely happens.
Plus that is hollywood an area where the Crips and bloods battle it out for quite often. No duh you would need AR-15s for the police.
Which I have stated many times. I am fine with.
Some of you are very selective when you are debating.
I still doubt you need a bloody assualt rifle if an AR-15 or a shotgun can do the job just as well. Police have no need for a high powered rifle. They only need civilain gear. Not military grade.
The difference between an AR-15 and an M-16 is primarily that the M-16 has a 3-round burst option that basically no one uses. Good shooters use rapid, aimed, semi-automatic fire instead. So, in a way, you're right, there is no reason for the police to use M-16's. Thing is, you only think that because you have this arbitrary idea in your head that anything labeled "military" should only be used by the military, regardless of actual utility.
One of the links I posted above was the North Hollywood Shootout, in which heavily armed bank robbers got into a massive firefight with local police. The police were armed with handguns and shotguns, and weren't able to effectively engage the bank robbers because they were so outgunned and the bank robbers were wearing body armor the handguns couldn't reliably penetrate. Several officers literally drove to a local gun store, borrowed a few AR-15's off the shelves, and used those. It took SWAT 18 minutes to arrive on scene, which is a fast response but a very long time for the officers waiting for backup.
The idea that the police have no purpose using anything military related is pretty absurd. If you say there should be careful oversight of their use of that equipment, then absolutely, I can agree with you. But absolutely nothing military related at all? You're being silly.
Yeah thats one case. Again small and rarely happens.
Plus that is hollywood an area where the Crips and bloods battle it out for quite often. No duh you would need AR-15s for the police.
Which I have stated many times. I am fine with.
Some of you are very selective when you are debating.
That situation can happen anywhere. Do you think this stuff is only confined to Hollywood? What if that kid hadn't surrendered in Aurora? What if some nut in rural Texas gets into a long range shoot off with police where their handguns and shotguns only have an effective range of 50 or so meters?
The problem is you never know when you may NEED it, so having the option there is better then not.
You just need to get over the whole "black rifle is scary because it is black" thing. Seriously.
What do you think their getting trained to do every time they are getting range time.
You do not train to injure people when you pull that trigger.
Funny thats what I was taught.
Don't aim for the center of mass, if you do you kill them.
Hit them where there hands are disarm them. Can't pull a trigger if you have no fingers.
I'm curious. Who taught you that? Because unless you were training to be some kind of trick shooter, if that was how you were trained, your training was horrible.
djones520 wrote: Doubt all you want. They are. When you are using that weapon, there is only one thing you are using it for.
That is the simple fact of the matter. Whatever you "doubt", won't change it at all.
I know that there are many things I would usually agree with you on. But this I don't. In australia guns are not used by the police except in rare cases. (AKA the sitation in sydney, which in fact was then taken over by TAG.
Just because you think Police officers should play soldier does not mean all of them should. In fact some do need it. But not every single one of them. Its called false generalizing if you think it is bad everywhere, its going to be bad everywhere in your mind.
But it doesn't make that true. You are setting yourself up to be completely in undeniable fear that something bad like that might happen. When it hasn't. Guess what happens to most mass murderers. They get shot. By who? An officer or sometimes a sniper from a SWAT team.
If the police have need of a talented sniper. Then you can get loaned one. Infact that is what happens in many districts. When ever a situation comes up like a robbery by professionals you bet there will be an alert sent to a swat team from another township or county. The police aren't bloody clueless. This isn't some vast empire here. It would take 18 minutes and that is fine, just hold them. Your job is to stop them from hurting innocent people. Not to play as soldier.
Meh Forget sending in LEO's into situations Everyone is a law abiding citizen
Some of you are completely hopeless :/
How many times have I mentioned gangs now? Three four times?
How many times Have mentioned gang wars... once. Oh yeah I did mention it You know because I think every human being is completely perfect.
Yeah right. And I am a delta force sniper on loan to israeli commando teams -.- (Hint I am a game designer, SO no I am not)
I'm curious. Who taught you that? Because unless you were training to be some kind of trick shooter, if that was how you were trained, your training was horrible.
I was not trained to kill people. Only to defend myself.
Infact the main thing I was told was to drop a gun whenever possible and run the hell away from a gunfight. You know because me someone who is a completely untrained civilain would be completely useful compared to a well trained police officer.
I was taught by an officer. But the officer taught me never to kill someone. Because you know why? I am a fething civilain. I won't ever get into a gun fight. There is no need for me to learn how to kill people. But that doesn't mean I don't know how to defend myself. And incapacitate someone.
Sometimes to protect others, you have to kill the person who is trying to hurt or kill them. In those situations, police officers have to be equipped to do that.
And I truly hope you never have to experience a gunfight.
Hordini wrote: Sometimes to protect others, you have to kill the person who is trying to hurt or kill them. In those situations, police officers have to be equipped to do that.
I rather die than take another life.
Sorry but Even if I was forced to take someones life I rather take that barrel and stick it down my own throat.
Otherwise it makes me no different than the person that is trying to kill that person I love.
I am a kantian. I can't kill. Even If I wanted to. Its not right to take a life. Yes it may seem backwards or stupid. But the goal is never to kill. Even if it is to defend someone.
Otherwise what are we but taking an eye for an eye. Thats not justice thats pure and outright revenge. That is not justifiable in the slightest.
To some it might, but it isn't that is such an old way of thinking.
It is quite sad people still think that way. The goal should be to capture and release. To recooperate those criminals not to shoot them and not give them the chance.
I've been told many things in my life one being the classic if someone pulls out a knife on you, they forfeit their right to live. Which I find kind of stupid and immoral. Yes you may see it is right to defend yourself. But Don't I have the right to just. Run? I don't know my wallet doesn't seem that important to me. ITs material what the hell do I care.
cincydooley wrote: "Deal with domestics" eh? Because those are never heated and certainly never become violent.
Having two types of police officers like that is about as absurd as saying an LEO can't carry multiple magazines.
Yes because you need an assault rifle to settle a domestic dispute.
You don't need a gun to settle a dispute its called talking and being a good and lawful citizen.
Trust me when I say if people in other countries are able to do it. So can an American Police officer. Right now officers are far too trigger happy.
I am given to understand through a brother in law, who was in law enforcement for about 18 years, that domestic disputes can be some of the worst and most dangerous calls to go in on.
So you're saying that you need access to military grade weaponry, an armored vehicle, grenades, tear gas, full body armor, and an entire swat team to settle a domestic dispute.
Unless your expecting a warzone I don't think you need those weapons or an entire swat team to deal with it.
If crime is starting to decrease shouldn't the amount of weaponry you currently own being going down with that slope. Not I don't know... Up?
.
I am not saying that at all. What I am doing is disagreeing with your assertion that a domestic dispute is a walk in the park when 14% of police fatalities happen on these calls.
Hordini wrote: Sometimes to protect others, you have to kill the person who is trying to hurt or kill them. In those situations, police officers have to be equipped to do that.
I rather die than take another life.
Sorry but Even if I was forced to take someones life I rather take that barrel and stick it down my own throat.
If that's how you feel, that's fine for you. Personally, I don't think I could live with myself if I knew I could have defended the life of one of my loved ones, or an innocent person, and chose not to. Even if that meant I would have to kill an attacker to do it.
I am not saying that at all. What I am doing is disagreeing with your assertion that a domestic dispute is a walk in the park when 14% of police fatalities happen on these calls.
I did? Whoops. WEll most domestic situations here are quite tame in comparision apart from that one time during 1930s till the 1980s where the mob used my home town as a burial site for hits.
If that's how you feel, that's fine for you. Personally, I don't think I could live with myself if I knew I could have defended the life of one of my loved ones, or an innocent person, and chose not to. Even if that meant I would have to kill an attacker to do it.
See that would happen if they killed my loved one. I would rather die, than have them die because of me. I would comply but say instead take me. Even if they don't barter all I am doing is running that precious time away. I won't ever get into a situation like that *knocks on wood*
But please, we'd still love for you to tell us how many magazines a LEO should be allowed to carry, and in which caliber, and whether or not that applies to only full sized weapons, or if it also applies to compact and sub-compact firearms.
I like how you are implying that by questioning LEO's carrying around 2-3 extra clips I am suddenly arguing the whole aspect of their use of firearms. I am also suddenly calling for all LEOs to drop their 2nd and 3rd magazine. I have not once talked about the caliber of a bullet or anything else you have implied. You are implying that I am saying a lot and all I am doing is asking you to provide evidence for your arguments. I said none of these things. I really expected much better from you.
DarkLink wrote: From any rational, objective standpoint, if police are going to carry firearms there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have a second magazine.
See, I agree with you. There is absolutely no reason an LEO should not have a second magazine on them, the video that Hordini posted has shown a very rare and violent case where a second magazine was very beneficial and clearly helped put the suspect down. Now in that same video, the LEOs are pinned down at their vehicle where they should have additional firepower(shotgun/rifle) to pull from. Why does that LEO need one to two more magazines when he has all of that at his disposal?
DarkLink wrote: You quite clearly don't know what you're talking about. Any input you can provide on whether or not the police are over or under equipped is going to be twisted by your lack of knowledge on the subject and what appears to be a rather large chip on your shoulder. Sure, it really doesn't matter if internet expert #538,544 decides he knows better than everyone else, but still, you're being as unreasonable as the suggestion to shoot anyone who doesn't like police.
How am I the unreasonable one here? I have asked questions and gotten ridiculous responses. I have responded to those ridiculous responses ridiculously. Suddenly this is all my fault.
Can't really be revenge if the only link they have is that they're black. I could understand if the guy was family or a friend to Mike Brown/Garner. Just violence for the sake of being angry about it.
Either way, world's better off without the shooter. A shame though that he felt the need to express himself in that way and end his own life over it.
Hordini wrote: Sometimes to protect others, you have to kill the person who is trying to hurt or kill them. In those situations, police officers have to be equipped to do that.
I rather die than take another life.
Sorry but Even if I was forced to take someones life I rather take that barrel and stick it down my own throat.
Otherwise it makes me no different than the person that is trying to kill that person I love.
I am a kantian. I can't kill. Even If I wanted to. Its not right to take a life. Yes it may seem backwards or stupid. But the goal is never to kill. Even if it is to defend someone.
Otherwise what are we but taking an eye for an eye. Thats not justice thats pure and outright revenge. That is not justifiable in the slightest.
To some it might, but it isn't that is such an old way of thinking.
It is quite sad people still think that way. The goal should be to capture and release. To recooperate those criminals not to shoot them and not give them the chance.
I've been told many things in my life one being the classic if someone pulls out a knife on you, they forfeit their right to live. Which I find kind of stupid and immoral. Yes you may see it is right to defend yourself. But Don't I have the right to just. Run? I don't know my wallet doesn't seem that important to me. ITs material what the hell do I care.
I totally agree, killing someone takes a huge toll on your soul as seen by the cops & soldiers that either quit or commit suicide after killing someone.
there's no cash in my wallet ever, who uses cash anymore in a digital age? I would turn it over in a second, but I would ask "For the love of god, let me keep my drivers license, you can have my wallet, but don't make me to sit through DMV hell for hours."
It's amazing how people think the insured stuff in their house or pockets is worth more than a human life.
Having a gun in the house is more likely to be used on your family than against any intruders.
sirlynchmob wrote: It's amazing how people think the insured stuff in their house or pockets is worth more than a human life.
Of course the other side of that coin is, if the guy wanting my possessions decides they are not worth his life, perhaps he then does not try to take them by force.
There are too many cases where the crap bag taking another person's property by force hurts, or worse kills, the victim even when the victim is compliant. Frankly my life and well being are a LOT more valuable to me than that of some crap bag who threatens force to relieve me of my property. The lives and well being of wife and kids has even higher value.
Asherian Command wrote: A regular cop does not need to have a bullet proof vest period. It is only fear mongering to think so. In some areas. They do.
My uncle was an NYPD officer who was slain in the line of duty, and I wish that he had been wearing a vest.
The ideas that you have posted in this thread, such as shooting a gun out of the hands of a perpetrator, and that police do not need kevlar vests.. I can honestly say it's some of the most worthless, ill-informed drivel I've read on these forums.
I like how you are implying that by questioning LEO's carrying around 2-3 extra clips I am suddenly arguing the whole aspect of their use of firearms. I am also suddenly calling for all LEOs to drop their 2nd and 3rd magazine. I have not once talked about the caliber of a bullet or anything else you have implied. You are implying that I am saying a lot and all I am doing is asking you to provide evidence for your arguments. I said none of these things. I really expected much better from you.
You understand I used all those other qualifiers because it greatly impacts the magazine size, correct?
I'm implying that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
@Asherian Command: That's probably the most naive thing I've ever read. Some people go out of their way to harm police officers because they wear the uniform. For instance, a man here in Manchester, UK led police officers into a trap after making a crank call reporting a burglary. He then attacked them with a Glock and grenades because "police were hounding his family"
A regular cop does not need to have a bullet proof vest period. It is only fear mongering to think so.
This may be the most ridiculous thing you've posted.
You are very selective.
Hell Pot meet kettle.
Please include the whole quote. Thank you.
My uncle was an NYPD officer who was slain in the line of duty, and I wish that he had been wearing a vest.
The ideas that you have posted in this thread, such as shooting a gun out of the hands of a perpetrator, and that police do not need kevlar vests.. I can honestly say it's some of the most worthless, ill-informed drivel I've read on these forums.
Hello have you been reading my posts? no?
Let me highlight a very important part that I have written okay ready for it?
A regular cop does not need to have a bullet proof vest period. It is only fear mongering to think so. In some areas. They do.
Wow! I actually said that I just blew some peoples minds. Mates I am not jagged so stop telling me I am jagged on this event. I am saying most police do not need bullet proof vests. IE Sururban towns and villages do not need heavy weaponry or bullet proof vests. In cities they do. Or in high risk areas. Right now every cop has a bullet proof vest now. Its call escalation. Once you tart wearing bullet proof vests gangs start buying armor piercing rounds.. And let me tell you Gangs can get weapons and ammunition pretty easily from the black market.
The more powerful weapons you get for the police the more motivated gangs will be to get better weaponry. And then it starts a bloody arms race.
That's probably the most naive thing I've ever read. Some people go out of their way to harm police officers because they wear the uniform. For instance, a man here in Manchester, UK led police officers into a trap after making a crank call reporting a burglary. He then attacked them with a Glock and grenades because "police were hounding his family"
Wow some of you just stop reading at certain points.
I think this is completely selective.
That's how big a jerk people can be.
I don't know, some can be, some can't. But we shouldn't expect things like that to happen. They happen whether we like it or not.
An officer should not go dressed for war in the case of a domestice dispute between a grandma and a group of kids. Because those kids are crossing her lawn. Grandma wants them arrested for trespassing.
Should the officer really being wielding an ar-15 for something like this? No? You got it right!
The only time you should wear full combat gear is if you know there is going to be.
That is completely untrue Asherian. Even if its very unlikely for a cop in a certain area to need his vest, the chance remains that he will. You're basically saying his life isn't worth enough to warrant preparing for the possibility. Thats utterly disgusting.
Wow! I actually said that I just blew some peoples minds. Mates I am not jagged so stop telling me I am jagged on this event. I am saying most police do not need bullet proof vests. IE Sururban towns and villages do not need heavy weaponry or bullet proof vests. In cities they do. Or in high risk areas. Right now every cop has a bullet proof vest now. Its call escalation. Once you tart wearing bullet proof vests gangs start buying armor piercing rounds.. And let me tell you Gangs can get weapons and ammunition pretty easily from the black market.
The more powerful weapons you get for the police the more motivated gangs will be to get better weaponry. And then it starts a bloody arms race.
You really have no idea what you're talking about.
It's amazing how people think the insured stuff in their house or pockets is worth more than a human life.
Not sure why that irritates you so much. Everything in your house (and your house in general of course) is something that belongs to you, it's yours, and thus naturally closer to any stranger. If any stranger enters my house with bad intents, he is a criminal and is fully responsible for any consequences. Get caught stealing red-handed? Get knocked out or maimed. Or killed if you're unlucky. Anyone entering private property fully decided to do so. And as it always is the case with decisions...you're responsible for your decision's outcome.
Ash, you're really just digging yourself deeper and deeper and your inexperience is showing in a big way. Rural Montana is exceptionally dangerous for police and, much like whembly's example, is a major meth-producing area with gang activity. Are you telling me that police don't need protection there as well?
whembly wrote: Ash... you're buying into the mysticism that certain weapons/configurations are deadlier than others.
It's a hammer... a tool.
EDIT: the small towns, non-urban settings are just as deadly as the city Ash...
Rural Missouri is still one of the top Meth producing areas in the country, with affiliated gang activities.
I am pretty sure a stinger is deadlier than an assuallt rifle
ou really have no idea what you're talking about.
Sorry but that is the truth. The more military looking your weapons are the higher the chance the gangs will do the same to stay ahead.
That is completely untrue Asherian. Even if its very unlikely for a cop in a certain area to need his vest, the chance remains that he will. You're basically saying his life isn't worth enough to warrant preparing for the possibility. Thats utterly disgusting.
Please read for gods sakes just read what I've wrote. You do not need it on 24/7. You have need of it, when you have need of it.
If you are settling a domestic dispute between a gun crazy ex military yeah. You should probably be wearing a vest.
If you want a better police force the officers need to have information sent to them. I.E. Background checks etc on the place they are going to.
While they are driving there maybe the HQ should send them information about the preprator if it is an ex-military maybe the officer should wear a vest.
Its the officers call whether to wear it or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
curran12 wrote: Ash, you're really just digging yourself deeper and deeper and your inexperience is showing in a big way. Rural Montana is exceptionally dangerous for police and, much like whembly's example, is a major meth-producing area with gang activity. Are you telling me that police don't need protection there as well?
Did I?
No.I said there would be exceptions.
The only ones digging holes here are you lot because you refuse to read. And try to seek clarity with me.
Instead you assume, you assume this is what I meant or cut out small details that make my opinion completely different from what it actually is.
Most situations in the United States in Rural and Urban areas they do not need a bullet proof vest. I am not saying to get rid of them, just not to wear them for every situation.
Infact the only things I think they should get rid of are the armored tanks that certain police do have. Infact they have military vechiles which are known to tear up roads, and yet they are driven in sururban and rural areas.
Unless your in a warzone. I don't think you need access to military hardware. (I.E. Armored jeeps and tanks)
Please read for gods sakes just read what I've wrote. You do not need it on 24/7. You have need of it, when you have need of it.
So, after the first round punches through your torso, you know you need your vest.
Sounds good.
NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.
In a place like Grand Rapids Michigan. A Crme rate that is incredibly low. The police do not wear.... Vests. Wow. its like they are competent! Because they are in a college town.... So they expect not to get shot at by snipers.
You all make out that police in rural areas have to fight the bloody mob every day in the thousands of cases. Can I say that is not what is happening most crime like that is incredibly rare.
Saying it happens all the time. It is stupid it doesn't.
Most crimes like that happen seldom and the police prepare accordingly.
But if you go to a place that has a history by all means wear the bloody vest.
Its the officers call like I have said many times so far.
There are too many cases where the crap bag taking another person's property by force hurts, or worse kills, the victim even when the victim is compliant. Frankly my life and well being are a LOT more valuable to me than that of some crap bag who threatens force to relieve me of my property. The lives and well being of wife and kids has even higher value.
Yeah, there's a book (an extremely great read, I might add), called "Seven Myths of Gun Control" by RIchard Poe, where he talks about this sort of thing. As a case in point, in the book, in the chapter about "gun control proponents believe if you're compliant a home invasion will remain simply a robbery", he talks about a case in a college town in Kansas.
In that town, a number of years back, there was a single dude who broke into the house of some young adults (IIRC, they were upperclassmen, or grad students). The house occupants at the time were the 2 couples who lived their, and a 3rd female friend (2 males, 3 females), and a single guy entered the house with the apparent intentions of robbing it. Now, they've been told this BS of "if you're compliant, you'll come out alive" and they did exactly what he said. The were all herded into a single bedroom, and the perp had the 2 males duct tape the wrists of the 3 females and then each others, like handcuffs. This guy then proceeded to rape, and kill all three women, in front of the dudes without a single bit of resistance from anyone in the house.... seriously, it was 5:1, and NO ONE thought to fight back, instead, all 5 are now dead, because they complied.
Now, maybe it's just many of our's military training, but if you're (the metaphorical "you") are in my house uninvited, you should probably expect a good dose of lead poisoning as a welcoming gift. I get that there's pacifists in this world, and that's all well and good, but there MUST be a line where you stop believing peace is the answer and start kicking ass.
There are too many cases where the crap bag taking another person's property by force hurts, or worse kills, the victim even when the victim is compliant. Frankly my life and well being are a LOT more valuable to me than that of some crap bag who threatens force to relieve me of my property. The lives and well being of wife and kids has even higher value.
Yeah, there's a book (an extremely great read, I might add), called "Seven Myths of Gun Control" by RIchard Poe, where he talks about this sort of thing. As a case in point, in the book, in the chapter about "gun control proponents believe if you're compliant a home invasion will remain simply a robbery", he talks about a case in a college town in Kansas.
In that town, a number of years back, there was a single dude who broke into the house of some young adults (IIRC, they were upperclassmen, or grad students). The house occupants at the time were the 2 couples who lived their, and a 3rd female friend (2 males, 3 females), and a single guy entered the house with the apparent intentions of robbing it. Now, they've been told this BS of "if you're compliant, you'll come out alive" and they did exactly what he said. The were all herded into a single bedroom, and the perp had the 2 males duct tape the wrists of the 3 females and then each others, like handcuffs. This guy then proceeded to rape, and kill all three women, in front of the dudes without a single bit of resistance from anyone in the house.... seriously, it was 5:1, and NO ONE thought to fight back, instead, all 5 are now dead, because they complied.
Now, maybe it's just many of our's military training, but if you're (the metaphorical "you") are in my house uninvited, you should probably expect a good dose of lead poisoning as a welcoming gift. I get that there's pacifists in this world, and that's all well and good, but there MUST be a line where you stop believing peace is the answer and start kicking ass.
Rare case again.
The basic problem with that argument is if that is a normal occurence. You have 5 vs 1. You do the math. Did the prep have a gun? No. Then that person is going to get his ass kicked.
I just won't be doing to the kicking. I'll be doing the holding down against the ground till the police arrive. He won't be able to move with both his hands broken.
NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.
So, that Oregon State Trooper a couple pages back... he KNOWS he's walking into a firefight when he pops a guy for speeding, right? Who called 911 to let him know this speeder was crazy, had a gun and was itching to use it?
Ohh, that's right. No one did. There was no prior information there. Simply what his radar gun said in the cruiser, which is the guy was going faster than 65 mph.
NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.
So, that Oregon State Trooper a couple pages back... he KNOWS he's walking into a firefight when he pops a guy for speeding, right? Who called 911 to let him know this speeder was crazy, had a gun and was itching to use it?
Ohh, that's right. No one did. There was no prior information there. Simply what his radar gun said in the cruiser, which is the guy was going faster than 65 mph.
I'm going to let you come to your own conclusion.
Does he Either A) Choose to wear the vest (With Suspicions and ever since he is a State Trooper)
or
B) Choose not to wear the vest (Because he knows the person in the car and has a 100% guarantee it is not going to turn into a gunfight)
Or
C) Be a dumbass walk up to the window with your vest in your hand and give the lawbreaker your gun and your badge and say shoot me.
NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.
In a place like Grand Rapids Michigan. A Crme rate that is incredibly low. The police do not wear.... Vests. Wow. its like they are competent! Because they are in a college town.... So they expect not to get shot at by snipers.
You all make out that police in rural areas have to fight the bloody mob every day in the thousands of cases. Can I say that is not what is happening most crime like that is incredibly rare.
Saying it happens all the time. It is stupid it doesn't.
Most crimes like that happen seldom and the police prepare accordingly.
At this point I have to wonder if you're trolling.
I only know 6 LEOs. Every one wears their vest on the daily. It's not the "snipers" (are you fething serious with this?) or the "bloody mob" they're worried about. It's the single unhinged methhead or person with an axe to grind against the police.
But it's good to know that if you're in a college town, you're safe. Just make sure you don't tell that to Charles Whitman or Seung-Hui Cho.
NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.
So, that Oregon State Trooper a couple pages back... he KNOWS he's walking into a firefight when he pops a guy for speeding, right? Who called 911 to let him know this speeder was crazy, had a gun and was itching to use it?
Ohh, that's right. No one did. There was no prior information there. Simply what his radar gun said in the cruiser, which is the guy was going faster than 65 mph.
Heck, wrap it back to the article in the OP. Did these two officers think they were gonna be in a gun fight?
Granted, a vest would not have helped them, but the situation is a great example of not every gunfight is entered with "information" it is about to be entered.
Frankly it is asinine to assume cops only are ever in planned gunfights.
I just won't be doing to the kicking. I'll be doing the holding down against the ground till the police arrive. He won't be able to move with both his hands broken.
I just won't be doing to the kicking. I'll be doing the holding down against the ground till the police arrive. He won't be able to move with both his hands broken.
Listen to this guy.
You're cracking me up over here.
Yes because the guy has an extreme tolerance to pain.
All of you are ignoring the fact that most cases don't have that. Most cops don't ever fire their fire arm. Guess what that is completely true. If you are in a low risk area you don't need to wear one all the time.
I only know 6 LEOs. Every one wears their vest on the daily. It's not the "snipers" (are you fething serious with this?) or the "bloody mob" they're worried about. It's the single unhinged methhead or person with an axe to grind against the police.
Well considering how all of you are saying that the police need to be prepared for anything and carry around full body armor, full headgear, have access to military hardware, Because you know Meth Addicts are rich enough to own a tank.
There is only one recorded case that there was actually a tank owned by a criminal. Guess what. The guns were ineffective. Does this mean that the police should carry anti tank weaponry? Nope. Guess how you stop a tank. You act smart and destroy its gears and treads. Which is what happened because the idiot driving it drove into a a solid cement wall.
NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.
So, that Oregon State Trooper a couple pages back... he KNOWS he's walking into a firefight when he pops a guy for speeding, right? Who called 911 to let him know this speeder was crazy, had a gun and was itching to use it?
Ohh, that's right. No one did. There was no prior information there. Simply what his radar gun said in the cruiser, which is the guy was going faster than 65 mph.
Heck, wrap it back to the article in the OP. Did these two officers think they were gonna be in a gun fight?
Granted, a vest would not have helped them, but the situation is a great example of not every gunfight is entered with "information" it is about to be entered.
Frankly it is asinine to assume cops only are ever in planned gunfights.
i didn't say that but you can plan ahead. If the cops already at the area call for back up and say get vests on. They will. It is the officers choice whether to wear a vest or not to.
curran12 wrote: Wow. Just....wow. This has got to be trolling, right?
While most of us hope so... I don't think so.
i think I have said several times it is the Officers choice at the end of the day. Whether to wear a vest or not to.
Before moving forward:
Define "assault rifle" as what you *think* it means.
Also, please point out the police department that has a Stinger Missile system... I'd like to make sure that I'm outside if their range.
Assualt Rifle - A weapon that can switch between automatic or semi-automatic, these weapons are usually used by Military personnel and have special optics.
Plus the stinger thing was a joke because someone said I bought into the whole some weapons are deadlier than others which I know is bull.
Should we have a "national conversation on violent rhetoric" like we had over Sarah Palin's non-involvement in the shooting of Gabby Giffords???
I don't know if that's the particular title we should use, but I do think we should have some conversations. I probably don't know all the questions that need asking, and I certainly don't have answers for many of those questions. But, I believe that if we're able to have a peaceful discussion with "important" people involved, more will be accomplished than it would by rioting in Missouri, or executing cops who are just doing their jobs.
Assualt Rifle - A weapon that can switch between automatic or semi-automatic, these weapons are usually used by Military personnel and have special optics.
Oh goodness. "Have special optics?" You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Be honest with us. Have you actually held an AR 10/15 before? The truth now, if you will.
Assualt Rifle - A weapon that can switch between automatic or semi-automatic, these weapons are usually used by Military personnel and have special optics.
Oh goodness. "Have special optics?" You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you?
Be honest with us. Have you actually held an AR 10/15 before? The truth now, if you will.
Don't fall into that "guilt by association" trap, because it is unfair to people whose intentions really are peaceful.
Funny how people do that. And say if you are part of this group because of this one persons actions you are also allowing those actions to happen. I.E. GamerGate, Muslims, Christians, any group who has had a crazy person go off the deepend.
An AR-10 / AR-15 is not an assault Rifle. or an Assualt Weapon it is a Civilian weapon. Completely legal to own and to have.
It is only semi-auto. Not Fully Automatic.
Of which I'm entirely aware. I'm not the one that seems to be confusing it.
Which if I remember right automatic weapons are banned in the united states.
You do not. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Do they require an expensive and highly regulated class 3 license? Yes. Are they illegal? No.
I'm not a "big" fan of cops (especially when they give me a ticket I don't deserve) but how debased some people are to "like" his facebook post is literally the most disgusting thing ever. Those cops didn't do anything wrong at all and it disturbs me that this happened and some people praise this guy!
zombiekila707 wrote: I'm not a "big" fan of cops (especially when they give me a ticket I don't deserve) but how debased some people are to "like" his facebook post is literally the most disgusting thing ever. Those cops didn't do anything wrong at all and it disturbs me that this happened and some people praise this guy!
Really sad...
That is what happens once there has been a distrust between the people and police and it has slowly started to posion the well and people no longer trust the police and only see them as evil doers and no different from a gang member.
Which is what is happening.
It makes me think we might be going back to the twenties era of police work :/
Don't fall into that "guilt by association" trap, because it is unfair to people whose intentions really are peaceful.
Funny how people do that. And say if you are part of this group because of this one persons actions you are also allowing those actions to happen. I.E. GamerGate, Muslims, Christians, any group who has had a crazy person go off the deepend.
There's a pendulum "effect" here when having these "national discussion".
I.E., it's hard to have a discussion on radical Islam because folks get defensive about it for some reason... moreso than whenver the Westboro Baptists folks rear their heads...
zombiekila707 wrote: I'm not a "big" fan of cops (especially when they give me a ticket I don't deserve) but how debased some people are to "like" his facebook post is literally the most disgusting thing ever. Those cops didn't do anything wrong at all and it disturbs me that this happened and some people praise this guy!
Really sad...
That is what happens once there has been a distrust between the people and police and it has slowly started to posion the well and people no longer trust the police and only see them as evil doers and no different from a gang member.
Which is what is happening.
It makes me think we might be going back to the twenties era of police work :/
Those people are sad fools who are vermin in the streets the guy was a piece of gak thug who has no interest in helping the american people. Dude just because there are some disgusting people in the world doesn't mean that we are heading into the Dillinger era again. Most people like cops some thugs and criminals who would want anarchy are the only ones liking that post.
Don't fall into that "guilt by association" trap, because it is unfair to people whose intentions really are peaceful.
Funny how people do that. And say if you are part of this group because of this one persons actions you are also allowing those actions to happen. I.E. GamerGate, Muslims, Christians, any group who has had a crazy person go off the deepend.
There's a pendulum "effect" here when having these "national discussion".
I.E., it's hard to have a discussion on radical Islam because folks get defensive about it for some reason... moreso than whenver the Westboro Baptists folks rear their heads...
Radicals exist in every culture and subcultures.
It happens but we can't blame the group because of the actions of a few.
Those people are sad fools who are vermin in the streets the guy was a piece of gak thug who has no interest in helping the american people. Dude just because there are some disgusting people in the world doesn't mean that we are heading into the Dillinger era again. Most people like cops some thugs and criminals who would want anarchy are the only ones liking that post.
There was distrust between the police and civilans during the 20s so much so that people really didn't report crimes at all.
I trust the police more than I do a gang banger.
But from what I've seen its becoming more common to distrust the police.
There will be quite a bit of unrest. As we are seeing right now.
Hello Mr. Mike Rowe. I’m a big fan and also happen to work in the lower Haight as well as live in Alameda. I have to ask with everything that is going on in Ferguson, how do you feel about the protests in SF as well as the looting/rioting in downtown Oakland?
Here’s how Mike responded:
Hi Meghan
Last week, those very protests blocked off one of the major arteries, and as a result, I was 90 minutes late to a holiday dinner in Alameda. I apologized for my tardiness, and was told by my hostess not to give it a second thought. “It’s a small price to pay,” she said, “given all that’s at stake.” Another guest, already well into the eggnog, wondered aloud if a heart attack victim waiting for an ambulance stuck in traffic might hold a different view?
Within moments, everyone was talking about Garner and Brown, and the conversation got very political very quickly. A liberal guest said, “Look, I wasn’t there, but it seems pretty clear that both men would still be alive had they been white.” A conservative guest replied, “I wasn’t there either, but it seems pretty clear that both men would still be alive if they hadn’t resisted arrest.”
This annoyed the liberal, who asked the conservative why Republicans wanted a “police state.” This annoyed the conservative, who asked the liberal why Democrats wanted “total anarchy.” Things continued to escalate, and within moments, fingers were pointing, veins were bulging, and logical fallacies were filling the air. Ho! ho! ho!
For once, I kept my mouth shut and listened as a roomful of decent people tore each others throats out. It was remarkable, because no one disagreed on the big points. No one disagreed that black lives mattered just as much as white lives. No one disputed that racial bias in law enforcement should be exposed and eliminated. In fact, no one disagreed about the basic facts surrounding each case. The breakdown happened over relevance and context.
My conservative friends were focused on the fact that both men died while resisting arrest, and were therefor responsible for their own demise. They wanted to discuss the killings in light of the incredible risk that all police officers agree to assume.
My liberal friends were focused on the fact that both men were unarmed, and were therefor victims of excessive force. They wanted to discuss the killings in the context of historical trends that suggest bias plays a recurring role in the way cops treat minorities.
By dessert, it was clear that both sides wanted law and order. But the conservatives were convinced that order is only possible when citizens treat cops with respect. Liberals, on the other hand, were arguing that order can only occur when cops treat everyone the same. And round and round we went. The chicken and the egg.
Later, on the drive home, I called a friend of mine back in Baltimore. He’s black, successful, and hard-working. He also resents the way he’s gotten swept into the zeitgeist of Ferguson. In his words, “I’m a pawn in someone else’s agenda, and I’m sick of it. I know what bias looks like in my life. I’m tired of being represented by two petty criminals who died resisting arrest.”
I hadn’t thought about it like that, but he’s got a point. The vast majority of black Americans have never broken the law. And yet, millions of lives are now entwined with the death of Brown and Garner. That’s not fair, but it’s hardly breaking news. Minorities are constantly stereotyped and the impression lingers. Looters and arsonists run amok, and Black America suffers the association. Now I’m trying to get my head around the fact that two cops are dead in Brooklyn, assassinated by a lunatic in “retaliation” for Ferguson and Staten Island. Unbelievable.
How much worse can it get for the millions of law-abiding minorities, struggling to be seen as individuals? How much worse can it get for the thousands of honest cops, trying to protect a citizenry that doesn’t seem to appreciate their daily sacrifice?
A few days ago, people were marching in the streets, literally calling for the execution of police. (“What do we want? Dead Cops!”) Others are standing by today, waiting to lionize the assassins who answer the call. These are not the champions of justice; these are the enemies of civilization, and it’s up to sensible people on both sides of the aisle to close ranks and shout them down. If we want to live in a nation of laws, we need to support the humans sworn to uphold them. They’re a lot of really great cops out there who have promised to do that very thing, including the one in my family. We’d be screwed without them.
To answer your question Meghan, I support peaceful protests, and I’m all for rooting out bad cops. But let’s not stop there. If we’re serious about saving lives, and eliminating the confrontations that lead to the demise of Garner and Brown, let’s also condemn the stupidity that leads so many Americans to resist arrest. I don’t care if you’re white, black, red, periwinkle, burnt umber, or chartreuse – resisting arrest is not a right, it’s a crime. And it’s never a good idea.
Mike
PS. In lighter news, it’s come to my attention that CNN will attempt to air a new episode of SGDI, tonight at 9pm Eastern. (Assuming we can get through a whole day without a riot, an earthquake, a terrorist attack, and ebola outbreak, or a Zombie Apocalypse).
Thus justifying the police shooting people who resist arrest. Your nation is based on the concept that it wasn't a crime for Washington and so on to resist arrest by the authorities.
The police shooting people is at least potentially a crime. Which brings us back to the root of the problem. Ethnic minorities especially black people have a view, well founded in reality, that they are much more likely to be stopped and/or arrested by the police, who are majority white.
The reason for the current unrest is that the police have done too little too late to explain and justify their actions in arresting and shooting black people.
That doesn't in any way justify shooting police. The actual shooter in this case was clearly a nutter, though, and not representative of the great majority of ethnic minorities, else there would be a lot more dead police right now.
Please read for gods sakes just read what I've wrote. You do not need it on 24/7. You have need of it, when you have need of it.
So, after the first round punches through your torso, you know you need your vest.
Sounds good.
NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.
In a place like Grand Rapids Michigan. A Crme rate that is incredibly low. The police do not wear.... Vests. Wow. its like they are competent! Because they are in a college town.... So they expect not to get shot at by snipers.
You all make out that police in rural areas have to fight the bloody mob every day in the thousands of cases. Can I say that is not what is happening most crime like that is incredibly rare.
Saying it happens all the time. It is stupid it doesn't.
Most crimes like that happen seldom and the police prepare accordingly.
But if you go to a place that has a history by all means wear the bloody vest.
Its the officers call like I have said many times so far.
So what about the Cop who is doing his normal patrol and then he gets immediately called to a shootout?(all the time)
What about the cop who pulls someone over for a moving violation but the driver is a wanted criminal who immediately shoots the cop as he approaches the window?(this has happened on multiple occasions)
You don't have time to consider "do I need my vest?". You have to get on scene as fast as possible. Things can happen super fast while on patrol, again you have no time.
You wear the damn thing all the time because you might need it at a moments notice.
You say that it is because they have done to little to explain arresting and shooting black people.
Well what about the other way around? There has been a number of unarmed white men killed in the last few months. Shortly after Ferguson a police officer (who happened to be black) shot an unarmed white man in a 7-11 in Utah. There was hardly any coverage of it at all.
In September police conducted a drug raid on a house based on bad information, shot the man who lived there, and then as he laid on the ground he was again shot twice in the head and back.
These instances are occurring, yet the media coverage is nearly non-existant compared to these other cases.
As for the "view" that they are more likely to be stopped and arrested... well that is because the numbers are there to support it. A black teenager is 9 times more likely to commit murder then a white teenager, per the FBI. So yes, young black men are going to be more likely to encounter the police, because they are more likely, by significant numbers, to commit a crime.
Please read for gods sakes just read what I've wrote. You do not need it on 24/7. You have need of it, when you have need of it.
So, after the first round punches through your torso, you know you need your vest.
Sounds good.
NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.
In a place like Grand Rapids Michigan. A Crme rate that is incredibly low. The police do not wear.... Vests. Wow. its like they are competent! Because they are in a college town.... So they expect not to get shot at by snipers.
You all make out that police in rural areas have to fight the bloody mob every day in the thousands of cases. Can I say that is not what is happening most crime like that is incredibly rare.
Saying it happens all the time. It is stupid it doesn't.
Most crimes like that happen seldom and the police prepare accordingly.
But if you go to a place that has a history by all means wear the bloody vest.
Its the officers call like I have said many times so far.
So what about the Cop who is doing his normal patrol and then he gets immediately called to a shootout?(all the time)
What about the cop who pulls someone over for a moving violation but the driver is a wanted criminal who immediately shoots the cop as he approaches the window?(this has happened on multiple occasions)
You don't have time to consider "do I need my vest?". You have to get on scene as fast as possible. Things can happen super fast while on patrol, again you have no time.
You wear the damn thing all the time because you might need it at a moments notice.
curran12 wrote: How does that address cops being attacked for pulling over someone for speeding, or being ambushed, at all?
This is where I draw the line and ask you all are you trying to anger me. You keep trying to get more specific. ITs up to the officer to determine. Enough of this discussion. All of it is completely menial and completely unneeded.
Don't poke the bear. Discuss it, and stop acting like children.
Michael Brown attacked the police officer. This can't really be disputed. The police officer was injured. Michael Browns first gun shot injury was consistent with close range to the firearm, indicating he was trying to grab the weapon. The shots that killed him were consistent with the eye witness accounts that he was charging the police officer.
The Garner case, getting choked out and while resisting arrest. Excessive use of force? Don't think that is anything we can be disagreed with. The issue though was that force had to come into the situation.
Anytime "force" has to be brought into it, based on the "resisting of arrest" you are opening the door for violence that can be fatal. Whether or not justified, once peaceful measures are no longer an option, death becomes a possibility.
This is the fault of the person being arrested. The police officers may still have some culpability, but the one being arrested forced the situation to be elevated in these cases. So how are they the victim? Had they simply followed the law, they would still be alive. Is this disputable?
Everyone of these situations start somewhere. There is always a point where you can point at and say "this is where it all went wrong." That point was were the resisting arrest came into play.
djones520 wrote: Ok, to look more at the resisting arrest thing.
Michael Brown attacked the police officer. This can't really be disputed. The police officer was injured. Michael Browns first gun shot injury was consistent with close range to the firearm, indicating he was trying to grab the weapon. The shots that killed him were consistent with the eye witness accounts that he was charging the police officer.
The Garner case, getting choked out and while resisting arrest. Excessive use of force? Don't think that is anything we can be disagreed with. The issue though was that force had to come into the situation.
Anytime "force" has to be brought into it, based on the "resisting of arrest" you are opening the door for violence that can be fatal. Whether or not justified, once peaceful measures are no longer an option, death becomes a possibility.
This is the fault of the person being arrested. The police officers may still have some culpability, but the one being arrested forced the situation to be elevated in these cases. So how are they the victim? Had they simply followed the law, they would still be alive. Is this disputable?
Everyone of these situations start somewhere. There is always a point where you can point at and say "this is where it all went wrong." That point was were the resisting arrest came into play.
There are some cases where there have been officers who arrested someone who was completely compliant and he was charged with resisting arrest and destruction of public property because his blood got onto the police officers uniforms.
The Garner case, getting choked out and while resisting arrest. Excessive use of force? Don't think that is anything we can be disagreed with. The issue though was that force had to come into the situation.
Anytime "force" has to be brought into it, based on the "resisting of arrest" you are opening the door for violence that can be fatal. Whether or not justified, once peaceful measures are no longer an option, death becomes a possibility.
This is the fault of the person being arrested. The police officers may still have some culpability, but the one being arrested forced the situation to be elevated in these cases. So how are they the victim? Had they simply followed the law, they would still be alive. Is this disputable?
Everyone of these situations start somewhere. There is always a point where you can point at and say "this is where it all went wrong." That point was were the resisting arrest came into play.
Depending on where you look around online, there are stories and accounts that state that the first officer on scene had arrested Garner several times previously. Now, we know that he's recently out of jail, etc.... Why does this officer NEED to go see Garner? Is the officer going over to him, because due to prior history, he "knows" that Garner is doing something wrong?
I know we've talked in the past about how selling loose cigarettes should be a ticket offense, not an arresting one... but, IF all the prior history adds up, if the first officer never goes up to Garner to "harass" him about an imagined or perceived offense, Garner is probably still alive today.
djones520 wrote: Ok, to look more at the resisting arrest thing.
Michael Brown attacked the police officer. This can't really be disputed. The police officer was injured. Michael Browns first gun shot injury was consistent with close range to the firearm, indicating he was trying to grab the weapon. The shots that killed him were consistent with the eye witness accounts that he was charging the police officer.
The Garner case, getting choked out and while resisting arrest. Excessive use of force? Don't think that is anything we can be disagreed with. The issue though was that force had to come into the situation.
Anytime "force" has to be brought into it, based on the "resisting of arrest" you are opening the door for violence that can be fatal. Whether or not justified, once peaceful measures are no longer an option, death becomes a possibility.
This is the fault of the person being arrested. The police officers may still have some culpability, but the one being arrested forced the situation to be elevated in these cases. So how are they the victim? Had they simply followed the law, they would still be alive. Is this disputable?
Everyone of these situations start somewhere. There is always a point where you can point at and say "this is where it all went wrong." That point was were the resisting arrest came into play.
There are some cases where there have been officers who arrested someone who was completely compliant and he was charged with resisting arrest and destruction of public property because his blood got onto the police officers uniforms.
The issue of bad charges, and police misconduct aren't waved off. That is still a real thing. But so is actual resisting arrest, as happened in both of these cases that have caused nationwide issues.
The Garner case, getting choked out and while resisting arrest. Excessive use of force? Don't think that is anything we can be disagreed with. The issue though was that force had to come into the situation.
Anytime "force" has to be brought into it, based on the "resisting of arrest" you are opening the door for violence that can be fatal. Whether or not justified, once peaceful measures are no longer an option, death becomes a possibility.
This is the fault of the person being arrested. The police officers may still have some culpability, but the one being arrested forced the situation to be elevated in these cases. So how are they the victim? Had they simply followed the law, they would still be alive. Is this disputable?
Everyone of these situations start somewhere. There is always a point where you can point at and say "this is where it all went wrong." That point was were the resisting arrest came into play.
Depending on where you look around online, there are stories and accounts that state that the first officer on scene had arrested Garner several times previously. Now, we know that he's recently out of jail, etc.... Why does this officer NEED to go see Garner? Is the officer going over to him, because due to prior history, he "knows" that Garner is doing something wrong?
I know we've talked in the past about how selling loose cigarettes should be a ticket offense, not an arresting one... but, IF all the prior history adds up, if the first officer never goes up to Garner to "harass" him about an imagined or perceived offense, Garner is probably still alive today.
You had a man who had been arrested 30 times already. Who was currently out on bail for multiple charges. Since when is it harrassment for police to follow up on known criminals, especially those who are required to be keeping their nose clean due to their current legal issues?
djones520 wrote: Ok, to look more at the resisting arrest thing.
Michael Brown attacked the police officer. This can't really be disputed. The police officer was injured. Michael Browns first gun shot injury was consistent with close range to the firearm, indicating he was trying to grab the weapon. The shots that killed him were consistent with the eye witness accounts that he was charging the police officer.
The Garner case, getting choked out and while resisting arrest. Excessive use of force? Don't think that is anything we can be disagreed with. The issue though was that force had to come into the situation.
Anytime "force" has to be brought into it, based on the "resisting of arrest" you are opening the door for violence that can be fatal. Whether or not justified, once peaceful measures are no longer an option, death becomes a possibility.
This is the fault of the person being arrested. The police officers may still have some culpability, but the one being arrested forced the situation to be elevated in these cases. So how are they the victim? Had they simply followed the law, they would still be alive. Is this disputable?
Everyone of these situations start somewhere. There is always a point where you can point at and say "this is where it all went wrong." That point was were the resisting arrest came into play.
There are some cases where there have been officers who arrested someone who was completely compliant and he was charged with resisting arrest and destruction of public property because his blood got onto the police officers uniforms.
The issue of bad charges, and police misconduct aren't waved off. That is still a real thing. But so is actual resisting arrest, as happened in both of these cases that have caused nationwide issues.
Sometimes they are waved off. Infact in this whole debate actual people who have been hurt by police brutalities claims are nullified because of these two cases.
Its similar to the false rape victim thing where a woman claimed an entire laccrosse team raped her. (Or something along those lines) Those boys lives were completely ruined by it, and you know whats incredible she wasn't ever raped. Immediately after that evidence came out she had to apologize and a year later she murders her boyfriend.
It just makes all those cases that do happen do not appear to be legitimate and in some peoples eyes just another propaganda story to get peoples attention.
That is where all of this is basically heading towards.
Please read for gods sakes just read what I've wrote. You do not need it on 24/7. You have need of it, when you have need of it.
So, after the first round punches through your torso, you know you need your vest.
Sounds good.
NO its called information. I highly doubt an officer will head into a firefight without his vest.
In a place like Grand Rapids Michigan. A Crme rate that is incredibly low. The police do not wear.... Vests. Wow. its like they are competent! Because they are in a college town.... So they expect not to get shot at by snipers.
You all make out that police in rural areas have to fight the bloody mob every day in the thousands of cases. Can I say that is not what is happening most crime like that is incredibly rare.
Saying it happens all the time. It is stupid it doesn't.
Most crimes like that happen seldom and the police prepare accordingly.
But if you go to a place that has a history by all means wear the bloody vest.
Its the officers call like I have said many times so far.
So what about the Cop who is doing his normal patrol and then he gets immediately called to a shootout?(all the time)
What about the cop who pulls someone over for a moving violation but the driver is a wanted criminal who immediately shoots the cop as he approaches the window?(this has happened on multiple occasions)
You don't have time to consider "do I need my vest?". You have to get on scene as fast as possible. Things can happen super fast while on patrol, again you have no time.
You wear the damn thing all the time because you might need it at a moments notice.
unless you are mentally disabled I think you can ask that question and weigh it in your mind. And answer it for yourself.
You say that it is because they have done to little to explain arresting and shooting black people.
Well what about the other way around? There has been a number of unarmed white men killed in the last few months. Shortly after Ferguson a police officer (who happened to be black) shot an unarmed white man in a 7-11 in Utah. There was hardly any coverage of it at all.
In September police conducted a drug raid on a house based on bad information, shot the man who lived there, and then as he laid on the ground he was again shot twice in the head and back.
These instances are occurring, yet the media coverage is nearly non-existant compared to these other cases.
As for the "view" that they are more likely to be stopped and arrested... well that is because the numbers are there to support it. A black teenager is 9 times more likely to commit murder then a white teenager, per the FBI. So yes, young black men are going to be more likely to encounter the police, because they are more likely, by significant numbers, to commit a crime.
And doesn't that just make you feel safe, knowing those cops are still on the force. isn't it just so comforting knowing that cops killing the wrong man, or breaking into the wrong house and executing the owner, is considered justified. How will you feel if they mistake you for someone and come after you?
Do you have a link for the 9times claim? I goggled for it but didn't find it, did you make that up?
You say that it is because they have done to little to explain arresting and shooting black people.
Well what about the other way around? There has been a number of unarmed white men killed in the last few months. Shortly after Ferguson a police officer (who happened to be black) shot an unarmed white man in a 7-11 in Utah. There was hardly any coverage of it at all.
In September police conducted a drug raid on a house based on bad information, shot the man who lived there, and then as he laid on the ground he was again shot twice in the head and back.
These instances are occurring, yet the media coverage is nearly non-existant compared to these other cases.
As for the "view" that they are more likely to be stopped and arrested... well that is because the numbers are there to support it. A black teenager is 9 times more likely to commit murder then a white teenager, per the FBI. So yes, young black men are going to be more likely to encounter the police, because they are more likely, by significant numbers, to commit a crime.
And doesn't that just make you feel safe, knowing those cops are still on the force. isn't it just so comforting knowing that cops killing the wrong man, or breaking into the wrong house and executing the owner, is considered justified. How will you feel if they mistake you for someone and come after you?
Do you have a link for the 9times claim? I goggled for it but didn't find it, did you make that up?
OK I see now, you don't understand how those charts work.
murderers by race 13-19 total
whites blacks
457 816
that's 2 times, not 9. as lastly 92% of murderers are male, as males are 92% more likely to commit murder than a women, males are more likely to encounter the police, because they are more likely to commit a crime. What crimes did you commit today?
OK I see now, you don't understand how those charts work.
murderers by race 13-19 total
whites blacks
457 816
that's 2 times, not 9. as lastly 92% of murderers are male, as males are 92% more likely to commit murder than a women, males are more likely to encounter the police, because they are more likely to commit a crime. What crimes did you commit today?
OK I see now, you don't understand how those charts work.
murderers by race 13-19 total
whites blacks
457 816
that's 2 times, not 9. as lastly 92% of murderers are male, as males are 92% more likely to commit murder than a women, males are more likely to encounter the police, because they are more likely to commit a crime. What crimes did you commit today?
You do understand that you have to look at population percentages and then extrapolate those out, right?
OK I see now, you don't understand how those charts work.
murderers by race 13-19 total
whites blacks
457 816
that's 2 times, not 9. as lastly 92% of murderers are male, as males are 92% more likely to commit murder than a women, males are more likely to encounter the police, because they are more likely to commit a crime. What crimes did you commit today?
You do understand that you have to look at population percentages and then extrapolate those out, right?
OK I see now, you don't understand how those charts work.
murderers by race 13-19 total
whites blacks
457 816
to get his 2:1
True, but he is still right that the data does not support djones520's 9:1 claim.
Umm... why don't you go show me how the numbers that they have on those spread sheets don't support it.
Per the census data, white teen males 15-19 were 8.4 million. black teen males 15-19 were 1.8 million.
So, if you have the populations ona 1:1 ratio, the murder rate for black teens would actually be around 3900. Which is just about 9 times the total of murders committed by white teens.
OK I see now, you don't understand how those charts work.
murderers by race 13-19 total
whites blacks
457 816
that's 2 times, not 9. as lastly 92% of murderers are male, as males are 92% more likely to commit murder than a women, males are more likely to encounter the police, because they are more likely to commit a crime. What crimes did you commit today?
You do understand that you have to look at population percentages and then extrapolate those out, right?
FFS.
Sure I do, and that is a rather narrow data point, actual murders. what happens when you add in all the other homicides? I bet that would become a much more balanced number. It might even make the white population look like a bunch of thugs & criminals. Cops alone add another 400 bodies a year that's not represented on that chart. Let's look at all homicides, anywhere someone dies at the hands of another and see what fun extrapolations we can make with those numbers.
Lets look at the real numbers first, you have a population 1/4 the size that only committed 2 times the murders. Then you extrapolate it to "9 times more likely" to help spread the fear towards blacks. look what criminals and murderers they are. That's why when a white guy shoots a black guy he can claim "he scared me so I stood my ground" and be 354times more likely to be found justified and thus it wouldn't be ruled a murder.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/is-there-racial-bias-in-stand-your-ground-laws/
Which brings us back to the root of the problem. Ethnic minorities especially black people have a view, well founded in reality, that they are much more likely to be stopped and/or arrested by the police, who are majority white.
Per 100,000 people black individuals are statistically much higher to break the law, and encounter law enforcement then white individuals. This has nothing to do with racism or anything, it's just pure statistics.
I have stated in here a ton of times, that we need to find the root cause of that. Stop pointing fingers at the results, start pointing fingers at the causes. You cut out the cause of it, then the number of tragedies will just plummet.
Which brings us back to the root of the problem. Ethnic minorities especially black people have a view, well founded in reality, that they are much more likely to be stopped and/or arrested by the police, who are majority white.
Per 100,000 people black individuals are statistically much higher to break the law, and encounter law enforcement then white individuals. This has nothing to do with racism or anything, it's just pure statistics.
I have stated in here a ton of times, that we need to find the root cause of that. Stop pointing fingers at the results, start pointing fingers at the causes. You cut out the cause of it, then the number of tragedies will just plummet.
The root cause is easy, the inherent racism in America. I'm surprised you forgot the "black on black" crime statistic. Why do we never hear in the news about the "white on white" crime problem? the "christian on christian" crime problem? christians do make up 75% of the prison population. obviously the all bigger criminals and encounter cops far more often than blacks right? It's just a statistic after all. so the obvious conclusion must be
So yes, young christen men are going to be more likely to encounter the police, because they are more likely, by significant numbers, to commit a crime.
Fixed your quote for you.
per 100,000 black people are more likely to be framed and have evidence planted on them as well.
From police officers to prosecutors to prison guards, the entire system is rigged against minorities, the poor and Blacks. This is why 80 percent of criminal defendants are indigent and cannot hire a lawyer. It is why 70 percent of exonerations by DNA testing are of people of color. It is also why there are such widespread racial disparities in sentencing.
The number of African-Americans in the prison-industrial complex quadrupled in the three years after the War on Drugs began. Despite the fact that 5 times as many whites use drugs than African-Americans, the latter are imprisoned for drug crimes at a rate of 10 times that of Whites.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/omer-aziz/the-system-didnt-fail-eri_b_6305172.html
recognize these quotes from the video earlier?
"lets have a black day"
"lets get some more color around the place"
So yes, let's admit there is a racism problem still in the US, and fix it.
17% of the population makes up 50.6% of those in the prison system. (all age groups)
(snip)
Per 100,000 people black individuals are statistically much higher to break the law, and encounter law enforcement then white individuals. This has nothing to do with racism or anything, it's just pure statistics.
See, this is where I think you made a reasonable but possibly erroneous leap of logic. You're presuming that because blacks are overrepresented in prison, they are then therefore statistically more likely to break the law. I think there are a lot of really obvious variables that would explain why that chicken might not have laid that egg, as it were. Do you think our legal system treats black defendants as fairly as white defendants, on average?
Consider stop & frisk. Whites in NY make up only a fraction of those stopped (84% are black and latino), but are statistically much likely to actually have contraband when they are stopped (1 in 49 stops for whites yielded a gun vs 71 for latinos and 93 for blacks, or nearly half as likely)). Drugs go the same way - one of every 43 stops of whites found drugs, vs 57 for latinos and 61 for blacks.
I suspect if the NYPD did more aggressive stop & frisks on Wall Street of executives at lunch vs Bed-Stuy, those ratios of drugs found would indicate a problem with your logic. But they're not going to, so we'll never know.
17% of the population makes up 50.6% of those in the prison system. (all age groups)
(snip)
Per 100,000 people black individuals are statistically much higher to break the law, and encounter law enforcement then white individuals. This has nothing to do with racism or anything, it's just pure statistics.
See, this is where I think you made a reasonable but possibly erroneous leap of logic. You're presuming that because blacks are overrepresented in prison, they are then therefore statistically more likely to break the law. I think there are a lot of really obvious variables that would explain why that chicken might not have laid that egg, as it were. Do you think our legal system treats black defendants as fairly as white defendants, on average?
Consider stop & frisk. Whites in NY make up only a fraction of those stopped (84% are black and latino), but are statistically much likely to actually have contraband when they are stopped (1 in 49 stops for whites yielded a gun vs 71 for latinos and 93 for blacks, or nearly half as likely)). Drugs go the same way - one of every 43 stops of whites found drugs, vs 57 for latinos and 61 for blacks.
I suspect if the NYPD did more aggressive stop & frisks on Wall Street of executives at lunch vs Bed-Stuy, those ratios of drugs found would indicate a problem with your logic. But they're not going to, so we'll never know.
This is a circular argument because someone going to throw up a map of high crimes area where stop and frisk was implemented. Since I've done similar I call BS on Stop and Frisk idea and counter a "high presence" to counter what Stop and Frisk tries to do. Curtail crime.
I like how you are implying that by questioning LEO's carrying around 2-3 extra clips I am suddenly arguing the whole aspect of their use of firearms. I am also suddenly calling for all LEOs to drop their 2nd and 3rd magazine. I have not once talked about the caliber of a bullet or anything else you have implied. You are implying that I am saying a lot and all I am doing is asking you to provide evidence for your arguments. I said none of these things. I really expected much better from you.
You understand I used all those other qualifiers because it greatly impacts the magazine size, correct?
I'm implying that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
You realize I am talking about a 9mm, which is the only sidearm that has been mentioned in this thread, correct?
Jihadin wrote: This is a circular argument because someone going to throw up a map of high crimes area where stop and frisk was implemented. Since I've done similar I call BS on Stop and Frisk idea and counter a "high presence" to counter what Stop and Frisk tries to do. Curtail crime.
Probably to the former, and to the other, yes I agree: community policing isn't done nearly as well as it could be in many areas.
I like how you are implying that by questioning LEO's carrying around 2-3 extra clips I am suddenly arguing the whole aspect of their use of firearms. I am also suddenly calling for all LEOs to drop their 2nd and 3rd magazine. I have not once talked about the caliber of a bullet or anything else you have implied. You are implying that I am saying a lot and all I am doing is asking you to provide evidence for your arguments. I said none of these things. I really expected much better from you.
You understand I used all those other qualifiers because it greatly impacts the magazine size, correct?
I'm implying that you don't actually know what you're talking about.
You realize I am talking about a 9mm, which is the only sidearm that has been mentioned in this thread, correct?
Full size? Compact? Sub Compact? Are you assuming all LEOs carry 9mms? Because they don't.
One final post for some additional clarity as to what is happening: Now why would fox "news" be altering footage? I'd call it fear mongering and racism.
What they said, "We won’t stop, we can’t stop, untill the killer cop is in a cell block"
Fox changes it to this: ‘We won’t stop, we can’t stop, so kill a cop,’”
Umm... why don't you go show me how the numbers that they have on those spread sheets don't support it.
Per the census data, white teen males 15-19 were 8.4 million. black teen males 15-19 were 1.8 million.
So, if you have the populations ona 1:1 ratio, the murder rate for black teens would actually be around 3900. Which is just about 9 times the total of murders committed by white teens.
If you re-read the tables the data indicates something in the area of an 8-1 ratio, and that is an estimate derived from 3 different data sets. Specifically the rate of murder commission among US citizens aged 13-19, the same of US citizens aged 17-19, and the number of US citizens aged 15-19; all broken down by racial identity.
Jihadin wrote: So are we, within the US of A, dealing with a "War of Cops" situation now?
As much as we are dealing with a "War on Black Men". We love war, after all, and there is no problem we can't turn into a war: war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism, war on crime, ect ect. It is all war all the time!
In the Fox news video, you can even hear it's still "till killer cop", emphasis on TILL, which would make no sense for the narrative fox might be pushing. Then again Fox is a load of bs and anyone with half a brain knows to go heavy on the salt with them so w/e.
I'm also not surprised at cinceys link because there will be feths chanting that too. Which doesn't stop the fact Fox tried to present a different video like that.
The root cause is easy, the inherent racism in America.
Don't forget systemic poverty.
This. I'm willing to bet that if people found figures comparing crime rates to poverty, then cross-referenced that data with the data comparing crime to race, you'd see that the majority of those crimes are actually a direct cause of poverty, rather than race.
Poverty leads to a lack of community, lack of activities for young people to do etc. This can all lead to gang culture as people try to find somewhere that they belong, somewhere that they feel part of a community or to drugs as people search for ways to escape from their situation.
(Reuters) - A New York City police officer who appears to punch a black youth during an arrest that was captured on video and widely circulated on the Internet has been suspended from duty, the department said on Friday.
The posting of the footage follows weeks of protests across the country over recent cases of police violence toward unarmed black men, including one in which a New York City man died after an officer placed him in a banned chokehold.
In the eight-minute video posted on YouTube on Wednesday, a plainclothes white officer can be seen rushing up to several uniformed officers struggling to handcuff a black youth and apparently striking him at least twice. Police said the suspect is 16 years old.
Several bystanders, including the person filming the altercation, yell at the officer to stop. The footage then shows a second person, who onlookers tell police is a 12-year-old boy, being handcuffed.
As the boys are led away to patrol vehicles, one can be heard asking the officers: "What did we do? Can I hear what we did?"
The boys were being arrested on suspicion of assaulting someone and using a cane in the attack, police said.
Police did not say when the arrests occurred but the person who posted the video footage said they happened on Wednesday.
Police said that a review by the Internal Affairs Bureau into the allegations was ongoing.
(Reporting by Laila Kearney; Additional reporting by Curtis Skinner; Editing by Richard Chang)
Poverty leads to a lack of community, lack of activities for young people to do etc.
I don't buy off on either of those premises at all. Around the globe there are and have been poor areas that have and have had a strong sense of community (including here int he US). And I've been to places where US poverty would equate to living like a king, and even in those places kids find stuff to do and there can be very strong communities. There are plenty of areas without organized/publicly funded activities that are not gang hot beds.
Calling poverty the main source of crime? I don't buy it. Plenty of rich criminals, middle class kids that turn to vandalism and other crimes, and poor folks who are honest. Poverty can undoubtedly be a contributing factor, but it is not the 'main source' by any means.
Jihadin wrote: So are we, within the US of A, dealing with a "War of Cops" situation now?
As much as we are dealing with a "War on Black Men". We love war, after all, and there is no problem we can't turn into a war: war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism, war on crime, ect ect. It is all war all the time!
Of course all this will go in the back burner once Obama signs a certain Bill that would allow the Fort Hood Shooter wounded to get the Purple Heart.
Yep. people kill. only way to stop people killing is to kill them. its a never ending circle of killing. well, never ending until someone high up goes "Feth this gak" and explodes the world.
Ahtman wrote: So dead civilians didn't raise your eye brow but dead cops gets your motor running?
Think I've seen enough dead civilians and dead service members to last four life times. I don't see LEO departments advocating deaths like some protesters are.
Ahtman wrote: So dead civilians didn't raise your eye brow but dead cops gets your motor running?
You are correct. I also remember two police officers coming on to a kid sitting on his tricycle, them pulling their guns and shooting him.
Considering this is the internet and it is OT it is hard to tell whether this is sarcasm or not. If you read this thread, and the others, one would get the false impression that there is always an excuse for the killing of civies and that all protest is made up of rioters and killers. There is a complete lack of sympathy towards dead civilians at the hands of the state but suddenly there is moral outrage and indignation when cops are killed. It is a systemic problem effecting everyone.
It is one if you perceive the situation to be as you described. I haven't seen a single person here in DDOT claiming or portraying a lack of empathy / pity towards any dead civilian in the recent events. The fact that I, among others, consider rioting by destroying your own town as endlessly stupid and infantile is not sign of a lack of understanding or feeling with the dead children's family / families, it's assessing a reaction to an event.
Furthermore, you oversimplify the issue and then, as a consequence, make mistakes. The situations aren't comparable because the reasons aren't comparable.
The 12 year old was shot because he resisted a police officer's orders and was about to reach for a gun in his pants, forcing the officer to either shoot the kid or risk being shot himself. It's not a murder.
The insane, disgusting scum walking up to a police car and shooting two fully innocent police officers is cold blooded murder.
Those are two vastly different situations and should be treated as such. It's not "dead civilian vs. dead police officer". It's "non-murder vs. murder".
Furthermore, I cannot remember any police officers openly mocking the dead children at their funeral / rememberance.
Ahtman wrote: . There is a complete lack of sympathy towards dead civilians at the hands of the state but suddenly there is moral outrage and indignation when cops are killed. It is a systemic problem effecting everyone.
Not always, and not all users. Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but I've seen other users voice largely the same opinions as me. Situations like the Garner case are tragic, and there SHOULD be sympathy towards his family, there SHOULD have been repercussions for the individual officer who violated policy and took actions that could ultimately have lead to the death of another human being. I have little to no sympathy towards Mike Brown in Missouri, because the forensics and "verifiable" eye-witness testimony shows that he was a dumbass and lost his life in the commission of several crimes, and the officer on the scene was defending his life.
I have sympathy towards the NYPD officers who were slain this past week, because they were simply doing their job, and have no connection to any other incident, other than wearing the same color uniform and same style badge as the Garner killer.
I think that, for many of us posting here, different situations call for sympathy to be directed in certain places, and others, not so much.
@Sigvatr, IIRC, there's been, in several of the "rioting" threads, posters who have pointed out, and shown evidence that the looters and rioters/people who are destroying community properties, etc. are not actually local to that community. It's certainly not universal, but it would seem that the larger portion of destruction is caused by people who legitimately do not care about the community, because they aren't there every day.
But I have to say, I want to make this clear that all day today, we have been here, we have heard none of that here at this memorial. We've seen quite actually the opposite. We've seen community members coming here and shaking hands with police officers, giving them hugs. We've seen groups of officers, NYPD, showing up all day to pay their respects. They are lighting candles side by side with the community. They're interacting, they are showing support to each other. There is one instance that I saw today that was very representative of
the whole day, the whole afternoon, and that was a woman who came with a note for the son of one of the slain police officers, and the note simply said, "Jaden, your father did nothing wrong." She was having trouble getting that note up onto the brick wall, because it was hard to tape onto brick. And a police officer stepped out and grabbed some duct tape and actually helped her tape it to the wall. It was really symbolic of the afternoon.
@Sigvatr, It is murder vs murder, the guy who shot the cops was never arrested, never indited, never charged, as he's innocent until proven guilty obviously the cops were in the 'non murder' catagory. If the cops killing civilians especially innocent bystanders, isn't considered murder because they were never indited, than the case of the 2 cops can't be considered murder as no one was ever indited. How about all the cases of the cops disrespecting the dead? leaving the body in the road for 4 hours? Calling their union before calling an ambulance? I mean it's not like a quick google search can show you cops doing exactly that.
If you seriously say that the lunatic shooting two police officers in a car wasn't a murderer, then you left the land of rational thinking and are straight into agenda country.
Sigvatr wrote: It's not murder vs. murder, as repeatedly proven.
If you seriously say that the lunatic shooting two police officers in a car wasn't a murderer, then you left the land of rational thinking and are straight into agenda country.
Why don't you consider cops killing unarmed people murder? How is choking someone to death not considered murder? I'm not the one using 2 different criteria for the same crime, and you are clearly projecting your lack of rational thinking onto me and are well into agenda country.
I call both cases murder, it's funny that you can call one not a murder yet still claim the other is. What definition are you using for murder? why isn't the cop who chocked garner a murderer? I bet the logic you use to claim the cop isn't a murder will also show that the guy who killed the cops isn't a murderer.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And on a side note: Why didn't the NSA catch the tweets? turn on the guys gps feature and lead the cops right to the guy before this tragedy even happened? What is the point of letting them spy on everyone if they can't produce any positive results.
I call both cases murder, it's funny that you can call one not a murder yet still claim the other is. What definition are you using for murder? why isn't the cop who chocked garner a murderer? I bet the logic you use to claim the cop isn't a murder will also show that the guy who killed the cops isn't a murderer.
because the forensics and "verifiable" eye-witness testimony shows that he was a dumbass and lost his life in the commission of several crimes, and the officer on the scene was defending his life.
The one eyewitness who's story corroborates Wilson's is an unmedicated schizophrenic with a long history of lying to police (and others), who changed her story at least three times.
sirlynchmob wrote: It is murder vs murder, the guy who shot the cops was never arrested, never indited, never charged, as he's innocent until proven guilty
Seeing as the coward ran off and ate his gun, I don't think we'll see him charged at all, let alone a trial and conviction.
because the forensics and "verifiable" eye-witness testimony shows that he was a dumbass and lost his life in the commission of several crimes, and the officer on the scene was defending his life.
The one eyewitness who's story corroborates Wilson's is an unmedicated schizophrenic with a long history of lying to police (and others), who changed her story at least three times.
Go look up "Witness #40".
Good thing for Wilson all the forensic evidence supported him as well. Of course, that witness wasn't really the only one who corroborated his story.
there is a difference between killing someone when your life, and the lives of others, is in the balance and murder. they are two different things.
and if you cannot see the iffence between a cop killing a guy in a chokehold (which, by the way, may well have been a headlock, and it is very easy for the two to switch between each other I have first hand experience in that regard) by accident. and two cops being murdered while sitting in a car by a nutjob.
what, do you think that the cop went "gee, a black guy, better kill 'im"?
the shrouded lord wrote: there is a difference between killing someone when your life, and the lives of others, is in the balance and murder. they are two different things.
and if you cannot see the iffence between a cop killing a guy in a chokehold (which, by the way, may well have been a headlock, and it is very easy for the two to switch between each other I have first hand experience in that regard) by accident. and two cops being murdered while sitting in a car by a nutjob.
what, do you think that the cop went "gee, a black guy, better kill 'im"?
Called a "seat belt grab" and its taught to them in the Academy I believe
Did not see the video of all the LEO turning their back on De Blasio at City Hall?
Admittedly, my knowledge of the NYC and its mayors role extends to some barely remembered episodes of Spin City I watched 10 years ago but... The implications of this idea seems bad, like, really bad. - Is the Mayor elected in some form? (I think he is?) and, is his election by, well, the inhabitants of the city?
If those assumptions are true, then that sort of idea seems bad, really very bad indeed.
To be honest, I'd dismissed a lot of the news I heard about the protests as effectively an American echo of the London riots, though, at least the news I've gathered seems to suggest that there are larger pockets of 'proper' protesters about, as opposed to rioters.
How far off-base am I here? I'm not particularly political and I am on the other side of the pond, so I've only been hearing snatches here and there of what's going on.
Did not see the video of all the LEO turning their back on De Blasio at City Hall?
Admittedly, my knowledge of the NYC and its mayors role extends to some barely remembered episodes of Spin City I watched 10 years ago but... The implications of this idea seems bad, like, really bad. - Is the Mayor elected in some form? (I think he is?) and, is his election by, well, the inhabitants of the city?
If those assumptions are true, then that sort of idea seems bad, really very bad indeed.
To be honest, I'd dismissed a lot of the news I heard about the protests as effectively an American echo of the London riots, though, at least the news I've gathered seems to suggest that there are larger pockets of 'proper' protesters about, as opposed to rioters.
How far off-base am I here? I'm not particularly political and I am on the other side of the pond, so I've only been hearing snatches here and there of what's going on.
Its a smack in the face. Its basically telling him he fails at being a leader
So because some of the protesters are dillholes and this guy committed a really horrible crime, we can't have sympathy for people being treated unfairly by a broken system?
Come on guys. We're all capable of appreciating the complexity of the situation better than that.
