[topic-neutral title about policeman who was attacked]

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**NuggzTheNinja**

Too cautious? Welcome to the real world. A civilian wouldn't necessarily have been justified to shoot in that situation either. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can kill anyone who swings at you. Learn how to fight with your hands, Nancy, you're supposed to be a professional.

**Desubot**

Didnt he get sucker punched.?

**Ouze**

Breotan wrote:
If someone's video shows the perp pulling the trigger then an attempted murder charge may well stick even if the gun had no bullets.

I don't know what the legal requirements in that venue are for attempted murder but in my lay opinion, just beating someone in the head with a metal object should qualify for attempted murder.

**Ghazkuul**

d-usa wrote:
My honest take on this:

1) If you have the opportunity to think "what will the media think about this" instead of "holy gak I'm gonna die feth feth I need to shoot before I'm fethed gak damn crap feth feth feth", then chances are pretty damn high that you didn't need to use deadly force to begin with.

2) Is it true that cops are being watch more closely than ever? That more people are filming them and recording their interactions? That the public is scrutinizing their actions and questioning their intentions, tactics, and standards? Yes they are, because we increasingly have the technology to do so and the public feels that they have a legitimate need to do so.

3) If the police unions have a problem with the fact that they are under increasing public scrutiny, then instead of complaining about the scrutiny they should focus on the actions and behavior that led to the public sentiment that the police needs to be held accountable.

#3 specifically: The first "action" was Ferguson where Michael Brown was shot to death by a cop. Why was he shot? because he attacked a police officer, what has followed since then is over 1 year of civil unrest, riots and looting. So your very argument is flawed from the start. Are their other cases where the police did act inappropriately? yep, but Michael Brown was the catalyst and the world is a better place without that thug

**d-usa**

Always interesting how "thug" starts popping up in certain kind of threads again...

**Ouze**

Still totally not a code word.

**Jihadin**

Still can be racially charge in context.

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
Always interesting how "thug" starts popping up in certain kind of threads again...

What about rap and hip hop groups taking the the word, which was used to designate lawless people to describe and make heroes of those who live the definition, ie, people who are the opposite of born with a silver spoon? It all started with these groups.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thug_Life:_Volume_1

**Sigvatr**

It's the officer's mistake. He was assaulted, asked the attacker to back off, yet he decided to press on the assault. At that point, shooting was a totally viable and the best option at that point.

Yes, cross that "Blame the victim!" card off, but objectively, the officer made the bad all here. There undoubtedly is a reason for him behaving that way and with media and black racists all over the former in the last few weeks, police offiers sure are under a lot of pressure. If you let that pressure get under your skin, though, forcing you to behave wrongly in a textbook situation, you need to decide whether you can keep up or back down.

**djones520**

Relapse wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Always interesting how "thug" starts popping up in certain kind of threads again...

What about rap and hip hop groups taking the the word, which was used to designate lawless people to describe and make heroes of those who live the definition, ie, people who are the opposite of born with a silver spoon? It all started with these groups.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thug_Life:_Volume_1

Oh, so you're just trying to appropriate their culture now.

Let it go, you're never not going to do something offensive.

**thenoobbomb**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Too cautious? Welcome to the real world. A civilian wouldn't necessarily have been justified to shoot in that situation either. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can kill anyone who swings at you. Learn how to fight with your hands, Nancy, you're supposed to be a professional.

Easy to say this stuff safely from behind your keyboard, eh?

**Relapse**

djones520 wrote:
Relapse wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Always interesting how "thug" starts popping up in certain kind of threads again...

What about rap and hip hop groups taking the the word, which was used to designate lawless people to describe and make heroes of those who live the definition, ie, people who are the opposite of born with a silver spoon? It all started with these groups.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thug_Life:_Volume_1

Oh, so you're just trying to appropriate their culture now.

Let it go, you're never not going to do something offensive.

Good in. I see what you did there.
I seriousnous, though, I think the whole controversy over the word is ridiculous, since our political leaders, up to Obama uses the word to designate these punks who go about looting, robbing and doing other unsocial acts. Saying the " n word" in place of the real thing is actually something I never understood either, since all that's being done is to eliminate some nouns and consenants in designating either a slur or the Spanish word for Black. It's the hate behind it and not the word itself that has the power.
I'm with Lenny Bruce on the whole thing.

Lenny Bruce, a man far ahead of his time:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gfNhiRGQ-js

Saying "Colored People" can be considered racist, yet we have the NAACP.

**2BlackJack1**

NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Too cautious? Welcome to the real world. A civilian wouldn't necessarily have been justified to shoot in that situation either. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can kill anyone who swings at you. Learn how to fight with your hands, Nancy, you're supposed to be a professional.

Police aren't hand to hand combat experts. Sure, it wouldn't hurt, but they aren't trained to ignore the weapons they were given for this exact reason, and brawl with a guy. Besides, while guns are by no means harmless, you don't have to aim to kill to stop an attacker. Getting shot in an arm or leg can change the attacker's mind, and allows them to go to a hospital to be patched up before going behind bars.

**Relapse**

thenoobbomb wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Too cautious? Welcome to the real world. A civilian wouldn't necessarily have been justified to shoot in that situation either. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can kill anyone who swings at you. Learn how to fight with your hands, Nancy, you're supposed to be a professional.

Easy to say this stuff safely from behind your keyboard, eh?

He was being sarcastic, as well as has been in front line combat.

**Frazzled**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
It is useful, that is how people think of cops, thats how ALOT of people see cops. Espcially anti-coppers

Indeed. In LA I knew guys who would cap a cop if given the opportunity.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
Always interesting how "thug" starts popping up in certain kind of threads again...

Ouze wrote:
Still totally not a code word.

US President Barack Obama blamed “criminals and thugs” for the violence

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/baltimore-riots-president-obama-calls-rioters-criminals-and-thugs-10210955.html
Evil code word, dog whistle politics using, racist

You are correct, it is certain kind of threads. Those threads with criminals engaging in violence or other anti-social activity.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
My honest take on this:

1) If you have the opportunity to think "what will the media think about this" instead of "holy gak I'm gonna die feth feth I need to shoot before I'm fethed gak damn crap feth feth feth", then chances are pretty damn high that you didn't need to use deadly force to begin with.

2) Is it true that cops are being watch more closely than ever? That more people are filming them and recording their interactions? That the public is scrutinizing their actions and questioning their intentions, tactics, and standards? Yes they are, because we increasingly have the technology to do so and the public feels that they have a legitimate need to do so.

3) If the police unions have a problem with the fact that they are under increasing public scrutiny, then instead of complaining about the scrutiny they should focus on the actions and behavior that led to the public sentiment that the police needs to be held accountable.

200 internetz wins for D-USA.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Still totally not a code word.

I prefer "hooligan" myself. It appeals to the Slavic in me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

2BlackJack1 wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Too cautious? Welcome to the real world. A civilian wouldn't necessarily have been justified to shoot in that situation either. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can kill anyone who swings at you. Learn how to fight with your hands, Nancy, you're supposed to be a professional.

Police aren't hand to hand combat experts. Sure, it wouldn't hurt, but they aren't trained to ignore the weapons they were given for this exact reason, and brawl with a guy. Besides, while guns are by no means harmless, you don't have to aim to kill to stop an attacker. Getting shot in an arm or leg can change the attacker's mind, and allows them to go to a hospital to be patched up before going behind bars.

They also have tasers, pepper spray and flashlight batons. If you ever seen someone get hit by a foot long maglite knows what I am saying.

**Lord Corellia**

Frazzled wrote:
They also have tasers, pepper spray and flashlight batons. If you ever seen someone get hit by a foot long maglite knows what I am saying.

He was a "detective" though, does that mean plainclothes? Would a plainclothes detective carry that kit as standard? Not challenging you (because I totally agree that those options should come first, and should have been in play here), legitimately asking...

**2BlackJack1**

Lord Corellia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
They also have tasers, pepper spray and flashlight batons. If you ever seen someone get hit by a foot long maglite knows what I am saying.

He was a "detective" though, does that mean plainclothes? Would a plainclothes detective carry that kit as standard? Not challenging you (because I totally agree that those options should come first, and should have been in play here), legitimately asking...

Depending on what you're wearing, you could fit some of that stuff in with plain clothes, but I don't think they would be able to have the full set of gear with them. I'm not sure though, I don't claim to know this stuff for a fact, it's just my guess.

**NuggzTheNinja**

thenoobbomb wrote:
NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Too cautious? Welcome to the real world. A civilian wouldn't necessarily have been justified to shoot in that situation either. Just because you carry a gun doesn't mean you can kill anyone who swings at you. Learn how to fight with your hands, Nancy, you're supposed to be a professional.

Easy to say this stuff safely from behind your keyboard, eh?

It's not always safe to assume that people have no experience but I've been in far more dangerous situations with people throwing rocks and molotovs at me and I never operated outside our ROE. IDF ROEs don't define those threats as sacana chaim (a threat to life) so we wouldn't shoot in those situations. An unarmed man definitely doesn't fit the bill. For those cases we use less than lethal force and *gasp* practice hand to hand fighting and weapon retention.

**Ouze**

Frazzled wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Still totally not a code word.

I prefer "hooligan" myself. It appeals to the Slavic in me.

This may make me a racist? But when I hear "Hooligan" I think of British people.

**Mr. Burning**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Still totally not a code word.

I prefer "hooligan" myself. It appeals to the Slavic in me.

This may make me a racist? But when I hear "Hooligan" I think of British people.

Thank you!

We just do somethings extra right.

**zedmeister**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Still totally not a code word.

I prefer "hooligan" myself. It appeals to the Slavic in me.

This may make me a racist? But when I hear "Hooligan" I think of British people.

Who you calling Hooligan Pal, you startin' trouble?

**djones520**

Lord Corellia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
They also have tasers, pepper spray and flashlight batons. If you ever seen someone get hit by a foot long maglite knows what I am saying.

He was a "detective" though, does that mean plainclothes? Would a plainclothes detective carry that kit as standard? Not challenging you (because I totally agree that those options should come first, and should have been in play here), legitimately asking...

A plain clothes officer would most likely not have had all of that on hand.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
This may make me a racist? But when I hear "Hooligan" I think of British people.

I wasn't aware that British was a race

**Lord Corellia**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I wasn't aware that British was a race

This. It's like when you say the French are smelly chainsmokers who eat nothing but brie and baguette. Insensitive? Possibly. Offensive? Definitely. False? I'll have to abstain from judgment at this time. Racist? Not a chance.

However, when folks say that *WHITE* cops are always the problem then that's approaching that line...

**Frazzled**

Lord Corellia wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
They also have tasers, pepper spray and flashlight batons. If you ever seen someone get hit by a foot long maglite knows what I am saying.

He was a "detective" though, does that mean plainclothes? Would a plainclothes detective carry that kit as standard? Not challenging you (because I totally agree that those options should come first, and should have been in play here), legitimately asking...

I do (not all at the same time). Why can't he?

**VorpalBunny74**

Breotan wrote:
I guess we're starting to see the consequences of all this media scrutiny of the police. In some cases you say rightfully that such scrutiny is deserved. Still, in other cases it leads to bad consequences. The question is, are these consequences truly unintended?

But if Buzzfeed et al don't get their clickbait, how will people know when to get offended?

**Frazzled**

Ouze wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Still totally not a code word.

I prefer "hooligan" myself. It appeals to the Slavic in me.

This may make me a racist? But when I hear "Hooligan" I think of British people.

I think Pravda announcing "hooligans" had been arrested for disturbing the peace. (aka protesting oppression).

**Relapse**

VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Breotan wrote:
I guess we're starting to see the consequences of all this media scrutiny of the police. In some cases you say rightfully that such scrutiny is deserved. Still, in other cases it leads to bad consequences. The question is, are these consequences truly unintended?
But if Buzzfeed et al don't get their clickbait, how will people know when to get offended?

Like people not getting offended about the Dukes of Hazard General Lee for decades until they were told to be?