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.

All three scenarios that were presented in the video could be said to have the officer exposed to potential lethal force. The gun and knife are most certainly lethal so using a taser in either of those situations puts the officer at a disadvantage. The situation with the two unarmed men can go either way, against two individuals a single shot taser puts the officer at a distinct disadvantage assuming he successfully downs the first target with the taser he needs to deal with the second target potentially unarmed if he decides to attack the officer. In a worst case scenario the taser doesn't work right and he has to now fight two potential targets unarmed.

People also don't respect tasers the way they do with guns, that can be a major turning point in a confrontation. They have better odds of surviving a failed rush at a guy with a taser than a failed rush at somebody with a gun. That would prompt some to take that risk against a taser, where they'd back off if confronted with a gun.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
This thread is not going to end well.

Halle Berry wrote:But I feel like she's black. I'm black and I'm her mother, and I believe in the one-drop theory.

I love the comments I found there. Specifically, "Crazy should take Halle Berry to court for making it look bad."

 stanman wrote:
All three scenarios that were presented in the video could be said to have the officer exposed to potential lethal force. The gun and knife are most certainly lethal so using a taser in either of those situations puts the officer at a disadvantage. The situation with the two unarmed men can go either way, against two individuals a single shot taser puts the officer at a distinct disadvantage assuming he successfully downs the first target with the taser he needs to deal with the second target potentially unarmed if he decides to attack the officer. In a worst case scenario the taser doesn't work right and he has to now fight two potential targets unarmed.

People also don't respect tasers the way they do with guns, that can be a major turning point in a confrontation. They have better odds of surviving a failed rush at a guy with a taser than a failed rush at somebody with a gun. That would prompt some to take that risk against a taser, where they'd back off if confronted with a gun.

And for all the people who talk about "unarmed", in two of those three scenarios the suspect fully appeared unarmed, yet in one it took literally half a second to draw a weapon and the officer would be dead in real life. Claiming that the officer should have acted differently because the suspect was unarmed is monday morning quarterbacking of the worst kind. Until the suspect has been thoroughly searched, it's impossible to determine if the suspect is armed or not. Well, I guess if they were naked or something...

 DarkLink wrote:
Until the suspect has been thoroughly searched, it's impossible to determine if the suspect is armed or not.

So better to shoot them -- just in case?

 Smacks wrote:

 DarkLink wrote:
Until the suspect has been thoroughly searched, it's impossible to determine if the suspect is armed or not.

So better to shoot them -- just in case?

This is probably going to sound meaner than I intend it to, but if that's really, truly, what you took from that, you probably need to try engaging your brain a bit more before posting. If, on the other hand, you're just trying to be snarky, in this case it's coming across as foolishness.

 Hordini wrote:
This is probably going to sound meaner than I intend it to, but if that's really, truly, what you took from that, you probably need to try engaging your brain a bit more before posting. If, on the other hand, you're just trying to be snarky, in this case it's coming across as foolishness.

One of the things I have noticed on the OT is that regardless of how long I spend constructing a well thought out post, people usually reply with this kind of "foolishness". The usual things like:

"So by your logic... [insert something stupid that has nothing to do with what I said]"

I find that I have to work much harder to make points than I need to, when I also have to rebuke these kind of reducto absurdums. This is what I have learned in the OT. Personally, I would rather make you guys do the heavy lifting. It only sounds foolish to you because you love guns and disagree with me, but really it's a craftily constructed laser guided missile of a post, designed to undermine your argument, by reducing it to something absurd -- which is what it is.

EDIT:
If you like I could PM you everytime someone on the gun side of the gun debate does it to me.

Something something gun clique.

 Smacks wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
This is probably going to sound meaner than I intend it to, but if that's really, truly, what you took from that, you probably need to try engaging your brain a bit more before posting. If, on the other hand, you're just trying to be snarky, in this case it's coming across as foolishness.

One of the things I have noticed on the OT is that regardless of how long I spend constructing a well thought out post, people usually reply with this kind of "foolishness". The usual things like:

"So by your logic... [insert something stupid that has nothing to do with what I said]"

I find that I have to work much harder to make points than I need to, when I also have to rebuke these kind of reducto absurdums. This is what I have learned in the OT. Personally, I would rather make you guys do the heavy lifting. It only sounds foolish to you because you love guns and disagree with me, but really it's a craftily constructed laser guided missile of a post, designed to undermine your argument, by reducing it to something absurd -- which is what it is.

EDIT:
If you like I could PM you everytime someone on the gun side of the gun debate does it to me.

So, someone else does a foolish thing, and that excuses you from doing something foolish as well? Except in this case I'm pretty sure you're the only one posting something ridiculous. I don't think there was anything that absurd about what DarkLink posted, no matter how you might feel about firearms. He makes a post about the worst kind of Monday morning quarterbacking, and how scenarios involving use of force are complex, rapidly changing things, and your take-away was basically "so shoot everyone just in case, lol."

If you feel like someone "on the gun side of the gun debate" is posting something that is an absurd, unfair characterization of your posts then go ahead and PM me and we can try to figure out where the disconnect is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Something something gun clique.

Something something I don't actually know anything about firearms in the US but I'm going to post an ignorant opinion about it anyway because of "feelings."

 Hordini wrote:
Something something I don't actually know anything about firearms in the US but I'm going to post an ignorant opinion about it anyway because of "feelings."

Instantly manning the barricades, are we?

Where did I post something that matches your description ITT?

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Something something I don't actually know anything about firearms in the US but I'm going to post an ignorant opinion about it anyway because of "feelings."

Instantly manning the barricades, are we?

Where did I post something that matches your description ITT?

I'm not just thinking of this thread. And why so defensive? You're the one who mentioned a gun clique without any prompting or context.

 stanman wrote:
Black people feel entitled to riot when a scumbag is shot by a white cop. White cop shoots a non-black hispanic/mexican and where are the riots?

Maybe he was one of those elusive "White Hispanics".

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 stanman wrote:
Black people feel entitled to riot when a scumbag is shot by a white cop. White cop shoots a non-black hispanic/mexican and where are the riots?

Maybe he was one of those elusive "White Hispanics".

They're not that elusive, actually.

It was in response to the post above mine. There is a not-insignificant and very tight-knit community here in favour of guns, a clique if you will, as evident in various threads. The result is not something I would call bullying the opposition, but it can get... heated, and with unpleasant undertones. An 'us and them' mentality that only serves to reinforce existing generalisations.

Perhaps I am going off-topic, as this is more a meta post than one referencing the topic itself. I'll be quiet about it now, and we can take it to PMs should you wish to continue on this.

Carry on, gentlemen.

As you wish. Feel free to PM.

 djones520 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.

Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?

(not all cops have a partner....)

So it's a procedural problem then. ?

A financing problem more likely. I think most would agree more police would be better. Few want to pay for it though.

So money matters more than people then?

 loki old fart wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.

Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?

(not all cops have a partner....)

So it's a procedural problem then. ?

A financing problem more likely. I think most would agree more police would be better. Few want to pay for it though.

So money matters more than people then?

*rolls eyes*

If the world ran on farts and dreams, we'd all be living in a chocolate candy land.

 loki old fart wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.

Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?

(not all cops have a partner....)

So it's a procedural problem then. ?

A financing problem more likely. I think most would agree more police would be better. Few want to pay for it though.

So money matters more than people then?

yes.

I know I don't want to pay more to double the number of LEOs in my county to enable them to have 2 cops per car.

It would be wasteful and directly impact my family's standard of living.

The theme in these shootings is that the cop shot someone who was not co-operating and presented a perceived threat.

The simple solution? Do what the man with the gun tells you to do.

If you have been wronged, you can take it up in court later. Priority 1 is surviving to make it to your court date.

Comply with police direction. It's not a difficult concept.

As for the inquiry about his partner, he likely didn't have one. Outside of major cities, officers are usually alone, and it is absolutely a budgeting issue. A town near me recently lost its only Policeman. Now they have to wait for officers from neighboring towns to respond to calls because people didn't want to pay the taxes to keep the department running. My nearest police post is 20 miles away, we've never had one in our town.

Some of us in the "Gun Clique" have actually been in situations similar to LEO

 Jihadin wrote:
Some of us in the "Gun Clique" have actually been in situations similar to LEO

I pray I never have to be, but if I'm ever confronted with a meth head who starts fumbling around his waistband you bet your ass I'll be reaching for my gun too.

 stanman wrote:
[b]Yo Dwag, Where the rioters at?[/b

Work.

 loki old fart wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 loki old fart wrote:
That was staged to end that way.
Scenario setup to give no options.
Why no stab vest, wheres his night stick/truncheon, pepper spray. wheres his partner.

Where was the partner of the cop in the second video I posted?

(not all cops have a partner....)

So it's a procedural problem then. ?

A financing problem more likely. I think most would agree more police would be better. Few want to pay for it though.

So money matters more than people then?

Some people, definitely!

 Jihadin wrote:
Some of us in the "Gun Clique" have actually been in situations similar to LEO

I had a situation once where some a-holes were looking for a fight. I was in the group that they were picking at. Dummies didn't know half of us were packing, I had a pair of .410 derringers with 00 buck, Three balls, no waiting. One of us was my friend Arthur, who is gay and for some reason worried about gay bashers traveling in packs, who had a pair of .45 1911 series on him along with a Thunder Five and a real slick revolver that took .45 ACP in these half moon clips that stayed on the cartridges. Another guy had a .32 auto-loader of some cheep foreign design and the last had a .25 ACP, just in case a rabid mouse attacked us.

Anyhow, the guys were looking for trouble but instead of drawing down and ending them we talked therm down. The reason we talked was we didn't want to kill someone for being stupid. Having the ability to end the fight decisively actually made us think more about avoiding the fight to begin with. Had we been unarmed and the stakes lower we may have acted differently.

 Hordini wrote:
I don't think there was anything that absurd about what DarkLink posted, no matter how you might feel about firearms. He makes a post about the worst kind of Monday morning quarterbacking, and how scenarios involving use of force are complex, rapidly changing things, and your take-away was basically "so shoot everyone just in case, lol."

Really it's just the counterpart of "So you think cops should just let criminals shoot them? (lol)", which, if it hasn't already raised its head in this thread, certainly cropped up a lot in the Tamir Rice topic.

The point is, there is a lot of middle-ground between police wearing targets, and police shooting all suspects 'just in case' they have guns. Though when a cop shoots an unarmed man, because he 'thought' he was reaching for a gun, and essentially shot him on the 'just in case' bases, then you have to wonder where on that line America is right now.

I would be more than happy to engage with you on a completely non-snarky level, and address everything you write in good faith, if you would be willing to pay me the same courtesy. I would prefer conversations to go down that way, but a unfortunately a lot of people on here are purposefully rude and belittling when they hear something they disagree with.

So I'll start:

Police in the UK prove that 60 million people and huge metropolitan areas can be effectively policed by a force that does not routinely carry guns. In the last 10 years only 4 police officers in the UK have been killed by firearms. One of those was actually part of an armed response unit, so he shouldn't really count against the concept. While two were intentionally murdered by a criminal who lured them into a trap to 'get back' at the police. One officer died from being stabbed during that same period.

So that is my first point: police do not need guns.

Now it's easy to say that America is not the UK, and in America police do need guns. I would be inclined to agree with that to some extent. But then it is worth looking at why and how it is different.

It seems cops in the USA are jumpy as hell, (too jumpy, is what I am arguing). This is obviously rooted in their fear of being shot, which is a real danger in the US. That actually bring us back to my second point: The US has a gun problem. If the US didn't have a gun problem, then maybe the police wouldn't be so paranoid about getting shot, and they wouldn't feel the need to open fire on unarmed people and 12 year olds, without hesitation. I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

 Smacks wrote:

So I'll start:

Police in the UK prove that 60 million people and huge metropolitan areas can be effectively policed by a force that does not routinely carry guns. In the last 10 years only 4 police officers in the UK have been killed by firearms. One of those was actually part of an armed response unit, so he shouldn't really count against the concept. While two were intentionally murdered by a criminal who lured them into a trap to 'get back' at the police. One officer died from being stabbed during that same period.

So that is my first point: police do not need guns.

Now it's easy to say that America is not the UK, and in America police do need guns. I would be inclined to agree with that to some extent. But then it is worth looking at why and how it is different.

It seems cops in the USA are jumpy as hell, (too jumpy, is what I am arguing). This is obviously rooted in their fear of being shot, which is a real danger in the US. That actually bring us back to my second point: The US has a gun problem. If the US didn't have a gun problem, then maybe the police wouldn't be so paranoid about getting shot, and they wouldn't feel the need to open fire on unarmed people and 12 year olds, without hesitation. I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

1. In the UK.... I make that distinction that you're "proving" 60 million people can be policed largely without firearms, in your country, because as you know, in the US we've had a "gun problem" (for those who view it as such) since 1776. Having an absolute Right to own and carry firearms changes the playing field.

Personally, I half agree with you, however I think that I've seen too many instances on local news where a "simple" stop or "simple" call turned violent quickly. All it takes is one cop or one person to ask "hey man, what are you up to?" and they'll freak out because "they're on to me!" (they have a guilty conscience) and so they draw and start shooting. In one of the other threads, there was that traffic stop for speeding in Oregon where the driver just started shooting.

I am short on time here, but there really is more I'd like to put up here...

 Smacks wrote:
I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".

As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.

 Alex C wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".

As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.

Do what the cops tell you is fine. Until they shoot you without warning, such as in the case of John Crawford III.

 Alex C wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".

As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.

Actually, the only right that you guys seem to have a problem about is the right to bear arms, other rights that are arguably much more important (such as the right to privacy or due process), have been wildly reduced in the name of "safety" in your country and no one gives a flying feth about it.

But this discussion is pointless and always will be.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Alex C wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
I feel that you guys need to be more serious about actually solving the gun issue. But whenever the issue is mentioned all the NRA types get ruffled and start on about their rights being infringed etc... Which is beside the point when it should be about making your society safer (in this case for cops, and also for people who absentmindedly touch their belt near cops).

There's a popular saying in the US about giving up individual liberty in the name of "safety". People don't like the notion of getting their rights trodden on "for our own good".

As I've said before, do what the cops tell you and there's no problem. Your hands should be in such a position that you are unable to "absentmindedly touch your belt". Your hands should be stuck so far into the air that you could high-five St. Peter. All of these shootings covered by the media lately have been the result of non-compliance or resisting arrest.

Actually, the only right that you guys seem to have a problem about is the right to bear arms, other rights that are arguably much more important (such as the right to privacy or due process), have been wildly reduced in the name of "safety" in your country and no one gives a flying feth about it.

But this discussion is pointless and always will be.

You're so very wrong. Many of us who are strong advocates of 2nd amendment rights are also advocates of less gov't involvement and intrusion in all aspects of our lives. Many of us think the gov't, especially at the federal level, is very much involved in things they have no business being involved in, and this results in reduced individual rights. We do give a flying feth about it, and speak out against it, vote for and support candidates that promise to address it, and so on.