View Poll Results: Is the killing of this man justified?

Voters
13. You may not vote on this poll
  • Justified

    4 30.77%
  • Unjustified

    6 46.15%
  • Haven't decided

    3 23.08%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 193

Thread: North Carolina's outrage

  1. #41

    Scarecrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Just below the tropic of Capricorn.
    Posts
    6,274

    Default

    First responders treat safety in a situation in the following order:
    1. Yourself
    2. Bystanders
    3. Casualty (or in this case, criminal)

    Your own safety comes first. No sense in rushing in only to generate further casualties.
    Bystanders are secondary for the same reasoning. No sense in more casualties occurring when they could be preventable.
    The 3rd person is already in harm's way.

    When it comes to responding, follow the hierarchy of controls at all steps in the order above to minimise risk. Elimination, Substitution, Engineering, Administration, Personal Protective Equipment.
    Once the risk is managed action takes place.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonothan Crane
    Patients suffering delusional episodes often focus their paranoia on an external tormentor. Usually one conforming to Jungian archetypes. In this case, a scarecrow.

  2. #42
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    SC: undisputed when discussing most first responders in most situations. But by adding rescue personnel, it obfuscates what's going on in situations just involving police using firearms against unarmed civilians.

    Advising EMTs not to rush into an emergency or fire fighters into a burning house is different than advising cops to shoot first ask later.

  3. #43
    Consul Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Midwest U.S.
    Posts
    5,574

    Default

    ^ That is, by the way, the exact same protocol used in non-emergency crisis and de-escalation situations. If one person is freaking out and attempting to assault their peers/are expressing suicidal ideation, then the safety of staff come first, their peers second, and that person third. Not so much because they're already in harm's way, but more because, generally speaking, staff is already putting them up against the wall where they can't harm themselves/others.

    Staff take priority over the client's peers, partly because staff are much more likely to be assaulted, partly because staff are forced to actively deal with the situation whereas the peers have the option of avoiding the conflict altogether.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

    [7:32 AM] Jason (Al Bundy raidslave): Who the **** loses an arti to 18 phalanx
    [7:32 AM] Old Timer US1: The same faction that loses one to 66 legos

  4. #44
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    I also want to point out that refraining from killing people who are merely noncompliant does not conflict with your directive to protect first yourself.

  5. #45

    Scarecrow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Just below the tropic of Capricorn.
    Posts
    6,274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I also want to point out that refraining from killing people who are merely noncompliant does not conflict with your directive to protect first yourself.
    That is why I also spoke of applying the heirarchy of control at all levels. All reasonable precaution should be taken to avoid injury at each step. The order applies to risks and danger that can't be managed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonothan Crane
    Patients suffering delusional episodes often focus their paranoia on an external tormentor. Usually one conforming to Jungian archetypes. In this case, a scarecrow.

  6. #46
    Consul Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Midwest U.S.
    Posts
    5,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I also want to point out that refraining from killing people who are merely noncompliant does not conflict with your directive to protect first yourself.
    By the way, I disagree with the notion that noncompliance and escalation are two different things. Noncompliance is a form of escalation, and the degree to which the running narrative in this thread is true, that cops are power-hungry, thin-skinned egotistical jerks, the more that this notion is false.

    If cops are in fact thin-skinned, egotistical jerks, then noncompliance is the perfect form of escalation with this group - noncompliance is a refusal to allow another person to exact their will upon you. Cops are very much used to being able to do just that, to the point where many of them take it for granted.

    The only extent to which I agree with you is that noncompliance does not necessarily merit deadly force. It could merit the use of pepper spray or a taser, depending on circumstances, but nonlethal methods.

    Even in the residential treatment programs, failure to comply with basic expectations is considered a form of escalation. Obviously not one meriting physical intervention, but is still a failure to earn trust.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

    [7:32 AM] Jason (Al Bundy raidslave): Who the **** loses an arti to 18 phalanx
    [7:32 AM] Old Timer US1: The same faction that loses one to 66 legos

  7. #47
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurk View Post
    By the way, I disagree with the notion that noncompliance and escalation are two different things. Noncompliance is a form of escalation, and the degree to which the running narrative in this thread is true, that cops are power-hungry, thin-skinned egotistical jerks, the more that this notion is false.

    If cops are in fact thin-skinned, egotistical jerks, then noncompliance is the perfect form of escalation with this group - noncompliance is a refusal to allow another person to exact their will upon you. Cops are very much used to being able to do just that, to the point where many of them take it for granted.

    The only extent to which I agree with you is that noncompliance does not necessarily merit deadly force. It could merit the use of pepper spray or a taser, depending on circumstances, but nonlethal methods.

    Even in the residential treatment programs, failure to comply with basic expectations is considered a form of escalation. Obviously not one meriting physical intervention, but is still a failure to earn trust.
    I'm not sure yet that you disagree.

    I said noncompliance alone isn't a form of escalation.

    That doesn't imply that it isn't bad, per se, or that it can't be made into escalation in combination with something else.

    It's the last sentence in your post that makes me think you might not disagree with what I mean -- of course, noncompliance is communicating something, and merits a response. The question of what kind of response is the question that is relevant. Yes, police officers expect to be obeyed when they give lawful orders. Yes, the police officers in question apparently were giving lawful orders which were not being complied with. But as far as I can see, no harm results to any party with status quo. Why not keep waiting to see what the guy does? Why interpret the noncompliance exactly the same way as one would interpret aggression? Noncompliance is not escalation while aggression is. Noncompliance can mean that the police keep issuing lawful orders and expecting you to comply until you do. It can mean that you could later be charged with resisting arrest.

    Immediate compliance: No penalty.
    Noncompliance: Non-escalating responses such as continuance of issuing orders, later charged with resisting arrest.
    Aggression: Escalation responded to with escalation -- violence in return.

    This is a plausible tree to me.

    Suggesting that noncompliance is escalation seems ridiculous.

    Furthermore, as in most instances, I don't blame the cops on the ground. They're literally trained to treat noncompliance as escalation. That's what the rulebook says -- if a person nonviolently is noncompliant, the response is violence. I don't see why that has to be the case so quickly in each of these situations.

  8. #48

    Dan Chak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Syracuse, baby!
    Posts
    8,063

    Default

    She followed him for 20 feet with the gun on him. IF he was ignoring her, she had plenty of time to put away the gun and draw her taser and take care of the situation before it could escalate. And I don't care if he had a gun in his car - a majority of Americans own guns and drink or do drugs (legally or illegally). She had plenty of opportunity to NOT KILL HIM.
    Quote Originally Posted by gebne View Post
    St. Chak, glorious atelier, faithful servant and bearer of thong,
    the stain of the troll has caused you to be forgotten by many,
    but the true forum invokes you universally as the patron of things despised of;
    pray for me, that finally I may receive the alterations and the couture of thongs in all my fripperies, ornamentations, and trimmings,
    particularly those of purple hue, and that I may read Chak with the thong throughout Eternity.

  9. #49
    Consul Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Midwest U.S.
    Posts
    5,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I said noncompliance alone isn't a form of escalation.
    I disagree. Strongly. I can agree that it alone doesn't merit the use of force to assure compliance in most circumstances. But I cannot agree that noncompliance is not a form of escalation. When an authority figure asks you to do something and you fail to comply, you've already reached a level of escalation in the form of disagreement. Already at that point the amygdala begins to take over and rational faculties start moving toward the backseat.

    I understand that this can seem ridiculous to someone that doesn't have to face these problems on a day to day basis. Allow me to use an example outside the world of social services.

    Let's say that you're at the Thanksgiving table, and your racist Aunt Sally starts going on about how terrible your favorite minority is, and how they don't contribute to society; they commit crimes and have no respect for the law, and how the only real solution to America's problems is to get rid of every single social service program imaginable. She's loud; she's rude; she's using naughty words..
    - Be honest. How are you feeling at this point? That little "spike" you feel (likely in your chest, maybe gut) is adrenaline. You're escalated. Now, that doesn't mean you're going to punch Aunt Sally in the face, nor does it mean she necessarily deserves one, but it does mean that the amygdala is taking control and your prefrontal cortex is starting to show less activity. You can still calm down and attempt to engage Sally on a rational level, but there will, at least momentarily, be an internal struggle to do so.

    The reason why cops are trained to treat noncompliance as escalation is because it IS a form of escalation. Depending on circumstances, but most of the time it is a minor form.

    There are four levels of escalation:

    1). Baseline (heart rate, rational thought processes etc are all functioning normally)
    2). Disagreement (some form of non-compliance between one person and another)
    3). Agitation (amygdala begins to take over; there are visible signs of fight-or-flight mentality)
    4). Aggression (verbal/physical threatening behavior; rational thought processes are now completely gone and the brain is in full fight-or-flight mode)

    Non-compliance is perfect evidence that #2 is happening, and #3 is not far off, and once you are in #3 phase you will have a full-blown altercation about 70% of the time.

    Sidenote: #2 is also known as "trigger," as in an anxiety/adrenaline spike, but that word is so badly misused/misunderstood that many crisis coordination training groups tend to use "disagreement" instead.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

    [7:32 AM] Jason (Al Bundy raidslave): Who the **** loses an arti to 18 phalanx
    [7:32 AM] Old Timer US1: The same faction that loses one to 66 legos

  10. #50
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Well said Lurk. Non-compliance escalates the situation to use of force. You can be killed with a stun gun, a nightstick, a chokehold, or a gun. Just do what the officer tells you, file a complaint once you haven't been killed.
    Edit: said Woden
    Last edited by The Blazin1; 09-23-2016 at 02:30 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  11. #51

    Woden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Georgia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    11,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    http://www.bizpacreview.com/2016/08/...-blamed-373420
    I 100% support the cops killing her in this situation.
    From the article:
    It undermines the cases where there are legitimate questions and the mission of the group as a whole.
    This, very much this. People need to have some patience and at least get the basic story before jumping on the "cops are wrong" bandwagon, or they completely lose their credibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow View Post
    First responders treat safety in a situation in the following order:
    1. Yourself
    2. Bystanders
    3. Casualty (or in this case, criminal)

    Your own safety comes first. No sense in rushing in only to generate further casualties.
    Bystanders are secondary for the same reasoning. No sense in more casualties occurring when they could be preventable.
    The 3rd person is already in harm's way.

    When it comes to responding, follow the hierarchy of controls at all steps in the order above to minimise risk. Elimination, Substitution, Engineering, Administration, Personal Protective Equipment.
    Once the risk is managed action takes place.
    ^ This. If all cops on the scene die during an armed confrontation, who is supposed to stop the shooter(s)? It's nonsensical to say that the police should have their self-defense options so restricted that they could only use deadly force if they are already being actively shot at. There does need to be a line drawn somewhere, but that is clearly not an appropriate place.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Burninator View Post
    I also want to point out that refraining from killing people who are merely noncompliant does not conflict with your directive to protect first yourself.
    It's more than just noncompliance, though -- according to the officer's attorney, she believed that he was reaching into his vehicle. Whether he was or not, that appearance, particularly when combined with his noncompliance and erratic behavior, created a reasonable perception of threat, namely that he was likely reaching for a weapon.

    The fact that she was wrong does not retroactively make that conclusion unreasonable, and that sort of situation requires a snap-decision based on what the officer perceives at that time.

    As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    Well said Woden.
    Based on the rest of your post, I think you mean Lurk. He's got the grumpy cat picture, I've got the dastardly llama picture.

  12. #52
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    "Just do what the officer tells you to do"

    Tell that to Philando Castile and Charles Kinsey.

  13. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    So you want them to have less rights in terms of self-defense than civilians? No.
    How is having "rules of engagement" less rights? Hell they already have them, they just don't follow them correctly. You verbally warn, you motion with your hands (or gun if necessary), you fire a WARNING shot, you shoot to disable, you shoot to kill. I don't see how this in anyway harms or takes away from them in any way. ESPECIALLY in a non-(or less than hostile)situation like you see here as opposed to soldiers overseas. Oh, and do you want to guess what happens if a soldier fails to follow the rules of engagement regardless of what the outcome would have been had they not? Jail time. All I'm saying is if the military can do it in a warzone, Then cops should be able to here. Don't get me wrong, I think the whole BLM thing is dumber than tits on a nun, but in black and white the officers are failing to do their job properly a majority of the time which is what's making all of these situations worse. The Tulsa shooting should've never resulted in a death, in fact most shootings (unless they are a shootout) should not result in a death. If an officer can't shoot to disable then they either need to be trained better or not be a cop. Plain and simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    This is a truly brilliant idea. Police should have to wait until they are shot, to shoot. In a hostage situation they should wait until the hostage is shot, and then wait until he fires on them as well.
    Well damn man, I was just talking about a routine black guy getting pulled over. From someone trained to use a weapon on another person, just because you THINK a gun is going to be pulled on you doesn't mean you need to shoot them in the face. The key here is STILL rules of engagement. You are almost always required to shoot to disable before you're allowed to escalate to lethal shots. Honestly, I think the police would be much more effective and less lethal if they were only allowed to carry non-lethal rounds. 9/10 whoever they're shooting with a rubber pullet is going to reconsider their life choices and actually get to, you know, adjust their lifestyle.
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    o ya. i hope he goes back to it. i liked my name being in some1's sig

  14. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Chak View Post
    She followed him for 20 feet with the gun on him. IF he was ignoring her, she had plenty of time to put away the gun and draw her taser and take care of the situation before it could escalate. And I don't care if he had a gun in his car - a majority of Americans own guns and drink or do drugs (legally or illegally). She had plenty of opportunity to NOT KILL HIM.
    According to her training on the effects of drugs he was on PCP. If he was: tasers, peppers pray, batons, tear gas, rubber bullets, bean bags and all other forms of less lethal force are worthless.
    I had a DARE officer once tell us that they showed him a video of a man taking many rounds to the chest and even heart (autopsy I'm guessing) without going down. It wasn't until they put one in the brain that he dropped. I cannot confirm the validity of the comment but everything I've read about this stuff makes me not want to question it.

  15. #55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Woden View Post
    ^ This. If all cops on the scene die during an armed confrontation, who is supposed to stop the shooter(s)? It's nonsensical to say that the police should have their self-defense options so restricted that they could only use deadly force if they are already being actively shot at. There does need to be a line drawn somewhere, but that is clearly not an appropriate place.


    It's more than just noncompliance, though -- according to the officer's attorney, she believed that he was reaching into his vehicle. Whether he was or not, that appearance, particularly when combined with his noncompliance and erratic behavior, created a reasonable perception of threat, namely that he was likely reaching for a weapon.

    The fact that she was wrong does not retroactively make that conclusion unreasonable, and that sort of situation requires a snap-decision based on what the officer perceives at that time.

    As the saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.
    The odds of ONE active shooter opening fire on a unit of cops and killing them all before any can return fire is absurd. The odds of TWO activer shooters...is absurd. And so on. Also, you're basing the whole "personal safety first" on the notion that people are guilty until proven innocent. Cops are TRAINED civilians typically are not. If someone LOOKS like they are going for a gun, warning shot (you know, since the first two steps of the rules have most likely been passed) if they don't stop, shoot to disable. You don't go from "hey stop" to "well **** man, he looked scary so I shot him in the face"
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    o ya. i hope he goes back to it. i liked my name being in some1's sig

  16. #56
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    JD, you stay out of this with your lack of facts. You democrats were mad at Trump for saying a bomb went off before it was confirmed (it was indeed a bomb) but have no problem with spreading lies immediately after a police shooting. Same thing. You are to racially biased to have real conversation and I'm embarrassed for you.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  17. #57
    Consul Lurk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Midwest U.S.
    Posts
    5,574

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    "Just do what the officer tells you to do"
    I hate to say it, but in the moment this generally is the best course of action. If the officer is ordering you to do something that is completely out of line with protocol, the best place to resolve that issue (or, if you're a minority, sue for millions) is in court, not on the street, and sure as hell not during a traffic stop.
    Qui tacet consentire videtur, ubi loqui debuit ac potuit.

    [7:32 AM] Jason (Al Bundy raidslave): Who the **** loses an arti to 18 phalanx
    [7:32 AM] Old Timer US1: The same faction that loses one to 66 legos

  18. #58
    Consul
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    9,816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lurk View Post
    I hate to say it, but in the moment this generally is the best course of action. If the officer is ordering you to do something that is completely out of line with protocol, the best place to resolve that issue (or, if you're a minority, sue for millions) is in court, not on the street, and sure as hell not during a traffic stop.
    That didn't go as prescribed for Philando Castile and Charles Kinsey. By all accounts, they were compliant and non-threatening.

    But speaking of suing, I wonder how much more cities will have to pay out before it hurts their wallets enough to insist on change?

  19. #59
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    That didn't go as prescribed for Philando Castile and Charles Kinsey. By all accounts, they were compliant and non-threatening.

    But speaking of suing, I wonder how much more cities will have to pay out before it hurts their wallets enough to insist on change?
    The two you mention are part of a very low number of men who were killed cooperating if they truly were obeying commands. Your survival rate goes way up if you simply act in a civil manner during the interaction.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  20. #60
    Consul The Burninator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Great Garden State
    Posts
    8,570

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jdurand View Post
    But speaking of suing, I wonder how much more cities will have to pay out before it hurts their wallets enough to insist on change?
    I'm not as familiar with city budgets as I am with state budgets (since I don't deal directly with the any city's), but I'd say that I'd be very surprised if suit damages applied a significant amount of pressure on any city to really be said to have forced change. For example, high profile settlement recently between Eric Garner's family (Eric Garner was choked to death by police officers for no particular reason while complying with their orders) and the city of New York was for $6m. The city's budget is around $82 billion.

    In general, suits don't bankrupt or apply significant pressure to municipalities, as far as I'm aware. Judgments against polities are tailored to their ability to pay. ("Judgment proof") Plus I'm not sure that punishing a city (and by extension its many innocent inhabitants) by putting the brakes on its many social services is exactly the right approach.

  21. #61

    Default

    It's worth noting the officer has been charged with manslaughter. So it appears that officials do agree she was too quick to shoot. Of course nothing may come of that in court, but that will probably be some time from now. I do find it annoying how media reports keep referring to the incident as "officer shot an unarmed man whose car had broken down" since apparently the car was actually running when the officer found it.
    S6-r1 The_Chuck S8-r1 Lanie (night shift) S5-r3 Tyche (night shift) S7-r3 Chuckles (night shift)
    S2-r6 Tommo and rebuild S1-r7 Country (day shift) S5-r7(AEU) Office Space S19-r2 (SE) The Joker

  22. #62
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    The odds of ONE active shooter opening fire on a unit of cops and killing them all before any can return fire is absurd. The odds of TWO activer shooters...is absurd. And so on. Also, you're basing the whole "personal safety first" on the notion that people are guilty until proven innocent. Cops are TRAINED civilians typically are not. If someone LOOKS like they are going for a gun, warning shot (you know, since the first two steps of the rules have most likely been passed) if they don't stop, shoot to disable. You don't go from "hey stop" to "well **** man, he looked scary so I shot him in the face"
    What are the odds of a criminal killing just one of them? Also, look up the Hollywood back robbery, the DC snipers, Boston bombers, how many were there? How about room for a warning shot? One in the air in crowd? Bullets have never fallen from the sky and wounded or killed someone right? Go home mom, you're drunk.
    Last edited by The Blazin1; 09-23-2016 at 03:38 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  23. #63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    What are the odds of a criminal killing just one of them? Also, look up the Hollywood back robbery, the DC snipers, Boston bombers, how many were there? How about room for a warning shot? One in the air in crowd? Bullets have never fallen from the sky and wounded or killed someone right? Go home mom, you're drunk.
    Slim, unless they're trained, which is extremely rare. So THREE examples, one of which being ******* bombs you ****tard, is grounds to say "hey man, if they look at you funny shoot that som***** dead"? Again, I'm all for if they're acting a fool do what's necessary. SHOOTING TO KILL is not the NECESSARY FIRST step. There are rules for a reason. You can't just be out there gung-ho because you're scared.

    Also, you never fire a warning shot in the air, especially not in a crowd. You'd know this if you were trained, which you're not obviously.
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    o ya. i hope he goes back to it. i liked my name being in some1's sig

  24. #64

    Default

    Do we still have nothing to say about the civilian killed by another civilian during these protests?

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/man-shot-...003457419.html

  25. #65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tineren View Post
    It's worth noting the officer has been charged with manslaughter. So it appears that officials do agree she was too quick to shoot. Of course nothing may come of that in court, but that will probably be some time from now. I do find it annoying how media reports keep referring to the incident as "officer shot an unarmed man whose car had broken down" since apparently the car was actually running when the officer found it.
    Was the car running? Every report I've ever seen says the car stalled or died in the middle of the road (again, odd that he didn't push it to the side and call for emergency himself). And I am glad there is a court on this. I really want to see the evidence of the case before I make a solid opinion.

  26. #66
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    Slim, unless they're trained, which is extremely rare. So THREE examples, one of which being ******* bombs you ****tard, is grounds to say "hey man, if they look at you funny shoot that som***** dead"? Again, I'm all for if they're acting a fool do what's necessary. SHOOTING TO KILL is not the NECESSARY FIRST step. There are rules for a reason. You can't just be out there gung-ho because you're scared.

    Also, you never fire a warning shot in the air, especially not in a crowd. You'd know this if you were trained, which you're not obviously.
    Lol, of course you don't shoot into the air, my point is in a crowded area, you can't fire a warning shot in ANY direction and you have to account for what IS downrange of your target i.e. missing, weapon being discharged. Get it? As far as I my example, they show two active shooters, in each case, the two guys in Hollywood did a lot of damage. You know what they used? Real assault rifles.
    Last edited by The Blazin1; 09-23-2016 at 04:13 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  27. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    Lol, of course you don't shoot into the air, my point is in a crowed area you can't fire a warning shot in ANY direction and you have to account for what IS downrange of your target i.e. missing, weapon fored. Get it? As far as I my example, they show two active shooters, in each case, the two guys in Hollywood did a lot of damage. You know what they used? Real assault rifles.
    So again I say, THREE examples is grounds for throwing out the rules of engagement and keeping other innocent people alive? U r rly dum
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    o ya. i hope he goes back to it. i liked my name being in some1's sig

  28. #68
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    So again I say, THREE examples is grounds for throwing out the rules of engagement and keeping other innocent people alive? U r rly dum
    Look a few more up yourself, those were three I thought up off the top of my head. You are splitting hairs and trying to backtrack on that moronic comment you made.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  29. #69
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    I'm in no way advocating shooting unarmed men, I am saying we don't have to witch hunt every officer in a shooting before the facts come out, and we damn sure don't need people destroying **** and attacking people based on the color of their skin in retaliation. ****, this "war on blacks" is so important of a cause, young black men are killing each other to express their outrage. GTFO
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  30. #70
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    Was the car running? Every report I've ever seen says the car stalled or died in the middle of the road (again, odd that he didn't push it to the side and call for emergency himself). And I am glad there is a court on this. I really want to see the evidence of the case before I make a solid opinion.
    I read that it was running, and the suspect acting erratically.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  31. #71

    Default

    You're literally advocating by saying that having officers follow the rules of engagement is moronic. Mostly because you're stupid, but aside from that you think the rules, which soldiers in a far more hostile environment, have to follow is taking away from their safety. Well boo-*******-hoo, they signed up for it, they trained for it, SHOOTING TO KILL, is hardly ever a necessary step. As far as I'm concerned I'm not saying the Tulsa shooting was injustified, however, shooting to kill instead of to disable is unjustified.
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    o ya. i hope he goes back to it. i liked my name being in some1's sig

  32. #72

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    You're literally advocating by saying that having officers follow the rules of engagement is moronic. Mostly because you're stupid, but aside from that you think the rules, which soldiers in a far more hostile environment, have to follow is taking away from their safety. Well boo-*******-hoo, they signed up for it, they trained for it, SHOOTING TO KILL, is hardly ever a necessary step. As far as I'm concerned I'm not saying the Tulsa shooting was injustified, however, shooting to kill instead of to disable is unjustified.
    If you think the life of someone is worth less because they signed up for a violent job then you're the moron here.

  33. #73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5m4llP0X View Post
    If you think the life of someone is worth less because they signed up for a violent job then you're the moron here.
    You two are some kind of stupid. Where did I mention their life was worth less? I couldn't give a **** less if they shoot someone to save their lives. HOWEVER, shooting to kill is the last resort, NOT the first.
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    o ya. i hope he goes back to it. i liked my name being in some1's sig

  34. #74
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    You're literally advocating by saying that having officers follow the rules of engagement is moronic. Mostly because you're stupid, but aside from that you think the rules, which soldiers in a far more hostile environment, have to follow is taking away from their safety. Well boo-*******-hoo, they signed up for it, they trained for it, SHOOTING TO KILL, is hardly ever a necessary step. As far as I'm concerned I'm not saying the Tulsa shooting was injustified, however, shooting to kill instead of to disable is unjustified.
    Stupid lmao, name calling from someone with a moronic quote from themselves as a siggy. Hardly ever necessary? Really go to youtube, watch some videos of cops taking fire and how fast it happens. It happens so much more then these shootings. You are uninformed, and I will now refer to you as JDJ. (Jdurand junior)
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  35. #75

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Blazin1 View Post
    Stupid lmao, name calling from someone with a moronic quote from themselves as a siggy. Hardly ever necessary? Really go to youtube, watch some videos of cops taking fire and how fast it happens. It happens so much more then these shootings. You are uninformed, and I will now refer to you as JDJ. (Jdurand junior)
    Herpderp wen ur two stewpid to com up wit gewd insult resort to sig insults. Yes, because YouTube is where I will be enlightened on what I was actually trained for, but you know, you let me know how them tube studies work out. While you're there watch the video of the Tulsa shooting and you let me know how quickly that happened and how necessary a kill shot is.

    While you're at it, realize I'm not saying they shouldn't shoot the people, I'm saying they should shoot to disable, but you'll probably misread that as something else because u r rly rly dum.
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    o ya. i hope he goes back to it. i liked my name being in some1's sig

  36. #76
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    I'm not saying use them for training lmaao, you are so dense. As far as insulting, you started that long ago in this discussion when presented with comments you couldn't refute. Also a trait of your daddy JD btw.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  37. #77

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    You two are some kind of stupid. Where did I mention their life was worth less? I couldn't give a **** less if they shoot someone to save their lives. HOWEVER, shooting to kill is the last resort, NOT the first.
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    Well boo-*******-hoo, they signed up for it
    Here. And more idiocy below.
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    It's my firm belief that officers shouldn't shoot a live round unless actually fired upon.
    This states people going for their gun cannot be shot until they shot at the cop first. A restriction even civilans and militaty don't have.
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    Honestly, I think the police would be much more effective and less lethal if they were only allowed to carry non-lethal rounds.
    Again, this means they're not allowed to respond with lethal force when lethal threats are being levvyed against them. This would also encourage criminals to actively fight because the threat of death is gone--especially gangs.

  38. #78
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    Pox, what is your opinion on his sig, honestly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

  39. #79

    Default

    Rules of engagement. 'nuff said. Verbal, hand signals, warning shot, shoot to disable, lethal. Follow those rules, these things won't happen. I'll let you two squares continue your circular *****how in piece.

    As for you blazin, you can call me whatever you want cupcake, won't make you any less of an idiot.
    Quote Originally Posted by mbstokem View Post
    o ya. i hope he goes back to it. i liked my name being in some1's sig

  40. #80
    Consul The Blazin1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Murica... **** yeah
    Posts
    6,858

    Default

    I'm literally laughing, MB talks of lame insults and I get this jewel of a neg:

    Thread:*North Carolina's outrage

    "You're about as useful as a football bat"

    Go home mom, seriously, you're really drunk.
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron D'Holbach View Post
    You should quote yourself. It's like liking your Facebook status or high-fiving yourself in the mirror.

    It's what I would do if I didn't have to keep mine exactly how it is for madsquirrels and erazer.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •