So actually Killing the man is A-OK with you. You and many here are not actually coming out and saying it, but sure are implying it. Not subdue him, or shoot in the leg, not care about HUMAN LIFE, but relentless flat out kill him. Like he's not worth a damn worth saving. The "blame the victim" mentality that's been thrown out a lot recently in these police stories.
I'm certainly not ho-humming and A-OK'ing. I'm looking at it for what I know and have seen so far.
I've also said before that when someone's actions warrant it (such as trying to take an officer's weapon), then yes - that's the price paid for doing so.
And realistically, in the midst of this man fighting and trying to arm himself, the officer is supposed to pause, aim for the leg and shoot (not to mention possibly hitting the femoral artery)? We're not talking some slow, played-out occurrence; seems like it turned very quickly.
As to the last part, I don't need to prove my heart or character...though I'll say that while I do care about human life in general, there are some in particular over whom I lose no sleep.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.
Exactly. Shooting to kill shouldn't be (and usually isn't except in the case of Tamir Rice who never had a chance) the 1st response. But there is no such thing as shooting to injure. That isn't taught to police and isn't taught to civilians in self-defense classes. If you pull out a gun, you better be prepared to shoot it. If you shoot your gun, you better be shooting to kill. Anything less can cost you your own life. This isn't Hollywood.
And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.
Thank you
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.
Exactly. Shooting to kill shouldn't be (and usually isn't except in the case of Tamir Rice who never had a chance) the 1st response. But there is no such thing as shooting to injure. That isn't taught to police and isn't taught to civilians in self-defense classes. If you pull out a gun, you better be prepared to shoot it. If you shoot your gun, you better be shooting to kill. Anything less can cost you your own life. This isn't Hollywood.
And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on.
Well-said as usual, jeff - though I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with "upstanding citizen"; I hope so!
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.
Exactly. Shooting to kill shouldn't be (and usually isn't except in the case of Tamir Rice who never had a chance) the 1st response. But there is no such thing as shooting to injure. That isn't taught to police and isn't taught to civilians in self-defense classes. If you pull out a gun, you better be prepared to shoot it. If you shoot your gun, you better be shooting to kill. Anything less can cost you your own life. This isn't Hollywood.
And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on.
Well-said as usual, jeff - though I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with "upstanding citizen"; I hope so!
Yes, snipers have a little safety and space. Find me a link to any training or protocol that is reputable that has police or citizens in a confrontation shoot to injure. I've never seen it. Are you guys suggesting snipers be called for every response?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.
Exactly. Shooting to kill shouldn't be (and usually isn't except in the case of Tamir Rice who never had a chance) the 1st response. But there is no such thing as shooting to injure. That isn't taught to police and isn't taught to civilians in self-defense classes. If you pull out a gun, you better be prepared to shoot it. If you shoot your gun, you better be shooting to kill. Anything less can cost you your own life. This isn't Hollywood.
And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on.
Well-said as usual, jeff - though I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with "upstanding citizen"; I hope so!
Yes, snipers have a little safety and space. Find me a link to any training or protocol that is reputable that has police or citizens in a confrontation shoot to injure. I've never seen it. Are you guys suggesting snipers be called for every response?
I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you over my opinion. That's all it is, my opinion. They can and should shoot to disarm, not kill. Worlds not gonna end because of my opinion.
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.
Exactly. Shooting to kill shouldn't be (and usually isn't except in the case of Tamir Rice who never had a chance) the 1st response. But there is no such thing as shooting to injure. That isn't taught to police and isn't taught to civilians in self-defense classes. If you pull out a gun, you better be prepared to shoot it. If you shoot your gun, you better be shooting to kill. Anything less can cost you your own life. This isn't Hollywood.
And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on.
Well-said as usual, jeff - though I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with "upstanding citizen"; I hope so!
Yes, snipers have a little safety and space. Find me a link to any training or protocol that is reputable that has police or citizens in a confrontation shoot to injure. I've never seen it. Are you guys suggesting snipers be called for every response?
I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you over my opinion. That's all it is, my opinion. They can and should shoot to disarm, not kill. Worlds not gonna end because of my opinion.
Well you are off base if you think the police CAN shoot to disarm legally. If a cop admits to shooting to disarm a offender w/ a weapon in the USA they will be terminated and possibly face jailtime. That is a fact. Now you can have an opinion on whether you think that mandate is right or wrong cause afterall we live in a wonderful place called The United States of America. However, it sure Sounds like there are a lot of like minded people as yourself in That honorable country called France, it might be a place worth checking out.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,776
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.
Exactly. Shooting to kill shouldn't be (and usually isn't except in the case of Tamir Rice who never had a chance) the 1st response. But there is no such thing as shooting to injure. That isn't taught to police and isn't taught to civilians in self-defense classes. If you pull out a gun, you better be prepared to shoot it. If you shoot your gun, you better be shooting to kill. Anything less can cost you your own life. This isn't Hollywood.
And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on.
Well-said as usual, jeff - though I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with "upstanding citizen"; I hope so!
Yes, snipers have a little safety and space. Find me a link to any training or protocol that is reputable that has police or citizens in a confrontation shoot to injure. I've never seen it. Are you guys suggesting snipers be called for every response?
I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you over my opinion. That's all it is, my opinion. They can and should shoot to disarm, not kill. Worlds not gonna end because of my opinion.
Well you are off base if you think the police CAN shoot to disarm legally. If a cop admits to shooting to disarm a offender w/ a weapon in the USA they will be terminated and possibly face jailtime. That is a fact. Now you can have an opinion on whether you think that mandate is right or wrong cause afterall we live in a wonderful place called The United States of America. However, it sure Sounds like there are a lot of like minded people as yourself in That honorable country called France, it might be a place worth checking out.
The articles I looked at on-line all basically say the same though I didn't find any that mention that an officer will be terminated for shooting to wound. This article...
...says, "members of law enforcement are legally permitted to use deadly force when they have probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm either to the officer or to others. In such cases, most officers are trained to shoot at a target's center mass, where there is a higher concentration of vital areas and major blood vessels."
But the question that comes to mind is, how often do said officers make the correct assemsemt before shooting?
The other question that comes to my mind is, why do you suggest bb check out France (inferring he should move there)? Did we loose our freedom to voice a differing opinion in this country? This is just a rock and roll fan site man, no need to flex those cop muscles here.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It's not absurd, it just proves how little respect police officers and their forces have for human life. Oh, the humanity.
Well you are off base if you think the police CAN shoot to disarm legally. If a cop admits to shooting to disarm a offender w/ a weapon in the USA they will be terminated and possibly face jailtime. That is a fact. Now you can have an opinion on whether you think that mandate is right or wrong cause afterall we live in a wonderful place called The United States of America. However, it sure Sounds like there are a lot of like minded people as yourself in That honorable country called France, it might be a place worth checking out.
Jail time for an injury, freedom for killing. Makes a whole lot of sense right there.
I was thinking, it's not so much about "deserve to die" in this situation (if it indeed occurred as seen). It's more about if you do X, then it's likely Y or Z will happen. Consequences for actions, no matter whom.
Right and police are seriously outnumbering this guy so their reaction allowed victims reaction. Look I get it but let's step back and maybe look if there are better ways to handle. Maybe not, I don't know just we should think about strategy cops use sometimes for certain situations. Four unarmed cops could of detained this person. Shot him in leg who knows....
Couple facts you need 2 know. Cops are not paid to fight fair. Like it or not it's A JOB and our first priority is to make sure you and your partner/fellow officers get home safe to our familes. This unique job comes with a higher standard of accountability than most professions, although many of you Would disagree with me on that I am sure. Police get fired for countless of reasons on the Job and even more during our personal life's...we step on our dicks often off-duty and the media just eats it up. I will never forget my first day on the job when my salty old field training officer told me, "congratulations kid, you Are now closer than you ever have been in your life to going to jail Than becoming the police". He was absolutely right. Seen many in my day go to the PEN justly and for complete BS. The suggestion of shooting a suspect in the leg purposely is not an option. We are trained and required by law to use lethal force on a offender if we or a civilian are in fear for their life till the threat is eliminated which often times ends badly for offender. You state under oath in a court of law I just shot him in the leg to temporally maim him or fired a few warning shots in the air you will loose your job and go to jail most likely...It truely amazes me how people think police can dodge bullets or think the police should not shoot at anyone till fired upon, like we are some kind of fuckin super hero or something....sorry folks, it don't work That way although my childhood hero was Superman. Monday mournjng quarter backing is very easy, we all do it, but being in a 2 gun fights and 3 fights for my own service pistol has been the most stressful events in my life...time just stops and you feel like you are in the Matrix or something. Luckily for me my training kicked in and i won the battles. Also, you would find nobody to do this thankless job if you unarmed Police officers. That just would be suicidel for American Policing. Just my 2 cents worth from a now seasoned and salty ghetto cop, take it for what it's worth.
Oh I get everything you write and agree with most. If you go back and read my past posts you will likely find I made mention of most. Now required to kill not main by law, that is new.
Now with all that said, I still believe excessive force is used at times and there is a line that is crossed.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
Dimi think the thing here is that all cops have guns so if there's hand to hand struggle criminal has opportunity to grab cops gun then bam bam bam.
Couple facts you need 2 know. Cops are not paid to fight fair. Like it or not it's A JOB and our first priority is to make sure you and your partner/fellow officers get home safe to our familes. This unique job comes with a higher standard of accountability than most professions, although many of you Would disagree with me on that I am sure. Police get fired for countless of reasons on the Job and even more during our personal life's...we step on our dicks often off-duty and the media just eats it up. I will never forget my first day on the job when my salty old field training officer told me, "congratulations kid, you Are now closer than you ever have been in your life to going to jail Than becoming the police". He was absolutely right. Seen many in my day go to the PEN justly and for complete BS. The suggestion of shooting a suspect in the leg purposely is not an option. We are trained and required by law to use lethal force on a offender if we or a civilian are in fear for their life till the threat is eliminated which often times ends badly for offender. You state under oath in a court of law I just shot him in the leg to temporally maim him or fired a few warning shots in the air you will loose your job and go to jail most likely...It truely amazes me how people think police can dodge bullets or think the police should not shoot at anyone till fired upon, like we are some kind of fuckin super hero or something....sorry folks, it don't work That way although my childhood hero was Superman. Monday mournjng quarter backing is very easy, we all do it, but being in a 2 gun fights and 3 fights for my own service pistol has been the most stressful events in my life...time just stops and you feel like you are in the Matrix or something. Luckily for me my training kicked in and i won the battles. Also, you would find nobody to do this thankless job if you unarmed Police officers. That just would be suicidel for American Policing. Just my 2 cents worth from a now seasoned and salty ghetto cop, take it for what it's worth.
If you don't mind my asking....how many years have you been a cop?
Not long enough to collect my pension, but a long time. I still love it and laugh everyday at something...much better than cryin
Long enough that Dan has donut and coffee stains on his keyboard.
I didn't realize that giving a specific number was difficult.
Little to much info on public board. Wouldn't say either.
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It's not absurd, it just proves how little respect police officers and their forces have for human life. Oh, the humanity.
Not just the police. Society condones. Hope they're never drunk and confronted by dick head cop.
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It's not absurd, it just proves how little respect police officers and their forces have for human life. Oh, the humanity.
Don't forget how little respect some idiots have for the law and their own lives.
I was thinking, it's not so much about "deserve to die" in this situation (if it indeed occurred as seen). It's more about if you do X, then it's likely Y or Z will happen. Consequences for actions, no matter whom.
Right and police are seriously outnumbering this guy so their reaction allowed victims reaction. Look I get it but let's step back and maybe look if there are better ways to handle. Maybe not, I don't know just we should think about strategy cops use sometimes for certain situations. Four unarmed cops could of detained this person. Shot him in leg who knows....
Couple facts you need 2 know. Cops are not paid to fight fair. Like it or not it's A JOB and our first priority is to make sure you and your partner/fellow officers get home safe to our familes. This unique job comes with a higher standard of accountability than most professions, although many of you Would disagree with me on that I am sure. Police get fired for countless of reasons on the Job and even more during our personal life's...we step on our dicks often off-duty and the media just eats it up. I will never forget my first day on the job when my salty old field training officer told me, "congratulations kid, you Are now closer than you ever have been in your life to going to jail Than becoming the police". He was absolutely right. Seen many in my day go to the PEN justly and for complete BS. The suggestion of shooting a suspect in the leg purposely is not an option. We are trained and required by law to use lethal force on a offender if we or a civilian are in fear for their life till the threat is eliminated which often times ends badly for offender. You state under oath in a court of law I just shot him in the leg to temporally maim him or fired a few warning shots in the air you will loose your job and go to jail most likely...It truely amazes me how people think police can dodge bullets or think the police should not shoot at anyone till fired upon, like we are some kind of fuckin super hero or something....sorry folks, it don't work That way although my childhood hero was Superman. Monday mournjng quarter backing is very easy, we all do it, but being in a 2 gun fights and 3 fights for my own service pistol has been the most stressful events in my life...time just stops and you feel like you are in the Matrix or something. Luckily for me my training kicked in and i won the battles. Also, you would find nobody to do this thankless job if you unarmed Police officers. That just would be suicidel for American Policing. Just my 2 cents worth from a now seasoned and salty ghetto cop, take it for what it's worth.
Oh I get everything you write and agree with most. If you go back and read my past posts you will likely find I made mention of most. Now required to kill not main by law, that is new.
Now with all that said, I still believe excessive force is used at times and there is a line that is crossed.
I agree with you on excessive force. But don't forget It is not easy determining the threat level in situations Every single time having to do it in a split second. You make a mistake it can cost inocent lives. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.... But that's the job
I was thinking, it's not so much about "deserve to die" in this situation (if it indeed occurred as seen). It's more about if you do X, then it's likely Y or Z will happen. Consequences for actions, no matter whom.
Right and police are seriously outnumbering this guy so their reaction allowed victims reaction. Look I get it but let's step back and maybe look if there are better ways to handle. Maybe not, I don't know just we should think about strategy cops use sometimes for certain situations. Four unarmed cops could of detained this person. Shot him in leg who knows....
Couple facts you need 2 know. Cops are not paid to fight fair. Like it or not it's A JOB and our first priority is to make sure you and your partner/fellow officers get home safe to our familes. This unique job comes with a higher standard of accountability than most professions, although many of you Would disagree with me on that I am sure. Police get fired for countless of reasons on the Job and even more during our personal life's...we step on our dicks often off-duty and the media just eats it up. I will never forget my first day on the job when my salty old field training officer told me, "congratulations kid, you Are now closer than you ever have been in your life to going to jail Than becoming the police". He was absolutely right. Seen many in my day go to the PEN justly and for complete BS. The suggestion of shooting a suspect in the leg purposely is not an option. We are trained and required by law to use lethal force on a offender if we or a civilian are in fear for their life till the threat is eliminated which often times ends badly for offender. You state under oath in a court of law I just shot him in the leg to temporally maim him or fired a few warning shots in the air you will loose your job and go to jail most likely...It truely amazes me how people think police can dodge bullets or think the police should not shoot at anyone till fired upon, like we are some kind of fuckin super hero or something....sorry folks, it don't work That way although my childhood hero was Superman. Monday mournjng quarter backing is very easy, we all do it, but being in a 2 gun fights and 3 fights for my own service pistol has been the most stressful events in my life...time just stops and you feel like you are in the Matrix or something. Luckily for me my training kicked in and i won the battles. Also, you would find nobody to do this thankless job if you unarmed Police officers. That just would be suicidel for American Policing. Just my 2 cents worth from a now seasoned and salty ghetto cop, take it for what it's worth.
Oh I get everything you write and agree with most. If you go back and read my past posts you will likely find I made mention of most. Now required to kill not main by law, that is new.
Now with all that said, I still believe excessive force is used at times and there is a line that is crossed.
I agree with you on excessive force. But don't forget It is not easy determining the threat level in situations Every single time having to do it in a split second. You make a mistake it can cost inocent lives. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.... But that's the job
Have empathy for having to make those tough decisions AND being an officer where everyone could potentially have a gun. Our gun culture affects so much.
I was thinking, it's not so much about "deserve to die" in this situation (if it indeed occurred as seen). It's more about if you do X, then it's likely Y or Z will happen. Consequences for actions, no matter whom.
Right and police are seriously outnumbering this guy so their reaction allowed victims reaction. Look I get it but let's step back and maybe look if there are better ways to handle. Maybe not, I don't know just we should think about strategy cops use sometimes for certain situations. Four unarmed cops could of detained this person. Shot him in leg who knows....
Couple facts you need 2 know. Cops are not paid to fight fair. Like it or not it's A JOB and our first priority is to make sure you and your partner/fellow officers get home safe to our familes. This unique job comes with a higher standard of accountability than most professions, although many of you Would disagree with me on that I am sure. Police get fired for countless of reasons on the Job and even more during our personal life's...we step on our dicks often off-duty and the media just eats it up. I will never forget my first day on the job when my salty old field training officer told me, "congratulations kid, you Are now closer than you ever have been in your life to going to jail Than becoming the police". He was absolutely right. Seen many in my day go to the PEN justly and for complete BS. The suggestion of shooting a suspect in the leg purposely is not an option. We are trained and required by law to use lethal force on a offender if we or a civilian are in fear for their life till the threat is eliminated which often times ends badly for offender. You state under oath in a court of law I just shot him in the leg to temporally maim him or fired a few warning shots in the air you will loose your job and go to jail most likely...It truely amazes me how people think police can dodge bullets or think the police should not shoot at anyone till fired upon, like we are some kind of fuckin super hero or something....sorry folks, it don't work That way although my childhood hero was Superman. Monday mournjng quarter backing is very easy, we all do it, but being in a 2 gun fights and 3 fights for my own service pistol has been the most stressful events in my life...time just stops and you feel like you are in the Matrix or something. Luckily for me my training kicked in and i won the battles. Also, you would find nobody to do this thankless job if you unarmed Police officers. That just would be suicidel for American Policing. Just my 2 cents worth from a now seasoned and salty ghetto cop, take it for what it's worth.
Oh I get everything you write and agree with most. If you go back and read my past posts you will likely find I made mention of most. Now required to kill not main by law, that is new.
Now with all that said, I still believe excessive force is used at times and there is a line that is crossed.
I agree with you on excessive force. But don't forget It is not easy determining the threat level in situations Every single time having to do it in a split second. You make a mistake it can cost inocent lives. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.... But that's the job
Have empathy for having to make those tough decisions AND being an officer where everyone could potentially have a gun. Our gun culture affects so much.
So elaborate on "by law shoot to kill". New one
I don't think I ever said shoot to kill, and if I did I misp
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It's not absurd, it just proves how little respect police officers and their forces have for human life. Oh, the humanity.
Don't forget how little respect some idiots have for the law and their own lives.
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.
Exactly. Shooting to kill shouldn't be (and usually isn't except in the case of Tamir Rice who never had a chance) the 1st response. But there is no such thing as shooting to injure. That isn't taught to police and isn't taught to civilians in self-defense classes. If you pull out a gun, you better be prepared to shoot it. If you shoot your gun, you better be shooting to kill. Anything less can cost you your own life. This isn't Hollywood.
And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on.
Well-said as usual, jeff - though I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with "upstanding citizen"; I hope so!
Yes, snipers have a little safety and space. Find me a link to any training or protocol that is reputable that has police or citizens in a confrontation shoot to injure. I've never seen it. Are you guys suggesting snipers be called for every response?
I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you over my opinion. That's all it is, my opinion. They can and should shoot to disarm, not kill. Worlds not gonna end because of my opinion.
Well you are off base if you think the police CAN shoot to disarm legally. If a cop admits to shooting to disarm a offender w/ a weapon in the USA they will be terminated and possibly face jailtime. That is a fact. Now you can have an opinion on whether you think that mandate is right or wrong cause afterall we live in a wonderful place called The United States of America. However, it sure Sounds like there are a lot of like minded people as yourself in That honorable country called France, it might be a place worth checking out.
France? Why? Never been there. Maybe you should move to Iraq and play Rambo you bigot. Anything factual out of your mouth is a flat out lie. You prob get your stories from watching the Wire, "the best cop show ever"
Comments
I've also said before that when someone's actions warrant it (such as trying to take an officer's weapon), then yes - that's the price paid for doing so.
And realistically, in the midst of this man fighting and trying to arm himself, the officer is supposed to pause, aim for the leg and shoot (not to mention possibly hitting the femoral artery)? We're not talking some slow, played-out occurrence; seems like it turned very quickly.
As to the last part, I don't need to prove my heart or character...though I'll say that while I do care about human life in general, there are some in particular over whom I lose no sleep.
so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile
in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs...
the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on.
Are you guys suggesting snipers be called for every response?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/police-deadly-force_n_5693020.html
...says, "members of law enforcement are legally permitted to use deadly force when they have probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm either to the officer or to others. In such cases, most officers are trained to shoot at a target's center mass, where there is a higher concentration of vital areas and major blood vessels."
But the question that comes to mind is, how often do said officers make the correct assemsemt before shooting?
The other question that comes to my mind is, why do you suggest bb check out France (inferring he should move there)? Did we loose our freedom to voice a differing opinion in this country? This is just a rock and roll fan site man, no need to flex those cop muscles here.
Now with all that said, I still believe excessive force is used at times and there is a line that is crossed.
Disclaimer. Most cops are good.
Oh the idiocy.
So elaborate on "by law shoot to kill". New one