Police abuse

lolobugg

rr165892 said:

lolobugg said:

rr165892 said:

lolobugg said:

RR,
glad you like it there, but you couldn't pay me to live in Florida.
I think I will stay here at my altitude in the MTNS.

Lolo,I guess that's why when I vacation I head to the hills and the snow birds head here.Where are you?

Asheville NC
Blue Ridge Mountains
I enjoy FLA for vacations.....
lived near the gulf coast for years.
my blood is just too thick for that humidity.

Haha,those are the hills I head to.Spent many summers of my youth as a camper and counselor at Camp Pinewood in Hendersonville.We still head up to Waynesville/Transylvania area for hiking the waterfalls and of course up to Boone and Beech Mtn for some skiing.I affectionately refer to Ashville as the Portland of the south.
I actually picked up some land just south of the NC border in North west GA about 45 min from Natahalia(sp).Hope to someday put a little Family cabin up there.Just to get away.
I amend my earlier statement you don't live in a shitty place.In fact was discussing the merit of Wilmington as a Retirement destination someday.Still some great waterfront available on the NC coast.

Nice whitewater rafting in that area....
You need to look me up next time you are here.
We can do some rafting... been a long time since I have been to Nanahalia.

oh shit.... I better get back on topic before the MODs get me.

rr165892

What were we talking about ?

rr165892

lolobugg said:

rr165892 said:

lolobugg said:

rr165892 said:

lolobugg said:

RR,
glad you like it there, but you couldn't pay me to live in Florida.
I think I will stay here at my altitude in the MTNS.

Lolo,I guess that's why when I vacation I head to the hills and the snow birds head here.Where are you?

Asheville NC
Blue Ridge Mountains
I enjoy FLA for vacations.....
lived near the gulf coast for years.
my blood is just too thick for that humidity.

Haha,those are the hills I head to.Spent many summers of my youth as a camper and counselor at Camp Pinewood in Hendersonville.We still head up to Waynesville/Transylvania area for hiking the waterfalls and of course up to Boone and Beech Mtn for some skiing.I affectionately refer to Ashville as the Portland of the south.
I actually picked up some land just south of the NC border in North west GA about 45 min from Natahalia(sp).Hope to someday put a little Family cabin up there.Just to get away.
I amend my earlier statement you don't live in a shitty place.In fact was discussing the merit of Wilmington as a Retirement destination someday.Still some great waterfront available on the NC coast.

Nice whitewater rafting in that area....
You need to look me up next time you are here.
We can do some rafting... been a long time since I have been to Nanahalia.

oh shit.... I better get back on topic before the MODs get me.

I'll let Ya know.thanks Lolo

rr165892

SPEEDY MCCREADY said:

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

jeffbr said:

hedonist said:

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

backseatLover12 said:

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!

Ha, thanks. Maybe a little sarcastic.

badbrains said:

dignin said:

French Policeman Shoots Suicidal Man (in his leg) To Save His Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_75uR4u5YEs

And there u have it

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"

Back with the name calling again BB I see. You know self control is a behavior a person can learn. Your various personal attacks don't bother me one bit, but keep it up if it makes you feel good about yourself. Have a nice Day.

I give you credit Dan.
Why on Earth you keep coming back here, and dealing with these NO GOOD Liberals, I will never understand.

But I give you credit.
You never back down.
Good for you!!!!!!!

And don't get all bent out of shape you Liberals.
You know I am just having a little fun with ya.

Haha,nice speedy.Those push ups are puttin a little spring in your step.

brianlux

SPEEDY MCCREADY said:

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

jeffbr said:

hedonist said:

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

backseatLover12 said:

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!

Ha, thanks. Maybe a little sarcastic.

badbrains said:

dignin said:

French Policeman Shoots Suicidal Man (in his leg) To Save His Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_75uR4u5YEs

And there u have it

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"

Back with the name calling again BB I see. You know self control is a behavior a person can learn. Your various personal attacks don't bother me one bit, but keep it up if it makes you feel good about yourself. Have a nice Day.

I give you credit Dan.
Why on Earth you keep coming back here, and dealing with these NO GOOD Liberals, I will never understand.

But I give you credit.
You never back down.
Good for you!!!!!!!

And don't get all bent out of shape you Liberals.
You know I am just having a little fun with ya.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1cM7Dev_oY

badbrains

SPEEDY MCCREADY said:

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

jeffbr said:

hedonist said:

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

backseatLover12 said:

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!

Ha, thanks. Maybe a little sarcastic.

badbrains said:

dignin said:

French Policeman Shoots Suicidal Man (in his leg) To Save His Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_75uR4u5YEs

And there u have it

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"

Back with the name calling again BB I see. You know self control is a behavior a person can learn. Your various personal attacks don't bother me one bit, but keep it up if it makes you feel good about yourself. Have a nice Day.

I give you credit Dan.
Why on Earth you keep coming back here, and dealing with these NO GOOD Liberals, I will never understand.

But I give you credit.
You never back down.
Good for you!!!!!!!

And don't get all bent out of shape you Liberals.
You know I am just having a little fun with ya.

And what does that say about you NO GOOD neoCONS?

rr165892

badbrains said:

SPEEDY MCCREADY said:

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

jeffbr said:

hedonist said:

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

backseatLover12 said:

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!

Ha, thanks. Maybe a little sarcastic.

badbrains said:

dignin said:

French Policeman Shoots Suicidal Man (in his leg) To Save His Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_75uR4u5YEs

And there u have it

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"

Back with the name calling again BB I see. You know self control is a behavior a person can learn. Your various personal attacks don't bother me one bit, but keep it up if it makes you feel good about yourself. Have a nice Day.

I give you credit Dan.
Why on Earth you keep coming back here, and dealing with these NO GOOD Liberals, I will never understand.

But I give you credit.
You never back down.
Good for you!!!!!!!

And don't get all bent out of shape you Liberals.
You know I am just having a little fun with ya.

And what does that say about you NO GOOD neoCONS?

Why the emphasis on CONS? What Ya trying to say?

dimitrispearljam

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

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?

Yes,exactly what im saying

rr165892

dimitrispearljam said:

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

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?

Yes,exactly what im saying

Damn,that's sketchy.

dimitrispearljam

rr165892 said:

dimitrispearljam said:

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

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?

Yes,exactly what im saying

Damn,that's sketchy.

we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals
they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice
and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..

rr165892

dimitrispearljam said:

rr165892 said:

dimitrispearljam said:

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

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?

Yes,exactly what im saying

Damn,that's sketchy.

we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals
they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice
and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..

Whatever works For you guys D sounds good but I know that wouldn't cut it here.

muskydan

dimitrispearljam said:

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

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?

Yes,exactly what im saying

I am assuming this is Greece we are talking about. If that's the case then say no more.

muskydan

dimitrispearljam said:

rr165892 said:

dimitrispearljam said:

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

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?

Yes,exactly what im saying

Damn,that's sketchy.

we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals
they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice
and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..

Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity

jeffbr

Waiting to be shot at before shooting? There must be some crazy training drills in the academy. Live round dodgeball! Do they handcuff them before they go on shift, too?

callen

dimitrispearljam said:

rr165892 said:

dimitrispearljam said:

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

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?

Yes,exactly what im saying

Damn,that's sketchy.

we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals
they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice
and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..

Dimi, thing is we like staying in the 1700's in our cowboy and Indian days. Guns for everyone. So the cops are paranoid as they should be cause anyone can have gun and shoot them. So I don't blame the cops I blame our inability to become bit more civilized. Now that said even with increased threat to police some still go beyond what's reasonable. But again that may be part of training and procedures so it's American society that is to blame not the cops.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dimitrispearljam said:

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

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?

Yes,exactly what im saying

Dimi...

Come on man. You can't think this is cool: take aim and fire at me. I will not look to defend myself until you do?

dimitrispearljam

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dimitrispearljam said:

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

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?

Yes,exactly what im saying

Dimi...

Come on man. You can't think this is cool: take aim and fire at me. I will not look to defend myself until you do?

it is for my country,cos we see life different..and guns are not allowed to civilians
and most importantr we have more peaceful society..

dimitrispearljam

callen said:

dimitrispearljam said:

rr165892 said:

dimitrispearljam said:

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

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?

Yes,exactly what im saying

Damn,that's sketchy.

we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals
they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice
and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..

Dimi, thing is we like staying in the 1700's in our cowboy and Indian days. Guns for everyone. So the cops are paranoid as they should be cause anyone can have gun and shoot them. So I don't blame the cops I blame our inability to become bit more civilized. Now that said even with increased threat to police some still go beyond what's reasonable. But again that may be part of training and procedures so it's American society that is to blame not the cops.

the law has to do wiuth it and what allow to the cops to do,.isnt cops as occupation fault..they doing their job with the way tthay allow to do it

Last-12-Exit

American cops don't do whatever the hell they want. When a shooting occurs, there is an investigation. If it is not justified, the cop is charged. As in the case of an Orangeburg County, SC sheriff. Or if it is justified, as in the Ferguson MO case, the cop walks.

rgambs

Last-12-Exit said:

American cops don't do whatever the hell they want. When a shooting occurs, there is an investigation. If it is not justified, the cop is charged. As in the case of an Orangeburg County, SC sheriff. Or if it is justified, as in the Ferguson MO case, the cop walks.

And in the case of Tamir Rice, John Crawford, and hundreds of other? There is no doubt whatsoever that the benefit of doubt is given to police. That is justified somewhat, they do risk their lives, but accountability is largely just a word when it comes to police.