Police abuse

lolobugg

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.

^exactly... while I don't excuse all cops.... until we ban handguns we will always be a cowboy culture.

backseatLover12

American culture = cowboy culture = I wonder what the future holds (likely not very good).

Turn it around America!

i_lov_it

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.

Reading this reminds of an incident a few weeks ago here in Sydney where a Woman was shot dead by Police...she was holding a knife and was surrounded by quite a few Police.

fife

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

Last-12-Exit

Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.

muskydan

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

badbrains

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

They're not super heroes, they're just doing their jobs Dirty Harry.

badbrains

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

I've shown your posts to my REAL cop friends and they all say you're an embarrassment to the shield. If you REALLY are a cop in Chicago.

rgambs

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

The argument is not about what the legal protocol is, the argument is if it makes sense. It is a fact that authorization to shoot to kill will inevitably lead to unnecessary loss of life. Such as the unarmed naked man in Georgia who was shot instead of tazed, because, who cares if he dies, he's just a ghetto thug.

fife

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.

The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.

looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.

fife

Last-12-Exit said:

Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.

what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"

muskydan

badbrains said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

I've shown your posts to my REAL cop friends and they all say you're an embarrassment to the shield. If you REALLY are a cop in Chicago.

Your obsession with me is getting creepy. Who the hell shows posts from a rock n roll website to their Cop Friends??? Like you would have cop friends the way you beat up the profession everytime chance you get?? You really do need to leave Mommy and Daddy's basement and get out more kid....

muskydan

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.

The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.

looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.

May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.

And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore

badbrains

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

I've shown your posts to my REAL cop friends and they all say you're an embarrassment to the shield. If you REALLY are a cop in Chicago.

Your obsession with me is getting creepy. Who the hell shows posts from a rock n roll website to their Cop Friends??? Like you would have cop friends the way you beat up the profession everytime chance you get?? You really do need to leave Mommy and Daddy's basement and get out more kid....

Ok Dirty Harry. I'm stalking you. You caught me. Sorry you get your panties all in a bunch every time I call you out. What gets me, is that I'm sure there are other policeman/policewoman in these forums. And what I find odd, even odder then that lame ass bet you made with your friends (Sean penn thread) is that NOT A SINGLE one has come on to defend you or even speak on your behalf. That I find odd. I showed my cop friends your posts because I wanted to show them what kind of person is representing there fellow brothers in blue. Funny thing is NOT 1 of them even believes you're a cop. Maybe a rent a security guy like Paul Blart or maybe even a George Zimmerman wanna be cop.

Time for me to go and check what mommy made me for lunch today.

muskydan

badbrains said:

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

I've shown your posts to my REAL cop friends and they all say you're an embarrassment to the shield. If you REALLY are a cop in Chicago.

Your obsession with me is getting creepy. Who the hell shows posts from a rock n roll website to their Cop Friends??? Like you would have cop friends the way you beat up the profession everytime chance you get?? You really do need to leave Mommy and Daddy's basement and get out more kid....

Ok Dirty Harry. I'm stalking you. You caught me. Sorry you get your panties all in a bunch every time I call you out. What gets me, is that I'm sure there are other policeman/policewoman in these forums. And what I find odd, even odder then that lame ass bet you made with your friends (Sean penn thread) is that NOT A SINGLE one has come on to defend you or even speak on your behalf. That I find odd. I showed my cop friends your posts because I wanted to show them what kind of person is representing there fellow brothers in blue. Funny thing is NOT 1 of them even believes you're a cop. Maybe a rent a security guy like Paul Blart or maybe even a George Zimmerman wanna be cop.

Time for me to go and check what mommy made me for lunch today.

Thanks for the laugh kid, you are always good 4 that. Tell your police friends to please stay safe. More assainstions in Ferguson.

fife

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.

The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.

looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.

May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.

And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore

no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?

muskydan

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.

The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.

looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.

May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.

And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore

no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?

Well we have a lot more guns (legal and illegal) in the USA than most places in the world. Therefore the chances of the police encountering an offender with a gun or much higher and its the police's sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officers are in fear for life.

fife

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.

The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.

looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.

May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.

And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore

no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?

Well we have a lot more guns (legal and illegal) in the USA than most places in the world. Therefore the chances of the police encountering an offender with a gun or much higher and its the police's sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officers are in fear for life.

so I am sure for the protected of citizens and police officers that you are with many people here and in the USA when they are calling for more restrictions of gun ownership. that way less guns will be around and therefore the chance of police officers encountering people with guns will be less.?

also, i just want to correct one very important detail of what you wrote. "its the police sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officer are in reasonable fear for their life"

rgambs

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.

The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.

looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.

May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.

And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore

no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?

Well we have a lot more guns (legal and illegal) in the USA than most places in the world. Therefore the chances of the police encountering an offender with a gun or much higher and its the police's sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officers are in fear for life.

so I am sure for the protected of citizens and police officers that you are with many people here and in the USA when they are calling for more restrictions of gun ownership. that way less guns will be around and therefore the chance of police officers encountering people with guns will be less.?

also, i just want to correct one very important detail of what you wrote. "its the police sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officer are in reasonable fear for their life"

Where's the clappy face when you need it?

lolobugg

rgambs said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan 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..

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

I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.

what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.

here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.

It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.

no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.

The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.

looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.

May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.

And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore

no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?

Well we have a lot more guns (legal and illegal) in the USA than most places in the world. Therefore the chances of the police encountering an offender with a gun or much higher and its the police's sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officers are in fear for life.

so I am sure for the protected of citizens and police officers that you are with many people here and in the USA when they are calling for more restrictions of gun ownership. that way less guns will be around and therefore the chance of police officers encountering people with guns will be less.?

also, i just want to correct one very important detail of what you wrote. "its the police sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officer are in reasonable fear for their life"

Where's the clappy face when you need it?