Sorry,i dont get..

PJ_Soul

dimitrispearljam said:

my sister is a cop..he husband as well..so lets say,im more easy to take their side than be against them
this was an exucation.,.again,at greece they will be in jail facing 1st degree murder..
empty your gun like this isnt protect and serve,...is murder..

Europe is much more enlightened when it comes to this kind of thing than North America is Dimitris.

wall232

dimitrispearljam said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Wow dimi. You just compared 2 police officers who were protecting themselves to an Islamic radical group kidnapping and sawing the head off a journalist.

i just compare a murderer that crazy fucker cut the head,wiuth 2 officers that instead of do the best ,the normal thing ,to unarm a guy on the street,they kill him cos they didnt care or respect of his life and cos they know they will just give a statement to internal affers and will let go
so yes,,someone dont respect human life and take it so easily,cos has the power to do it,or has a knife and a head infront of them to cut for me are the same..both murderers

The men cutting off heads are cowards, plain and simple. These cops were called to a situation where they already knew the man had a knife. He waited for them to arrive and then screamed and yelled at them to kill him as he continued walking towards them, with a knife. Do you really want officers’ getting into physical situations with people who are armed? Just because they are cops they don't have to deal with being in a fight with someone who is armed. If you had someone approaching you, screaming at you and making threats towards you and that person had a knife would you just fight hand to hand and hope you don’t get stabbed? Or would you look for something to attack him with or defend yourself with? I would be searching with my eyes for something I could grab to bash his head in before he was on me.

This is suicide by cop.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

dimitrispearljam said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dimitrispearljam said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Wow dimi. You just compared 2 police officers who were protecting themselves to an Islamic radical group kidnapping and sawing the head off a journalist.

i just compare a murderer that crazy fucker cut the head,wiuth 2 officers that instead of do the best ,the normal thing ,to unarm a guy on the street,they kill him cos they didnt care or respect of his life and cos they know they will just give a statement to internal affers and will let go
so yes,,someone dont respect human life and take it so easily,cos has the power to do it,or has a knife and a head infront of them to cut for me are the same..both murderers

Except one victim was confronting and challenging their slayer with a knife. The other victim believed in something different than their slayer.

There's a big difference between these two examples.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

dimitrispearljam said:

Last-12-Exit said:

Wow dimi. You just compared 2 police officers who were protecting themselves to an Islamic radical group kidnapping and sawing the head off a journalist.

i just compare a murderer that crazy fucker cut the head,wiuth 2 officers that instead of do the best ,the normal thing ,to unarm a guy on the street,they kill him cos they didnt care or respect of his life and cos they know they will just give a statement to internal affers and will let go
so yes,,someone dont respect human life and take it so easily,cos has the power to do it,or has a knife and a head infront of them to cut for me are the same..both murderers

Except one victim was confronting and challenging their slayer with a knife. The other victim believed in something different than their slayer.

There's a big difference between these two examples.

i agree..but im talking about the murderers,not the victims

One murderer was motivated by survival instincts and another was motivated through fanaticism.

Idris

dignin said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.

So we should just leave everything up to cops and let them make their own decisions without questioning them? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible and dangerous to you?

What you say here isn't congruent.

We have to let them make decisions in the line of fire; however, after the fact, we can review their performance to determine if they were malicious or not.

I don't read where he said we have to live with every decision cops make. I read that it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

But that's what we do now. We let them make decisions and then call them out when it seems their decisions were terrible. But you asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions... We can. That's my point. We, the public, have to be the ones who judge whether or not their actions are okay or not. If we don't, then who should? Other cops?? I don't think THAT'S such a good idea.

Yes, that's the point. They are part of our civil society....not above it.

That's right.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.

So we should just leave everything up to cops and let them make their own decisions without questioning them? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible and dangerous to you?

What you say here isn't congruent.

We have to let them make decisions in the line of fire; however, after the fact, we can review their performance to determine if they were malicious or not.

I don't read where he said we have to live with every decision cops make. I read that it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

But that's what we do now. We let them make decisions and then call them out when it seems their decisions were terrible. But you asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions... We can (i.e. watch dogs, etc). That's my point. We, the public or its representatives, have to be the ones who judge whether or not their actions are okay or not. If we don't, then who should? Other cops?? I don't think THAT'S such a good idea.

I never asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions. I said, it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

We can judge all we want, but let's at least acknowledge that we do so from the comfort and security of our homes... not in front of a crazed man menacingly approaching us with a knife in hand.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.

So we should just leave everything up to cops and let them make their own decisions without questioning them? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible and dangerous to you?

What you say here isn't congruent.

We have to let them make decisions in the line of fire; however, after the fact, we can review their performance to determine if they were malicious or not.

I don't read where he said we have to live with every decision cops make. I read that it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

But that's what we do now. We let them make decisions and then call them out when it seems their decisions were terrible. But you asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions... We can (i.e. watch dogs, etc). That's my point. We, the public or its representatives, have to be the ones who judge whether or not their actions are okay or not. If we don't, then who should? Other cops?? I don't think THAT'S such a good idea.

I never asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions. I said, it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

We can judge all we want, but let's at least acknowledge that we do so from the comfort and security of our homes... not in front of a crazed man menacingly approaching us with a knife in hand.

But we have the expectation that the cops are specially trained to deal with those situations better that we could. When they don't do that, then we have a responsibility to confront that.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.

So we should just leave everything up to cops and let them make their own decisions without questioning them? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible and dangerous to you?

What you say here isn't congruent.

We have to let them make decisions in the line of fire; however, after the fact, we can review their performance to determine if they were malicious or not.

I don't read where he said we have to live with every decision cops make. I read that it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

But that's what we do now. We let them make decisions and then call them out when it seems their decisions were terrible. But you asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions... We can (i.e. watch dogs, etc). That's my point. We, the public or its representatives, have to be the ones who judge whether or not their actions are okay or not. If we don't, then who should? Other cops?? I don't think THAT'S such a good idea.

I never asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions. I said, it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

We can judge all we want, but let's at least acknowledge that we do so from the comfort and security of our homes... not in front of a crazed man menacingly approaching us with a knife in hand.

But we have the expectation that the cops are specially trained to deal with those situations better that we could. When they don't do that, then we have a responsibility to confront that.

Correct. They are trained not to drop a deuce in their pantaloons when an armed assailant disobeys them and advances towards them.

Training was followed. What this entire debate should be about is whether or not the officer was excessive dealing with this man- not whether or not the officer should have fired at the man.

I have consistently said this event certainly appears excessive; however, I have also said that the man demanded the cops take strong action, whereas some have suggested maybe they should have run away instead.

Idris

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.

So we should just leave everything up to cops and let them make their own decisions without questioning them? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible and dangerous to you?

What you say here isn't congruent.

We have to let them make decisions in the line of fire; however, after the fact, we can review their performance to determine if they were malicious or not.

I don't read where he said we have to live with every decision cops make. I read that it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

But that's what we do now. We let them make decisions and then call them out when it seems their decisions were terrible. But you asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions... We can (i.e. watch dogs, etc). That's my point. We, the public or its representatives, have to be the ones who judge whether or not their actions are okay or not. If we don't, then who should? Other cops?? I don't think THAT'S such a good idea.

I never asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions. I said, it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

We can judge all we want, but let's at least acknowledge that we do so from the comfort and security of our homes... not in front of a crazed man menacingly approaching us with a knife in hand.

But we have the expectation that the cops are specially trained to deal with those situations better that we could. When they don't do that, then we have a responsibility to confront that.

Correct. They are trained not to drop a deuce in their pantaloons when an armed assailant disobeys them and advances towards them.

Training was followed. What this entire debate should be about is whether or not the officer was excessive dealing with this man- not whether or not the officer should have fired at the man.

I have consistently said this event certainly appears excessive; however, I have also said that the man demanded the cops take strong action, whereas some have suggested maybe they should have run away instead.

That's right.
-
But who said that the cops should have (maybe) 'run away' instead?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Idris said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.

So we should just leave everything up to cops and let them make their own decisions without questioning them? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible and dangerous to you?

What you say here isn't congruent.

We have to let them make decisions in the line of fire; however, after the fact, we can review their performance to determine if they were malicious or not.

I don't read where he said we have to live with every decision cops make. I read that it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

But that's what we do now. We let them make decisions and then call them out when it seems their decisions were terrible. But you asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions... We can (i.e. watch dogs, etc). That's my point. We, the public or its representatives, have to be the ones who judge whether or not their actions are okay or not. If we don't, then who should? Other cops?? I don't think THAT'S such a good idea.

I never asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions. I said, it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

We can judge all we want, but let's at least acknowledge that we do so from the comfort and security of our homes... not in front of a crazed man menacingly approaching us with a knife in hand.

But we have the expectation that the cops are specially trained to deal with those situations better that we could. When they don't do that, then we have a responsibility to confront that.

Correct. They are trained not to drop a deuce in their pantaloons when an armed assailant disobeys them and advances towards them.

Training was followed. What this entire debate should be about is whether or not the officer was excessive dealing with this man- not whether or not the officer should have fired at the man.

I have consistently said this event certainly appears excessive; however, I have also said that the man demanded the cops take strong action, whereas some have suggested maybe they should have run away instead.

That's right.
-
But who said that the cops should have (maybe) 'run away' instead?

I used that as a parallel to some of the silly options people suggested.

Honestly, it's tough to argue for these cops given how far they took things.

Again, I support cops using whatever force necessary to prevent harm onto themselves. I don't support a 'pass' to do as they please once the threat is contained.

It'll be interesting to see what happens out of this.

Idris

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Idris said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.

So we should just leave everything up to cops and let them make their own decisions without questioning them? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible and dangerous to you?

What you say here isn't congruent.

We have to let them make decisions in the line of fire; however, after the fact, we can review their performance to determine if they were malicious or not.

I don't read where he said we have to live with every decision cops make. I read that it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

But that's what we do now. We let them make decisions and then call them out when it seems their decisions were terrible. But you asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions... We can (i.e. watch dogs, etc). That's my point. We, the public or its representatives, have to be the ones who judge whether or not their actions are okay or not. If we don't, then who should? Other cops?? I don't think THAT'S such a good idea.

I never asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions. I said, it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

We can judge all we want, but let's at least acknowledge that we do so from the comfort and security of our homes... not in front of a crazed man menacingly approaching us with a knife in hand.

But we have the expectation that the cops are specially trained to deal with those situations better that we could. When they don't do that, then we have a responsibility to confront that.

Correct. They are trained not to drop a deuce in their pantaloons when an armed assailant disobeys them and advances towards them.

Training was followed. What this entire debate should be about is whether or not the officer was excessive dealing with this man- not whether or not the officer should have fired at the man.

I have consistently said this event certainly appears excessive; however, I have also said that the man demanded the cops take strong action, whereas some have suggested maybe they should have run away instead.

That's right.
-
But who said that the cops should have (maybe) 'run away' instead?

I used that as a parallel to some of the silly options people suggested.

Honestly, it's tough to argue for these cops given how far they took things.

Again, I support cops using whatever force necessary to prevent harm onto themselves. I don't support a 'pass' to do as they please once the threat is contained.

It'll be interesting to see what happens out of this.

K then, fair enough.
-
It'll be interesting indeed.

dimitrispearljam

This is murder...find any excuse you want..
this is shoot to kill..no unarm the suspect,not protect the other civilians,no help calm the situation,not help someone,maybe was drunk,or with drugs,not just someone has a knife,not somewone just dont listen to orders..in the end this is not to stop someone made a mistake..
they empty both their guns,with only one purpose
to take his life..
murder,1st degree

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Idris said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.

So we should just leave everything up to cops and let them make their own decisions without questioning them? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible and dangerous to you?

What you say here isn't congruent.

We have to let them make decisions in the line of fire; however, after the fact, we can review their performance to determine if they were malicious or not.

I don't read where he said we have to live with every decision cops make. I read that it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

But that's what we do now. We let them make decisions and then call them out when it seems their decisions were terrible. But you asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions... We can (i.e. watch dogs, etc). That's my point. We, the public or its representatives, have to be the ones who judge whether or not their actions are okay or not. If we don't, then who should? Other cops?? I don't think THAT'S such a good idea.

I never asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions. I said, it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

We can judge all we want, but let's at least acknowledge that we do so from the comfort and security of our homes... not in front of a crazed man menacingly approaching us with a knife in hand.

But we have the expectation that the cops are specially trained to deal with those situations better that we could. When they don't do that, then we have a responsibility to confront that.

Correct. They are trained not to drop a deuce in their pantaloons when an armed assailant disobeys them and advances towards them.

Training was followed. What this entire debate should be about is whether or not the officer was excessive dealing with this man- not whether or not the officer should have fired at the man.

I have consistently said this event certainly appears excessive; however, I have also said that the man demanded the cops take strong action, whereas some have suggested maybe they should have run away instead.

That's right.
-
But who said that the cops should have (maybe) 'run away' instead?

I used that as a parallel to some of the silly options people suggested.

Honestly, it's tough to argue for these cops given how far they took things.

Again, I support cops using whatever force necessary to prevent harm onto themselves. I don't support a 'pass' to do as they please once the threat is contained.

It'll be interesting to see what happens out of this.

No one said anything about running away. Someone suggested they could have stayed in their car while they thought things through a little more thoroughly and then someone called that the same as running away. That's what I remember. I thought the idea of staying in the car while they thought longer than bare seconds was a good suggestion. The guy wasn't going anywhere and wasn't threatening anyone else as far as I know.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Idris said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.

So we should just leave everything up to cops and let them make their own decisions without questioning them? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible and dangerous to you?

What you say here isn't congruent.

We have to let them make decisions in the line of fire; however, after the fact, we can review their performance to determine if they were malicious or not.

I don't read where he said we have to live with every decision cops make. I read that it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

But that's what we do now. We let them make decisions and then call them out when it seems their decisions were terrible. But you asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions... We can (i.e. watch dogs, etc). That's my point. We, the public or its representatives, have to be the ones who judge whether or not their actions are okay or not. If we don't, then who should? Other cops?? I don't think THAT'S such a good idea.

I never asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions. I said, it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

We can judge all we want, but let's at least acknowledge that we do so from the comfort and security of our homes... not in front of a crazed man menacingly approaching us with a knife in hand.

But we have the expectation that the cops are specially trained to deal with those situations better that we could. When they don't do that, then we have a responsibility to confront that.

Correct. They are trained not to drop a deuce in their pantaloons when an armed assailant disobeys them and advances towards them.

Training was followed. What this entire debate should be about is whether or not the officer was excessive dealing with this man- not whether or not the officer should have fired at the man.

I have consistently said this event certainly appears excessive; however, I have also said that the man demanded the cops take strong action, whereas some have suggested maybe they should have run away instead.

That's right.
-
But who said that the cops should have (maybe) 'run away' instead?

I used that as a parallel to some of the silly options people suggested.

Honestly, it's tough to argue for these cops given how far they took things.

Again, I support cops using whatever force necessary to prevent harm onto themselves. I don't support a 'pass' to do as they please once the threat is contained.

It'll be interesting to see what happens out of this.

No one said anything about running away. Someone suggested they could have stayed in their car while they thought things through a little more thoroughly and then someone called that the same as running away. That's what I remember. I thought the idea of staying in the car while they thought longer than bare seconds was a good suggestion. The guy wasn't going anywhere and wasn't threatening anyone else as far as I know.

Sorry. Bad idea. That scenario could play out several ways that would leave egg on the face of the police department.

Imagine: cops are called to deal with some kook and as they arrive... he threatens them... they hide in their car, scratch their heads, and wonder what to do.

Then: the crazy guy gets angrier and angrier until finally grabbing someone and gashing them... or... runs away and the next day robs another store of two sodas gashing the store owner who puts up resistance... or...

Watch the media and mainstream society have fun with those types of scenarios.

You are being unrealistic.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Idris said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.

So we should just leave everything up to cops and let them make their own decisions without questioning them? Doesn't that seem a little irresponsible and dangerous to you?

What you say here isn't congruent.

We have to let them make decisions in the line of fire; however, after the fact, we can review their performance to determine if they were malicious or not.

I don't read where he said we have to live with every decision cops make. I read that it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

But that's what we do now. We let them make decisions and then call them out when it seems their decisions were terrible. But you asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions... We can (i.e. watch dogs, etc). That's my point. We, the public or its representatives, have to be the ones who judge whether or not their actions are okay or not. If we don't, then who should? Other cops?? I don't think THAT'S such a good idea.

I never asked how anyone who isn't a cop can possibly judge their actions. I said, it is a hell of a lot tougher to play cop wearing the shoes and on the street than it is from behind your laptop screen.

We can judge all we want, but let's at least acknowledge that we do so from the comfort and security of our homes... not in front of a crazed man menacingly approaching us with a knife in hand.

But we have the expectation that the cops are specially trained to deal with those situations better that we could. When they don't do that, then we have a responsibility to confront that.

Correct. They are trained not to drop a deuce in their pantaloons when an armed assailant disobeys them and advances towards them.

Training was followed. What this entire debate should be about is whether or not the officer was excessive dealing with this man- not whether or not the officer should have fired at the man.

I have consistently said this event certainly appears excessive; however, I have also said that the man demanded the cops take strong action, whereas some have suggested maybe they should have run away instead.

That's right.
-
But who said that the cops should have (maybe) 'run away' instead?

I used that as a parallel to some of the silly options people suggested.

Honestly, it's tough to argue for these cops given how far they took things.

Again, I support cops using whatever force necessary to prevent harm onto themselves. I don't support a 'pass' to do as they please once the threat is contained.

It'll be interesting to see what happens out of this.

No one said anything about running away. Someone suggested they could have stayed in their car while they thought things through a little more thoroughly and then someone called that the same as running away. That's what I remember. I thought the idea of staying in the car while they thought longer than bare seconds was a good suggestion. The guy wasn't going anywhere and wasn't threatening anyone else as far as I know.

Sorry. Bad idea. That scenario could play out several ways that would leave egg on the face of the police department.

Imagine: cops are called to deal with some kook and as they arrive... he threatens them... they hide in their car, scratch their heads, and wonder what to do.

Then: the crazy guy gets angrier and angrier until finally grabbing someone and gashing them... or... runs away and the next day robs another store of two sodas gashing the store owner who puts up resistance... or...

Watch the media and mainstream society have fun with those types of scenarios.

You are being unrealistic.

Lol, well I didn't mean they sit there hiding in their car for 10 minutes. I just meant that staying in their car for 30 seconds more to actually give themselves time to avoid acting on pure adrenaline and realize that they could both get out at the same time with their tasters and pepper spray in each hand and take the guy down without killing him Would Have Been A Much Better decision. I think that 17 seconds to See Something, pull a gun, jump out of a car, and kill a guy who is actually no actual IMMEDIATE danger to anyone (fhere weren't any ofher people near enough to him) seems beyond rash.

brianlux

Idris said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.

I've faced deadly situations before, I know what I'm talking about. Thanks for your conjecture.

(I was also stabbed once before, trust me, I get it)

@-) Shi-it! Sorry to deflect the conversation for a moment but, damn Idris, I'm sorry to hear that!

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

Idris said:

Last-12-Exit said:

It's not up to us to decide when it is or is not necessary to use their weapon. We are not the ones out there facing these situations. How easy is it to sit at our computers watching these videos and when we weren't facing that guy. Unless you were a cop, how can you say that it was unnecessary to use a gun. Most of us have never really faced a life threatening situation in our lives. Yet we want to tell the people who face them on a daily basis how to handle it.

I've faced deadly situations before, I know what I'm talking about. Thanks for your conjecture.

(I was also stabbed once before, trust me, I get it)

@-) Shi-it! Sorry to deflect the conversation for a moment but, damn Idris, I'm sorry to hear that!

Me too!

And for the record, I think a lot of us have been in very very threatening situations. For me, it was a van full of men who pulled up and tried to drag me in and kidnap me (presumably to rape me or kill me or beat the shit out of me or something). I had to fight the one who jumped out off. Got him in the sternum with my keys hard enough for him to let go so I could run. Luckily he wasn't a big guy.

I also had a drunk aggressive dude pull out a revolver at a camp site and start waving it around and threatening people. He could have shot anyone who was there and not even remember it the next day.

I'm sure plenty of people have had stuff happen to them where they felt like their lives were I danger. So it's not that hard to understand the immediate stress that cops might be under... of course they have special training as well as a reasonable expectation to be in danger, which should make them much more prepared to properly deal with such situations.

Last-12-Exit

Can those of you who have been in those situations say that you wouldn't have liked to have had a weapon and shot your assailants to save your life?

brianlux

Last-12-Exit said:

Can those of you who have been in those situations say that you wouldn't have liked to have had a weapon and shot your assailants to save your life?

Yes, I can say that. I was recently assaulted in what I believe was likely a gang initiation in an attempted "knock out game". After being hit on the head, I backed off my attacker by confronting him and then quickly got my wife, step daughter and myself into the car and got the hell out of there. He was with three other guys- probably a gang. If I had had a gun in my car and had tried to get it to shot the guy my wife and step daughter and I might have been killed by one or more of the other punks.

Violence begets violence begets violence begets violence begets violence, ad infintum, FUCK.

Last-12-Exit

That probably was the best thing for you Brian. That whole knockout game shit is fucking crazy. I'm glad you made it out of there Ok.

brianlux

Last-12-Exit said:

That probably was the best thing for you Brian. That whole knockout game shit is fucking crazy. I'm glad you made it out of there Ok.

Hey, thanks man. And I'm sorry if I sounded defensive. I should probably not go there- the whole incident kind of fucks with my head when I think about it. The officer in charge of the case (which is all but closed- they can't find the punks) said that he wished it had happened to him because there would be one less punk on the street. I have to admit I couldn't argue with that though I wish there were some peaceful way to stop that kind of craziness. I'm probably being too idealist as usual.