Sorry,i dont get..

unsung

You can't stop this sort of action peacefully when these people have no regard for life.

This cop has the best solution.

dimitrispearljam

unsung said:

You can't stop this sort of action peacefully when these people have no regard for life.

This cop has the best solution.

u can with one bullet at not critical spot on the body of suspect
when u want to kill you shoot 10+ times..
murder,1st degree

rgambs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

dimitrispearljam said:

if police is only for shoot to kill,u dont need them..maybe marines need to patrol the cities..so shoot everything moves and put snipers to every roof

That's just silly.

it isnt. silly is doggedly backing cops just cuz they are cops. they act like soldiers shooting to kill...the rest of the world looks at america like a bunch of savages and i can see why.
all across the world knife weilding maniacs are dealt with SAFELY by cops who dont even carry guns. why not here? why is deadly force so permissable..

btw thirty bills you answered my question deftly and without evasion in the MB tread...not

You don't know how to use the quote feature and you made your words look like my words.

I asked you to clean that up and then ask me your question. If you are unable to do so, or unwilling, then state such and ask me your question again without fucking anything up as you do.

i quoted you the second time and you evaded the question a second time. Now you have responded a third time without answering the question again and i am wondering why am i bothering with this? If you wanted to answer you wouldnt be dithering about my phone screwing up the quote slightly.

So ask the fucking question of me again. What do you want me to do... go back 7 pages and find it?

And classic... just like you don't want morons that come at cops with knives to be held accountable for their actions... you don't want to assume responsibility for screwing up the quotations (blaming it on the phone).

Notice a pattern here?

i asked twice, thats enough for me, the question is irrelevant now...your tactics are still relevant though. To answer your question at the end (rhetorical or not)
i am noticing a pattern here: evasion followed by beligerance. Happily, im not offended that you made a broad, assumptive attack on the way i live my life becuase you bungled it pretty handily. I havnt addressed the accountability of the knife weilder or michael brown so you are pulling that from somewhere dark, wet, and stinky.
I absolutely hold them accountable for their parts in their deaths. If they had behaved properly they would still be alive. However, like in a classroom, i hold the teacher (cop) to a higher standard of behavior than student (suspect) as the position of authority is the position which requires discretion.

You are weird, man. Seriously.

Whatever the question was that you thought was really special... let's just say you completely stumped me on it and you win.

So go scurry away and place that somewhere, as you put it to me, dark, wet, and stinky.

way to break the pattern and offer beligerance first and then evade the point of the post.

"You are weird man. Seriously." =Beligerance
"Whatever the question was that you thought was really special... Let's just say you completely stumped me on it and you win." = Evasion of the entire point of my post...you know the post that started by saying that the question was irrelevant. It is your poor tactics i was adressing, as you implied that i shirk personal responsibilty. Then I gave my actual thoughts on the responsibility of the victims and since it wasnt convenient to your beligerance, you evaded it...as you are clearly wont to do.
"So scurry away..." = weak beligerance to finish the well established pattern of using veiled and half insults.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

dimitrispearljam said:

if police is only for shoot to kill,u dont need them..maybe marines need to patrol the cities..so shoot everything moves and put snipers to every roof

That's just silly.

it isnt. silly is doggedly backing cops just cuz they are cops. they act like soldiers shooting to kill...the rest of the world looks at america like a bunch of savages and i can see why.
all across the world knife weilding maniacs are dealt with SAFELY by cops who dont even carry guns. why not here? why is deadly force so permissable..

btw thirty bills you answered my question deftly and without evasion in the MB tread...not

You don't know how to use the quote feature and you made your words look like my words.

I asked you to clean that up and then ask me your question. If you are unable to do so, or unwilling, then state such and ask me your question again without fucking anything up as you do.

i quoted you the second time and you evaded the question a second time. Now you have responded a third time without answering the question again and i am wondering why am i bothering with this? If you wanted to answer you wouldnt be dithering about my phone screwing up the quote slightly.

So ask the fucking question of me again. What do you want me to do... go back 7 pages and find it?

And classic... just like you don't want morons that come at cops with knives to be held accountable for their actions... you don't want to assume responsibility for screwing up the quotations (blaming it on the phone).

Notice a pattern here?

i asked twice, thats enough for me, the question is irrelevant now...your tactics are still relevant though. To answer your question at the end (rhetorical or not)
i am noticing a pattern here: evasion followed by beligerance. Happily, im not offended that you made a broad, assumptive attack on the way i live my life becuase you bungled it pretty handily. I havnt addressed the accountability of the knife weilder or michael brown so you are pulling that from somewhere dark, wet, and stinky.
I absolutely hold them accountable for their parts in their deaths. If they had behaved properly they would still be alive. However, like in a classroom, i hold the teacher (cop) to a higher standard of behavior than student (suspect) as the position of authority is the position which requires discretion.

You are weird, man. Seriously.

Whatever the question was that you thought was really special... let's just say you completely stumped me on it and you win.

So go scurry away and place that somewhere, as you put it to me, dark, wet, and stinky.

way to break the pattern and offer beligerance first and then evade the point of the post.

"You are weird man. Seriously." =Beligerance
"Whatever the question was that you thought was really special... Let's just say you completely stumped me on it and you win." = Evasion of the entire point of my post...you know the post that started by saying that the question was irrelevant. It is your poor tactics i was adressing, as you implied that i shirk personal responsibilty. Then I gave my actual thoughts on the responsibility of the victims and since it wasnt convenient to your beligerance, you evaded it...as you are clearly wont to do.
"So scurry away..." = weak beligerance to finish the well established pattern of using veiled and half insults.

I'm not going to persist with this juvenile argument.

I do wish to remind you how things unfolded that have your panties in a knot though:

1. You attempted to quote something I said, but in the process... you messed up the quote feature and made your words my words. In short, things were messy to the point where I didn't care to read what you wrote.

2. You challenged me to answer a question of yours- accusing me of ducking it.

3. I responded and asked you to clean up your post so that it was legible. Then, I would answer your question. You never did.

4. Then, in some other post of yours, you added another challenge to me at the bottom of a post offered, from what I can remember, to someone else (btw thirty...).

5. I reminded you that I was awaiting for your question to appear from the hieroglyphics it was originally presented in.

6. You went cuckoo.

I honestly did go searching for it, but the thread it is in has 15+ pages. After looking through about four pages, I stopped.

If you can remember what it was you wished me to answer... then present it and I will offer what I can given the context is somewhat in the past- it would have taken 10 minutes less to write than this post I am quoting. Otherwise, you are free to call me evasive and belligerent if that is what is providing you enjoyment.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

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.

Again, you are not being reasonable.

The first shots were not rash. The cops are not trained to sit in their car and wonder what to do for any length of time. They are also not trained to run away from an assailant, nor 'inch their way up' through their tool belt to suppress a direct threat.

In my mind, it is clear that the subsequent shots should be the root of this discussion.

wall232

dimitrispearljam said:

unsung said:

You can't stop this sort of action peacefully when these people have no regard for life.

This cop has the best solution.

u can with one bullet at not critical spot on the body of suspect
when u want to kill you shoot 10+ times..
murder,1st degree

Again, cops are trained to shoot center mass, which is the torso. This isn't the movies, there are no warning shots, there is no shooting at legs or arms. We can argue that maybe they shot too many times but they had every right to shoot this man approaching them with a weapon. Honestly, I would rather see this man shot then one of the officers being hurt. Murder in the 1st I believe is when you have every intent to go out and kill someone, I may be wrong and ill stand corrected if proven otherwise. I highly doubt these officers left their house that morning with the intent to go kill this man or anyone else.

chadwick

wall232 you are correct as far as i know. 1st degree murder is preplanned/thought out

chadwick

"First Degree Murder: Definition. In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim."
criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/first-degree-murder-overview.html

blueandwhite

dimitrispearljam said:

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

If this goes to trial I would imagine the charges will be second degree murder or manslaughter. First degree murder requires premeditation which is very difficult to prove. Even a charge of second degree murder requires that the perpetrator intended to kill the victim. In this case, the fact he was cuffing the corpse could make that very difficult to prove. The officer screwed up big time and in all likelihood ended his career and will face time in prison. Police officers are human and under a huge amount of pressure. Unfortunately, events such as this are inevitable.

chadwick

the guy shot was not a corpse when he was cuffed. he sure as heck was on his way to being one but he wasn't one just yet. he was moving & for all the cops knew could of had a gun in his hoodie's pocket. he's wearing a hoodie in the summertime in st. louis... he actually could of been wearing a bullet proof vest... who knows.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

PJ_Soul said:

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.

Again, you are not being reasonable.

The first shots were not rash. The cops are not trained to sit in their car and wonder what to do for any length of time. They are also not trained to run away from an assailant, nor 'inch their way up' through their tool belt to suppress a direct threat.

In my mind, it is clear that the subsequent shots should be the root of this discussion.

They are trained to use their brains and not act on pure emotion. They are trained to assess situations as best they can. They are not trained to shoot first and think later. I can't believe that you think cops stopping to actually think for a few seconds so they can find the best way to NOT kill someone is unreasonable.

unsung

dimitrispearljam said:

unsung said:

You can't stop this sort of action peacefully when these people have no regard for life.

This cop has the best solution.

u can with one bullet at not critical spot on the body of suspect
when u want to kill you shoot 10+ times..
murder,1st degree

I agree, but we are talking about two different situations.

unsung

Lots of people on here only want the police to be armed.

If that were the case these situations would increase IMO.

JimmyV

Some interesting and logical points here regarding why the body was cuffed. I think my mind has been changed on that.

dimitrispearljam

wall232 said:

dimitrispearljam said:

unsung said:

You can't stop this sort of action peacefully when these people have no regard for life.

This cop has the best solution.

u can with one bullet at not critical spot on the body of suspect
when u want to kill you shoot 10+ times..
murder,1st degree

Again, cops are trained to shoot center mass, which is the torso. This isn't the movies, there are no warning shots, there is no shooting at legs or arms. We can argue that maybe they shot too many times but they had every right to shoot this man approaching them with a weapon. Honestly, I would rather see this man shot then one of the officers being hurt. Murder in the 1st I believe is when you have every intent to go out and kill someone, I may be wrong and ill stand corrected if proven otherwise. I highly doubt these officers left their house that morning with the intent to go kill this man or anyone else.

wall232 said:

dimitrispearljam said:

unsung said:

You can't stop this sort of action peacefully when these people have no regard for life.

This cop has the best solution.

u can with one bullet at not critical spot on the body of suspect
when u want to kill you shoot 10+ times..
murder,1st degree

Again, cops are trained to shoot center mass, which is the torso. This isn't the movies, there are no warning shots, there is no shooting at legs or arms. We can argue that maybe they shot too many times but they had every right to shoot this man approaching them with a weapon. Honestly, I would rather see this man shot then one of the officers being hurt. Murder in the 1st I believe is when you have every intent to go out and kill someone, I may be wrong and ill stand corrected if proven otherwise. I highly doubt these officers left their house that morning with the intent to go kill this man or anyone else.

they shoot to kill..they didnt want to stop him,arrest him,unarm,save the civilians,put the city back in peace
they want to kill and empty their guns
exactly.,this isnt the movies..they took a man life,the same time they could do so many things to not kill him and stop him..
they dont give a shit
next time when is someone u know or a loved one the one will shoot like a dog on the street,tell me the theories about what cops are trained are for.,.

dimitrispearljam

blueandwhite said:

dimitrispearljam said:

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

If this goes to trial I would imagine the charges will be second degree murder or manslaughter. First degree murder requires premeditation which is very difficult to prove. Even a charge of second degree murder requires that the perpetrator intended to kill the victim. In this case, the fact he was cuffing the corpse could make that very difficult to prove. The officer screwed up big time and in all likelihood ended his career and will face time in prison. Police officers are human and under a huge amount of pressure. Unfortunately, events such as this are inevitable.

the video and eyewittness can give the proof needed..
they are lucky they arent in Greece..they will get prison for life for that

dimitrispearljam

.

dimitrispearljam

blueandwhite said:

dimitrispearljam said:

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

If this goes to trial I would imagine the charges will be second degree murder or manslaughter. First degree murder requires premeditation which is very difficult to prove. Even a charge of second degree murder requires that the perpetrator intended to kill the victim. In this case, the fact he was cuffing the corpse could make that very difficult to prove. The officer screwed up big time and in all likelihood ended his career and will face time in prison. Police officers are human and under a huge amount of pressure. Unfortunately, events such as this are inevitable.

the video and eyewittness can give the proof needed..
they are lucky they arent in Greece..they would get life in prison for that

Last-12-Exit

dimitrispearljam said:

wall232 said:

dimitrispearljam said:

unsung said:

You can't stop this sort of action peacefully when these people have no regard for life.

This cop has the best solution.

u can with one bullet at not critical spot on the body of suspect
when u want to kill you shoot 10+ times..
murder,1st degree

Again, cops are trained to shoot center mass, which is the torso. This isn't the movies, there are no warning shots, there is no shooting at legs or arms. We can argue that maybe they shot too many times but they had every right to shoot this man approaching them with a weapon. Honestly, I would rather see this man shot then one of the officers being hurt. Murder in the 1st I believe is when you have every intent to go out and kill someone, I may be wrong and ill stand corrected if proven otherwise. I highly doubt these officers left their house that morning with the intent to go kill this man or anyone else.

wall232 said:

dimitrispearljam said:

unsung said:

You can't stop this sort of action peacefully when these people have no regard for life.

This cop has the best solution.

u can with one bullet at not critical spot on the body of suspect
when u want to kill you shoot 10+ times..
murder,1st degree

Again, cops are trained to shoot center mass, which is the torso. This isn't the movies, there are no warning shots, there is no shooting at legs or arms. We can argue that maybe they shot too many times but they had every right to shoot this man approaching them with a weapon. Honestly, I would rather see this man shot then one of the officers being hurt. Murder in the 1st I believe is when you have every intent to go out and kill someone, I may be wrong and ill stand corrected if proven otherwise. I highly doubt these officers left their house that morning with the intent to go kill this man or anyone else.

they shoot to kill..they didnt want to stop him,arrest him,unarm,save the civilians,put the city back in peace
they want to kill and empty their guns
exactly.,this isnt the movies..they took a man life,the same time they could do so many things to not kill him and stop him..
they dont give a shit
next time when is someone u know or a loved one the one will shoot like a dog on the street,tell me the theories about what cops are trained are for.,.

Yes they shoot to kill. There's no other reason to shoot. Police aren't trained to shoot to wound.

Idris

Yes, they shoot to kill...They 'shot' to 'kill'. and in this specific situation, was it necessary? That is the question.

Now I understand, I get that it may of been legally allowed (the shooting), they may of followed procedure/protocol perfectly, they may of followed their training as it was.

I am questioning, all of it.

2014, progressive society, and the best way we can deal with a guy with a knife is to pump bullets into his body? If that's the best we got, we really need to do some major self reflection. Surely.

We need better non lethal alternatives to handle situations, you know, situations like a (somewhat) slow walking guy with a pocket knife to the side of him.