Police abuse
Comments
-
And the race war will engulf the nation and the streets will bleed...muskydan said:
It's slowly getting there buddy. Pro-active policing will only get yourself fired or killed in today's climate. Law abiding tax payers will be the ones suffering the most when the bad guy no longer fears the police.Last-12-Exit said:I'm really glad some of you here aren't in positions of power in politics. There would be no police force. Cops would be armed with Nerf guns and a spray bottle with Tabasco sauce in it.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
We use what we call the balancing test of our use of force model. For example, let's say dude is about to be placed into custody but does not have a plain view weapon in hand and does not comply to verbal commands expect to ride the lightening, get maced, or taken down by a myriad of control instruments. If same guy has a gun in his waist band and goes for his gun well you better Be ready to eliminate that threat.badbrains said:If cops are TRAINED to shoot and kill, then why bother having taser guns?
0 -
Gambs,no pun intended but don't you think that those playing the race card on all these issues are quick to pull the trigger? I mean peeps were already marching in LA from what I read last night blaming this as another race ignited event ,they didn't have the facts.I think some of those folks are trying to create a divide.rgambs said:
And the race war will engulf the nation and the streets will bleed...muskydan said:
It's slowly getting there buddy. Pro-active policing will only get yourself fired or killed in today's climate. Law abiding tax payers will be the ones suffering the most when the bad guy no longer fears the police.Last-12-Exit said:I'm really glad some of you here aren't in positions of power in politics. There would be no police force. Cops would be armed with Nerf guns and a spray bottle with Tabasco sauce in it.
0 -
Tabasco sauce is some dangerous stuff.muskydan said:
It's slowly getting there buddy. Pro-active policing will only get yourself fired or killed in today's climate. Law abiding tax payers will be the ones suffering the most when the bad guy no longer fears the police.Last-12-Exit said:I'm really glad some of you here aren't in positions of power in politics. There would be no police force. Cops would be armed with Nerf guns and a spray bottle with Tabasco sauce in it.
0 -
Don't tell me these cops COULDNT shoot this guy in the fucken leg to subdue him. I haven't watched the video but what I'm getting is that 4 cops vs 1 man. Look, I respect cops, some of my closest friends are cops, believe it or not, but some are just plain Dirty Harry out there. It's one thing if a civilian is shooting at you or coming at u with a knife, but to blast someone for a reason not worth killing him over is ridiculous. Hey, I'm not a cop, and I don't have to sleep at night dealing with any of the shit they do, but they took an oath to protect and serve. Shoot the fucker in the leg, man is down. Shoot him in both fucken legs for all I care, but why kill him?Last-12-Exit said:
What would you want to have for protection in you were a cop?badbrains said:If cops are TRAINED to shoot and kill, then why bother having taser guns?
Scott, u asked me what I'd want for protection if I was a cop, I'd say the same weapons they have. I just wouldn't shoot to kill unless warrantied. How about that person going home that night? Cops say they have that saying get home safe no matter what it takes. Well, how about having that person getting home safe to his family? It mite take him a few years after jail but at least he's alive.0 -
Sure, they are idiots for being so quick to pull the trigger! I don't think they are trying to create a divide at all, they are trying to address a divide which sincerely exists... And they are mostly doing it in the dumbest ways and over the dumbest circumstances possible.rr165892 said:
Gambs,no pun intended but don't you think that those playing the race card on all these issues are quick to pull the trigger? I mean peeps were already marching in LA from what I read last night blaming this as another race ignited event ,they didn't have the facts.I think some of those folks are trying to create a divide.rgambs said:
And the race war will engulf the nation and the streets will bleed...muskydan said:
It's slowly getting there buddy. Pro-active policing will only get yourself fired or killed in today's climate. Law abiding tax payers will be the ones suffering the most when the bad guy no longer fears the police.Last-12-Exit said:I'm really glad some of you here aren't in positions of power in politics. There would be no police force. Cops would be armed with Nerf guns and a spray bottle with Tabasco sauce in it.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
Alrighty then.We agreergambs said:
Sure, they are idiots for being so quick to pull the trigger! I don't think they are trying to create a divide at all, they are trying to address a divide which sincerely exists... And they are mostly doing it in the dumbest ways and over the dumbest circumstances possible.rr165892 said:
Gambs,no pun intended but don't you think that those playing the race card on all these issues are quick to pull the trigger? I mean peeps were already marching in LA from what I read last night blaming this as another race ignited event ,they didn't have the facts.I think some of those folks are trying to create a divide.rgambs said:
And the race war will engulf the nation and the streets will bleed...muskydan said:
It's slowly getting there buddy. Pro-active policing will only get yourself fired or killed in today's climate. Law abiding tax payers will be the ones suffering the most when the bad guy no longer fears the police.Last-12-Exit said:I'm really glad some of you here aren't in positions of power in politics. There would be no police force. Cops would be armed with Nerf guns and a spray bottle with Tabasco sauce in it.
0 -
You can't say you would've done anything different until you have actually felt your life in imminent danger. It's easy to say just shoot him in the leg from the comfort of our safe homes. Everybody is quick to criticize when it's someone else's life that is being threatened. If I feel someone trying to take my gun from me, I don't give a fuck if it's 40 to 1, that dude is going down.badbrains said:
Don't tell me these cops COULDNT shoot this guy in the fucken leg to subdue him. I haven't watched the video but what I'm getting is that 4 cops vs 1 man. Look, I respect cops, some of my closest friends are cops, believe it or not, but some are just plain Dirty Harry out there. It's one thing if a civilian is shooting at you or coming at u with a knife, but to blast someone for a reason not worth killing him over is ridiculous. Hey, I'm not a cop, and I don't have to sleep at night dealing with any of the shit they do, but they took an oath to protect and serve. Shoot the fucker in the leg, man is down. Shoot him in both fucken legs for all I care, but why kill him?Last-12-Exit said:
What would you want to have for protection in you were a cop?badbrains said:If cops are TRAINED to shoot and kill, then why bother having taser guns?
Scott, u asked me what I'd want for protection if I was a cop, I'd say the same weapons they have. I just wouldn't shoot to kill unless warrantied. How about that person going home that night? Cops say they have that saying get home safe no matter what it takes. Well, how about having that person getting home safe to his family? It mite take him a few years after jail but at least he's alive.0 -
So actually Killing the man is A-OK with you. You and many here are not actually coming out and saying it, but sure are implying it. Not subdue him, or shoot in the leg, not care about HUMAN LIFE, but relentless flat out kill him. Like he's not worth a damn worth saving. The "blame the victim" mentality that's been thrown out a lot recently in these police stories.hedonist said:
We're cool, bsL - not taking this personally at all.backseatLover12 said:
4 officers on 1 man who was getting tased at the moment and the only option was to kill. Clearly we know who's at the disadvantage here. And it's not the cops. 4 against 1. And who's the winner? The 4 and the 1 is dead as a door nail. Because cops have forgotten what "disarm" means, apparently. Disarm and detain, they don't do anymore. And people seem to support that. Gee, I wonder where the future is heading.
I'm not trying to get on you, Hedonist, I just wonder where the sense of some people are going, if they think that saving a life is not worth a damn. What is life worth is we as a nation support the killing (rather than disarming and detaining) that the cops do daily?
Sort of echoing what rr said...
I don't know what preceded the shooting - but even if he was initially approached by one or two officers, the man fought them and tried to take their weapon. It seems like the scenario for something even worse happening than what did isn't far-fetched. Plus, the taser didn't faze him at all.
The man's reaction seems to have created that disadvantage.Post edited by backseatLover12 on0 -
I'm fine with it. IF the events unfolded the way I've understood them. Same with that dude in ferguson. Moral of the story, don't try and take a cops gun from him.backseatLover12 said:
So actually Killing the man is A-OK with you. You and many here are not actually coming out and saying it, but sure are implying it. Not subdue him, or shoot in the leg, not care about HUMAN LIFE, but relentless flat out kill him. Like he's not worth a damn worth saving.hedonist said:
We're cool, bsL - not taking this personally at all.backseatLover12 said:
4 officers on 1 man who was getting tased at the moment and the only option was to kill. Clearly we know who's at the disadvantage here. And it's not the cops. 4 against 1. And who's the winner? The 4 and the 1 is dead as a door nail. Because cops have forgotten what "disarm" means, apparently. Disarm and detain, they don't do anymore. And people seem to support that. Gee, I wonder where the future is heading.
I'm not trying to get on you, Hedonist, I just wonder where the sense of some people are going, if they think that saving a life is not worth a damn. What is life worth is we as a nation support the killing (rather than disarming and detaining) that the cops do daily?
Sort of echoing what rr said...
I don't know what preceded the shooting - but even if he was initially approached by one or two officers, the man fought them and tried to take their weapon. It seems like the scenario for something even worse happening than what did isn't far-fetched. Plus, the taser didn't faze him at all.
The man's reaction seems to have created that disadvantage.0 -
I'm certainly not ho-humming and A-OK'ing. I'm looking at it for what I know and have seen so far.backseatLover12 said:So actually Killing the man is A-OK with you. You and many here are not actually coming out and saying it, but sure are implying it. Not subdue him, or shoot in the leg, not care about HUMAN LIFE, but relentless flat out kill him. Like he's not worth a damn worth saving. The "blame the victim" mentality that's been thrown out a lot recently in these police stories.
I've also said before that when someone's actions warrant it (such as trying to take an officer's weapon), then yes - that's the price paid for doing so.
And realistically, in the midst of this man fighting and trying to arm himself, the officer is supposed to pause, aim for the leg and shoot (not to mention possibly hitting the femoral artery)? We're not talking some slow, played-out occurrence; seems like it turned very quickly.
As to the last part, I don't need to prove my heart or character...though I'll say that while I do care about human life in general, there are some in particular over whom I lose no sleep.
0 -
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the lawhedonist said:
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.dimitrispearljam said:
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...hedonist said:
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?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!!
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.
so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile
in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs...
the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”0 -
.dimitrispearljam said:
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the lawhedonist said:
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.dimitrispearljam said:
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...hedonist said:
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?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!!
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.
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 backPost edited by Last-12-Exit on0 -
I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.0
-
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?dimitrispearljam said:
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the lawhedonist said:
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.dimitrispearljam said:
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...hedonist said:
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?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!!
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.
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 back0 -
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.backseatLover12 said:I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.0 -
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.Last-12-Exit said:
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.backseatLover12 said:I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.Monkey Driven, Call this Living?0 -
Exactly. Shooting to kill shouldn't be (and usually isn't except in the case of Tamir Rice who never had a chance) the 1st response. But there is no such thing as shooting to injure. That isn't taught to police and isn't taught to civilians in self-defense classes. If you pull out a gun, you better be prepared to shoot it. If you shoot your gun, you better be shooting to kill. Anything less can cost you your own life. This isn't Hollywood.rgambs said:
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.Last-12-Exit said:
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.backseatLover12 said:I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on."I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/080 -
Thank yourgambs said:
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.Last-12-Exit said:
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.backseatLover12 said:I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.0 -
Well-said as usual, jeff - though I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with "upstanding citizen"; I hope so!jeffbr said:
Exactly. Shooting to kill shouldn't be (and usually isn't except in the case of Tamir Rice who never had a chance) the 1st response. But there is no such thing as shooting to injure. That isn't taught to police and isn't taught to civilians in self-defense classes. If you pull out a gun, you better be prepared to shoot it. If you shoot your gun, you better be shooting to kill. Anything less can cost you your own life. This isn't Hollywood.rgambs said:
It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.Last-12-Exit said:
You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.backseatLover12 said:I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.
The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.
And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help