hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Whatever works For you guys D sounds good but I know that wouldn't cut it here.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
I am assuming this is Greece we are talking about. If that's the case then say no more.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
Waiting to be shot at before shooting? There must be some crazy training drills in the academy. Live round dodgeball! Do they handcuff them before they go on shift, too?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Dimi, thing is we like staying in the 1700's in our cowboy and Indian days. Guns for everyone. So the cops are paranoid as they should be cause anyone can have gun and shoot them. So I don't blame the cops I blame our inability to become bit more civilized. Now that said even with increased threat to police some still go beyond what's reasonable. But again that may be part of training and procedures so it's American society that is to blame not the cops.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Dimi...
Come on man. You can't think this is cool: take aim and fire at me. I will not look to defend myself until you do?
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Dimi...
Come on man. You can't think this is cool: take aim and fire at me. I will not look to defend myself until you do?
it is for my country,cos we see life different..and guns are not allowed to civilians and most importantr we have more peaceful society..
"...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.....”
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Dimi, thing is we like staying in the 1700's in our cowboy and Indian days. Guns for everyone. So the cops are paranoid as they should be cause anyone can have gun and shoot them. So I don't blame the cops I blame our inability to become bit more civilized. Now that said even with increased threat to police some still go beyond what's reasonable. But again that may be part of training and procedures so it's American society that is to blame not the cops.
the law has to do wiuth it and what allow to the cops to do,.isnt cops as occupation fault..they doing their job with the way tthay allow to do it
"...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.....”
American cops don't do whatever the hell they want. When a shooting occurs, there is an investigation. If it is not justified, the cop is charged. As in the case of an Orangeburg County, SC sheriff. Or if it is justified, as in the Ferguson MO case, the cop walks.
American cops don't do whatever the hell they want. When a shooting occurs, there is an investigation. If it is not justified, the cop is charged. As in the case of an Orangeburg County, SC sheriff. Or if it is justified, as in the Ferguson MO case, the cop walks.
And in the case of Tamir Rice, John Crawford, and hundreds of other? There is no doubt whatsoever that the benefit of doubt is given to police. That is justified somewhat, they do risk their lives, but accountability is largely just a word when it comes to police.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Dimi, thing is we like staying in the 1700's in our cowboy and Indian days. Guns for everyone. So the cops are paranoid as they should be cause anyone can have gun and shoot them. So I don't blame the cops I blame our inability to become bit more civilized. Now that said even with increased threat to police some still go beyond what's reasonable. But again that may be part of training and procedures so it's American society that is to blame not the cops.
^exactly... while I don't excuse all cops.... until we ban handguns we will always be a cowboy culture.
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Dimi, thing is we like staying in the 1700's in our cowboy and Indian days. Guns for everyone. So the cops are paranoid as they should be cause anyone can have gun and shoot them. So I don't blame the cops I blame our inability to become bit more civilized. Now that said even with increased threat to police some still go beyond what's reasonable. But again that may be part of training and procedures so it's American society that is to blame not the cops.
Reading this reminds of an incident a few weeks ago here in Sydney where a Woman was shot dead by Police...she was holding a knife and was surrounded by quite a few Police.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
They're not super heroes, they're just doing their jobs Dirty Harry.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
I've shown your posts to my REAL cop friends and they all say you're an embarrassment to the shield. If you REALLY are a cop in Chicago.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
The argument is not about what the legal protocol is, the argument is if it makes sense. It is a fact that authorization to shoot to kill will inevitably lead to unnecessary loss of life. Such as the unarmed naked man in Georgia who was shot instead of tazed, because, who cares if he dies, he's just a ghetto thug.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.
The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.
looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.
Shooting to injure does not stop the threat. It could. But if I'm the one that is being threatened and I want that threat to cease immediately, the head shot is coming.
what do you consider threatening? for some people, a threat can be a person saying they are going to beat you up. was the response to Eric garner situation correct? the question is "what is a reasonable proportional response to a situation"
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
I've shown your posts to my REAL cop friends and they all say you're an embarrassment to the shield. If you REALLY are a cop in Chicago.
Your obsession with me is getting creepy. Who the hell shows posts from a rock n roll website to their Cop Friends??? Like you would have cop friends the way you beat up the profession everytime chance you get?? You really do need to leave Mommy and Daddy's basement and get out more kid....
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.
The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.
looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.
May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.
And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
I've shown your posts to my REAL cop friends and they all say you're an embarrassment to the shield. If you REALLY are a cop in Chicago.
Your obsession with me is getting creepy. Who the hell shows posts from a rock n roll website to their Cop Friends??? Like you would have cop friends the way you beat up the profession everytime chance you get?? You really do need to leave Mommy and Daddy's basement and get out more kid....
Ok Dirty Harry. I'm stalking you. You caught me. Sorry you get your panties all in a bunch every time I call you out. What gets me, is that I'm sure there are other policeman/policewoman in these forums. And what I find odd, even odder then that lame ass bet you made with your friends (Sean penn thread) is that NOT A SINGLE one has come on to defend you or even speak on your behalf. That I find odd. I showed my cop friends your posts because I wanted to show them what kind of person is representing there fellow brothers in blue. Funny thing is NOT 1 of them even believes you're a cop. Maybe a rent a security guy like Paul Blart or maybe even a George Zimmerman wanna be cop.
Time for me to go and check what mommy made me for lunch today.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
I've shown your posts to my REAL cop friends and they all say you're an embarrassment to the shield. If you REALLY are a cop in Chicago.
Your obsession with me is getting creepy. Who the hell shows posts from a rock n roll website to their Cop Friends??? Like you would have cop friends the way you beat up the profession everytime chance you get?? You really do need to leave Mommy and Daddy's basement and get out more kid....
Ok Dirty Harry. I'm stalking you. You caught me. Sorry you get your panties all in a bunch every time I call you out. What gets me, is that I'm sure there are other policeman/policewoman in these forums. And what I find odd, even odder then that lame ass bet you made with your friends (Sean penn thread) is that NOT A SINGLE one has come on to defend you or even speak on your behalf. That I find odd. I showed my cop friends your posts because I wanted to show them what kind of person is representing there fellow brothers in blue. Funny thing is NOT 1 of them even believes you're a cop. Maybe a rent a security guy like Paul Blart or maybe even a George Zimmerman wanna be cop.
Time for me to go and check what mommy made me for lunch today.
Thanks for the laugh kid, you are always good 4 that. Tell your police friends to please stay safe. More assainstions in Ferguson.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.
The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.
looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.
May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.
And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore
no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.
The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.
looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.
May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.
And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore
no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?
Well we have a lot more guns (legal and illegal) in the USA than most places in the world. Therefore the chances of the police encountering an offender with a gun or much higher and its the police's sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officers are in fear for life.
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.
The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.
looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.
May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.
And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore
no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?
Well we have a lot more guns (legal and illegal) in the USA than most places in the world. Therefore the chances of the police encountering an offender with a gun or much higher and its the police's sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officers are in fear for life.
so I am sure for the protected of citizens and police officers that you are with many people here and in the USA when they are calling for more restrictions of gun ownership. that way less guns will be around and therefore the chance of police officers encountering people with guns will be less.?
also, i just want to correct one very important detail of what you wrote. "its the police sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officer are in reasonable fear for their life"
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.
The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.
looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.
May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.
And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore
no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?
Well we have a lot more guns (legal and illegal) in the USA than most places in the world. Therefore the chances of the police encountering an offender with a gun or much higher and its the police's sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officers are in fear for life.
so I am sure for the protected of citizens and police officers that you are with many people here and in the USA when they are calling for more restrictions of gun ownership. that way less guns will be around and therefore the chance of police officers encountering people with guns will be less.?
also, i just want to correct one very important detail of what you wrote. "its the police sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officer are in reasonable fear for their life"
hey,i just google it..at google translator.. there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him.. called "disarm " spread the word!!
dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?
I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?
I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.
if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...
I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.
its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs... the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back
So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?
Yes,exactly what im saying
Damn,that's sketchy.
we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..
Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity
I don't think from reading all these posts that he is saying you can't defend yourself but i do think some people have to learn that defending yourself doesn't mean shooting to kill.
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know always say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
It don't work that way in the USA. You may want to read some previous posts in this thread about when an officer can use deadly force legally according to the law enforcement use of force model. The cops you know and the ones in Greece are all super heroes apparently that can dodge bullets and are willing to get shot or attacked first before react.
no the cops I know are not super heroes, they are well trained police officers who handle different level of conflicts in different ways. they don;t just answer every problem with a kill.
The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.
looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.
May I ask are you an American?? Our laws and Police procedures are very different for obvious reasons.
And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore
no I am not American. can you please tell me why your laws are different for obvious reason?
Well we have a lot more guns (legal and illegal) in the USA than most places in the world. Therefore the chances of the police encountering an offender with a gun or much higher and its the police's sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officers are in fear for life.
so I am sure for the protected of citizens and police officers that you are with many people here and in the USA when they are calling for more restrictions of gun ownership. that way less guns will be around and therefore the chance of police officers encountering people with guns will be less.?
also, i just want to correct one very important detail of what you wrote. "its the police sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officer are in reasonable fear for their life"
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
Comments
Come on man. You can't think this is cool: take aim and fire at me. I will not look to defend myself until you do?
and most importantr we have more peaceful society..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
1995- New Orleans, LA : New Orleans, LA
1996- Charleston, SC
1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY
2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2
2020- Nashville, TN
2022- Smashville
2023- Austin, TX x2
2024- Baltimore
American culture = cowboy culture = I wonder what the future holds (likely not very good).
Turn it around America!
what about the idea that you can shoot someone in the shoulder. the cops I know alwasy say the first option is to stop something bad from happening and the last resport is to shoot to kill.
here is an idea, stop shooting people in the head or chest.
The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.
looking at the above statement from your supreme court, can you tell me if Eric garner or all the other stories people have talked about here fall into this category.
And police in the USA don't end every life threatning situation with a Kill. Believe it or not 99% don't which is truely amazing. You only hear about the ones that end up badly for the offender and not the thousands of situations that the police saved the day. That don't sell papers anymore
Time for me to go and check what mommy made me for lunch today.
also, i just want to correct one very important detail of what you wrote. "its the police sworn duty to eliminate the threat if a citizen or police officer are in reasonable fear for their life"
livefootsteps.org/user/?usr=446
1995- New Orleans, LA : New Orleans, LA
1996- Charleston, SC
1998- Atlanta, GA: Birmingham, AL: Greenville, SC: Knoxville, TN
2000- Atlanta, GA: New Orleans, LA: Memphis, TN: Nashville, TN
2003- Raleigh, NC: Charlotte, NC: Atlanta, GA
2004- Asheville, NC (hometown show)
2006- Cincinnati, OH
2008- Columbia, SC
2009- Chicago, IL x 2 / Ed Vedder- Atlanta, GA x 2
2010- Bristow, VA
2011- Alpine Valley, WI (PJ20) x 2 / Ed Vedder- Chicago, IL
2012- Atlanta, GA
2013- Charlotte, NC
2014- Cincinnati, OH
2015- New York, NY
2016- Greenville, SC: Hampton, VA:: Columbia, SC: Raleigh, NC : Lexington, KY: Philly, PA 2: (Wrigley) Chicago, IL x 2 (holy shit): Temple of the Dog- Philly, PA
2017- ED VED- Louisville, KY
2018- Chicago, IL x2, Boston, MA x2
2020- Nashville, TN
2022- Smashville
2023- Austin, TX x2
2024- Baltimore