Police abuse

Last-12-Exit said:

show previous quotes

fife said:

Last-12-Exit said:

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

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

I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but any person attempting to steal my gun would be considered life threatening and I'm shooting to kill at that point. But it is situational.

callen said:

show previous quotes

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

rr165892 said:

dimitrispearljam said:

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hedonist said:

dimitrispearljam said:

hey,i just google it..at google translator..
there is a word in english,that police can do when there are 4 policemen and have a civilian on the ground instead of shoot to kill him..
called "disarm "
spread the word!!

dimi, it's not like he was just chilling on the ground, or they held him down and fired for fun. He was resisting and went for an officer's gun. Had he succeeded (I don't know if he actually got it or not), how could he have been disarmed, and at what risk to the officers and the other people around?

I can only go by what I've seen and heard thus far; maybe you've seen something different?

I'm not quite ready to damn these police officers (although apparently a shitload of death threats have been made). Rushes to judgment serve no purpose.

if the 4 against 1 ,and the one on the floor,has only option shoot to kill,then the society and democracy and civil rights are dead...

I don't think it's as simple, or black and white as you're indicating.

its simple..the problem is they are covered by the law
so instead of disarm someone,the first think is shoot the muthafucka,the law is cover me,he had a gun,he was hostile
in my country when a policeman have a change to do anything to disarm the suspect cant use his gun to shoot and kill..is not allowed..by law..+ the law says when someone isnt shooting at u but he having the gun,u cant shoot him,u need to disarm him.. and if u use your weapon,cos u cant do it with any other way.. u are trained to shoot to non-vital organs...
the guy was on the floor..face down..on his back was 4 police..if they cant disarm him without killing him,they need to do another job..at my country those policeman would be in jail and out of force after this video..for sure..even a criminals life has value..so need to taking more seriously before you empty your gun to his back

So let me get this straight, you are saying in your country by law if a person points a gun at a police officer the police cannot shoot that person until that person shoots at the police officer first?

Yes,exactly what im saying

Damn,that's sketchy.

we need police to proterct us and dont play rambo and use the power gun gives them the way they fuckin want..before use their gun,they need to be sure the try everything else for keep all alive,themself,civilians and criminals
they are not god to decide who lives or dies,,they need to arrest criminals and put them in justice
and when they shoot their first priority is to disarm suspects than eliminate them..

Well if that's working for your country then good for you guys. I can't see anyone in their right mind wanting to take a job where you cannot protect yourself and other's first, but hey thats what's great about this big world of ours…Diversity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waiting on response Musky.

fife said:

show previous quotes

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

fife said:

muskydan said:

dimitrispearljam said:

rr165892 said:

u said:

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.

Where's the clappy face when you need it?

Last-12-Exit said:

fife said:

Last-12-Exit said:

fife said:

Last-12-Exit said:

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

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

I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but any person attempting to steal my gun would be considered life threatening and I'm shooting to kill at that point. But it is situational.

just to give you a warning. the supreme court has stated that rules for citizens are different than for police officers concerning shooting. citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.

Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.

But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine.

Yikes!
This shouldn't even be possible. If the government and police were actually interested in shutting down the flow of guns to gangs and terror orgs like ISIS, they would make every firearm directly traceable to the person who purchased it.

Last-12-Exit said:

show previous quotes

rgambs said:

Last12exit: "Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.

But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine."


Yikes! I hope for everyone's sake nobody enters your home without permission for whatever reason.

This planting a gun thing shouldn't even be possible. If the government and police orgs truly wanted to stop the flow of guns to gangs and stop the murder madness of Chicago and it's like, they would make all guns sold traceable to the purchaser and stop the gun swap bullshit that fuels interstate gun running.

I work with county police often when responding to shootings/stabbings/assaults and those words came right out of their mouths. Something to the effect of "you have to be sure the person you shot was armed with something."

I hope that I never have to shoot somebody. It took me 10 years to just decide to put a gun in my house. But after my truck and my dad's truck was stolen (we are neighbors), I felt it was necessary. But back to what the police told me. If there is a guy willing to break into my home, even if he is unarmed, I will not hesitate to shoot him. People like that don't even deserve to rot in jail. I know that sounds harsh. But if there is anybody that I hate in this world, it's a thief. That is why anyone that breaks into my home owns a gun.

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

If somebody was breaking into someone's home and the homeowner shot them, I don't really have a problem with that. I don't think its the homeowner's responsibility to ascertain intent when protecting their family- there have been countless home invasions gone badly.

If a home invader gets shot invading a home, that is on them- they bear responsibility for this occurence. Stay out of people's homes.

I don't care for the 'plant the gun in the intruder's hand' idea though. If you are feeling threatened, warn the guy off. If that doesn't work, feel free I guess, but why try and make a better case for yourself? It has the opposite effect.

Last-12-Exit said:

show previous quotes

fife said:

Last-12-Exit said:

fife said:

Last-12-Exit said:

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

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

I don't know what happened in Wisconsin, but any person attempting to steal my gun would be considered life threatening and I'm shooting to kill at that point. But it is situational.

just to give you a warning. the supreme court has stated that rules for citizens are different than for police officers concerning shooting. citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force.

Yes, but just to give you a warning: even if you don't own a gun, if you attack me or break into my home and I wind up shooting you, you do own a gun. ANYBODY that breaks into my home or attacks me will at the very minimum have a gun in there hand that will be their gun.

But yes, I know what the differences you are referring to. I believe the state of south Carolina follows what is called the castle law or castle doctrine.