Post: #76

"He didn't choose to do so though. you can't assume that he would either" Uh, yes I can. This is woefully emotional opinionating rather than dissemination of facts

Post: #77

(01-26-2015 12:12 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  In NYPD people join ESU (swat) because it is a lateral promotion to detective(extra pay) and they get to sleep like firemen until needed. Most have no military training. Actually paramedic backgrounds are more desirable since they do rescue!

The problem here is that every agency has a different culture. Your experience with the NYPD and attitudes of guys you met there isn't going to be the same as someone that's part of Albuquerque PD or LAPD.

Have you ever met anyone in the NYPD who admitted, either directly or implicitly, that they joined because they might get the chance to legally shoot people? I personally know of a couple cops who became cops partly for that reason. They have done outstanding things, even selflessly brave things throughout their careers on occasion, but that is still part of why they joined in the first place. They are attracted to violence and violent situations and have to be reined in by the organization.

I think there are a certain percentage of cops, maybe 2 - 5%, who became cops primarily because of the potential to do violence to others. When the perfect storm of shitty leadership, lack of accountability, and an emphasis on kicking ass and taking names is pervasive throughout a department there are going to be problems. Then if these sorts manage to find each other and get on the same team you get situations like the James Boyd murder. Even cops who aren't like them are willing to go along with it because these people are part of their teams and the culture they're in is all that they know. They might not participate directly, but they won't actively do anything to try to stop it. It's just human nature.

Post: #78

(01-26-2015 12:34 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  "He didn't choose to do so though. you can't assume that he would either" Uh, yes I can. This is woefully emotional opinionating rather than dissemination of facts

Do you think he would've started shooting the cops or other people if the cops let him go?

Post: #79

(01-26-2015 12:25 PM)Sir Vigorous Wrote:  This is scary. If people for whatever reason just think I'm a danger to others despite not waiving a gun at anyone or threatening anyone I deserve to die. Apparently having a gun means your immediately gonna use it. Which seems contrary to what 2nd amenders usually say. I guess only certain types of people can carry weapons.

"Do the bystanders deserve to be randomly fired on if he chose to do so?"

I don't recommend punching a "second amendmenter" who carries and brandishing a gun at them. They have no duty to even try to detain you or offer a warning.

Post: #80

(01-26-2015 12:25 PM)Sir Vigorous Wrote:  This is scary. If people for whatever reason just think I'm a danger to others despite not waiving a gun at anyone or threatening anyone I deserve to die. Apparently having a gun means your immediately gonna use it. Which seems contrary to what 2nd amenders usually say. I guess only certain types of people can carry weapons.

I hate to take the form of a multiple choice test, but which of the following was true: (1) Terrance Walker had a gun. (2) Terrance Walker disobeyed orders from the police. (3) Terrance Walker resisted arrest by running from the police. (4) All of the above.

Your argument, "If people for whatever reason just think I'm a danger to others despite not waiving a gun at anyone or threatening anyone I deserve to die.", irresponsibly ignores certain facts about Terrance Walker's actions.

It's cherry-picking in the worst way.

Post: #81

Quote:This is scary. If people for whatever reason just think I'm a danger to others despite not waiving a gun at anyone or threatening anyone I deserve to die. Apparently having a gun means your immediately gonna use it. Which seems contrary to what 2nd amenders usually say. I guess only certain types of people can carry weapons.

Well it is relative. Maybe in small town Nevada where it is normal to carry but in NYC people aren't allowed in general to even have a gun. Getting a carry permit is almost impossible so basically only the gang thugs have them or other murderers.

2nd amendment doesn't apply in cities that outlaw guns. Kind of like in the old west where they had signs'no guns allowed'.

Quote:Have you ever met anyone in the NYPD who admitted, either directly or implicitly, that they joined because they might get the chance to legally shoot people? I personally know of a couple cops who became cops partly for that reason

Nope but I met guys who were mentally dangerous and somehow got on the force. But it was them that was unstable and not caused by the job.

I knew this short Irish American guy who didn't know how to talk to people. The people who he approached would take swings at him out of anger about what came out of his mouth. Reminds me of Doc Holiday in TOMBSTONE winking at the bad guy at the ok Coral and causing him to go for his gun. But it was the guy behind the cop that was the problem.

Last I heard he was on desk duty for fucking up. These guys mostly end up screwing themselves. And nobody wanted to work with him..so there wasn't a blue wall sticking up for him.

The psych background tests try to filter guys out like that but you know how it is.

Apparently saying you want to become a cop because of the good pension is the correct answer because it shows that you are reasonably sane and practical.

Anything else either shows a psychopath or a guy with a hero complex. Both are dangerous.

example:

'I like guns and wanna make criminals pay '= psychopath

'To protect and serve' = hero complex

Post: #82

So when somebody runs away from you, with a pistol or not. Its ok' to take aim at he's back, and shoot to fucking kill..
Give me a break.

I see a lot of Hamster going on here trying to justify murdering the dude.

Post: #83

(01-26-2015 01:15 PM)DigitalSmoke Wrote:  So when somebody runs away from you, with a pistol or not. Its ok' to take aim at he's back, and shoot to fucking kill..
Give me a break.

I see a lot of Hamster going on here trying to justify murdering the dude.

Not "somebody", "somebody accused of murder threats, carrying a weapon, who disobeyed direct orders from police".

Since your definition of "somebody" and our definition of "somebody" are so very different, who's hamster-ing?

Post: #84

He dropped the gun and picked it up. He would be alive if had not gone back for his fucking gun.

Post: #85

(01-26-2015 01:17 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 01:15 PM)DigitalSmoke Wrote:  So when somebody runs away from you, with a pistol or not. Its ok' to take aim at he's back, and shoot to fucking kill..
Give me a break.

I see a lot of Hamster going on here trying to justify murdering the dude.

Not "somebody", "somebody accused of murder threats, carrying a weapon, who disobeyed direct orders from police".

Since your definition of "somebody" and our definition of "somebody" are so very different, who's hamster-ing?

A suspect accused of murder treats with a fire arm, should and would not be approached that way. Culture's do might differ, but this was bogus.

Rationalization hamster continues imo.

Post: #86

nvrmd

Post: #87

Somebody explain this then:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/22...al-firearm

Post: #88

(01-26-2015 02:01 PM)DigitalSmoke Wrote:  A suspect accused of murder treats with a fire arm, should and would not be approached that way. Culture's do might differ, but this was bogus.

Rationalization hamster continues imo.

You're not exactly explaining what you mean by "that way". What "way" was that, and what was so wrong with it?

Post: #89

(01-26-2015 02:14 PM)kaotic Wrote:  Somebody explain this then:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/22...al-firearm

Sounds like another anti-gun vigilante trying to get another innocent black man killed at Wal-Mart.

Anti-gun left wingers have told their activists that they should try to SWAT gun owners, which in my opinion is a terrorist act and attempted murder.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/38...-c-w-cooke

Quote:"You see a GunFilth waving its penis substitute, exit, call police. Armed robbery in progress.” So wrote Twitter user “Little Black Dog” on September 13 of this year.

The injunction was a particularly colorful one, but the idea behind it, alas, is not as uncommon as one might wish. “I see you #opencarry with a gun in public,” a man named “joe villa” threatened earlier this week, “i’m calling the cops. psycho behaving erratic. make your day.” A translation for the more literate among us: “The law be damned; exercise your rights under the law and I’ll threaten your life.”

“Take a look through the comments threads on Moms Demand Action’s Facebook page,” Bearing Arms’s Bob Owens tells me, “and you’ll see a lot of this.”

Quote:“Every time I see someone with a gun in a store I will call 911,” Jennifer Decker vows, “they’ll get tired of that right quick!!!” Even that plan is too limited for Ann Marie. “Just call the police every time you see someone with one,” she counsels, “the police will get sick of it eventually or have a run in with one of these clowns and then things will change.”

Thankfully the police arrested and charged the scumbag who battered this poor guy.

Don't these wonderful people sound similar to our enemies the SJWs, who try to SWAT guys for having different opinions and being men of conviction? Well, that's because they're on the same damn side and there's plenty of overlap. They also hate conservative black men who don't toe the line with a fiery passion.

Post: #90

(01-26-2015 02:14 PM)kaotic Wrote:  Somebody explain this then:

Michael Foster's actions dictate why we need cops in the first place. If a trained police officer behaved like Foster did, that would be a clear violation of multiple police training instructions.

Post: #91

(01-26-2015 02:20 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Anti-gun left wingers have told their activists that they should try to SWAT gun owners, which in my opinion is a terrorist act and attempted murder.

A translation for the more literate among us: “The law be damned; exercise your rights under the law and I’ll threaten your life.”

“Take a look through the comments threads on Moms Demand Action’s Facebook page,” Bearing Arms’s Bob Owens tells me, “and you’ll see a lot of this.”

Quote:“Every time I see someone with a gun in a store I will call 911,” Jennifer Decker vows, “they’ll get tired of that right quick!!!” Even that plan is too limited for Ann Marie. “Just call the police every time you see someone with one,” she counsels, “the police will get sick of it eventually or have a run in with one of these clowns and then things will change.”

Fuckin' liberals.

What's sadder: (1) the fact that they sincerely deny all accusations of, "Wow, you're a psycho Nazi bitch." or (2) the fact that they publicize their plans on social media, under their real names?

If you're familiar with AnonymousConservative's blog on narcissism and amygdala attacks, this isn't surprising.

Post: #92

I think this is a pretty clear-cut case where the cop was completely justified in shooting the guy carrying/brandishing the gun. I don't think this is one worth even talking about. Cop did his job.

Post: #93

Can't believe the debate continues after it's been clearly established he had a gun. The vocal, anti-cop minority just won't be convinced. Curious, aside from shooting him what would the alternative be? He threatened his ex with a bullet and showed up to her wedding while illegally carry a gun, hit a cop, ran from a cop, and picked up his gun when he dropped it, indicating an intention to use it later. Obviously he needs to be taken into custody but when he had the chance to go quietly we saw what happened.

You'd have the cop do which of the following: follow him at a safe distance until he tired out and then try to reason with him, if he raises and aims his gun right at the cop only then is the cop is allowed to draw quickly and hope he gets off the first shot; wait until he grabs a hostage/jacks a car and an armed standoff ensues; tackle and subdue a man with a loaded gun using only pepper spray. Any other options I missed?

Post: #94

(01-26-2015 12:56 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

(01-26-2015 12:25 PM)Sir Vigorous Wrote:  This is scary. If people for whatever reason just think I'm a danger to others despite not waiving a gun at anyone or threatening anyone I deserve to die. Apparently having a gun means your immediately gonna use it. Which seems contrary to what 2nd amenders usually say. I guess only certain types of people can carry weapons.

I hate to take the form of a multiple choice test, but which of the following was true: (1) Terrance Walker had a gun. (2) Terrance Walker disobeyed orders from the police. (3) Terrance Walker resisted arrest by running from the police. (4) All of the above.

Your argument, "If people for whatever reason just think I'm a danger to others despite not waiving a gun at anyone or threatening anyone I deserve to die.", irresponsibly ignores certain facts about Terrance Walker's actions.

It's cherry-picking in the worst way.

Answer these multiple choice questions.
(1) Terrance Walker was pointing the gun at an officer.
(2) Terrance Walker was pointing the gun at anyone.
(3) Terrance Walker shot a firearm at someone or at all.
(4) None of the above.

What am I "cherry-picking" exactly? You guys are putting in cherries that aren't there.

Can someone help me understand how someone running away, while having a gun, is a lethal threat. It's admittedly scary yeah, but he's running away. I'd like cops of all people to manage to not be so scared.

Do people who are running away routinely turn around and open fire against cops? Like is that a thing? I feel like i'm missing something here or you guys are placing extra fear in the situation.

Post: #95

(01-26-2015 03:51 PM)Sir Vigorous Wrote:  Can someone help me understand how someone running away, while having a gun, is a lethal threat. It's admittedly scary yeah, but he's running away. I'd like cops of all people to manage to not be so scared.

Do people who are running away routinely turn around and open fire against cops? Like is that a thing? I feel like i'm missing something here or you guys are placing extra fear in the situation.

You're acting as if this were a confrontation between a cop and a citizen on a two-person planet.

The cop is allowed to be "scared for us". And the cop is allowed to shoot anyone whom he perceives as a "threat to us". If we are scared, we're allowed to demand that the cop fires.

Post: #96

Quote:Can someone help me understand how someone running away, while having a gun, is a lethal threat. It's admittedly scary yeah, but he's running away. I'd like cops of all people to manage to not be so scared.

NOPE seems your capacity up there is limiting your common sense but here goes:

1. Cops chase criminals. If the cop follows the guy the guy might turn around and take shots. Especially once he reaches cover.
Any cops who come to help and get in front to block will also be shot at.

By running the perp shows anyone with a brain that he doesn't want to get caught and will do whatever it takes to get away. Picking up the gun confirms that. If he is looking to get away non violently why did he have to waste seconds picking up the gun?

2. Threat to others. Guy who is a criminal can use the gun to hurt others.

You are some how under the belief that the LIFE of a criminal is worth more than a cop or innocent civilian. I don't blame you it is just bad breeding I guess! But despite what the cameras are showing you NOTHING has changed since the days of Wyatt Earp and it won't change despite all your protests..unless you want cops to actually decide to just sit and get paid and do nothing.

Because it isn't in our contract to take EXTRA RISKS so Criminals have less risks. That is delusional thinking on your part if you believe so. Oath was (in my case) enforce the rules of NYC and NYS..nothing about being cannon fodder for a bunch of whiny liberal brats.

Put it with a fireman spin. Do we expect firemen to go into fires without actually trying to KILL the fire? They make sure they have the proper equipment and actually try to put out the fire that is in front of them as they proceed.

Actually only dumb cops who often get to the scene of the fire before FD go in without equipment knocking on doors trying to get people out.

Post: #97

(01-26-2015 04:02 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  

Quote:Can someone help me understand how someone running away, while having a gun, is a lethal threat. It's admittedly scary yeah, but he's running away. I'd like cops of all people to manage to not be so scared.

You are some how under the belief that the LIFE of a criminal is worth more than a cop or innocent civilian.

I am under the belief that the life of an alleged criminal is worth more than assuaging the unverifiable fear that the alleged criminal WILL kill someone. I am operating under the assumption that if cops shoot to kill everyone their scared of rather than people who are an active threat, more innocent people will die at the hands of cops, than people these alleged criminals would have killed. However, that could be a false weighting of the numbers. Fundamentally, the idea of a cop killing someone who had no intent to harm rubs me the wrong way.

"If the cop follows the guy the guy might turn around and take shots. "

Keyword: 'might'

What someone "might" do is not what someone is doing. I find it unfair to punish someone for something they "might" do.

Post: #98

(01-26-2015 04:24 PM)Sir Vigorous Wrote:  Keyword: 'might'

What someone "might" do is not what someone is doing. I find it unfair to punish someone for something they "might" do.

You're not even using the word "might" fairly. Police officers shoot to "stop", not to "kill". Whenever an officer shoots to "stop", a perpetrator "might" die or he "might not".

But you're by-passing the word "might" by implying that officers "know with certainty" that their bullets will kill someone.

Did you notice, in the shooting video, that the officer stopped firing the moment the suspect stopped running? That was a perfectly restrained demonstration of "shooting to immobilize".

---------------------

There's also no "punishment for something someone might do", because "punishment" is a judicial term and the police don't have judicial powers.

---------------------

Quote:I am under the belief that the life of an alleged criminal is worth more than assuaging the unverifiable fear that the alleged criminal WILL kill someone.

Lastly, you're not listening to us. And I know this because you used the word "kill" there.

The correct feeling people have is, "the unverifiable fear that the alleged criminal WILL commit a violent action against someone". That "violent action" can be anything from murder, to rape, to robbery, to assault, to intimidation. Because there are multiple violent actions covered under that term, and because even ONE of those violent actions is a tragedy which could've been prevented, "the unverifiable fear" - (which is a ridiculous standard, because it's not verifiable you'll be alive tomorrow) - becomes "a reasonably accurate probability estimate".

Because the probability is reasonable, the shooting is justified.

Post: #99

Quote:I am under the belief that the life of an alleged criminal is worth more than assuaging the unverifiable fear that the alleged criminal WILL kill someone.

That is like saying that a bunch of guys with guns enter a bank and are standing around that the police shouldn't ENGAGE them because they haven't used there guns yet.
Guns are a weapon of fear. But cops can shoot guys with hammers, knives etc.

And you BELIEF is false. NYS law( as well as many others) allow cops to use lethal force if they are in fear of their own life , or serious injury or disfigurement.

In other words if you come at my face with a box cutter trying to DISFIGURE me I can full you full of holes. And I would since my wife likes my face the way it is now!

Don't believe me..read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Amadou_Diallo

That whole case is a case in point and made national news. It safeguarded cops right to act when in fear of safety.

That being said, I guy with a confirmed weapon running away is automatically going to get stopped. We can't just let criminals RUN away to live another day simply because you value his life. He obviously doesn't value his life.Why should you?

And it is about stopping, NOT killing. But today that means shooting center of mass. That is the most likely location to stop someone without going though and hitting other innocents. Maybe technology will have a stun gun one day..but for now....


Also a lot of people like to use legal terms..probable cause and seem to forget cops actually have a lower quantifier called REASONABLE SUSPICION(google it). This is the uniform patrol cops level needed to engage.

I bet you think cops have to read you your rights also..right?

Well I must be corrupt I NEVER did that...why?

Because most uniform cops arrest people either by witnessing crime or arrestig based on victim complaint. We have no intention of investigating or interrogating you.

Hollywood has brainwashed the American people because most tv shows/movies deal with detectives who investigate and often detain people for questioning,and interrogation. But 90+% of arrests are active real time arrests and there is no interrogation needed.

And we listen to you when you make your phone call! And we don't have to feed you either at irregular hours! More Hollywood brainwashing.

In fact we don't even have to un cuff you to take a piss!

Quote:What someone "might" do is not what someone is doing. I find it unfair to punish someone for something they "might" do.

Well I guess we shouldn't send in swat team'S just because a mask guy with an AR 15 might start killing kids or customers either.

Imagine a world where cops can't prevent crim,e even from those who are already wanted for a crime, and only reacted after the crime is done and the perp is safely on a plane to Cuba.

Yeah I really want to pay taxes in that liberal socialist country. Thank god most law abiding tax payers with something to lose don't want that.

Sad if my money is being taxed to pay for this thinking!

Quote:Fundamentally, the idea of a cop killing someone who had no intent to harm rubs me the wrong way.

Then why is he picking up a gun...to brush his hair? Guns have very little other purpose but to be used to hurt or cause fear of hurt..both crimes!

If he really wanted to RUN away , he would have gone further if he didn't stop to pick up a weapon.

And we know very little of what that perp did beforehand to get him in trouble in the 1st place.

Quote:I find it unfair to punish someone for something they "might" do.

He isn't being punished in that case , he is being stopped(which often means death).
The courts will punish him but he decided that he is above the laws of society and don't need to go to court.

TBH criminals doing shit like this is basically telling every man , women and child that he doesn't have to respect your laws of civilization. He is disrespecting you more than the cops..the cops though need to stop him.

Quote:I am operating under the assumption that if cops shoot to kill everyone their scared of rather than people who are an active threat

Anyone who violates laws with a weapon that can cause serious injury or death is an active threat. Threat doesn't necessarily = outcome. But certainly a threat!

Post: #100

(01-26-2015 04:44 PM)jimukr104 Wrote:  Also a lot of people like to use legal terms..probable cause and seem to forget cops actually have a lower quantifier called REASONABLE SUSPICION(google it). This is the uniform patrol cops level needed to engage.

Because most uniform cops arrest people either by witnessing crime or arrestig based on victim complaint. We have no intention of investigating or interrogating you.

Hollywood has brainwashed the American people because most tv shows/movies deal with detectives who investigate and often detain people for questioning,and interrogation. But 90+% of arrests are active real time arrests and there is no interrogation needed.

I didn't know about the reasonable suspicion clause. Thanks for posting it.

It makes sense that most people wrongfully think the cops ought to behave like the ones on television. And you just described how "probable cause" - (which is, I think, a term used to decide whether evidence gathered by a police officer is allowed to be admitted as evidence during a trial?) - is wrongly conceived as "reasonable suspicion".

To me, the way you describe it is better than the way they depict it on TV. I don't want any police officer to be a "criminal catcher" AND lawyer at the same time. I just want my police to catch criminals, for my lawyers to determine whether a criminal should be prosecuted, and for my judges to determine punishment.

The idea of a policeman/lawyerman at the same time is scary. The idea of a policeman who is ONLY there to catch you and bring you to court is much less scary. (And when you realize how limited the police officer's power actually is, the more it makes sense to just obey, be polite, and use the catch-phrases featured in the Flex Your Rights video.)