RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me

RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/10/2018 11:53:48 AM)
if a person is scared in a confrontation with the cops and his hands move(for any reason,) its now ok for the cop to make a mistake and kill them The cops need better training

BamaD -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/10/2018 12:28:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If you didn't "know" the cop was culpable as soon as you heard there was a shooting you are determined to white wash the cop. I haven't declared the cop faultless but I haven't seen absolute proof either way. I don't think we're ever going to get "absolute proof." I don't know that this bodycam video snippet is going to be able to sway anyone one way or the other, either. Some of the people in the article, though, seem like they would have some sort of experience in these cases, and there were some who were not all supportive that had been in or close to being in the cop's position before. I am not sure one way or the other. There isn't absolute proof one way or the other. Now which way do we take a chance? Do we let the cop go because he thought there was already one dead man and the hostages were soaked it gasoline? Or do we hang him because he was deliberately lied to and shot someone he wouldn't have if his information had had any connection to the truth. It still comes down to if the victim grabbed for his waste band.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/10/2018 1:53:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic if a person is scared in a confrontation with the cops and his hands move(for any reason,) its now ok for the cop to make a mistake and kill them The cops need better training Right, "his hands move (for any reason)." Hypberbole much? If the people in that article I linked to are correct, then, yes, those cops (well, at least that one) do need better training. It's also much easier to judge when we're sitting at a keyboard and not actually in the situation. I'm willing to bet that cop regrets his decision to pull the trigger. I'd bet that most cops that pull the trigger regret doing it, even when it's justified.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/10/2018 1:59:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If you didn't "know" the cop was culpable as soon as you heard there was a shooting you are determined to white wash the cop. I haven't declared the cop faultless but I haven't seen absolute proof either way. I don't think we're ever going to get "absolute proof." I don't know that this bodycam video snippet is going to be able to sway anyone one way or the other, either. Some of the people in the article, though, seem like they would have some sort of experience in these cases, and there were some who were not all supportive that had been in or close to being in the cop's position before. I am not sure one way or the other. There isn't absolute proof one way or the other. Now which way do we take a chance? Do we let the cop go because he thought there was already one dead man and the hostages were soaked it gasoline? Or do we hang him because he was deliberately lied to and shot someone he wouldn't have if his information had had any connection to the truth. It still comes down to if the victim grabbed for his waste band. Why was he the only one that took the shot? I acknowledge it's entirely possible that he had the best view of any officer and that his viewpoint alone (except maybe the officer next to him, too) showed there was a justified risk. The video is grainy and distant enough that I can barely make out anything other than barely formed blobs, so, I can't say one way or the other if this was justified. There are also more than just the two options you put out, Bama. I will agree with you (at least I'm pretty sure we agree), the majority of culpability lies on the head of the fucktard that swatted the guy.

jlf1961 -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/10/2018 2:33:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic if a person is scared in a confrontation with the cops and his hands move(for any reason,) its now ok for the cop to make a mistake and kill them The cops need better training Gee, the liberal alternative seems to be: Police are not to shoot unless they are 100% positive that the suspect is a clear and present danger, which speaking from experience, means after the bastard has fired a few rounds and maybe killed someone. You tell someone to keep their hands raised and where they can be clearly seen until another officer can do a search to make damn sure they are not holding a weapon, if they do not listen, what the hell you want the cops to do, wait to see if they have a gun or not? Considering the world we live in today, I would rather err on the side of keeping my ass among the breathing. The body cam footage showed the guy didnt do as instructed, its a clean shoot.

Lucylastic -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/10/2018 2:53:52 PM)
No that MY opinion, NOT Liberals its obviously fine with ammosexuals that cops can kill because of what they think is a danger. not wether someone might be scared shitless too and do something unusual. but the cop wont get more than a slap, while there is an innocent dead person because of someone elses bad training.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/10/2018 3:26:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic No that MY opinion, NOT Liberals its obviously fine with ammosexuals that cops can kill because of what they think is a danger. not wether someone might be scared shitless too and do something unusual. but the cop wont get more than a slap, while there is an innocent dead person because of someone elses bad training. No. There is an innocent dead person because some douchebag in California called in a prank emergency situation. THAT is why we have a dead innocent man.

jlf1961 -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/10/2018 4:57:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic No that MY opinion, NOT Liberals its obviously fine with ammosexuals that cops can kill because of what they think is a danger. not wether someone might be scared shitless too and do something unusual. but the cop wont get more than a slap, while there is an innocent dead person because of someone elses bad training. Lucy, you got a guy facing who knows how many cops pointing guns at him telling him to keep his hands up. Intelligence would dictate that he keep his fucking hands up until told other wise. And lets face reality here, SWAT teams do not approach a door where they have been told there is already one dead and a hostage situation with tasers or stun guns drawn, to do so, or even suggest they do so, is equivalent to "Just let the cops get shot to hell and gone." I find it funny as hell that everyone is willing to blame the cops when the dickheaded shit for brains butt hurt gamer in California called into that department and told dispatch there was already one dead person at that address and hostages being threatened with death. But hey, lets have the cops take chances with their lives, they dont have anyone that might miss them if they are killed in the line of duty, protecting a public that is more and more critical and could care less when the news carries stories about cops being killed because they were ambushed. Or how about that cop in Colorado who did exactly what you are saying this officer should have done. How about you going and telling his widow how he did his job right and because he did not fire when he should have he died. I am quite certain she will agree with you. (actually I am quite certain she will tell you where to go and what you can do to yourself when you get there.) But yeah, its the cops fault not the fucking bastard that called in the SWATting prank. He should walk, right?

BamaD -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/10/2018 5:13:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If you didn't "know" the cop was culpable as soon as you heard there was a shooting you are determined to white wash the cop. I haven't declared the cop faultless but I haven't seen absolute proof either way. I don't think we're ever going to get "absolute proof." I don't know that this bodycam video snippet is going to be able to sway anyone one way or the other, either. Some of the people in the article, though, seem like they would have some sort of experience in these cases, and there were some who were not all supportive that had been in or close to being in the cop's position before. I am not sure one way or the other. There isn't absolute proof one way or the other. Now which way do we take a chance? Do we let the cop go because he thought there was already one dead man and the hostages were soaked it gasoline? Or do we hang him because he was deliberately lied to and shot someone he wouldn't have if his information had had any connection to the truth. It still comes down to if the victim grabbed for his waste band. Why was he the only one that took the shot? I acknowledge it's entirely possible that he had the best view of any officer and that his viewpoint alone (except maybe the officer next to him, too) showed there was a justified risk. The video is grainy and distant enough that I can barely make out anything other than barely formed blobs, so, I can't say one way or the other if this was justified. There are also more than just the two options you put out, Bama. I will agree with you (at least I'm pretty sure we agree), the majority of culpability lies on the head of the fucktard that swatted the guy. It could be he saw a movement some of the others didn't see, but I don't know.

WhoreMods -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/11/2018 5:03:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Police are not to shoot unless they are 100% positive that the suspect is a clear and present danger, which speaking from experience, means after the bastard has fired a few rounds and maybe killed someone. Nobody else gets to shoot people just to be sure that they're not a threat with impunity and no consequences if they're wrong, why should the police?

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/11/2018 7:34:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic No that MY opinion, NOT Liberals its obviously fine with ammosexuals that cops can kill because of what they think is a danger. not wether someone might be scared shitless too and do something unusual. but the cop wont get more than a slap, while there is an innocent dead person because of someone elses bad training. Lucy, you got a guy facing who knows how many cops pointing guns at him telling him to keep his hands up. Intelligence would dictate that he keep his fucking hands up until told other wise. And lets face reality here, SWAT teams do not approach a door where they have been told there is already one dead and a hostage situation with tasers or stun guns drawn, to do so, or even suggest they do so, is equivalent to "Just let the cops get shot to hell and gone." I find it funny as hell that everyone is willing to blame the cops when the dickheaded shit for brains butt hurt gamer in California called into that department and told dispatch there was already one dead person at that address and hostages being threatened with death. But hey, lets have the cops take chances with their lives, they dont have anyone that might miss them if they are killed in the line of duty, protecting a public that is more and more critical and could care less when the news carries stories about cops being killed because they were ambushed. Or how about that cop in Colorado who did exactly what you are saying this officer should have done. How about you going and telling his widow how he did his job right and because he did not fire when he should have he died. I am quite certain she will agree with you. (actually I am quite certain she will tell you where to go and what you can do to yourself when you get there.) But yeah, its the cops fault not the fucking bastard that called in the SWATting prank. He should walk, right? Just wanted to point out, the last article I linked to stated that the officers on scene weren't SWAT. SWAT hadn't been called yet.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/11/2018 7:43:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD It could be he saw a movement some of the others didn't see, but I don't know. And I don't know, either. And, that's why we (you and I, and others, I'm sure) will have to wait for as much info as will be let out. According to the article I linked to, more "experts" think he shot too soon. The officer whose body cam showed the shot didn't fire, and he was literally right next to the guy that did shoot. I have a tough time believing the officer who shot had that much better of a view.

BamaD -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/11/2018 7:59:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Police are not to shoot unless they are 100% positive that the suspect is a clear and present danger, which speaking from experience, means after the bastard has fired a few rounds and maybe killed someone. Nobody else gets to shoot people just to be sure that they're not a threat with impunity and no consequences if they're wrong, why should the police? That sounds like you believe exactly what he said. The average person is not required to throw themselves into danger.

BamaD -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/11/2018 8:40:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Police are not to shoot unless they are 100% positive that the suspect is a clear and present danger, which speaking from experience, means after the bastard has fired a few rounds and maybe killed someone. Nobody else gets to shoot people just to be sure that they're not a threat with impunity and no consequences if they're wrong, why should the police? Wrong. If I wake up in the idle of the night and find an intruder in my home it is perfectly legal to shoot them in my state. If I order them off my property twice and the whip out something metallic at night I can shoot them in my state

jlf1961 -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/11/2018 9:50:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Police are not to shoot unless they are 100% positive that the suspect is a clear and present danger, which speaking from experience, means after the bastard has fired a few rounds and maybe killed someone. Nobody else gets to shoot people just to be sure that they're not a threat with impunity and no consequences if they're wrong, why should the police? Right, the cop that was killed a couple of weeks ago followed that idea, wait till he was dead sure there was a danger. He got the dead part right. And I am still amazed as fuck that the issue here is the action of the police, and not the fucker that set the whole situation up. I guess he should get a walk...

WhoreMods -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/11/2018 10:33:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Police are not to shoot unless they are 100% positive that the suspect is a clear and present danger, which speaking from experience, means after the bastard has fired a few rounds and maybe killed someone. Nobody else gets to shoot people just to be sure that they're not a threat with impunity and no consequences if they're wrong, why should the police? Wrong. If I wake up in the idle of the night and find an intruder in my home it is perfectly legal to shoot them in my state. If I order them off my property twice and the whip out something metallic at night I can shoot them in my state So you're saying that the corpse who was framed up by some twat on the internet should have shot the copper who barged into his house then?

WhoreMods -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/11/2018 10:35:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Police are not to shoot unless they are 100% positive that the suspect is a clear and present danger, which speaking from experience, means after the bastard has fired a few rounds and maybe killed someone. Nobody else gets to shoot people just to be sure that they're not a threat with impunity and no consequences if they're wrong, why should the police? Right, the cop that was killed a couple of weeks ago followed that idea, wait till he was dead sure there was a danger. He got the dead part right. And I am still amazed as fuck that the issue here is the action of the police, and not the fucker that set the whole situation up. I guess he should get a walk... Presumably lying about somebody having abducted a bunch of people and threatening to kill them is constitutionally protected free speech.

BamaD -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/11/2018 10:42:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Police are not to shoot unless they are 100% positive that the suspect is a clear and present danger, which speaking from experience, means after the bastard has fired a few rounds and maybe killed someone. Nobody else gets to shoot people just to be sure that they're not a threat with impunity and no consequences if they're wrong, why should the police? Wrong. If I wake up in the idle of the night and find an intruder in my home it is perfectly legal to shoot them in my state. If I order them off my property twice and the whip out something metallic at night I can shoot them in my state So you're saying that the corpse who was framed up by some twat on the internet should have shot the copper who barged into his house then? There is no way a rational person could get that from my post.

BamaD -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/11/2018 10:44:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Police are not to shoot unless they are 100% positive that the suspect is a clear and present danger, which speaking from experience, means after the bastard has fired a few rounds and maybe killed someone. Nobody else gets to shoot people just to be sure that they're not a threat with impunity and no consequences if they're wrong, why should the police? Right, the cop that was killed a couple of weeks ago followed that idea, wait till he was dead sure there was a danger. He got the dead part right. And I am still amazed as fuck that the issue here is the action of the police, and not the fucker that set the whole situation up. I guess he should get a walk... Presumably lying about somebody having abducted a bunch of people and threatening to kill them is constitutionally protected free speech. And no rational person could get that from his post.

jlf1961 -> RE: Why this hasnt hit the boards is beyond me (1/11/2018 11:12:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Police are not to shoot unless they are 100% positive that the suspect is a clear and present danger, which speaking from experience, means after the bastard has fired a few rounds and maybe killed someone. Nobody else gets to shoot people just to be sure that they're not a threat with impunity and no consequences if they're wrong, why should the police? Right, the cop that was killed a couple of weeks ago followed that idea, wait till he was dead sure there was a danger. He got the dead part right. And I am still amazed as fuck that the issue here is the action of the police, and not the fucker that set the whole situation up. I guess he should get a walk... Presumably lying about somebody having abducted a bunch of people and threatening to kill them is constitutionally protected free speech. Excuse me? You have been consistantly on the side of "the cop fucked up" group since this was first posted. Look, the cop told the person to keep his hands up and away from his body, the person did not listen. How in the hell was the cop to know that the person had no fucking weapon on him? And as I pointed out, a cop in Colorado was killed because he took the chance that the person he was dealing with was not armed. Now, from what I gather from your argument, along with everyone else's, is that the police should wait till they are absolutely 100% sure there is no chance of a weapon on the suspect, even if it means a few dead cops, or a bunch of dead cops. Tell you wait, you and every one else condemning the cop go out to Colorado and look up the widow of the officer that died because he waited. Tell her it is better her husband is dead than the chance of an unarmed person being shot because he would not listen to the officer's instructions about keeping his hands up.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875