- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,146
The Powell shooting.Ok, I understand, just got confused because you said one group of cops were open to more scrutiny than the other. Is that because there is a video of one shooting?
The Powell shooting.Ok, I understand, just got confused because you said one group of cops were open to more scrutiny than the other. Is that because there is a video of one shooting?
A police officer is held to a higher standard of self defense they can't shoot somebody just because they feel threatened it has to be a life or death situation.I've seen people say the same about the Brown case. It's stupid logic developed from action movies as you said. Hitting a leg while someone is charging you is ridiculously hard to do. If you're threatened every expert on the planet tells you to shoot for the body mass.
The one thing that does not seem to be in debate is that when Brown was shot he was not engaged with the officer and was some distance away.Thanks for posting all that. But, if Brown really was going for his gun, that would be life or death to me.
It seems he was shot in two stages, once while going for the gun and mutliple times when he was coming back.The one thing that does not seem to be in debate is that when Brown was shot he was not engaged with the officer and was some distance away.
Exactly.A deputy constable friend of mine explained one time that if he's wrestling with a suspect, he has to flip to the mindset that the suspect has access to a gun, because he, the deputy constable, is there.
If you don't think that a man with physical size comparable to that of maybe a slightly undersized NFL offensive lineman--who has already taken a bullet and is still jogging around, and who has already fractured your face in a scuffle--advancing toward you against your orders constitutes a life-and-death threat, I am not sure what to tell you.
As well he should.I think it's important to remember, if you ever find yourself wrestling with a cop, kill that fucker because it is a life and death struggle and he wants to do you in.
Yes, cops should want and seek to kill anyone who they find themselves in a physical confrontation with.As well he should.
Damn. And you were SO close to escaping idiot status.Yes, cops should want and seek to kill anyone who they find themselves in a physical confrontation with.
The point is more that the officer has to be mindful of the fact that the weapon could come into play, not that the suspect HAS the weapon.I think it's important to remember, if you ever find yourself wrestling with a cop, kill that fucker because it is a life and death struggle and he wants to do you in.
You are one simple un-imaginative bastard.Damn. And you were SO close to escaping idiot status.
Oh well...
lol yea.The point is more that the officer has to be mindful of the fact that the weapon could come into play, not that the suspect HAS the weapon.
But you already know that. You are just flipping back into the persona.
In this situation, you damn right they should, and you have admitted as much already. So why the sudden plunge back into idiocy?Yes, cops should want and seek to kill anyone who they find themselves in a physical confrontation with.
In literally any situation where someone tries tries to take his gun, that cop is justified in shooting him dead. That's what Kbrown was alluding to. He's saying that the cop should act immediate like the perp has a gun if they are struggling for said gun even if he hasn't gotten it yet.You are one simple un-imaginative bastard.
I am not disagreeing with the use of force as described in the ferguson situation, I question how strongly people are wording the arguments to support that. Kbrowns description basically could justify intentional lethal force in any physical confrontation a cop finds himself in, whether the officer started it or not. Basically submit instantly or be murdered. Which I wouldn't agree with...
To simply restate: People's statements could support the use of force in situation I do not.
Sometimes I like to make a point that is different then the one I write. Sometimes it works, most of the time it doesn't, but I stay entertained. Now you people have ruined it for me, I think I will go back to sweering at grrm.So why the sudden plunge back into idiocy?
No, he said in any struggle a cops mindset has to be that the perp has access to a gun.In literally any situation where someone tries tries to take his gun, that cop is justified in shooting him dead. That's what Kbrown was alluding to. He's saying that the cop should act immediate like the perp has a gun if they are struggling for said gun even if he hasn't gotten it yet.
Now I question what the protocol is when a perp has acess to a gun. My immediate thought was that generally a perp who has acess to a gun is a deadly threat and a cop is justified in responding in kind. After reading what he wrote again, I realize that I made the leap that wasn't on the page. Just because a guy has acess to a gun doesn't mean the officer should respond as if he was going for the gun. So my bad, we can get on with the thread now. I no longer substantially disagree wih kbrown.
So if this is not the way it went down then what?A deputy constable friend of mine explained one time that if he's wrestling with a suspect, he has to flip to the mindset that the suspect has access to a gun, because he, the deputy constable, is there.
If you don't think that a man with physical size comparable to that of maybe a slightly undersized NFL offensive lineman--who has already taken a bullet and is still jogging around, and who has already fractured your face in a scuffle--advancing toward you against your orders constitutes a life-and-death threat, I am not sure what to tell you.
Then let's wait and see what comes out.So if this is not the way it went down then what?