|
On February 15 2012 07:35 Rassy wrote:
.Sic. United States. February 15 2012 07:10. Posts 267
Swede New Zealand. February 15 2012 07:22. Posts 684
Kaitlin United States. February 15 2012 07:24. Posts 1187
Ya this.
Cant realy blame the cop.
Allowing cops to use lethal force at the slightest suspicion is a consequence of allowing firearms to the public.
Guess its one of the manny drawbacks of allowing firearms.
Dont get why americans are so found of their right to bear arms, it seems to give nothing but trouble.
Tread title is kinda epic btw lol, should have left it at "marine killed by OC..."
If you look at the statistics of cities that enacted gun control regulations (bans of handguns, for example), you'll see that gun control doesn't work and actually increases the number of deaths.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Also you guys are saying eliminate guns as if it would be so easy to just stop guns from flowing into a country. Look how well the war on drugs is doing...do you really think that the government has the power to prevent criminals from getting their hands on weaponry? They can't even manage border control for illegal immigrants. The only one who suffers is the law abiding citizen who can't protect him or herself and their families. Overall I think, based on the statistics, allowing guns saves more lives.
Some relevant quotes from the website (all of these quotes are sourced, feel free to check them out!):
"Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect."
"During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower."
"Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban"
(among many, many more graphs that are easy to read if you want to see yourself)
I know its not proof, but its probably the best evidence that we're going to get on the effectiveness of the bans you guys are (probably) talking about.
|
On February 15 2012 07:58 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 07:35 Rassy wrote:
.Sic. United States. February 15 2012 07:10. Posts 267
Swede New Zealand. February 15 2012 07:22. Posts 684
Kaitlin United States. February 15 2012 07:24. Posts 1187
Ya this.
Cant realy blame the cop.
Allowing cops to use lethal force at the slightest suspicion is a consequence of allowing firearms to the public.
Guess its one of the manny drawbacks of allowing firearms.
Dont get why americans are so found of their right to bear arms, it seems to give nothing but trouble.
Tread title is kinda epic btw lol, should have left it at "marine killed by OC..." If you look at the statistics of cities that enacted gun control regulations (bans of handguns, for example), you'll see that gun control doesn't work and actually increases the number of deaths. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.aspAlso you guys are saying eliminate guns as if it would be so easy to just stop guns from flowing into a country. Look how well the war on drugs is doing...do you really think that the government has the power to prevent criminals from getting their hands on weaponry? They can't even manage border control for illegal immigrants. The only one who suffers is the law abiding citizen who can't protect him or herself and their families. Overall I think, based on the statistics, allowing guns saves more lives. Some relevant quotes from the website (all of these quotes are sourced, feel free to check them out!): "Since the outset of the Chicago handgun ban, the percentage of Chicago murders committed with handguns has averaged about 40% higher than it was before the law took effect." "During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower." "Not counting the above-listed anomalies, the British homicide rate has averaged 52% higher since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% higher since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban" (among many, many more graphs that are easy to read if you want to see yourself) I know its not proof, but its probably the best evidence that we're going to get on the effectiveness of the bans you guys are (probably) talking about.
Well, the ban on your graph is pretty explicit : nothing changed for 10 years, then, an uprising, then, the situation was normalizing.How can you relate it *directly and only* to the ban :/ Seems pretty far-fetched. Then they removed the law when it was more or less the same as before.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/twKzd.jpg)
Another link for you since you like stats : http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm
Here's the lil' graph.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/l0eP2.gif)
Trace a virtual line involving all the countries except the US. Now look at the US. Pretty self explanatory.
No, a ban is not going to ease things on a short term basis. But you have to think long term, maybe 10/20years, and then, ponder about whether it's a good decision for the future or not.
|
Whoa Switzerland you so crazy
|
What does the victim being a marine have to do with anything? Surely it would have been just as sad if a high school teacher was killed.
|
I read the title and thought it said marine killed by orbital command, was about to scream imba
|
You fight crime by improving citizen socialization, not by criminalizing the ownership of objects.
I think we should have a single thread designated for debating gun control so that it doesn't spill into 30 different threads, by the way.
But I guess the random "some individual did something bad" threads like this one are worthy of either derailment or closure.
|
Why do people create threads like this, when they know they don't have any information about what happened? There is an ongoing investigation, when the DA's office makes a determination on whether the shooting was justified and releases detailed information to the press, then you have a reasonable basis for discussion. Until that time, there's no point in creating a thread like this one because it becomes derailed by people trying to make larger political points and it devolves into a bunch of people flinging google'd statistical data at each other without any serious analysis of the original incident.
|
the police prematurely shot. no one was being threatened. a gun fire was not needed. his eagerness to shoot was supported by his own imagination of "pedo + african american criminal". fucker needs to be fired, such weak minded individual cannot protect others.
i'm curious of him driving through the gate, the "excessive speed" excuse is used so often and most of the time by officer's discretion, it shouldn't even be acknowledged.
|
After living in foreign countries for awhile, the amount of American cops that are allowed to carry weapons completely surprised me. I'm not surprised that bad things happen occasionally, especially with the amount of cops that are quite stupid
|
Can't really react to all these cop stories from the US, get desensitized what with them happening every 5 minutes.
|
On February 15 2012 08:35 jinorazi wrote:
the police prematurely shot. no one was being threatened. a gun fire was not needed. his eagerness to shoot was supported by his own imagination of "pedo + african american criminal". fucker needs to be fired, such weak minded individual cannot protect others.
i'm curious of him driving through the gate, the "excessive speed" excuse is used so often and most of the time by officer's discretion, it shouldn't even be acknowledged.
This should be a bannable post, if TL wants to have a semblence of intelligent discussion on this forum.
This poster don't know anything about the orange county p.d.'s rules and regulations regarding a good shoot, he doesn't know any of the case law on what constitutes a good shoot, and he doesn't have any information beyond what's been posted in the OP, which is essentially nothing. To come in and represent that his ignorant and unfounded opinion has the weight of fact is the highest level of arrogance.
|
On February 15 2012 09:06 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 08:35 jinorazi wrote:
the police prematurely shot. no one was being threatened. a gun fire was not needed. his eagerness to shoot was supported by his own imagination of "pedo + african american criminal". fucker needs to be fired, such weak minded individual cannot protect others.
i'm curious of him driving through the gate, the "excessive speed" excuse is used so often and most of the time by officer's discretion, it shouldn't even be acknowledged. This should be a bannable post, if TL wants to have a semblence of intelligent discussion on this forum. This poster don't know anything about the orange county p.d.'s rules and regulations regarding a good shoot, he doesn't know any of the case law on what constitutes a good shoot, and he doesn't have any information beyond what's been posted in the OP, which is essentially nothing. To come in and represent that his ignorant and unfounded opinion has the weight of fact is the highest level of arrogance.
a good life was lost due to suspicion. was there a real threat? there wasn't, it seems like (i read the articles posted). so, whos to blame? no one to blame, "they were just doing thier job" and move on?
i'm sure there's a lot of information missing but it can go both ways, good shot or bad shot. the fact is, a life was lost when it wasn't necessary. and what triggered the death was the officer's discretion on how threatening the situation was.
and i do have some bias against "high rate of speed" bullshit as i've faced it before and many people i know in car community.
if what i said is flawed, i'd be more than happy to be enlightened.
|
Meanwhile, 50,000 people die every day of hunger. But oh no, not a American Marine!
Another excuse to shit on the police, I agree. Full information or no thread is needed for a single death.
|
Our police don't even carry guns, they might have a shotgun in the trunk. When they need to deal with armed criminals they will call in the armed offenders squad (SWAT).
|
On February 15 2012 09:47 InTheFade wrote:
Meanwhile, 50,000 people die every day of hunger. But oh no, not a American Marine!
Another excuse to shit on the police, I agree. Full information or no thread is needed for a single death.
Yeah, 'cuz one death never started a world war or anything...
|
Things like this shouldn't be allowed to be published I mean there are so many details that haven't been explained to the public, it just says that someone was shot. The article doesn't say anything else, no details, nothing. Now people are going to get all fired up in this thread about police not being allowed to wield a gun, and police being horrible people, etc.
I'm not going to make any assumptions or choose any sides until I get more information, and I think that it is a good idea that the rest of the people in this thread do the same. Jumping to conclusions is a bad idea in every situation.
Making a thread / article about cops being bad cops is a stupid practice and shouldn't be allowed, it's just making cops look like they are sociopaths with no emotions at all and shoot everyone they come across...
|
On February 14 2012 20:39 BlackJack wrote:
The details haven't been released so why bother discussing the justification of it based purely on speculation?
btw I don't think you should have omitted the part that the guy was fleeing from police and crashed through a gate. You make it sound like he was pulled over for speeding and was shot because he went to get his registration when a cop told him not too. Obviously when you flee from police the cops are going to get a whole lot more trigger happy as you've already demonstrated you won't be taken down without a fight.
This. The OP has a pretty obvious agenda and wants us to think that this guy got shot while getting pulled over for speeding or something. This was after a chase crashing through shit. The cops had every right to think that this guy was dangerous.
Is there ever any reason to not do what the cops tell you to do and just refuse all their orders? If your innocent just obey orders till everything get sorted out, or resist orders and risk getting shot, tasered, beaten, etc till you're no longer a threat.
|
On February 15 2012 09:06 PanzerKing wrote:Show nested quote +On February 15 2012 08:35 jinorazi wrote:
the police prematurely shot. no one was being threatened. a gun fire was not needed. his eagerness to shoot was supported by his own imagination of "pedo + african american criminal". fucker needs to be fired, such weak minded individual cannot protect others.
i'm curious of him driving through the gate, the "excessive speed" excuse is used so often and most of the time by officer's discretion, it shouldn't even be acknowledged. This should be a bannable post, if TL wants to have a semblence of intelligent discussion on this forum. This poster don't know anything about the orange county p.d.'s rules and regulations regarding a good shoot, he doesn't know any of the case law on what constitutes a good shoot, and he doesn't have any information beyond what's been posted in the OP, which is essentially nothing. To come in and represent that his ignorant and unfounded opinion has the weight of fact is the highest level of arrogance.
We are trying to move away from the idea that whatever the law states automatically ends a rational discussion. Law is fallible - it was created by men just like us. The insight you've brought to the table is that now we can investigate police procedures and see how culpable they are for this unnecessary slaying.
|
Not even worth conjecture until good details come out about the conversation they had, interviews with wife and daughters, and investigation into the circumstances of that morning. Really depends if there was additional factors that are unreported as of now.
|
Doesn't seem like very much information is available in those articles. The 2nd one is the best and says there were ~4 cops involved while the OP states 1.
So all we know is he allegedly sped through a fence at 4:30 am with 2 kids, went onto the football/was out of site for 5 min, then tried to get back in the car, said somethings to the officers and then was shot fatally.
Instead of shooting because he felt his life was threatened (which seems questionable based on the info presented) he claims he shot because he was in fear for the safety of the children in the car. Seems like a pretty legitimate rationale. Unless information is being falsely presented and the officers attempted to use less than lethal force leading up to using lethal force, I don't think there is really any issue here.
Its sad because apparently the Marine was a good man, but I don't think lack of major media attention is really of note. There have been 34 murders in Philadelphia alone since the new year, and I think a murder is more newsworthy than a justifiable police shooting, and I'm fairly sure 0 of those 34 murders have made national news. Its a sad world we live in man 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
