| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22103 Posts
On August 18 2014 13:37 Sermokala wrote: Police training is to shoot to kill. It has nothing to do with the situation and is the same as everywhere else in the country for good reason. And you think this is a good thing? what the fuck man. No its not a police job to kill people. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
Agree on making mandatory cameras on police; and providing federal funds if necessary. While I'm not fond of spending; I think there's enough evidence that it would be a worthwhile boon. | ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
On August 18 2014 19:22 Gorsameth wrote: And you think this is a good thing? what the fuck man. No its not a police job to kill people. And he's not saying it's their job to kill people, he's saying that "shooting to wound" is not a real thing outside of Hollywood, and if the police draw their weapon it's because they believe lethal force is necessary. Whether or it was in this case is what they're trying to figure out. The police's case is looking pretty good right now, but the clothing analysis for gun powder residue and the toxicology is what's important. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22103 Posts
On August 18 2014 19:48 RockIronrod wrote: And he's not saying it's their job to kill people, he's saying that "shooting to wound" is not a real thing outside of Hollywood, and if the police draw their weapon it's because they believe lethal force is necessary. Whether or it was in this case is what they're trying to figure out. The police's case is looking pretty good right now, but the clothing analysis for gun powder residue and the toxicology is what's important. Hate to break it to you but here in the Netherlands for example the police is indeed trained to shoot at the legs of a subject if needed. Shooting at the torso is only allowed in life threatening situations. And an unarmed man at a distance is not life threatening. | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7230 Posts
On August 18 2014 20:02 Gorsameth wrote: Hate to break it to you but here in the Netherlands for example the police is indeed trained to shoot at the legs of a subject if needed. Shooting at the torso is only allowed in life threatening situations. And an unarmed man at a distance is not life threatening. What kind of backward country allows you to shoot the legs of a subject if the situation is not life threatening? | ||
|
Meavis
Netherlands1300 Posts
On August 18 2014 20:03 NovaTheFeared wrote: What kind of backward country allows you to shoot the legs of a subject if the situation is not life threatening? On August 18 2014 20:02 Gorsameth wrote: shoot at the legs of a subject if needed. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22103 Posts
On August 18 2014 20:03 NovaTheFeared wrote: What kind of backward country allows you to shoot the legs of a subject if the situation is not life threatening? The backward country where in 2012 (couldnt find more recent data quickly) 24 times someone was shot by the police (5 fatal) So how is the US doing in that department? | ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7230 Posts
That's the point, what kind of situation in real life, not on TV, is there where there is no risk to life but you need to shoot someone anyway? What. Like, what? | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
IVANPAH DRY LAKE, Calif. (AP) -- Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant's concentrated sun rays - "streamers," for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair Federal wildlife investigators who visited the BrightSource Energy plant last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one "streamer" every two minutes, are urging California officials to halt the operator's application to build a still-bigger version. The investigators want the halt until the full extent of the deaths can be assessed. Estimates per year now range from a low of about a thousand by BrightSource to 28,000 by an expert for the Center for Biological Diversity environmental group. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air-25017031 | ||
|
mahrgell
Germany3943 Posts
On August 18 2014 20:08 Gorsameth wrote: The backward country where in 2012 (couldnt find more recent data quickly) 24 times someone was shot by the police (5 fatal) So how is the US doing in that department? In 2011,police officers in the United States shot 1,146 people, killing 607. Looks like the US wins on quality and quantity in their killings. (For comparison, the US have 20 times the ppl of the Netherlands) | ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22103 Posts
On August 18 2014 20:14 RockIronrod wrote: If it's not life threatening why would you use a gun and not a taser or pepper spray? Multiplying the possibility for collateral damage (legs on a moving target are apparently harder to hit than centre mass) so you can incapacitate via crippling is all kinds of fucked up. To stop dangerous (aka murder and such) criminals from escaping). The guy said shooting to wound is a myth. I show him some police is actually trained to shoot to wound. plain and simple. | ||
|
RockIronrod
Australia1369 Posts
On August 18 2014 20:26 Gorsameth wrote: To stop dangerous (aka murder and such) criminals from escaping). The guy said shooting to wound is a myth. I show him some police is actually trained to shoot to wound. plain and simple. Google "shoot to wound" and you'll see basically everyone agrees it's a dumb concept. If the Netherlands actually does shoot to wound, and without a source I'm not going to believe they're that dumb, its not a point in the favour of their police force or the practice. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22103 Posts
On August 18 2014 20:33 RockIronrod wrote: Google "shoot to wound" and you'll see basically everyone agrees it's a dumb concept. If the Netherlands actually does shoot to wound, and without a source I'm not going to believe they're that dumb, its not a point in the favour of their police force or the practice. http://www.politie.nl/onderwerpen/schietincident.html Its in Dutch (obviously) but there you go. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 18 2014 19:22 Gorsameth wrote: And you think this is a good thing? what the fuck man. No its not a police job to kill people. Well, in militarized trigger-happy country maybe they need to. In many other countries police can actually work without guns quite often as the risk of encountering crazy person with a gun is minimal thus eliminating the possibility of police killing someone by accident. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 18 2014 13:07 Jormundr wrote: It was never revealed who started the fight... which is kind of crucial for determining who is at fault. It is also highly unlikely that Trayvon would have gotten off scot-free if Zimmerman had been the one who died. Again, the case was merely the catalyst for a far bigger problem. Are we really to believe that a little a pudgy dude jumped Trayvon and started the fight? Particularly when we already know that Trayvon started to beat the shit out of him? I think it's pretty clear who started the fight. Complain all you want about the fact that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, but there's nothing illegal about that. Take the racial component out of the case, and it wouldn't even be remarkable. | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On August 18 2014 20:36 Gorsameth wrote: http://www.politie.nl/onderwerpen/schietincident.html Its in Dutch (obviously) but there you go. What does it say in short ? Because from everything I heard, shoot-to-wound is just not a reasonable thing to do. Because if you need to shoot, you probably have good reason and in that case actually hitting is most important and that means aiming for center of the body as that maximizes your chances of hitting. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 18 2014 19:41 zlefin wrote: I'm surprised by 6 shots. While death may not be instant; people tend to drop when seriously hit. The shots would have to be in pretty rapid succession to all be done before he fell to the ground I'd think. Agree on making mandatory cameras on police; and providing federal funds if necessary. While I'm not fond of spending; I think there's enough evidence that it would be a worthwhile boon. I don't understand why people are all hung up on the six shots thing. People who are trained with guns are not instructed to shoot once and see what happens. We're told to keep shooting until the target drops. I don't know what round was being fired, but handgun ammunition -- particularly if it's 9 mm -- is not going to drop a really big dude in one shot. To draw another parallel to the Trayvon Martin case, this kind of reminds when a bunch of people hilariously started to complain that Zimmerman's gun didn't have an external safety (ignoring the built in trigger safety). The gun ignorance is astounding at times. Edit: Looks like he was shot 4 times in the right arm and twice in the head/face. The four arm shots would not have dropped him. The two head shots most certainly did. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On August 18 2014 13:47 Vindicare605 wrote: If the federal government can pay to arm police with military weapons they can pay for cameras for them to be held accountable for what they do with those weapons. Period. You don't need to raise taxes for something like this, the police could literally hold a bake sale and people would flock to it to give them their money. They aren't paying to arm the police so much as they are giving them there excess military equipment. The military wants to do this because it saves them money maintaining it and the states want it because well who wouldn't want high quality US grade military equipment if you can get it. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On August 18 2014 21:17 xDaunt wrote: I don't understand why people are all hung up on the six shots thing. People who are trained with guns are not instructed to shoot once and see what happens. We're told to keep shooting until the target drops. I don't know what round was being fired, but handgun ammunition -- particularly if it's 9 mm -- is not going to drop a really big dude in one shot. To draw another parallel to the Trayvon Martin case, this kind of reminds when a bunch of people hilariously started to complain that Zimmerman's gun didn't have an external safety (ignoring the built in trigger safety). The gun ignorance is astounding at times. Edit: Looks like he was shot 4 times in the right arm and twice in the head/face. The four arm shots would not have dropped him. The two head shots most certainly did. well, if they're arm shots that's fine and makes sense then. I didn't hear that. If they were body shots it wouldn't have made much sense, but with arm shots it does. What caliber was the officer's gun? | ||
| ||
[ Submit Event ] |
|
|
|
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
OSC
SC Evo Complete
DaveTesta Events
AI Arena Tournament
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
