|
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. |
On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot!
20 feet is considered lethal range with a knife and it can be assumed that you can be tackled just as easily. It was established that the office did not feel he could overpower brown in a physical confrontation. Also, he did not know if he hit brown with the first couple of shots.
And no, I don't think the office can eyeball the difference between 20-30 feet directly after a struggle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
|
On November 26 2014 02:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 02:03 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 02:01 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:57 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 01:27 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 01:18 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 01:07 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Which would you rather, a jury of your peers or a Judge? Both have flaws. A judge can be just as bias as a jury, if not more so. As someone who works in the legal field, I will take my peers over a judge if I want an unbiased ruling.
And lets be clear, from the evidence, the officer did could not 100% have known that Brown was unarmed, the office felt Brown could overpower him and the office claimed the nearly lost control of his fire arm. This is not some controlled event.
"everything has flaws so we just ask some people who have no idea about anything". Yeah seems legit. I wonder if he would have shot 6 times if the guy would haev been white... I probably can't discuss this "objectively", this stuff makes me angry as fuck and i can't believe people really try to defend it :/ Even if you think he could be armed, as long as you don't see a weapon i don't see any reason to go rambo, sry but i think that could be common sense? From reports, Brown weighed nearly 300 pounds, had about 4 inches on the officer and about 85 pounds(I might be off, I am remembering from a news report this morning). The guy was nearly 1/3 bigger than the officer. You are allowed to use deadly force(anyone, not just police) if you reasonable believe that the person over power you. If you weigh 120 and the person attacking you is unarmed and 250, you can use deadly force. Yeah and that in itself is really stupid. So cause somebody is big you are allowed to kill him? makes perfect sense. On November 26 2014 01:17 marvellosity wrote:On November 26 2014 01:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 01:13 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
Or that I trust people to make good decisions. And its not a couple, its 12 people and normally 9 of them need to decide if I committed a crime. The judge is a single person and may have biases I cannot control. Absent other information, I will take a jury of my peers every time. The average person isn't that smart. A jughe should be rather intelligent. So yeah i don't see how your statement makes any sense whatsover. There is a reason other countries don't use this system (hint: it is bad) Glossed over the single person - biases part of his post did we? If you can't see how the statement he made might make sense, you should probably read again, as it's pretty obvious No it makes no sense. It is basically saying "i don't trust someone who does this for a job, so i rather pick some people who don't have to deal with this kind of stuff on a daily basis". I don't see how this is a good system. This whole point is based on the absence of trust in people who have knowledge in the field. If you really don't trust one person, take more judges and not some random people, no? You need to read up on the legal system. The use of deadly force is based on the "reasonable fear of great bodily harm". If the person using the force thinks they could be killed or hurt badly(aka, maimed), they are allowed to use deadly force Its not based on some emotional response of "he was unarmed and that means no one should ever shoot at him". Its why I am allowed to shoot someone with a baseball bat that invades my house, because what other option is there? The other option is your first option: put that thing down and call the police. :D I am going to assume my fiancee is calling the police while I hold the gun on the guy, or call the police before I confront him. The point is that if the person attacks, I have no option but to shoot. And once I start, I am not stopping until that person is on the ground and I know they are not a threat. To be fair, I would use a shotgun for home defense, so I would only likely have to shoot once. Sure, fair enough. Problem is, it seems to me that trespassing is enough for you to legally being able to kill the guy. Problem is, you have someone break into your home, you have no idea what they're going to do. Such situations usually end one of two ways, if someone in the home confronts the intruder: the intruder runs immediately, or there is some kind of fight. I don't know what this guy who broke into my house is going to do. Maybe he'll just grab stuff and run. Maybe he'll beat me up and grab stuff and run. Maybe he'll tie me up, grab stuff and run. Maybe he'll shoot or stab me. Maybe he'll tie me up and then shoot or stab me. It's my home. Breaking in, that person has zero right to be there. I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know what his intentions truly are. And trespassing usually is never considered enough to shoot at someone in America. That's why they're two different crimes, trespassing and breaking & entering, trespassing is considered much much less serious. It should also be pointed out that you can't just unload into someone that is in your house(barring other information, like them saying they are going to kill you or that there are 5 of them). In general it only works if you ask them to leave and they still behave aggressively or refuse to do so.
Yes, in theory I know that you can't just kill any one guy who enters your home without your permission. It just seems very very easy to claim that you were in great danger or that you told him to leave first. What's convenient is that the only other witness is, well, dead.
|
On November 26 2014 02:12 nunez wrote:
i literally read through all the norwegian sources in the wiki article: the word riot is not used, and all are described as anti-israel protests in response to israel attacks on gaza, where only a small minority were firing some firecrackers, throwing rocks etc. some guy got roughed (from a weird christian group), and was part of the pro-israel protestors that clashed with the anti-israel protestors. the word jew was used in a derogatory manner by some thugs who wanted to beat him up further, but it says he was shielded by the non-violent anti-israel protestors. that's good stuff, but not a riot. not even clsoe.
understandable that young palestinians are gonna make their voices heard when their country is bombed, that's a good thing.
the tabletmag article is about sweden, not norway. different countries you know.
i guess destroying four mcdonald's isn't a riot *shrug*
or attacking a bus *shrug*
or throwing rocks at people *shrug*
yeah it's a good thing to voice burning hate for the jew *shrug*
"death to the jew," "kill the jew," "slaughter the jews," "gas the [israeli] embassy," yeah, more anti-israeli, not anti-jewish *shrug*
the comment about "weird christian group" could be telling... i guess being part of a "weird christian group" has some relevance, somehow, to getting beaten in the street? does being from a "weird christian group" mean you deserved it just a little bit, or what? what was the point of saying "weird christian group"?
you're right i copy pasted the wrong link. here is the one i should have put up:
http://jcpa.org/article/manfred-gerstenfeld-on-the-anti-jewish-riots-in-oslo-by-eirik-eiglad/
|
Russian Federation49 Posts
On November 26 2014 02:11 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:06 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 01:52 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 01:48 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:32 Efane wrote:On November 26 2014 00:10 xDaunt wrote:On November 26 2014 00:03 Efane wrote:On November 25 2014 23:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 25 2014 23:04 Efane wrote:
Regardless of rights and wrongs, buffles me to no end that for 13+ years now US police is more or less US army... I though with all those dirty DARPA moneyz you could make something better then a tazer... And its kinda sad that the jury decided to overlook some clear overuse of power, i mean, come on, even if the officers life was threatened, in his perception, doesnt sanction spraying and praying like its 5 past apocalypse and we are all doomed, DOOMED! Well, i guess considering policemen in their line of duty just "human", with emotions and crap is a wise excuse for the future, i mean, its not like they are trained to apprehend all kinds of dodgy situations, they might have worked in Taco Bell like a week ago... oh, wait I doubt that it has been overlooked. That kind of claim is reserved for civil lawsuits. The family already lawyered up and hired Crump to represent them in a potential wrongful death / 1983 case. Whether they actually file suit could be rather telling regarding what they think of the evidence that is available. Of course, there's also the potential that they just settle for an "undisclosed amount." Im clearly nowhere near competent enough on US legislature, but to me it seems to be the main point of investigation/case. Does it not kinda seems common sense for the main question to be "Why empty half a clip into a boy?" I mean, the court is determening if the course of actions chosen by the officer was "legitimate" (cant remember the proper word, sadly). Jury seems to think it was, which, at least for me, raises the question about standart police procedures in states. But then again, not a citizen, my opinion doesnt matter, as i was told lots of times by several US retailers :D At least now im sure that US is kinda the same shithole Russia is, just with less backhanded stuff (or maybe better orchestrated). Oh well, authority empowers you with rights, not responsobilities Well, it wasn't the job of the grand jury to determine the legality of what the cop did. They're only task was to determine whether there's a good enough chance that the cop's actions could be criminal. The grand jury decided the answer to that question was no. It still is yet to be decided whether the killing was otherwise unlawful under civil law. I would expect the family's attorney to ask the same question you did regarding emptying half the clip into the kid. I have no doubt, however, that the defense will put on an expert to talk about how cops are trained to keep shooting until the target goes down, which is apparently what happened here. This clarifies the whole grand jury thing for me, but it just doesnt sit well at all that shooting a random person, even if intimidating, until he goes down, is a proper, lawful way of communication between a policeman and a citizen... 9/11 really fucked US up. I visited the states once, and while i loved the country and the people, being treated as a potential criminal while crossing the border left an unfavorable impression. It's like the UK asking you to basicly tell them you biography on tape during the visa procedures, but it just doesnt stop there... I'm just going to take a wild guess that the cops in Russia are allowed to shoot people that attack them. I have no idea why you are characterizing this event as the shooting of a random person. You couldn't be much farther from the truth. The thing is, they are not. They are only allowed to shoot either at a person directly threatening their lives or an established criminal. But then again, with the corruption and all that other hogwash, cops do alot of messed up shit. Calling the guy a random person is a bit of an overkill on my part, but it is how it seems from the outside. In context of free circulation of arms in the US, the cops case is a bit more plausable, but then again it just doesnt sit right with me that the cops shoot to kill, not to immobilize. I mean, shoot the fuckers kneekap once, he aint gonna stand back up Good news! We're dealing with just that situation here. Except in Russia lethal force is allowed only as a last resort. The policeman is supposed to detain whoever threatens them and use leathal measures only if the person in question refuses to cooperate to the point of leaving no other options. And by direct threat to life i mean a threat with a weapon of some sorts, not just being huge. Its just seems that the cop in question was awfully trigger-happy. Even if his actions were justified, he should never work at the force again. Firing half a clip is, and should be classified as, brutality, which, im sure, is not a publicaly accepted practice in the US. It seems it all comes down to the issue of authority being so sweet and legal defenitions being so vague... Just give ur ordinary patrol cops some rubber bullets or something, its a bit harder to kill with that shit, you actually gotta aim He was being attacked, and had been hit in the head already when he started shooting. That was a fully justified time to shoot in any country.
Well, if its the case, then yea, shooting is fine. Im still not fine with it being lethal, or shooting half a clip, but then again cant expect an officer to remain fully calm and in control after being bludgeoned....
|
On November 26 2014 02:23 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:17 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 02:08 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 02:03 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 02:01 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:57 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 01:27 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:On November 26 2014 01:18 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 01:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:
[quote]
"everything has flaws so we just ask some people who have no idea about anything".
Yeah seems legit.
I wonder if he would have shot 6 times if the guy would haev been white...
I probably can't discuss this "objectively", this stuff makes me angry as fuck and i can't believe people really try to defend it :/
Even if you think he could be armed, as long as you don't see a weapon i don't see any reason to go rambo, sry but i think that could be common sense? From reports, Brown weighed nearly 300 pounds, had about 4 inches on the officer and about 85 pounds(I might be off, I am remembering from a news report this morning). The guy was nearly 1/3 bigger than the officer. You are allowed to use deadly force(anyone, not just police) if you reasonable believe that the person over power you. If you weigh 120 and the person attacking you is unarmed and 250, you can use deadly force. Yeah and that in itself is really stupid. So cause somebody is big you are allowed to kill him? makes perfect sense. On November 26 2014 01:17 marvellosity wrote:On November 26 2014 01:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:
[quote]
The average person isn't that smart. A jughe should be rather intelligent.
So yeah i don't see how your statement makes any sense whatsover.
There is a reason other countries don't use this system (hint: it is bad) Glossed over the single person - biases part of his post did we? If you can't see how the statement he made might make sense, you should probably read again, as it's pretty obvious No it makes no sense. It is basically saying "i don't trust someone who does this for a job, so i rather pick some people who don't have to deal with this kind of stuff on a daily basis". I don't see how this is a good system. This whole point is based on the absence of trust in people who have knowledge in the field. If you really don't trust one person, take more judges and not some random people, no? You need to read up on the legal system. The use of deadly force is based on the "reasonable fear of great bodily harm". If the person using the force thinks they could be killed or hurt badly(aka, maimed), they are allowed to use deadly force Its not based on some emotional response of "he was unarmed and that means no one should ever shoot at him". Its why I am allowed to shoot someone with a baseball bat that invades my house, because what other option is there? The other option is your first option: put that thing down and call the police. :D I am going to assume my fiancee is calling the police while I hold the gun on the guy, or call the police before I confront him. The point is that if the person attacks, I have no option but to shoot. And once I start, I am not stopping until that person is on the ground and I know they are not a threat. To be fair, I would use a shotgun for home defense, so I would only likely have to shoot once. Sure, fair enough. Problem is, it seems to me that trespassing is enough for you to legally being able to kill the guy. Problem is, you have someone break into your home, you have no idea what they're going to do. Such situations usually end one of two ways, if someone in the home confronts the intruder: the intruder runs immediately, or there is some kind of fight. I don't know what this guy who broke into my house is going to do. Maybe he'll just grab stuff and run. Maybe he'll beat me up and grab stuff and run. Maybe he'll tie me up, grab stuff and run. Maybe he'll shoot or stab me. Maybe he'll tie me up and then shoot or stab me. It's my home. Breaking in, that person has zero right to be there. I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know what his intentions truly are. And trespassing usually is never considered enough to shoot at someone in America. That's why they're two different crimes, trespassing and breaking & entering, trespassing is considered much much less serious. It should also be pointed out that you can't just unload into someone that is in your house(barring other information, like them saying they are going to kill you or that there are 5 of them). In general it only works if you ask them to leave and they still behave aggressively or refuse to do so. Yes, in theory I know that you can't just kill any one guy who enters your home without your permission. It just seems very very easy to claim that you were in great danger or that you told him to leave first. What's convenient is that the only other witness is, well, dead.
I mean, I think its a pretty low number of unjustified shootings of people who have already broken into someones house. Home defense is very rare and most criminals try not to break in at night, because thats home invasion(in my state) and that carries a life sentence. As opposed to breaking an entering, which isn't a huge amount of jail time.
|
On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot!
Tueller drill. 21 ft is enough distance in which the average male can close the gap before shot is fired. Considering witness accounts that Brown continued charging after the initial volley, stopped, the continued the charge which was the second volley seems to fit under proper response
Also people who keep saying 'why did he have to shoot so many times?' Need to learn about stopping power, adrenaline, and correct fire arm usage before talking.
|
On November 26 2014 02:29 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot! Tueller drill. 21 ft is enough distance in which the average male can close the gap before shot is fired. Considering witness accounts that Brown continued charging after the initial volley, stopped, the continued the charge which was the second volley. Also people who keep saying 'why did he have to shoot so many times?' Need to learn about stopping power, adrenaline, and correct fire arm usage before talking.
Nah man, small and medium caliber handguns are just as good as the larger calibers or a rifle at putting someone down with a single shot, and single shots usually are good enough.
https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/take-stop-attacker-one-round-typically-doesnt/
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power
http://shootingthebull.net/blog/shoot-until-the-threat-stops/
Oh, well I guess they aren't. Everyone should read that last link in particular, some crazy stories linked to in it about people taking bullet after bullet (from a handgun) to some very vital areas and still going, and some stories of people who were actually killed with one shot from a handgun.
|
On November 26 2014 02:29 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot! Tueller drill. 21 ft is enough distance in which the average male can close the gap before shot is fired. Considering witness accounts that Brown continued charging after the initial volley, stopped, the continued the charge which was the second volley seems to fit under proper response Also people who keep saying 'why did he have to shoot so many times?' Need to learn about stopping power, adrenaline, and correct fire arm usage before talking.
Tueller drill distance concerns someone with a holstered gun, not when you already have your gun out and were already shooting at the guy's back when he turns around.
|
On November 26 2014 02:37 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:29 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot! Tueller drill. 21 ft is enough distance in which the average male can close the gap before shot is fired. Considering witness accounts that Brown continued charging after the initial volley, stopped, the continued the charge which was the second volley seems to fit under proper response Also people who keep saying 'why did he have to shoot so many times?' Need to learn about stopping power, adrenaline, and correct fire arm usage before talking. Tueller drill distance concerns someone with a holstered gun, not when you already have your gun out and were already shooting at the guy's back when he turns around.
Another example.
Michael Brown's back was not shot at, or hit. All of Wilson's rounds were fired while Brown was facing him. The grand jury proceedings made that clear. Wilson fired 2 shots while he was in the car, then three separate bursts after Brown turned around and came back at him after fleeing some distance down the street. Not while Brown was doing that fleeing.
So much misinformation.
|
On November 26 2014 02:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot! 20 feet is considered lethal range with a knife and it can be assumed that you can be tackled just as easily. It was established that the office did not feel he could overpower brown in a physical confrontation. Also, he did not know if he hit brown with the first couple of shots. And no, I don't think the office can eyeball the difference between 20-30 feet directly after a struggle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
So what you are saying is he had already started sprinting full speed from 50 feet away because 20 feet are needed to even react, makes perfect sense!
In fact, I would say Michael Brown was even more dangerous from that distance because F=ma and with his mass and that much time to accelerate he is basically a black death train!
|
On November 26 2014 02:37 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:29 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot! Tueller drill. 21 ft is enough distance in which the average male can close the gap before shot is fired. Considering witness accounts that Brown continued charging after the initial volley, stopped, the continued the charge which was the second volley seems to fit under proper response Also people who keep saying 'why did he have to shoot so many times?' Need to learn about stopping power, adrenaline, and correct fire arm usage before talking. Tueller drill distance concerns someone with a holstered gun, not when you already have your gun out and were already shooting at the guy's back when he turns around.
Except the convenient fact that forensic evidence does not back this up.
|
On November 26 2014 02:37 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:29 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot! Tueller drill. 21 ft is enough distance in which the average male can close the gap before shot is fired. Considering witness accounts that Brown continued charging after the initial volley, stopped, the continued the charge which was the second volley seems to fit under proper response Also people who keep saying 'why did he have to shoot so many times?' Need to learn about stopping power, adrenaline, and correct fire arm usage before talking. Tueller drill distance concerns someone with a holstered gun, not when you already have your gun out and were already shooting at the guy's back when he turns around.
Ok, to quote my brother when someone asked him if he shot anyone while on tour in Iraq: "I shot at some people. Its not video games, they don't tell you if you hit them or not."
Even at 30 feet, in the tunnel vision of adrenaline, getting punched in a head a couple of times and after a full struggle, we cannot be sure that the officer knew if any of those shots connected. We know after the fact that he did, but hindsight is 20/20.
|
Anyways back to nationwide politics:
Senate Republican leaders are under pressure from GOP lawmakers with presidential ambitions to join the House in investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack.
Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), three young rising conservative stars who are weighing 2016 bids, say the Senate should participate in a joint investigation with the House.
“The House is doing its job and engaged in oversight. For six years under [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-Nev.], the Senate has refused to do its job. I am hopeful and optimistic the Senate will finally begin meaningful oversight. That is its constitutional responsibility,” Cruz told The Hill.
But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is set to take over as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has yet to decide whether the Senate needs to deploy its investigate resources while the House is already doing so.
“What we need to do is talk with the House guys, see where they are and see if they think it’s helpful,” McCain said when asked whether the Senate should launch an investigation. “I’ll be guided by that.”
The 2008 presidential nominee has been discussing his options with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
A House GOP aide said the decision about whether the Senate participates is up to the leadership, including McCain and other incoming Republican leadership. Meanwhile, Gowdy has directed his panel to continue moving forward with its investigation.
Source
|
On November 26 2014 02:41 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:20 Plansix wrote:On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot! 20 feet is considered lethal range with a knife and it can be assumed that you can be tackled just as easily. It was established that the office did not feel he could overpower brown in a physical confrontation. Also, he did not know if he hit brown with the first couple of shots. And no, I don't think the office can eyeball the difference between 20-30 feet directly after a struggle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill So what you are saying is he had already started sprinting full speed from 50 feet away because 20 feet are needed to even react, makes perfect sense! In fact, I would say Michael Brown was even more dangerous from that distance because F=ma and with his mass and that much time to accelerate he is basically a black death train!
More distance does not mean greater acceleration. If you look at speed graphs most sprinters hit their max speed around first 40 meters, max acceleration is easily within first 20 meters.
|
On November 26 2014 02:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:29 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot! Tueller drill. 21 ft is enough distance in which the average male can close the gap before shot is fired. Considering witness accounts that Brown continued charging after the initial volley, stopped, the continued the charge which was the second volley. Also people who keep saying 'why did he have to shoot so many times?' Need to learn about stopping power, adrenaline, and correct fire arm usage before talking. Nah man, small and medium caliber handguns are just as good as the larger calibers or a rifle at putting someone down with a single shot, and single shots usually are good enough. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/take-stop-attacker-one-round-typically-doesnt/http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-powerhttp://shootingthebull.net/blog/shoot-until-the-threat-stops/Oh, well I guess they aren't. Everyone should read that last link in particular, some crazy stories linked to in it about people taking bullet after bullet (from a handgun) to some very vital areas and still going, and some stories of people who were actually killed with one shot from a handgun. I didnt realize you moonlighted as a ballistics expert. Between you and wei2cool as a physical combat expert I am shocked neither were called to the grand jury, here we have to leaders in their respective field and everything.
|
On November 26 2014 02:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Anyways back to nationwide politics: Show nested quote +Senate Republican leaders are under pressure from GOP lawmakers with presidential ambitions to join the House in investigating the 2012 Benghazi attack.
Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), three young rising conservative stars who are weighing 2016 bids, say the Senate should participate in a joint investigation with the House.
“The House is doing its job and engaged in oversight. For six years under [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [D-Nev.], the Senate has refused to do its job. I am hopeful and optimistic the Senate will finally begin meaningful oversight. That is its constitutional responsibility,” Cruz told The Hill.
But Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is set to take over as chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has yet to decide whether the Senate needs to deploy its investigate resources while the House is already doing so.
“What we need to do is talk with the House guys, see where they are and see if they think it’s helpful,” McCain said when asked whether the Senate should launch an investigation. “I’ll be guided by that.”
The 2008 presidential nominee has been discussing his options with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), the chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi.
A House GOP aide said the decision about whether the Senate participates is up to the leadership, including McCain and other incoming Republican leadership. Meanwhile, Gowdy has directed his panel to continue moving forward with its investigation. Source
There have been several congressional investigations already, none of them have supported the far rights view of what happened, so they'll just keep forcing more until one out of the crowd agrees with their point of view, and claim the overwhelming number of investigations that disagree with them are all wrong and this one is right. I'm so happy to see that conspiracy theorists are now running congress.
|
On November 26 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 02:29 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot! Tueller drill. 21 ft is enough distance in which the average male can close the gap before shot is fired. Considering witness accounts that Brown continued charging after the initial volley, stopped, the continued the charge which was the second volley. Also people who keep saying 'why did he have to shoot so many times?' Need to learn about stopping power, adrenaline, and correct fire arm usage before talking. Nah man, small and medium caliber handguns are just as good as the larger calibers or a rifle at putting someone down with a single shot, and single shots usually are good enough. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/take-stop-attacker-one-round-typically-doesnt/http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-powerhttp://shootingthebull.net/blog/shoot-until-the-threat-stops/Oh, well I guess they aren't. Everyone should read that last link in particular, some crazy stories linked to in it about people taking bullet after bullet (from a handgun) to some very vital areas and still going, and some stories of people who were actually killed with one shot from a handgun. I didnt realize you moonlighted as a ballistics expert. Between you and wei2cool as a physical combat expert I am shocked neither were called to the grand jury, here we have to leaders in their respective field and everything.
Maybe read the links he posted that were discussions by fire arms experts.... When the facts are against you, and people aren't buying your narrative, fall back to personal attacks. Internet debating 010.
|
On November 26 2014 02:48 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:On November 26 2014 02:29 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot! Tueller drill. 21 ft is enough distance in which the average male can close the gap before shot is fired. Considering witness accounts that Brown continued charging after the initial volley, stopped, the continued the charge which was the second volley. Also people who keep saying 'why did he have to shoot so many times?' Need to learn about stopping power, adrenaline, and correct fire arm usage before talking. Nah man, small and medium caliber handguns are just as good as the larger calibers or a rifle at putting someone down with a single shot, and single shots usually are good enough. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/take-stop-attacker-one-round-typically-doesnt/http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-powerhttp://shootingthebull.net/blog/shoot-until-the-threat-stops/Oh, well I guess they aren't. Everyone should read that last link in particular, some crazy stories linked to in it about people taking bullet after bullet (from a handgun) to some very vital areas and still going, and some stories of people who were actually killed with one shot from a handgun. I didnt realize you moonlighted as a ballistics expert. Between you and wei2cool as a physical combat expert I am shocked neither were called to the grand jury, here we have to leaders in their respective field and everything.
I can read. That makes me an expert at reading. I'm also pretty good at understanding what I read. Handguns are not a guarantee of stopping someone with some small number of shots, and aren't guaranteed to force you to reload 3 times to incapacitate someone either. All depends on the skill of the shooter, a bunch of other circumstances, and a fair bit of chance.
|
The number of people who think watching csi makes them a expert in firearms in this thread really scares me.
|
On November 26 2014 02:42 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2014 02:37 ZenithM wrote:On November 26 2014 02:29 wei2coolman wrote:On November 26 2014 02:17 silynxer wrote:On November 26 2014 02:13 Ym1r wrote:
It's like people forget your fist is a weapon too, sure you probably wouldn't be able to kill somebody with one punch, but you can knock them out, then I don't know... maybe take the cop's gun after that and shoot him, or maybe take his head and smash it into the concrete, or many other things. And through the superhuman powers that being black gives you, you can do all of this from 30 feet away and after having been shot! Tueller drill. 21 ft is enough distance in which the average male can close the gap before shot is fired. Considering witness accounts that Brown continued charging after the initial volley, stopped, the continued the charge which was the second volley seems to fit under proper response Also people who keep saying 'why did he have to shoot so many times?' Need to learn about stopping power, adrenaline, and correct fire arm usage before talking. Tueller drill distance concerns someone with a holstered gun, not when you already have your gun out and were already shooting at the guy's back when he turns around. Except the convenient fact that forensic evidence does not back this up.
Yeah, I know, I read all that stuff, I mispoke. Still, he had his gun out in his hands, that was my point and it remains. Tueller drill distance is completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
