|
On February 17 2013 04:04 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 03:56 Meiya wrote:On February 17 2013 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote:
This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too... People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received. Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound. I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state.
Don't pussy foot around it. You said: "people in war shoot to wound not kill" which is patently false. Finger off the trigger unless you intend to kill. You're inventing your own ideas about how things are.
|
double post i miss clicked sorry.
|
On February 17 2013 04:10 blagoonga123 wrote:
At this point I feel like I have an equal chance of getting harmed by the LAPD as I do of getting helped by them
Wasn't the LAPD.
|
On February 17 2013 04:10 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:02 [Agony]x90 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:59 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:56 [Agony]x90 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment. I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster. Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous. The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction. Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement. It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power. Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive? I don't understand. You want to give more people guns? The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over. This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop. I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution. I did not mean it as an insult when i called you naive. To answer your question, yes. If the person had been in a group of more armed civilians, the officer would not had acted so "bravely" to chase him and shoot him not once, not twice, but 6 or 7 plus a head shot to confirm the kill. Defending the police in this type of situation is what keeps the LAPD doing what it does best. Act corrupt.
Advocating for more guns in the hands of civilians based on this incident is completely ridiculous.
|
On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind: Show nested quote +
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
|
"LAPD is a bastion of corruption, you see, the LAPD just keeps killing people randomly........Oh wait, this wasn't the LAPD? All police must be corrupt!"
|
land of the free lol
maybe more americans will wake up
|
On February 17 2013 04:11 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:04 Sermokala wrote:On February 17 2013 03:56 Meiya wrote:On February 17 2013 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote:
This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too... People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received. Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound. I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state. Don't pussy foot around it. You said: "people in war shoot to wound not kill" which is patently false. Finger off the trigger unless you intend to kill. You're inventing your own ideas about how things are.
It should also be mentioned that "occupied state" and "enemy of the state" are not military terminology and in this context have nothing to do with anything.
|
On February 17 2013 04:13 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:10 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 [Agony]x90 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:59 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:56 [Agony]x90 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment. I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster. Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous. The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction. Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement. It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power. Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive? I don't understand. You want to give more people guns? The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over. This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop. I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution. I did not mean it as an insult when i called you naive. To answer your question, yes. If the person had been in a group of more armed civilians, the officer would not had acted so "bravely" to chase him and shoot him not once, not twice, but 6 or 7 plus a head shot to confirm the kill. Defending the police in this type of situation is what keeps the LAPD doing what it does best. Act corrupt. Advocating for more guns in the hands of civilians based on this incident is completely ridiculous.
Not only this occasion but many more. Read the news more often please.
|
Police state. The guy is a murderer, and he will keep his authority over other people. Disgusting.
|
On February 17 2013 04:11 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:04 Sermokala wrote:On February 17 2013 03:56 Meiya wrote:On February 17 2013 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote:
This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too... People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received. Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound. I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state. Don't pussy foot around it. You said: "people in war shoot to wound not kill" which is patently false. Finger off the trigger unless you intend to kill. You're inventing your own ideas about how things are.
Idk where you confuse teaching people to hit center mass with small caliber full metal jacket rounds with small bursts to conserve ammo with people taught to empty their magazine into someone with hollow tip rounds into the head and heart of someone.
I mean if you want a victory on semantics of yeah they're both told to identify targets and to only shoot if you want to kill you can have it but that isn't what I was talking about.
|
On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
Adding more guns to the equation brings nothing good to the table.
|
On February 17 2013 04:10 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:02 [Agony]x90 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:59 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:56 [Agony]x90 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment. I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster. Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous. The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction. Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement. It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power. Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive? I don't understand. You want to give more people guns? The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over. This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop. I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution. I did not mean it as an insult when i called you naive. To answer your question, yes. If the person had been in a group of more armed civilians, the officer would not had acted so "bravely" to chase him and shoot him not once, not twice, but 6 or 7 plus a head shot to confirm the kill. Defending the police in this type of situation is what keeps the LAPD doing what it does best. Act corrupt.
That's okay, you just clearly made a terrible assumption regarding how I took your statement.
To state my position. I believe status quo to be much better than the proliferation of weapons, as i trust a corrupt cop to have a better handle on his weapon then a pissed off joe schmo.
|
On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself. What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns.
What is next?
I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough*
But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
|
I mean if you guys want to advocate for a citizens militia to stand in the streets with guns to back up the police you can do that as an argument for fixing the situation you can but you're going to run into the same problems we had back with trayvon martin happen up.
|
On February 17 2013 04:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:11 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:04 Sermokala wrote:On February 17 2013 03:56 Meiya wrote:On February 17 2013 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote:
This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too... People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received. Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound. I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state. Don't pussy foot around it. You said: "people in war shoot to wound not kill" which is patently false. Finger off the trigger unless you intend to kill. You're inventing your own ideas about how things are. Idk where you confuse teaching people to hit center mass with small caliber full metal jacket rounds with small bursts to conserve ammo with people taught to empty their magazine into someone with hollow tip rounds into the head and heart of someone. I mean if you want a victory on semantics of yeah they're both told to identify targets and to only shoot if you want to kill you can have it but that isn't what I was talking about.
What on Earth are you talking about?
You said: "people in war shoot to wound not kill"
Plain & simple -- you were completely wrong. Accept that and move on
|
On February 17 2013 04:10 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:02 [Agony]x90 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:59 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:56 [Agony]x90 wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment. I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster. Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous. The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction. Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement. It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power. Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive? I don't understand. You want to give more people guns? The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over. This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop. I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution. I did not mean it as an insult when i called you naive. To answer your question, yes. If the person had been in a group of more armed civilians, the officer would not had acted so "bravely" to chase him and shoot him not once, not twice, but 6 or 7 plus a head shot to confirm the kill. Defending the police in this type of situation is what keeps the LAPD doing what it does best. Act corrupt.
There were 4 gunshot wounds, none to the head. He died later at the hospital.
|
On February 17 2013 04:16 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:11 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:04 Sermokala wrote:On February 17 2013 03:56 Meiya wrote:On February 17 2013 03:38 Sermokala wrote:On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote:
This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too... People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received. Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound. I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state. Don't pussy foot around it. You said: "people in war shoot to wound not kill" which is patently false. Finger off the trigger unless you intend to kill. You're inventing your own ideas about how things are. Idk where you confuse teaching people to hit center mass with small caliber full metal jacket rounds with small bursts to conserve ammo with people taught to empty their magazine into someone with hollow tip rounds into the head and heart of someone. I mean if you want a victory on semantics of yeah they're both told to identify targets and to only shoot if you want to kill you can have it but that isn't what I was talking about.
Even if that is what the police are taught, which I doubt (aiming for the head in battle shooting, yeah okay), the only difference between those two approaches to shooting a human target is the efficiency of it. "Center mass" with modern 5.56 rounds is a kill, that's not shooting to wound. There is almost nowhere you can shoot somebody in the torso that won't kill them untreated. That's shooting to kill. I honestly have no idea what you *are* talking about at this point.
|
On February 17 2013 04:18 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:16 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself. What makes this thinking somewhat ridiculous is the simple fact that having "resources" to defend yourself would not actually defend yourself. Fine, you may kill the one policeman with whom you're engaged in a gun battle, but what next? The "resources" possessed by the police, government, and military if it got to that point will never be outdone by the "resources" possessed by civilians -- even if provided millions of rifles/handguns. What is next? I am sure the police would look for ways to kill me as well. Just read all the stories of police retaliation. *cough* dorner *cough* But at least more civilians would have the opportunity to defend themselves.
So in essence at least more people will die, with nothing actually changing as a result.
|
On February 17 2013 04:13 number01 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 04:02 FallDownMarigold wrote:On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote:
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more. What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets. If the police were to threaten my life, i would love to have the resources to defend myself.
1. The police officer was wrong. I'm sorry, but somebody running away is not a reason to shoot them. Drop your fucking doughnut and chase them.
2. Really? You want to shoot a cop? Why not instead make a situation where the cop has no reason the threaten you? Don't do shit that is illegal, and when a cop stops you in any situation you do as they say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
