|
To keep this thread open for discussion, please READ THIS BEFORE POSTING:The following types of posts are banworthy: - Nation bashing. - Significantly disrespectful posts toward any of the parties involved. Please familiarize yourself with some of the basics on the use of force in the United States before posting in this thread. If you feel the need to post a reaction to the news, post a comment on the youtube video. Don't bring it here. This thread is for a discussion on the topic, and your post better have substance to it. Low content posts will be met with moderator action. Here is a good post by someone with experience in escalation of force training. Read that too. This post might change your opinion of in the incident. |
On January 26 2012 00:07 jungsu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 23:55 nam nam wrote:On January 25 2012 23:50 jungsu wrote:
I do have to say my gut reaction was "they just murdered that dude"
However I can see an argument for firing on him in the position they were in, but I blame them for being way too close to a guy with only a melee weapon. They had him outnumbered and outmanned. There were many ways out of the situation if they would've just given him room.
And honestly any adult is not going to die from one hit of a melee weapon, unless it's a sword or axe... Of course you can die from a melee weapon, what world do you live in? Also with them keeping the distance, he didn't really show any sign of stopping. If they had kept their distance do you really think he would have stopped? Not one hit with a blunt object. That was my point. If he ACTUALLY swung at the cop then you fire. It's a pipe. And of course it's deadly if you let him wail on the cop 10x or more... that's why he's outmanned to begin with.. Step back, contain him, keep him away from bystanders, and call for backup and nonlethal weapons if needed.
Im having a hard time taking you seriously. A hit from something to the head can certainly kill you. He was motioning to do just that.
|
On January 26 2012 00:09 jungsu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:04 Ballistixz wrote:On January 25 2012 23:50 jungsu wrote:
And honestly any adult is not going to die from one hit of a melee weapon, unless it's a sword or axe... lol yes u can. a weapon is called a weapon for a reason. a human being can be killed by hitting them repeatedly accorss the head with a xbox or something. anything can be used as a weapon to kill someone with enough effort, including a plastic bag or a rock. That's why there's a second guy with a gun on him, so he gets at most one swing. Thanks for making my point.
Yea, let's just take a sledgehammer to the face just incase he didn't "really" want to injure the officer.
Oh, and next time someone pulls a gun, let's wait until they fire a bullet first. Very good idea.
|
On January 26 2012 00:11 Traeon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:02 klaxen wrote:
What if he had started swinging right as the first shot at his leg was fired? Even if the shot hit there's absolutely no guarantee that would stop him. After five shots the guy was AT LEAST 3 meters away from anyone else, far out of reach of his melee weapon. Heck, the guy was probably not even in melee range at the moment of the first shot, but since it's a bit hard to tell, let's just assume he was.
That really has nothing to do with what I said. The other guy had argued that they should have only fired one shot to disarm him, I'm stating that there's no guarantee it would.
|
On January 26 2012 00:09 ryseungoo wrote:
People think when someone comes at you with a deadly weapon, you'll just whip out your pistol, aim for their legs, and everything will be fine? I know this is a forum mainly for a videro game, but many of you seem to be out of touch with reality.
They are supposed to be trained officers, TRAINED, trained to avoid executing a man in these conditions, it wasnt a civilian, and even if the panic could have, because of a bad training, made him shoot him, even lets 5 times, the 5 after that were execution for fuck sake, he didnt have a gun, end of story
|
My god... first the pepper spray comments and now this. You can't kill an adult man with a fucking conduit bender? Really? Ok then. Fetch an athletic friend of yours and ask him to hit you in the side of the head with a baseball bat. It's blunt and wooden after all, should be no problem.
You can kill an adult man with a single punch, without any object whatsoever. It happens all the time. Think before you post...
|
On January 26 2012 00:07 jungsu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 23:55 nam nam wrote:On January 25 2012 23:50 jungsu wrote:
I do have to say my gut reaction was "they just murdered that dude"
However I can see an argument for firing on him in the position they were in, but I blame them for being way too close to a guy with only a melee weapon. They had him outnumbered and outmanned. There were many ways out of the situation if they would've just given him room.
And honestly any adult is not going to die from one hit of a melee weapon, unless it's a sword or axe... Of course you can die from a melee weapon, what world do you live in? Also with them keeping the distance, he didn't really show any sign of stopping. If they had kept their distance do you really think he would have stopped? Not one hit with a blunt object. That was my point. If he ACTUALLY swung at the cop then you fire. It's a pipe. And of course it's deadly if you let him wail on the cop 10x or more... that's why he's outmanned to begin with.. Step back, contain him, keep him away from bystanders, and call for backup and nonlethal weapons if needed.
I'm pretty amazed you'd let him swing at the man, THEN fire. I don't think he turned around and raised his weapon as a sign of peace. He was on the brink of *severely* injuring a police officer. SHOOT HIM.
|
On January 25 2012 23:56 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 20:19 UisTehSux wrote:On January 25 2012 20:05 Ballistixz wrote:On January 25 2012 20:02 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 19:58 Tobberoth wrote:
I guess there's a cultural difference. In Sweden, police are trained to NOT shot to kill unless it's necessary, which is why we have almost no lethal shootings in Sweden where a cop kills a criminal. In a situation such as in this video, I'm sure a swedish cop would have shot the suspect in the leg. How can this work? Because in Sweden, it's extremely rare that a criminal will be carrying a gun, so I don't think there's as much pressure to "put the threat down immediately" as there is in the US where everyone and their mother owns at least 2 guns, 1 shotgun and 5 bazookas. And what happens if the police officer missed the leg (very likely) and got his head bashed in with the crowbar? Or shooting him in the leg did nothing, if you remember he was still standing after being tasered in the face, and after being shot five times in the chest? like i keep constantly saying, that wouldnt have happened if the cops simply kept there distance and been more cautios. they walked up to the suspect very non-chalantly as if he wasnt a threat. and what happens next? well the vid tells u what happened next. How do you know everything about this situation and the person who was shot? How do you know that it "wouldn't have happened if the cops simply..."? You don't. Why are you commenting in here like you know exactly what should have happened and what would have happened if what you are saying was done? You don't know! really ppl... use your head for one second. since the cop got close he was in battering/melee range of a crowbar... A CROWBAR. this is not a ranged weapon like a gun or something. this is a MELEE weapon which means have to be CLOSE to someone if ur going to use it as a "deadly weapon". now what does COMMON SENSE tell you to do? get close to the guy so he can pottentially smash ur skull in? or stay a safe distance away from him? seriously think about that. there was another vid of a guy wielding a katana (much more deadly then a crowbar in terms of melee weapons) and the cops kept there distance from the guy. similiar situations but completely diffrent outcomes because caution was used.
again welcome to page 30 of this thread where cover area of intervention and SOP how to approach a subject.
short summary, they approach from 5-10m distance to minimize the suspects options and chance to interact with bystanders. It is also close to the maximum effective range of most tazers.
Next they tried to get the situation under control with words, we can't make out what they said, but it was most likely something along the lines of "police drop your weapon". Suspect was dismissive at best.
Next they tried to tazer the suspect, which did not work (too far away to hit his face properly, too heavy clothing to hit him anywhere else).
While the cop with the tazer tried to approach the subject (most likely for a second shot) his partner was covering him. Up to this point the suspect was completly dismissive to any actions the police took, so they most likely assumed that he was completly stoned out of his mind, and were preparing to more or less wrestle him into submission and apply cuffs.
Instead the suspect suddenly raised his weapon (which up to that point had been held down to the ground) and lurches towards the closer officer.
That is exactly the point where the officer giving cover (meaning a bit further away) is supposed to open fire. Yes it would have been better if they had managed to taze him, but sadly with the clothing he wore a tazer is not an effective weapon.
There was very little they could have done differently with the options they had available. If they want to get the situation under control (and again, until 0.38 in the video, the suspect gave no indication of immediate danger, he simply seemed completly out of his mind and hopped up on drugs) they have to approach him.
If someone has a Katana or a similar live blade in his hand and waves it around all the time, they obviously aren't going to approach him. In that situation SOP would be to keep your distance and scream at him to drop his weapon for as long as it would take (or until he approaches the first bystander, at that point they would assume immenent threat to life and open fire). You cannot compare such situations. In this vid, the suspect seemed fairly unresponsive (read, so drugged out that he isn't much of a risk) until he made his move, which led to his death.
|
The officer who attempted to tazer actually stepped closer to the suspect after seeing it had no effect which was pretty stupid. Also, it was clearly unnecessary to shoot that many times.
|
On January 26 2012 00:14 mahO wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:09 ryseungoo wrote:
People think when someone comes at you with a deadly weapon, you'll just whip out your pistol, aim for their legs, and everything will be fine? I know this is a forum mainly for a videro game, but many of you seem to be out of touch with reality. They are supposed to be trained officers, TRAINED, trained to avoid executing a man in these conditions, it wasnt a civilian, and even if the panic could have, because of a bad training, made him shoot him, even lets 5 times, the 5 after that were execution for fuck sake, he didnt have a gun, end of story
While I agree that he overreacted, you couldnt tell in their situation whether or not he might have a gun. That being said the first five should shouldve been enough to secure him until an ambulance arrives. But whatre you gonna do, thats not what happened sadly.
|
On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him.
Wtf so shocking, the guy was not even an immediate threat. One bullet in the leg(even that would have been extreme IMO), he can't do shit and they arrest hi. Police aren't supposed to shoot to kill OMG THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ARREST PEOPLE. The justice decides the sentence. If the guy had himself a gun it would be a whole different, but the guy wasn't even in range to hit with his hammerthing. The police officers were not at risk, neither any people. There weren't any urge to fuckin shoot the guy.
The thing that disgusts me the most are the guys with the camera, why the fuck are they laughing. A guy just got killed, they are thinking it's a fuckin videogame? The family of the guy, his friends whatsoever are going to be ravaged.
Again, maybe one day I will be fuckin high on drugs I will take a dumb hammer and got towards a police officer. I hope I won't get killed for this but get arrested and get fairly punished.
It's the same whith the kid who killed his bully. All the people, mostly americans, who were saying the bully deserved it. So everyone can understand I would say that LIFE IS FUCKIN UNDERRATED. A guy who bullies doesn't deserve to die, neither an idiot with a hammer.
The guy is dead, gone.
He is fuckin dead. I used to say that all the violence we see everyday didn't change our perception, but I'm kinda feeling the other way when I'm reading somes posts.
|
On January 26 2012 00:18 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Wtf so shocking, the guy was not even an immediate threat. One bullet in the leg(even that would have been extreme IMO), he can't do shit and they arrest hi. Police aren't supposed to shoot to kill OMG THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ARREST PEOPLE. The justice decides the sentence. If the guy had himself a gun it would be a whole different, but the guy wasn't even in range to hit with his hammerthing. The police officers were not at risk, neither any people. There weren't any urge to fuckin shoot the guy. The thing that disgusts me the most are the guys with the camera, why the fuck are they laughing. A guy just got killed, they are thinking it's a fuckin videogame? The family of the guy, his friends whatsoever are going to be ravaged. Again, maybe one day I will be fuckin high on drugs I will take a dumb hammer and got towards a police officer. I hope I won't get killed for this but get arrested and get fairly punished. It's the same who the kid who killed his bully. All the people, mostly americans, who were saying the bully deserved it. So everyone can understand I would say that LIFE IS FUCKIN UNDERRATED. A guy who bullies doesn't deserve to die, neither an idiot with a hammer. The guy is dead, gone. He is fuckin dead. I used to say that all the violence we see everyday didn't change our perception, but I'm kinda feeling the other way when I'm reading somes posts.
How can you view that video and say that guy was not an immediate threat? I'm seriously baffled.
|
On January 26 2012 00:18 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Wtf so shocking, the guy was not even an immediate threat...
So when does he become a threat? The second the conduit bender is sticking out of the cops eye socket?
|
On January 26 2012 00:14 mahO wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 00:09 ryseungoo wrote:
People think when someone comes at you with a deadly weapon, you'll just whip out your pistol, aim for their legs, and everything will be fine? I know this is a forum mainly for a videro game, but many of you seem to be out of touch with reality. They are supposed to be trained officers, TRAINED, trained to avoid executing a man in these conditions, it wasnt a civilian, and even if the panic could have, because of a bad training, made him shoot him, even lets 5 times, the 5 after that were execution for fuck sake, he didnt have a gun, end of story
They're TRAINED to shoot for the center of mass when they're endangered. And when you start shooting, you fire off multiple shots so that the suspect is guaranteed to stay down. Once you attack an officer with deadly force, you will be retaliated with deadly force.
|
On January 25 2012 10:58 r.Evo wrote:
However the suspect in this short film is by no means displaying the intention to attack the policeman. He turns. He jumps towards the cop like a boxer, having his weapon in a position ready to strike. As scary as that might look, he is in no position to actually swing that weapon properly against the officer.
I don't doubt your creditials at reading someone's intent. However, you are watching the video after the fact. You can slow it down and analyze body posture, arm position, etc. The officers could not.
Give the cops some fucking lee-way. Hindsight is 20/20; they had to make a judgment call in the heat of the moment with lives on the line. You admit that it was scary, which is sufficient reason for them to fire. "Scary" means "threat", and threat means shoot.
A shooting can be justified even if on later analysis one can see some evidence that he might not have been an immenent threat. Reaching into a pocket is an example; whatever turns out to be there, it's not worth taking the risk. A shooting over someone reaching for a wallet after being told not to is still justified once it's revealed to be a wallet, since the police didn't know that.
On January 25 2012 22:24 Stropheum wrote:
1. The suspect did not commit a crime worthy of a death sentence
Police officers are neither judges nor juries. They're not there to access the merit of one crime and mete out punishment. Their task, in this situation, is to gain control of a situation that is out of control and is an imminent threat to others.
Sometimes, that means lethal force, if the perp doesn't surrender peacefully and is a threat to people. In short, the police prevented him from committing such a crime.
On January 25 2012 22:29 Prospero wrote:
A couple of thoughts. My first reaction was how someone could laugh at the entire incident while video taping it, whether or not the bullets were rubber or not.
That's common. Laughter in high-stress situations can be a common reactions.
On January 25 2012 22:35 Stropheum wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 22:31 zeru wrote:
Ill say it again, sending the dog against armed targets it's not standard procedure and puts the dog in unnecessary danger. K9s are fellow coworkers. So just to clarify, why was one of the first response officers holding the dog on a short chain while pointing his gun at the suspect? Were they planning on doing emergency drug sniffing once they apprehended him? Or do they only set dogs loose against suspects that aren't a threat?
Because the dog was there. They were a K9 unit.
On January 26 2012 00:07 jungsu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 23:55 nam nam wrote:On January 25 2012 23:50 jungsu wrote:
I do have to say my gut reaction was "they just murdered that dude"
However I can see an argument for firing on him in the position they were in, but I blame them for being way too close to a guy with only a melee weapon. They had him outnumbered and outmanned. There were many ways out of the situation if they would've just given him room.
And honestly any adult is not going to die from one hit of a melee weapon, unless it's a sword or axe... Of course you can die from a melee weapon, what world do you live in? Also with them keeping the distance, he didn't really show any sign of stopping. If they had kept their distance do you really think he would have stopped? Not one hit with a blunt object. That was my point. If he ACTUALLY swung at the cop then you fire. It's a pipe. And of course it's deadly if you let him wail on the cop 10x or more... that's why he's outmanned to begin with.. Step back, contain him, keep him away from bystanders, and call for backup and nonlethal weapons if needed.
First, one hit with a blunt object can in fact kill. It rather depends on where you get hit, but the possibility is certainly there.
Second, you're really saying that the officer should simply allow his partner to be hit before shooting? Even though it's apparent that the guy is going to be hit? Are you serious?
The whole point of having police on the scene is to prevent further damage/loss of life. If he threatens someone, he gets shot. It's that simple.
On January 26 2012 00:16 Tula wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 25 2012 23:56 Ballistixz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 20:19 UisTehSux wrote:On January 25 2012 20:05 Ballistixz wrote:On January 25 2012 20:02 Saryph wrote:On January 25 2012 19:58 Tobberoth wrote:
I guess there's a cultural difference. In Sweden, police are trained to NOT shot to kill unless it's necessary, which is why we have almost no lethal shootings in Sweden where a cop kills a criminal. In a situation such as in this video, I'm sure a swedish cop would have shot the suspect in the leg. How can this work? Because in Sweden, it's extremely rare that a criminal will be carrying a gun, so I don't think there's as much pressure to "put the threat down immediately" as there is in the US where everyone and their mother owns at least 2 guns, 1 shotgun and 5 bazookas. And what happens if the police officer missed the leg (very likely) and got his head bashed in with the crowbar? Or shooting him in the leg did nothing, if you remember he was still standing after being tasered in the face, and after being shot five times in the chest? like i keep constantly saying, that wouldnt have happened if the cops simply kept there distance and been more cautios. they walked up to the suspect very non-chalantly as if he wasnt a threat. and what happens next? well the vid tells u what happened next. How do you know everything about this situation and the person who was shot? How do you know that it "wouldn't have happened if the cops simply..."? You don't. Why are you commenting in here like you know exactly what should have happened and what would have happened if what you are saying was done? You don't know! really ppl... use your head for one second. since the cop got close he was in battering/melee range of a crowbar... A CROWBAR. this is not a ranged weapon like a gun or something. this is a MELEE weapon which means have to be CLOSE to someone if ur going to use it as a "deadly weapon". now what does COMMON SENSE tell you to do? get close to the guy so he can pottentially smash ur skull in? or stay a safe distance away from him? seriously think about that. there was another vid of a guy wielding a katana (much more deadly then a crowbar in terms of melee weapons) and the cops kept there distance from the guy. similiar situations but completely diffrent outcomes because caution was used. again welcome to page 30 of this thread where cover area of intervention and SOP how to approach a subject. short summary, they approach from 5-10m distance to minimize the suspects options and chance to interact with bystanders. It is also close to the maximum effective range of most tazers. Next they tried to get the situation under control with words, we can't make out what they said, but it was most likely something along the lines of "police drop your weapon". Suspect was dismissive at best. Next they tried to tazer the suspect, which did not work (too far away to hit his face properly, too heavy clothing to hit him anywhere else). While the cop with the tazer tried to approach the subject (most likely for a second shot) his partner was covering him. Up to this point the suspect was completly dismissive to any actions the police took, so they most likely assumed that he was completly stoned out of his mind, and were preparing to more or less wrestle him into submission and apply cuffs. Instead the suspect suddenly raised his weapon (which up to that point had been held down to the ground) and lurches towards the closer officer. That is exactly the point where the officer giving cover (meaning a bit further away) is supposed to open fire. Yes it would have been better if they had managed to taze him, but sadly with the clothing he wore a tazer is not an effective weapon. There was very little they could have done differently with the options they had available. If they want to get the situation under control (and again, until 0.38 in the video, the suspect gave no indication of immediate danger, he simply seemed completly out of his mind and hopped up on drugs) they have to approach him. If someone has a Katana or a similar live blade in his hand and waves it around all the time, they obviously aren't going to approach him. In that situation SOP would be to keep your distance and scream at him to drop his weapon for as long as it would take (or until he approaches the first bystander, at that point they would assume immenent threat to life and open fire). You cannot compare such situations. In this vid, the suspect seemed fairly unresponsive (read, so drugged out that he isn't much of a risk) until he made his move, which led to his death.
Pretty much everything you say is made of win.
|
He is explaining in his post why?
Why can't you read?
He wasn't in range to apply deadly force --> Police then acted stupid/wrong --> Police than was in danger and shot.
See, i would not blame the officer for shooting (at least for the first few shots, the later ones are.. very.. questionable) but they clearly handled that siutation absolutely terrible which lead to this escalation of force.
|
After seeing so many movies you'd think the police officer would have right distance from offendor + instantly shot him in a nonvital area to wound/stun the guy who was threating him/his partner.
Then again, I guess people who are able to do this in a cold heart type or fashion are like navy seals or even team 6 guys :D.
You live in a shitty neighbourhood with crime skyrocketing....this totally makes sense. I believe every single person in this thread would have reacted in the same way/or have been killed by that guy.
I discussed in the republican thread about gun control and how I would see fit to deal with a robber but( if you have a gun simply wound him in a non-vital place if he doesn't seem to have a gun or reach for one, in case he comes towards you after you told him to back off - of course you need training for this, cuz without it, you would panick and shoot to kill instantly - that's why gun ownership without constant training is rather stupid imo ). But this guy was a gang member from a really bad place, police officers cannot take chances.
I guess they misshandled the situation by even coming in that place. After the police officer tasered the guy and he was still raging they should've shot him in a non-vital place if he didn't submit to orders before he was in range of assaulting them. The bad thing that they did imo is that they let the situation get to that place..
|
Were the 10 bullets needed? No.
Did it make a difference? No.
Is it police brutality? No. Try being hopped up on Adrenaline and in fear of your life. See how many times you pull the trigger.
|
On January 26 2012 00:18 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Wtf so shocking, the guy was not even an immediate threat. One bullet in the leg(even that would have been extreme IMO), he can't do shit and they arrest hi. Police aren't supposed to shoot to kill OMG THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ARREST PEOPLE. The justice decides the sentence. If the guy had himself a gun it would be a whole different, but the guy wasn't even in range to hit with his hammerthing. The police officers were not at risk, neither any people. There weren't any urge to fuckin shoot the guy. The thing that disgusts me the most are the guys with the camera, why the fuck are they laughing. A guy just got killed, they are thinking it's a fuckin videogame? The family of the guy, his friends whatsoever are going to be ravaged. Again, maybe one day I will be fuckin high on drugs I will take a dumb hammer and got towards a police officer. I hope I won't get killed for this but get arrested and get fairly punished. It's the same whith the kid who killed his bully. All the people, mostly americans, who were saying the bully deserved it. So everyone can understand I would say that LIFE IS FUCKIN UNDERRATED. A guy who bullies doesn't deserve to die, neither an idiot with a hammer. The guy is dead, gone. He is fuckin dead. I used to say that all the violence we see everyday didn't change our perception, but I'm kinda feeling the other way when I'm reading somes posts.
I'm not sure why so many people are saying only Americas are the ones justifying the cop's actions. I've seen people from *many* different countries say the cop did the sensible thing.
Also, did you not see the weapon the suspect raised to the officer? I think it qualifies as an immediate threat.
I think everybody on this thread fully understands how precious life is. But when a man is walking toward a officer with a weapon raised, shooting him is the right answer, however hard it may be. Quite honestly, I'd rather have the man who decided to turn around and threaten the officer dead than the officer himself.
|
On January 26 2012 00:18 TanTzoR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2012 05:18 iNcontroL wrote:
excessive? Police are supposed to shoot to kill.. it isn't like he reloaded and unloaded on the guy again. If a cop EVER shoots it's not to stop or slow down someone or something.. it's to kill him. Wtf so shocking, the guy was not even an immediate threat. One bullet in the leg(even that would have been extreme IMO), he can't do shit and they arrest hi. Police aren't supposed to shoot to kill OMG THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO ARREST PEOPLE. The justice decides the sentence. If the guy had himself a gun it would be a whole different, but the guy wasn't even in range to hit with his hammerthing. The police officers were not at risk, neither any people. There weren't any urge to fuckin shoot the guy. The thing that disgusts me the most are the guys with the camera, why the fuck are they laughing. A guy just got killed, they are thinking it's a fuckin videogame? The family of the guy, his friends whatsoever are going to be ravaged. Again, maybe one day I will be fuckin high on drugs I will take a dumb hammer and got towards a police officer. I hope I won't get killed for this but get arrested and get fairly punished. It's the same whith the kid who killed his bully. All the people, mostly americans, who were saying the bully deserved it. So everyone can understand I would say that LIFE IS FUCKIN UNDERRATED. A guy who bullies doesn't deserve to die, neither an idiot with a hammer. The guy is dead, gone. He is fuckin dead. I used to say that all the violence we see everyday didn't change our perception, but I'm kinda feeling the other way when I'm reading somes posts.
Dude you live in a land of fairies and elves. 1. they are in a really bad place where crime is rampart and 2. they don't have the training of being John McLane or whoever you wanna say...
Edit : And by the way to make it clear... I'm not a police lover/hater ... Some of them are great ( in the USA, in Romania all of them are shit - but for good reason, they get payed shit salaries so they have to side with the gangsters here to get some money to live ) and some are horrible. I've seen countless videos where police officers use force with no justification, totally abusing because they can on PEACEFUL citizens.
Also I've read some article a month ago, where a dude who is now a prison guard said he wasn't allowed to join the police force because his IQ was to high ( 134 ), and that the police only accept people with 100-107 IQ because smart people would get bored during the job. It was on a legit news site so it's not bullshit I believe.
|
I don't think you can use language like "ranged" and "melee" in this discussion. They aren't used in this type of situation and clearly disqualify any posts that contain them as uneducated. They are terms from the world of video games, and this did not happen inside one, so please use the correct language. To clarify to the poster above me, a gun and a blunt weapon are both "deadly force" within about 40 ft. (I think), so the police didn't legally escalate the level of violence. Also I'd like you to think about what you would have done in the officer's position. Imagine you have 2 boys and a girl and a beautiful wife whom need you to come home, and your partner is your best friend who also has a child and a wife. Do you want to risk losing the life of an officer or some kid who is threatening to kill an officer?
Edit: too many people posting  The poster I was referring to was good sir TanTzoR
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
