|
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 12:48 RockIronrod wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
People are dumb sometimes, Officers only use their gun when they absolutly have to and when they do, the do it to stop the threat, not to blindly shoot people. Exactly. They absolutely didn't have to shoot him ten times. The only time I can understand an officer discharging his weapon is when his/her own life is at risk. From this video, I seriously don't think this was the case. A mutual friend and acquaintance of mine commit suicide via police officers. However in his situation, he had a gun pointed directly at an officer for a good 2 minutes. The officer didn't fire until my mutual friend discharged his weapon (intentionally missing the officer for the sake of provoking him to shoot). The officer only fired one shot to kill him. I have a lot of respect for this officer. He risked his own life because he chose to try and talk him out of it. If this is seriously what you think, that cops should wait until after they're shot at to fire back, and that they should only discharge once, then I only have this to say to you: Fuck you, you are a terrible person who wants all police officers to be shot dead.
Nice reading comprehension. I said I respect the officer for what he did, not that I think this should be the case for all officers. I've clearly stated I understand officers defending their own lives by discharging their weapons. I just don't agree that this was the situation in this video. It could have ended with the man alive and in custody. I understand that in the heat of the moment the officer chose to discharge his weapon though; an unfortunate decision.
On January 26 2012 12:53 Sigrun wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
And I love how you say, "from this video, I seriously don't think this was the case". Exactly. You're watching from a video- you can see everything that's happening. You can rewind, play it slowly, and notice every minute detail. But for those officers? All they see is a man looking like he's ready to bludgeon their heads in. And they have literally just seconds to react.
Touche.
|
@TsoBadGuy
Risking yourself is your own choice and I may see that as bravery, at least according to that story but in this case he would have risked the life of his partner and bystanders, which wouldn't be brave at all in my eyes 
Rebel:
I'm getting the feeling you don't WANT to understand what I'm trying to say, which makes any further attempt to do so pretty useless, so I will refrain from it. If you truely want to understand why the officers shot 2 salves, read the thread, like I did.
Complaining that it will "take too much time" will just show that you don't want to "waste" your time to understand the whole situation, so be warned.
|
On January 26 2012 12:53 FREEloss_ca wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 12:48 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
People are dumb sometimes, Officers only use their gun when they absolutly have to and when they do, the do it to stop the threat, not to blindly shoot people. Exactly. They absolutely didn't have to shoot him ten times. The only time I can understand an officer discharging his weapon is when his/her own life is at risk. From this video, I seriously don't think this was the case. A mutual friend and acquaintance of mine commit suicide via police officers. However in his situation, he had a gun pointed directly at an officer for a good 2 minutes. The officer didn't fire until my mutual friend discharged his weapon (intentionally missing the officer for the sake of provoking him to shoot). The officer only fired one shot to kill him. I have a lot of respect for this officer. He risked his own life because he chose to try and talk him out of it. If this is seriously what you think, that cops should wait until after they're shot at to fire back, and that they should only discharge once, then I only have this to say to you: Fuck you, you are a terrible person who wants all police officers to be shot dead. Nice reading comprehension. I said I respect the officer for what he did, not that I think this should be the case for all officers. I've clearly stated I understand officers defending their own lives by discharging their weapons. I just don't agree that this was the situation in this video. It could have ended with the man alive and in custody. I understand that in the heat of the moment the officer chose to discharge his weapon though; an unfortunate decision. Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 12:53 Sigrun wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
And I love how you say, "from this video, I seriously don't think this was the case". Exactly. You're watching from a video- you can see everything that's happening. You can rewind, play it slowly, and notice every minute detail. But for those officers? All they see is a man looking like he's ready to bludgeon their heads in. And they have literally just seconds to react. Touche.
If you're going to start by sarcastically quipping "Nice reading comprehension." please spell "Brilliance" correctly in your signature.
My last post literally ended in "Oh, and it's spelled Brilliance." and the next thing I see is you taking a jab taken vicariously through English. Unreal.
Edit : @ Chronicle, very good point 
Edit 2 : f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 I need a life f5 f5 f5 f5 f5 f5
|
On January 26 2012 12:53 FREEloss_ca wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 12:48 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
People are dumb sometimes, Officers only use their gun when they absolutly have to and when they do, the do it to stop the threat, not to blindly shoot people. Exactly. They absolutely didn't have to shoot him ten times. The only time I can understand an officer discharging his weapon is when his/her own life is at risk. From this video, I seriously don't think this was the case. A mutual friend and acquaintance of mine commit suicide via police officers. However in his situation, he had a gun pointed directly at an officer for a good 2 minutes. The officer didn't fire until my mutual friend discharged his weapon (intentionally missing the officer for the sake of provoking him to shoot). The officer only fired one shot to kill him. I have a lot of respect for this officer. He risked his own life because he chose to try and talk him out of it. If this is seriously what you think, that cops should wait until after they're shot at to fire back, and that they should only discharge once, then I only have this to say to you: Fuck you, you are a terrible person who wants all police officers to be shot dead. Nice reading comprehension. I said I respect the officer for what he did, not that I think this should be the case for all officers. I've clearly stated I understand officers defending their own lives by discharging their weapons. I just don't agree that this was the situation in this video. It could have ended with the man alive and in custody. I understand that in the heat of the moment the officer chose to discharge his weapon though; an unfortunate decision.
Well, the suspect took advantage of a moment where the officer with the tazer was stumbling / disabled. At that moment the suspect looked to be attacking and the officer with the dog saw that his partner was vulnerable. At that point (attacker with vulnerable target) you shouldn't need more incentive to fire.
|
On January 26 2012 13:00 TsoBadGuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 12:53 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:48 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
People are dumb sometimes, Officers only use their gun when they absolutly have to and when they do, the do it to stop the threat, not to blindly shoot people. Exactly. They absolutely didn't have to shoot him ten times. The only time I can understand an officer discharging his weapon is when his/her own life is at risk. From this video, I seriously don't think this was the case. A mutual friend and acquaintance of mine commit suicide via police officers. However in his situation, he had a gun pointed directly at an officer for a good 2 minutes. The officer didn't fire until my mutual friend discharged his weapon (intentionally missing the officer for the sake of provoking him to shoot). The officer only fired one shot to kill him. I have a lot of respect for this officer. He risked his own life because he chose to try and talk him out of it. If this is seriously what you think, that cops should wait until after they're shot at to fire back, and that they should only discharge once, then I only have this to say to you: Fuck you, you are a terrible person who wants all police officers to be shot dead. Nice reading comprehension. I said I respect the officer for what he did, not that I think this should be the case for all officers. I've clearly stated I understand officers defending their own lives by discharging their weapons. I just don't agree that this was the situation in this video. It could have ended with the man alive and in custody. I understand that in the heat of the moment the officer chose to discharge his weapon though; an unfortunate decision. On January 26 2012 12:53 Sigrun wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
And I love how you say, "from this video, I seriously don't think this was the case". Exactly. You're watching from a video- you can see everything that's happening. You can rewind, play it slowly, and notice every minute detail. But for those officers? All they see is a man looking like he's ready to bludgeon their heads in. And they have literally just seconds to react. Touche. If you're going to start by sarcastically quipping "Nice reading comprehension." please spell "Brilliance" correctly in your signature. My last post literally ended in "Oh, and it's spelled Brilliance." and the next thing I see is you taking a jab taken vicariously through English. Unreal. Edit : @ Chronicle, very good point
Yeah, you completely misunderstood what I trying to say with my story. And thank you, I've had that sig for years and never noticed.
|
People need to... think about things first. If they were the cops and there was a guy in front of you with a crowbar.
I'm sure you'd just shoot him in the leg... or mass tackle him. LOL
If I was that cop I'd shoot him until he's on the ground.
|
As soon as he raised his weapon at the officer they have the right to kill him. I would be terrified to live in a place where people can point deadly weapons at cops without being shot.
|
Then 5 more if you are these cops, plus if people are to be believed, every other cop in the world. @mizU (Columbia?)
I tackled a dude, when i had to check cars for bombs. Rifle across my back, big ass mirror pole in my arms and a guy from a diesel advancing with a knife in his hands. Turned out he was trying to give it to me, but he didn't speak English. I probably saved his life. Now i did have kevlar and a helmet and about 15 guys with guns around me, but.... LOL (life spared so funny)
Dude, i've read the whole thread, Been thinking about this shit for hours. This guy never had a shot at maiming one of these officers. Not close in my opinion. We must just agree to disagree. We put a different value on life, and a different value on justifications to taking one. Prolly a reason I exited the army and didn't go lifer. @chronicle
Edit. but goddamn it thats not the point. The point is i believe this suspect could've been taken alive, that he wasn't is the tragedy, and where i find fault. Its not one-way, for instance that other video, that man should've been shot dead. He was a clear threat.
|
On January 26 2012 13:03 FREEloss_ca wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 13:00 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 12:53 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:48 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
People are dumb sometimes, Officers only use their gun when they absolutly have to and when they do, the do it to stop the threat, not to blindly shoot people. Exactly. They absolutely didn't have to shoot him ten times. The only time I can understand an officer discharging his weapon is when his/her own life is at risk. From this video, I seriously don't think this was the case. A mutual friend and acquaintance of mine commit suicide via police officers. However in his situation, he had a gun pointed directly at an officer for a good 2 minutes. The officer didn't fire until my mutual friend discharged his weapon (intentionally missing the officer for the sake of provoking him to shoot). The officer only fired one shot to kill him. I have a lot of respect for this officer. He risked his own life because he chose to try and talk him out of it. If this is seriously what you think, that cops should wait until after they're shot at to fire back, and that they should only discharge once, then I only have this to say to you: Fuck you, you are a terrible person who wants all police officers to be shot dead. Nice reading comprehension. I said I respect the officer for what he did, not that I think this should be the case for all officers. I've clearly stated I understand officers defending their own lives by discharging their weapons. I just don't agree that this was the situation in this video. It could have ended with the man alive and in custody. I understand that in the heat of the moment the officer chose to discharge his weapon though; an unfortunate decision. On January 26 2012 12:53 Sigrun wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
And I love how you say, "from this video, I seriously don't think this was the case". Exactly. You're watching from a video- you can see everything that's happening. You can rewind, play it slowly, and notice every minute detail. But for those officers? All they see is a man looking like he's ready to bludgeon their heads in. And they have literally just seconds to react. Touche. If you're going to start by sarcastically quipping "Nice reading comprehension." please spell "Brilliance" correctly in your signature. My last post literally ended in "Oh, and it's spelled Brilliance." and the next thing I see is you taking a jab taken vicariously through English. Unreal. Edit : @ Chronicle, very good point Yeah, you completely misunderstood what I trying to say with my story. And thank you, I've had that sig for years and never noticed.
I see you're sticking to the sarcasm guns pretty hard.
And it's not that I don't get your story. It's just that you're making points with your own story that are so bad that I feel compelled to say "Hey."
That cop who talked to your friend was really fucking stupid, and you don't see that at all. All you see is bravery. When in reality, he was very much both of those things. Yes, he's an incredibly amazing person for trying what he did, but he's also really fucking stupid because he could've gotten himself and anyone he was with killed. You expect all cops to be this like this one extremely brave cop. That will never happen.
|
@Rebel
Well, with things being as they are, at least I understand that you try to have a meaningfull conversation. It's just that our opinions on the matter are pretty much the opposite. I do value life, if not, I would be some kind of cold blooded murderer running around and killing people for all I care. However, for me this was a "I shoot or I/He (the police officer) dies" Situation.
While I think that guy was pretty damn close to hammer that Officer's head away, you don't think so and since both our opinions are pretty much set in stone, I guess any further discussion will end in the same manner: no side giving in. Do you agree on that?
@TsoBadGuy
Thank You
|
An insurgent was struck in the torso by several rounds of 5.56mm ammunition from the soldiers’ M-4 carbines.
The insurgent continued to fire his Kalashnikov and mortally wounded Master Sgt. Kevin N. Morehead.
Then, from a hiding place, the same insurgent surprised Sgt. 1st Class William M. Bennett, killing him instantly with a three-round burst to the head and neck.
Staff Sgt. Robert E. Springer, having lost confidence in his M-4, drew a World War II-vintage .45-caliber pistol and killed the insurgent with one shot.
A close inspection of the enemy’s corpse revealed he was hit by seven 5.56mm rounds in the torso before the pistol took him down.
For almost 40 years, American warriors have reported enemy soldiers continuing to fire their weapons after being hit by multiple 5.56mm bullets.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story.php?f=0-MARINEPAPER-2949663.php *link doesnt exist anymore  *
Just a little reference for some of the people who seem to have watched a few too many movies.
|
On January 26 2012 13:19 TsoBadGuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 13:03 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 13:00 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 12:53 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:48 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
People are dumb sometimes, Officers only use their gun when they absolutly have to and when they do, the do it to stop the threat, not to blindly shoot people. Exactly. They absolutely didn't have to shoot him ten times. The only time I can understand an officer discharging his weapon is when his/her own life is at risk. From this video, I seriously don't think this was the case. A mutual friend and acquaintance of mine commit suicide via police officers. However in his situation, he had a gun pointed directly at an officer for a good 2 minutes. The officer didn't fire until my mutual friend discharged his weapon (intentionally missing the officer for the sake of provoking him to shoot). The officer only fired one shot to kill him. I have a lot of respect for this officer. He risked his own life because he chose to try and talk him out of it. If this is seriously what you think, that cops should wait until after they're shot at to fire back, and that they should only discharge once, then I only have this to say to you: Fuck you, you are a terrible person who wants all police officers to be shot dead. Nice reading comprehension. I said I respect the officer for what he did, not that I think this should be the case for all officers. I've clearly stated I understand officers defending their own lives by discharging their weapons. I just don't agree that this was the situation in this video. It could have ended with the man alive and in custody. I understand that in the heat of the moment the officer chose to discharge his weapon though; an unfortunate decision. On January 26 2012 12:53 Sigrun wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
And I love how you say, "from this video, I seriously don't think this was the case". Exactly. You're watching from a video- you can see everything that's happening. You can rewind, play it slowly, and notice every minute detail. But for those officers? All they see is a man looking like he's ready to bludgeon their heads in. And they have literally just seconds to react. Touche. If you're going to start by sarcastically quipping "Nice reading comprehension." please spell "Brilliance" correctly in your signature. My last post literally ended in "Oh, and it's spelled Brilliance." and the next thing I see is you taking a jab taken vicariously through English. Unreal. Edit : @ Chronicle, very good point Yeah, you completely misunderstood what I trying to say with my story. And thank you, I've had that sig for years and never noticed. I see you're sticking to the sarcasm guns pretty hard. And it's not that I don't get your story. It's just that you're making points with your own story that are so bad that I feel compelled to say "Hey." That cop who talked to your friend was really fucking stupid, and you don't see that at all. All you see is bravery. When in reality, he was very much both of those things. Yes, he's an incredibly amazing person for trying what he did, but he's also really fucking stupid because he could've gotten himself and anyone he was with killed. You expect all cops to be this like this one extremely brave cop. That will never happen.
Actually I wasn't being sarcastic at all.
Call my points bad and naive all you want. It's not foolish to believe the officers could have done something different from shooting him to death, based on what I saw.
|
I have a question, did the other onlookers have a record of it as well? A different angle.
Kept searching on YT but there seems to be none.
|
On January 26 2012 13:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 13:19 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 13:03 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 13:00 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 12:53 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:48 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
People are dumb sometimes, Officers only use their gun when they absolutly have to and when they do, the do it to stop the threat, not to blindly shoot people. Exactly. They absolutely didn't have to shoot him ten times. The only time I can understand an officer discharging his weapon is when his/her own life is at risk. From this video, I seriously don't think this was the case. A mutual friend and acquaintance of mine commit suicide via police officers. However in his situation, he had a gun pointed directly at an officer for a good 2 minutes. The officer didn't fire until my mutual friend discharged his weapon (intentionally missing the officer for the sake of provoking him to shoot). The officer only fired one shot to kill him. I have a lot of respect for this officer. He risked his own life because he chose to try and talk him out of it. If this is seriously what you think, that cops should wait until after they're shot at to fire back, and that they should only discharge once, then I only have this to say to you: Fuck you, you are a terrible person who wants all police officers to be shot dead. Nice reading comprehension. I said I respect the officer for what he did, not that I think this should be the case for all officers. I've clearly stated I understand officers defending their own lives by discharging their weapons. I just don't agree that this was the situation in this video. It could have ended with the man alive and in custody. I understand that in the heat of the moment the officer chose to discharge his weapon though; an unfortunate decision. On January 26 2012 12:53 Sigrun wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
And I love how you say, "from this video, I seriously don't think this was the case". Exactly. You're watching from a video- you can see everything that's happening. You can rewind, play it slowly, and notice every minute detail. But for those officers? All they see is a man looking like he's ready to bludgeon their heads in. And they have literally just seconds to react. Touche. If you're going to start by sarcastically quipping "Nice reading comprehension." please spell "Brilliance" correctly in your signature. My last post literally ended in "Oh, and it's spelled Brilliance." and the next thing I see is you taking a jab taken vicariously through English. Unreal. Edit : @ Chronicle, very good point Yeah, you completely misunderstood what I trying to say with my story. And thank you, I've had that sig for years and never noticed. I see you're sticking to the sarcasm guns pretty hard. And it's not that I don't get your story. It's just that you're making points with your own story that are so bad that I feel compelled to say "Hey." That cop who talked to your friend was really fucking stupid, and you don't see that at all. All you see is bravery. When in reality, he was very much both of those things. Yes, he's an incredibly amazing person for trying what he did, but he's also really fucking stupid because he could've gotten himself and anyone he was with killed. You expect all cops to be this like this one extremely brave cop. That will never happen. Actually I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Call my points bad and naive all you want. It's not foolish to believe the officers could have done something different from shooting him to death, based on what I saw.
I basically told you you were wrong in every way... and you were literally thankful. It's either sarcasm, or you being genuinely thankful that I told you you are wrong in virtually every way.
??? Actually you were being sarcastic...
This is what happens when you try to outsmart people smarter than you. I wish I could feel proud, but you don't even know what sarcasm means, or you are genuinely thankful for being so stupid, which may somehow be true in retrospect. Either way, I'm dumbfounded by you.
Edit (Really wish I thought this sooner) You're not naive because you think it could have gone differently. You're naive because you think it should have gone differently. You and me ultimately can't "Should" on that video at all because we weren't there.
|
On January 26 2012 13:18 Rebel_lion wrote:
Then 5 more if you are these cops, plus if people are to be believed, every other cop in the world. @mizU (Columbia?)
I tackled a dude, when i had to check cars for bombs. Rifle across my back, big ass mirror pole in my arms and a guy from a diesel advancing with a knife in his hands. Turned out he was trying to give it to me, but he didn't speak English. I probably saved his life. Now i did have kevlar and a helmet and about 15 guys with guns around me, but.... LOL (life spared so funny)
Dude, i've read the whole thread, Been thinking about this shit for hours. This guy never had a shot at maiming one of these officers. Not close in my opinion. We must just agree to disagree. We put a different value on life, and a different value on justifications to taking one. Prolly a reason I exited the army and didn't go lifer. @chronicle
Edit. but goddamn it thats not the point. The point is i believe this suspect could've been taken alive, that he wasn't is the tragedy, and where i find fault. Its not one-way, for instance that other video, that man should've been shot dead. He was a clear threat.
Sure, if you're in war-torn Iraq and there is no accountability on your end for stray bullets, then who cares if 3 officers unload their clips into his knee caps? You're not thinking realistically... This guy resisted a tazer to the face. Ripped the barbs right out, turned around and swung at an officer. He then took 5 shots to the chest, got back up, and took another 5. This guy was completely coked up, and there was no way these 3 officers would've been able to subdue him without putting the lives of every bystander in danger.
|
On January 26 2012 13:40 TsoBadGuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 13:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 13:19 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 13:03 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 13:00 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 12:53 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:48 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
People are dumb sometimes, Officers only use their gun when they absolutly have to and when they do, the do it to stop the threat, not to blindly shoot people. Exactly. They absolutely didn't have to shoot him ten times. The only time I can understand an officer discharging his weapon is when his/her own life is at risk. From this video, I seriously don't think this was the case. A mutual friend and acquaintance of mine commit suicide via police officers. However in his situation, he had a gun pointed directly at an officer for a good 2 minutes. The officer didn't fire until my mutual friend discharged his weapon (intentionally missing the officer for the sake of provoking him to shoot). The officer only fired one shot to kill him. I have a lot of respect for this officer. He risked his own life because he chose to try and talk him out of it. If this is seriously what you think, that cops should wait until after they're shot at to fire back, and that they should only discharge once, then I only have this to say to you: Fuck you, you are a terrible person who wants all police officers to be shot dead. Nice reading comprehension. I said I respect the officer for what he did, not that I think this should be the case for all officers. I've clearly stated I understand officers defending their own lives by discharging their weapons. I just don't agree that this was the situation in this video. It could have ended with the man alive and in custody. I understand that in the heat of the moment the officer chose to discharge his weapon though; an unfortunate decision. On January 26 2012 12:53 Sigrun wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
And I love how you say, "from this video, I seriously don't think this was the case". Exactly. You're watching from a video- you can see everything that's happening. You can rewind, play it slowly, and notice every minute detail. But for those officers? All they see is a man looking like he's ready to bludgeon their heads in. And they have literally just seconds to react. Touche. If you're going to start by sarcastically quipping "Nice reading comprehension." please spell "Brilliance" correctly in your signature. My last post literally ended in "Oh, and it's spelled Brilliance." and the next thing I see is you taking a jab taken vicariously through English. Unreal. Edit : @ Chronicle, very good point Yeah, you completely misunderstood what I trying to say with my story. And thank you, I've had that sig for years and never noticed. I see you're sticking to the sarcasm guns pretty hard. And it's not that I don't get your story. It's just that you're making points with your own story that are so bad that I feel compelled to say "Hey." That cop who talked to your friend was really fucking stupid, and you don't see that at all. All you see is bravery. When in reality, he was very much both of those things. Yes, he's an incredibly amazing person for trying what he did, but he's also really fucking stupid because he could've gotten himself and anyone he was with killed. You expect all cops to be this like this one extremely brave cop. That will never happen. Actually I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Call my points bad and naive all you want. It's not foolish to believe the officers could have done something different from shooting him to death, based on what I saw. I basically told you you were wrong in every way... and you were literally thankful. It's either sarcasm, or you being genuinely thankful that I told you you are wrong in virtually every way. ??? Actually you were being sarcastic... This is what happens when you try to outsmart people smarter than you. I wish I could feel proud, but you don't even know what sarcasm means, or you are genuinely thankful for being so stupid, which may somehow be true in retrospect. Either way, I'm dumbfounded by you.
I was thanking you for pointing out the spelling error in my sig. Again, reading comprehension. Derp.
And your counter-argument was centered around the idea of "that's what they're trained to do", which doesn't justify killing someone (in the way it happened in this video) in a moral sense to me.
|
On January 26 2012 13:30 Keyboard Warrior wrote:
I have a question, did the other onlookers have a record of it as well? A different angle.
Kept searching on YT but there seems to be none.
No other videos were released. The store and surrounding stores did have security cameras that likely caught it, but who knows when and if those will be released
|
On January 26 2012 13:45 FREEloss_ca wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 13:40 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 13:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 13:19 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 13:03 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 13:00 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 12:53 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:48 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:
[quote]
People are dumb sometimes, Officers only use their gun when they absolutly have to and when they do, the do it to stop the threat, not to blindly shoot people.
Exactly. They absolutely didn't have to shoot him ten times. The only time I can understand an officer discharging his weapon is when his/her own life is at risk. From this video, I seriously don't think this was the case. A mutual friend and acquaintance of mine commit suicide via police officers. However in his situation, he had a gun pointed directly at an officer for a good 2 minutes. The officer didn't fire until my mutual friend discharged his weapon (intentionally missing the officer for the sake of provoking him to shoot). The officer only fired one shot to kill him. I have a lot of respect for this officer. He risked his own life because he chose to try and talk him out of it. If this is seriously what you think, that cops should wait until after they're shot at to fire back, and that they should only discharge once, then I only have this to say to you: Fuck you, you are a terrible person who wants all police officers to be shot dead. Nice reading comprehension. I said I respect the officer for what he did, not that I think this should be the case for all officers. I've clearly stated I understand officers defending their own lives by discharging their weapons. I just don't agree that this was the situation in this video. It could have ended with the man alive and in custody. I understand that in the heat of the moment the officer chose to discharge his weapon though; an unfortunate decision. On January 26 2012 12:53 Sigrun wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:
[quote]
And I love how you say, "from this video, I seriously don't think this was the case". Exactly. You're watching from a video- you can see everything that's happening. You can rewind, play it slowly, and notice every minute detail. But for those officers? All they see is a man looking like he's ready to bludgeon their heads in. And they have literally just seconds to react. Touche. If you're going to start by sarcastically quipping "Nice reading comprehension." please spell "Brilliance" correctly in your signature. My last post literally ended in "Oh, and it's spelled Brilliance." and the next thing I see is you taking a jab taken vicariously through English. Unreal. Edit : @ Chronicle, very good point Yeah, you completely misunderstood what I trying to say with my story. And thank you, I've had that sig for years and never noticed. I see you're sticking to the sarcasm guns pretty hard. And it's not that I don't get your story. It's just that you're making points with your own story that are so bad that I feel compelled to say "Hey." That cop who talked to your friend was really fucking stupid, and you don't see that at all. All you see is bravery. When in reality, he was very much both of those things. Yes, he's an incredibly amazing person for trying what he did, but he's also really fucking stupid because he could've gotten himself and anyone he was with killed. You expect all cops to be this like this one extremely brave cop. That will never happen. Actually I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Call my points bad and naive all you want. It's not foolish to believe the officers could have done something different from shooting him to death, based on what I saw. I basically told you you were wrong in every way... and you were literally thankful. It's either sarcasm, or you being genuinely thankful that I told you you are wrong in virtually every way. ??? Actually you were being sarcastic... This is what happens when you try to outsmart people smarter than you. I wish I could feel proud, but you don't even know what sarcasm means, or you are genuinely thankful for being so stupid, which may somehow be true in retrospect. Either way, I'm dumbfounded by you. I was thanking you for pointing out the spelling error in my sig. Again, reading comprehension. Derp. And your counter-argument was centered around the idea of "that's what they're trained to do", which doesn't justify killing someone in a moral sense.
Derp indeed. You read a post that's pretty much disagreeing with you, and thank me, doesn't really matter why you thanked me, but you did. So you were either genuinely grateful or sarcastic. (Sarcasm is the correct answer, still)
And the thing about you not noticing, I would also venture that's another attempt at you being sarcastic. Or you actually didn't notice that for 4 years...
Counter argument was centered around personal safety trumping objective morals, as I said earlier, word for word, as being the point. Naive, trite and poorly veiled sarcasm, and you take parts of a whole argument and call them whole. On this note, I'm gonna stop checking this thread for a while now. You win FREE, I relent.
So for you, the following words will be written from me as FREE see's me.
I think the cop is morally justified in killing that guy, not because of the circumstances, but because he is trained to do so. This is the point of my argument.
User was warned for this post
|
Sometimes officers don't have time to think when they have to react very fast. That's why they have training and procedures done over and over. In a blink of an instant when something happens, they rely on what they've been taught and trained to do. Sorry but they're not just going to stand there with weapons drawn thinking of a better way of handling the situation when a guy holding a possible and likely weapon is facing them after they've tried to taser him. If you don't want to get shot, don't become a threat.
|
On January 26 2012 13:40 TsoBadGuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 13:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 13:19 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 13:03 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 13:00 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 12:53 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:48 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
People are dumb sometimes, Officers only use their gun when they absolutly have to and when they do, the do it to stop the threat, not to blindly shoot people. Exactly. They absolutely didn't have to shoot him ten times. The only time I can understand an officer discharging his weapon is when his/her own life is at risk. From this video, I seriously don't think this was the case. A mutual friend and acquaintance of mine commit suicide via police officers. However in his situation, he had a gun pointed directly at an officer for a good 2 minutes. The officer didn't fire until my mutual friend discharged his weapon (intentionally missing the officer for the sake of provoking him to shoot). The officer only fired one shot to kill him. I have a lot of respect for this officer. He risked his own life because he chose to try and talk him out of it. If this is seriously what you think, that cops should wait until after they're shot at to fire back, and that they should only discharge once, then I only have this to say to you: Fuck you, you are a terrible person who wants all police officers to be shot dead. Nice reading comprehension. I said I respect the officer for what he did, not that I think this should be the case for all officers. I've clearly stated I understand officers defending their own lives by discharging their weapons. I just don't agree that this was the situation in this video. It could have ended with the man alive and in custody. I understand that in the heat of the moment the officer chose to discharge his weapon though; an unfortunate decision. On January 26 2012 12:53 Sigrun wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:25 ChronicleEU wrote:On January 26 2012 12:07 W2 wrote:
And I love how you say, "from this video, I seriously don't think this was the case". Exactly. You're watching from a video- you can see everything that's happening. You can rewind, play it slowly, and notice every minute detail. But for those officers? All they see is a man looking like he's ready to bludgeon their heads in. And they have literally just seconds to react. Touche. If you're going to start by sarcastically quipping "Nice reading comprehension." please spell "Brilliance" correctly in your signature. My last post literally ended in "Oh, and it's spelled Brilliance." and the next thing I see is you taking a jab taken vicariously through English. Unreal. Edit : @ Chronicle, very good point Yeah, you completely misunderstood what I trying to say with my story. And thank you, I've had that sig for years and never noticed. I see you're sticking to the sarcasm guns pretty hard. And it's not that I don't get your story. It's just that you're making points with your own story that are so bad that I feel compelled to say "Hey." That cop who talked to your friend was really fucking stupid, and you don't see that at all. All you see is bravery. When in reality, he was very much both of those things. Yes, he's an incredibly amazing person for trying what he did, but he's also really fucking stupid because he could've gotten himself and anyone he was with killed. You expect all cops to be this like this one extremely brave cop. That will never happen. Actually I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Call my points bad and naive all you want. It's not foolish to believe the officers could have done something different from shooting him to death, based on what I saw. Edit (Really wish I thought this sooner) You're not naive because you think it could have gone differently. You're naive because you think it should have gone differently. You and me ultimately can't "Should" on that video at all because we weren't there.
You can't apply 'could' because the event has already taken place. It couldn't have gone any differently, because it happened the way it happened. Given all the circumstances and factors in play, beginning from the days each of these individuals were born. What could have happened, happened. The Universe played out the way it did.
There are number of 'shoulds' we can entertain, that when applied to this situation, would possibly result in this man still being alive. There's nothing naive about entertaining such ideas at all. This video, like sMi. said, will probably be used as a training video for this very reason.
User was warned for this post
On January 26 2012 14:02 TsoBadGuy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 13:45 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 13:40 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 13:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 13:19 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 13:03 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 13:00 TsoBadGuy wrote:On January 26 2012 12:53 FREEloss_ca wrote:On January 26 2012 12:48 RockIronrod wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:
[quote]
Exactly. They absolutely didn't have to shoot him ten times.
The only time I can understand an officer discharging his weapon is when his/her own life is at risk. From this video, I seriously don't think this was the case.
A mutual friend and acquaintance of mine commit suicide via police officers. However in his situation, he had a gun pointed directly at an officer for a good 2 minutes. The officer didn't fire until my mutual friend discharged his weapon (intentionally missing the officer for the sake of provoking him to shoot). The officer only fired one shot to kill him. I have a lot of respect for this officer. He risked his own life because he chose to try and talk him out of it. If this is seriously what you think, that cops should wait until after they're shot at to fire back, and that they should only discharge once, then I only have this to say to you: Fuck you, you are a terrible person who wants all police officers to be shot dead. Nice reading comprehension. I said I respect the officer for what he did, not that I think this should be the case for all officers. I've clearly stated I understand officers defending their own lives by discharging their weapons. I just don't agree that this was the situation in this video. It could have ended with the man alive and in custody. I understand that in the heat of the moment the officer chose to discharge his weapon though; an unfortunate decision. On January 26 2012 12:53 Sigrun wrote:On January 26 2012 12:30 FREEloss_ca wrote:
[quote]
And I love how you say, "from this video, I seriously don't think this was the case". Exactly. You're watching from a video- you can see everything that's happening. You can rewind, play it slowly, and notice every minute detail. But for those officers? All they see is a man looking like he's ready to bludgeon their heads in. And they have literally just seconds to react. Touche. If you're going to start by sarcastically quipping "Nice reading comprehension." please spell "Brilliance" correctly in your signature. My last post literally ended in "Oh, and it's spelled Brilliance." and the next thing I see is you taking a jab taken vicariously through English. Unreal. Edit : @ Chronicle, very good point Yeah, you completely misunderstood what I trying to say with my story. And thank you, I've had that sig for years and never noticed. I see you're sticking to the sarcasm guns pretty hard. And it's not that I don't get your story. It's just that you're making points with your own story that are so bad that I feel compelled to say "Hey." That cop who talked to your friend was really fucking stupid, and you don't see that at all. All you see is bravery. When in reality, he was very much both of those things. Yes, he's an incredibly amazing person for trying what he did, but he's also really fucking stupid because he could've gotten himself and anyone he was with killed. You expect all cops to be this like this one extremely brave cop. That will never happen. Actually I wasn't being sarcastic at all. Call my points bad and naive all you want. It's not foolish to believe the officers could have done something different from shooting him to death, based on what I saw. I basically told you you were wrong in every way... and you were literally thankful. It's either sarcasm, or you being genuinely thankful that I told you you are wrong in virtually every way. ??? Actually you were being sarcastic... This is what happens when you try to outsmart people smarter than you. I wish I could feel proud, but you don't even know what sarcasm means, or you are genuinely thankful for being so stupid, which may somehow be true in retrospect. Either way, I'm dumbfounded by you. I was thanking you for pointing out the spelling error in my sig. Again, reading comprehension. Derp. And your counter-argument was centered around the idea of "that's what they're trained to do", which doesn't justify killing someone in a moral sense. Derp indeed. You read a post that's pretty much disagreeing with you, and thank me, doesn't really matter why you thanked me, but you did. So you were either genuinely grateful or sarcastic. (Sarcasm is the correct answer, still) And the thing about you not noticing, I would also venture that's another attempt at you being sarcastic. Or you actually didn't notice that for 4 years... Counter argument was centered around personal safety trumping objective morals, as I said earlier, word for word, as being the point. Naive, trite and poorly veiled sarcasm, and you take parts of a whole argument and call them whole. On this note, I'm gonna stop checking this thread for a while now. You win FREE, I relent. So for you, the following words will be written from me as FREE see's me. I think the cop is morally justified in killing that guy, not because of the circumstances, but because he is trained to do so. This is the point of my argument.
Lol, stop assuming I'm being sarcastic. I genuinely wasn't all. I'm sorry you keep taking it as such. And I'm not being sarcastic in saying sorry.
To me, what you're trained to do, doesn't morally justify any action.
However, your point is valid. If you feel it was justified, I respect your opinion. Agree to disagree I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
