|
Well first off i think i know hy he shot before he asked questions: In a country like america where everyone have legal access to guns, every bulgar will have one. So in this guys mind, HE was the one in mortal danger.
However.. Probation against weapons do not work. You can take my country, Denmark, as an example. We have banned 2 things. Firearms and knives(this include fishing knives, which is stupid). What have happende is that we got 3 major gangs roaming around(Banditos, Hells Angels and Black Cobra). Beside those guys all having a shit ton of weapons, we also got ALOT of disturbing a$$holes, mostly immigrants from the middle east, but also danes, who go around with both knives and guns.
This have resulted in: A. Gangwars with civilian casualties(you can't protect yourself from guys with weapons if you are unarmed). B. Murders in broad daylight(these are mostly done by middle earstern immigrants in the age of 15-30). C. Rape. D. Robberies(Owners of the stores can be sued if they attack the robbers. This include if someone tries to rob your own house).
So in my opinion, banning guns does zip and zero, except preventing accidental homicide like in OP's article.
|
On October 12 2012 17:18 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 16:45 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 16:44 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 16:41 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 16:31 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 16:03 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 15:33 essencez wrote:On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote:
Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?... Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming. That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill. Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass. Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either. Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard. You're right, I stand corrected. But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury? It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't). Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass.
You either misquoted or don't understand him. He agrees with you. In fact he already said what you just said...
|
Duty to retreat. Come on.
|
|
|
cop here. you shoot to neutralize the threat. take that how you want it.
also, cop's don't think about money, lawsuits, etc. before pulling a trigger - you guys play too many video games and read too much fox news.
|
Why was he so scared if he had been a cop his whole life? Shooting straight for the kill without even knowing who it is? Damn...
|
God damn 
This is really depressing.... condolences to that family, though the mother is already dead I guess.
|
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote:Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
Being an Australian as well I feel the same way but when something like this happens to us the burglar is less likely to have a gun, fear was their motivation.
I chased off a burglar with a cricket bat and loud shouting when I was 16, nowhere in my mind was I worried about getting shot I knew the fucker stood no chance against my bat and neighbour reinforcements even if he had a knife.
|
That must have been the fathers worst nightmare.. So sorry for his family
|
On October 12 2012 17:30 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 17:23 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 17:18 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 16:45 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 16:44 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 16:41 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 16:31 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 16:03 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 15:33 essencez wrote:On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote:
Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?... Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming. That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill. Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass. Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either. Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard. You're right, I stand corrected. But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury? It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't). Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass. Twinkle, this was the argument: essencez says that police officers shoot to kill because they want to avoid lawsuits
I stated that's not true and wrongly stated police shoot for limbs. Then you said I was wrong and I agreed. E: We're not in disagreement... stop flaming lol If you stopped there, but you did not. I bolded the part where I missed to comment on earlier and which you standby, repeating yourself: Show nested quote +Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" Again, you are wrong on both counts. 1. Police shoot for the limb, which you admit you are wrong. 2. Shooting to kill is better that shooting to injure to avoid "a heap of lawsuits". The second issue now which you seem to want to downplay, but I emphasize, is that it is categorically incorrect. Shooting to kill does not mean there are less lawsuits to confront for the police officer that shooting to injure. And again, if you have no idea what you are talking about, just shut up on the topic.
You're clearly smart enough to make a point without being an asshole.
|
On October 12 2012 17:34 UNeeK wrote:
cop here. you shoot to neutralize the threat. take that how you want it.
also, cop's don't think about money, lawsuits, etc. before pulling a trigger - you guys play too many video games and read too much fox news.
What incredibly boring games you must play. Sid Meyer's Paper Work?
|
On October 12 2012 17:30 Twinkle Toes wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 17:23 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 17:18 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 16:45 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 16:44 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 16:41 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 16:31 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 16:03 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 15:33 essencez wrote:On October 12 2012 15:29 nihoh wrote:
Why didn't he shoot to wound instead? Could have shot him in the back to paralyse instead, or the lower body it could have given him a good 20 minutes to get an ambulance to prevent death?... Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming. That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill. Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass. Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either. Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard. You're right, I stand corrected. But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury? It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't). Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass. Twinkle, this was the argument: essencez says that police officers shoot to kill because they want to avoid lawsuits
I stated that's not true and wrongly stated police shoot for limbs. Then you said I was wrong and I agreed. E: We're not in disagreement... stop flaming lol If you stopped there, but you did not. I bolded the part where I missed to comment on earlier and which you standby, repeating yourself: Show nested quote +Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" Again, you are wrong on both counts. 1. Police shoot for the limb, which you admit you are wrong. 2. Shooting to kill is better that shooting to injure to avoid "a heap of lawsuits". The second issue now which you seem to want to downplay, but I emphasize, is that it is categorically incorrect. Shooting to kill does not mean there are less lawsuits to confront for the police officer that shooting to injure. And again, if you have no idea what you are talking about, just shut up on the topic.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are very confused. It seems that poster himself stated your number 2 is incorrect, but you seem to think he supports it.
|
Where I grew up we all used to keep hunting rifles next to our beds. Whenever someone had to go to the bathroom and the others woke up, we would always try to go for the head too, from the scream we could then tell if it was a burglar or not. Luckily no one ever got hit, but damn if there ever was a burglar, we would've done him in good. It was also a good lesson in stealth growing up.
I'm sorry for the old geezer, but what if it had been a real burglar? You never know when they might nab the iWhatever or the plasma screen or the Christmas themed kebab grill you took that loan for. I'm sure the deceased son would agree that such matters need to be taken seriously.
|
On October 12 2012 17:51 DannyJ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 17:30 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 17:23 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 17:18 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 16:45 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 16:44 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 16:41 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 16:31 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 16:03 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 15:33 essencez wrote:
[quote]
Theres a reason when police shoot they shoot to kill, wounds just means heap of lawsuits incoming. That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill. Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass. Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either. Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard. You're right, I stand corrected. But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury? It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't). Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass. Twinkle, this was the argument: essencez says that police officers shoot to kill because they want to avoid lawsuits
I stated that's not true and wrongly stated police shoot for limbs. Then you said I was wrong and I agreed. E: We're not in disagreement... stop flaming lol If you stopped there, but you did not. I bolded the part where I missed to comment on earlier and which you standby, repeating yourself: Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" Again, you are wrong on both counts. 1. Police shoot for the limb, which you admit you are wrong. 2. Shooting to kill is better that shooting to injure to avoid "a heap of lawsuits". The second issue now which you seem to want to downplay, but I emphasize, is that it is categorically incorrect. Shooting to kill does not mean there are less lawsuits to confront for the police officer that shooting to injure. And again, if you have no idea what you are talking about, just shut up on the topic. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are very confused. It seems that poster himself stated your number 2 is incorrect, but you seem to think he supports it.
Even if he isn't confused, he's still being an asshole. Sands has every right to be a part of the discussion, and if he's ignorant on the subject it's a good opportunity for him to learn. Not everyone comes out of the womb with a fucking mensa membership card, and if Twinkle is so damned learned on the subject, then he's in a perfect position to educate him without being a total jerk.
|
On October 12 2012 17:24 cloneThorN wrote:
This have resulted in: A. Gangwars with civilian casualties(you can't protect yourself from guys with weapons if you are unarmed). B. Murders in broad daylight(these are mostly done by middle earstern immigrants in the age of 15-30). C. Rape. D. Robberies(Owners of the stores can be sued if they attack the robbers. This include if someone tries to rob your own house).
So in my opinion, banning guns does zip and zero, except preventing accidental homicide like in OP's article.
A. so if 2 armed gangs have a shootout you think you will "protect" yourself with a gun in that scenario? tip: running away is 10000x more protection then pointing a gun at several armed gangsters.
B. where is your police?
C. rape happens evrywhere. very often without any major weapons involved.
D. again police? also you really have no right to defend yourself?
sad story this is. but what i find weird is the "shoot first,ask later" attitude which is totally retarded when the target isnt pointing a gun at you too and that someone that has so much expirience actually does that,he just should know better. i can understand a scared housewive acting this way. he shouldve known how to deal with a situation like that. either he is in a much worse condition then the son said, was a terrible cop or the rush of beeing the hero just one time again took over.
|
Guns - Check
America - Check
With the advent of technology, such news travel fast and with yellow journalism, it gets more sensational.
IMO, to grant everyone freedom, freedom will be encroached upon indirectly because there is no such thing as absolute freedom as no man is an island. This is the price to pay for freedom especially because human acts irrationally and rashly.
|
On October 12 2012 15:11 Cascade wrote:Even if it he would be 100% sure that it was a burglar, taking the decision to kill another person over having some stuff stolen, is completely beyond my understanding. Killing before even being sure who it is, is just sad.
this is my exact thoughts when anything gun-related occurs, i just don't see why anyone would shoot to kill, especially if it is a trained person, like a cop. why not shoot in the leg, shoulder, arm? pointing a gun at another persons head is beyond my understanding, for any reason other than real, tangible sense of your life being in danger.
i know it's not entirely related to the subject, but it just leaves me dumb-fucked every time :/
|
On October 12 2012 17:56 armada[sb] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2012 17:51 DannyJ wrote:On October 12 2012 17:30 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 17:23 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 17:18 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 16:45 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 16:44 armada[sb] wrote:On October 12 2012 16:41 Shady Sands wrote:On October 12 2012 16:31 Twinkle Toes wrote:On October 12 2012 16:03 Shady Sands wrote:
[quote]
That statement is false. When police shoot they are explicitly trained to wound, not kill.
Police aim for limbs; soldiers aim for center of mass.
Moreover the penalty for a lawsuit, at least in the US, is much higher if the victim of police mistreatment dies rather than being wounded, so your statement doesn't make sense, either. Police aim for limbs? Like seriously? You watch way too much cop movies lol. That stuff never happens in real life. Police and Military always shoot for the body or head when the target is in motion, especially when towards the cops. Police aim for limb statement made me lol real hard. You're right, I stand corrected. But the second part of the argument still holds: why would police shoot to kill out of a desire to save money, if wrongful death is usually an order of magnitude more expensive than wrongful injury? It's not about saving money, it's about saving lives. If a police officer's life is really in danger, and he's shooting to wound while his assailant is shooting to kill, the assailant has a much better chance of scoring a hit, which gives him a better probability of killing the officer (granted the police have body armor, but who's to say the criminal doesn't). Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" Really? Like really? You should have just apologized for the entire post. If the "shoot the limb" thing is stupid, this one is just beyond retarded. In which universe does it exists that a police would rather shoot to kill to "avoid a heap of lawsuit."? As if the state and the family of the person whom the cop kills cannot file a criminal or administrative case against the offending cop. I respect opinions, but I hate misinformation. Stop talking off of your ass. Twinkle, this was the argument: essencez says that police officers shoot to kill because they want to avoid lawsuits
I stated that's not true and wrongly stated police shoot for limbs. Then you said I was wrong and I agreed. E: We're not in disagreement... stop flaming lol If you stopped there, but you did not. I bolded the part where I missed to comment on earlier and which you standby, repeating yourself: Right, that's what I'm saying too--the original argument was that police shoot to kill because it saves them from "a heap of lawsuits" Again, you are wrong on both counts. 1. Police shoot for the limb, which you admit you are wrong. 2. Shooting to kill is better that shooting to injure to avoid "a heap of lawsuits". The second issue now which you seem to want to downplay, but I emphasize, is that it is categorically incorrect. Shooting to kill does not mean there are less lawsuits to confront for the police officer that shooting to injure. And again, if you have no idea what you are talking about, just shut up on the topic. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I think you are very confused. It seems that poster himself stated your number 2 is incorrect, but you seem to think he supports it. Even if he isn't confused, he's still being an asshole. Sands has every right to be a part of the discussion, and if he's ignorant on the subject it's a good opportunity for him to learn. Not everyone comes out of the womb with a fucking mensa membership card, and if Twinkle is so damned learned on the subject, then he's in a perfect position to educate him without being a total jerk.
This Twinkle guy argue with everyone in every single threads lol, just ignore him.
|
Well it really hard to retract this law when it already implemented for such a long period of times. R.I.P for the son. I am thankful that I lived in a country that doesn't allow possession of guns, all these news just make it scarier.
|
This is a disaster of epic proportions. Still, an investigation has to be made to determine foul play.
I hope the father's mental condition is not sharp enough to recognize the full weight of this tragedy. Otherwise, he would no doubt kill himself also.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
