EPTRetired cop shoots son, mistook him as burglar - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Magnious
United States68 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On October 13 2012 00:12 turdburgler wrote: because you cant get shot if people dont have guns? okay, that's a nice sentiment, but people do have guns... so... | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On October 13 2012 00:15 Magnious wrote: I guess that I don't understand why they shot the "intruder" in the head in the first place? I don't think there should be a gun control arguement. I think it should be more of a gun responsibility. Why not disable the "intruder", instead of shooting them in the head. The "intruder" didn't have a gun, it was their own son. From my understanding, for the retired police officer, doesn't shooting in the head go against their training? Disabling someone with a gun is not as simple as it seems - shoulder and leg shots can easily be fatal from blood loss. No idea about training, though - you'd think he'd take the time to identify the target first. On October 13 2012 00:17 sc2superfan101 wrote: okay, that's a nice sentiment, but people do have guns... so... That's his point. That can be changed. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43777 Posts
On October 13 2012 00:10 sc2superfan101 wrote: how was he supposed to know that he wasn't in danger? i mean, this sucks and its a tragedy and all, but why are we trying to twist this into yet another gun-control debate? Should everyone's policy necessarily be "shoot first, ask questions later"? It surely depends on the context. He just woke up, it's late at night, and he's tired. He clearly wasn't aware that his son was out and was coming back, or else he would (should) have considered that policy. Of course, he may be on edge because he may live in a dangerous neighborhood, etc. But I don't see him being justified as shooting and killing anyone who wants to come in to his house- out of the argument "how was I supposed to know he wasn't a threat?". | ||
|
GhostLink
United States450 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On October 13 2012 00:29 GhostLink wrote: Even if it was an intruder, why on earth would you should them? It's not like they're about to kill you. You can simply point your gun at them and tell them to freeze. What's wrong with that? they might have a gun that you can't see, and they might shoot you in the face as soon as you open your mouth. | ||
|
Magnious
United States68 Posts
On October 13 2012 00:30 sc2superfan101 wrote: they might have a gun that you can't see, and they might shoot you in the face as soon as you open your mouth. Your point is valid, but your point also leads to accidental deaths and shootings. There are other ways to handle it. Get out and call the actual police, shoot the burger elsewhere to try and disable them, then call the police. You don't have to shoot first and ask questions later. If there was a visible gun, then maybe your point would be more justified. But in these cases, the intruder (their sons) were not armed. | ||
|
On_Slaught
United States12190 Posts
I don't understand why you should shoot when you weren't sure of who it is. EVEN THEN, you don't go for a fucking head shot from the start (esp if you haven't done the former). | ||
|
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
On October 12 2012 14:52 Mambo wrote: Because they are idiots and guns shouldn't be allowed for regular people. Written by a biased european. And agreed upon by a biased European. Guns are for the military with the purpose to maintain order, in my opinion not even police should be allowed to have guns. Unfortunately we have no choice due to guns being relatively easy to come by for people with ill intent. If it is forbidden by any civilian to have guns, however - I can assure you a lot less people will die from guns. Oh and by the way - if I find a burglar in my house I simply bash him out with my baseball bat or my kitchen knife. Because these weapons are much more intimate, killing someone with them 'by accident' is much less likely. | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On October 13 2012 00:34 Magnious wrote: Your point is valid, but your point also leads to accidental deaths and shootings. There are other ways to handle it. Get out and call the actual police, shoot the burger elsewhere to try and disable them, then call the police. You don't have to shoot first and ask questions later. If there was a visible gun, then maybe your point would be more justified. But in these cases, the intruder (their sons) were not armed. of course if he leaves and calls the police, how does he know that the intruder isn't killing/attacking his son, who he believes to be asleep and still in the house? i'm not saying that he made the best choice, just that we cannot be too quick to judge his choice as the obviously wrong one. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On October 13 2012 00:43 sc2superfan101 wrote: of course if he leaves and calls the police, how does he know that the intruder isn't killing/attacking his son, who he believes to be asleep and still in the house? i'm not saying that he made the best choice, just that we cannot be too quick to judge his choice as the obviously wrong one. Well, for one, he doesn't actually know if there's an intruder. Not verifying that is a bit of an error. | ||
|
Fusa
Canada148 Posts
On October 13 2012 00:39 Callynn wrote: in my opinion not even police should be allowed to have guns. You should be out there then, police the public without your gun, see how well you do with unruly people with larger weapons then your 9m pea shooter you left at home. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On October 13 2012 00:50 Fusa wrote: You should be out there then, police the public without your gun, see how well you do with unruly people with larger weapons then your 9m pea shooter you left at home. For the sake of argument: How exactly are you going to police the public with your gun? If you use it, you're killing someone, which isn't exactly controlling a situation. Oh, sure, you can threaten with it - but you can threaten with non-lethal weapons that the culprit knows you can freely use on them. If people have 'larger weapons' (firearms, in this case) that require you to have lethal force on-hand, then there's already a problem. | ||
|
Recognizable
Netherlands1552 Posts
On October 12 2012 14:52 Mambo wrote: Because they are idiots and guns shouldn't be allowed for regular people. Written by a biased european. From what i see it, they shoot to kill because they are afraid to identify first? I mean maybe they are afraid that the "intruder" also has a weapon and that they would get the first shot in if the father didnt use the element of surprise. Well, this is what you get when everyone is allowed to carry arms. Oh and by the way - if I find a burglar in my house I simply bash him out with my baseball bat or my kitchen knife. Because these weapons are much more intimate, killing someone with them 'by accident' is much less likely I would tell him to calm down and ask him to leave, with our without what he has stolen. It's just stuff people, not worth killing over. | ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 Posts
On October 13 2012 00:35 On_Slaught wrote: Really tragic for the family. I don't understand why you should shoot when you weren't sure of who it is. EVEN THEN, you don't go for a fucking head shot from the start (esp if you haven't done the former). bingo. The saddest part of this entire thing is why didn't the father even attempt to identify the 'intruder' before deciding to shoot him in the head...As a cop, shouldn't he have been extensively trained in this? Really sad situation for the family. | ||
|
Magnious
United States68 Posts
On October 13 2012 00:43 sc2superfan101 wrote: of course if he leaves and calls the police, how does he know that the intruder isn't killing/attacking his son, who he believes to be asleep and still in the house? i'm not saying that he made the best choice, just that we cannot be too quick to judge his choice as the obviously wrong one. Killing someone that you don't know is an intruder, by shooting them with a head shot is obviously the wrong one. It's definately not his best choice. And yes, we can be quick to judge, because there are other ways to handle a situation, epecially when it's your son coming through the back door, instead of shoot to kill. | ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
| ||
|
riotjune
United States3392 Posts
| ||
|
TanKLoveR
Venezuela838 Posts
| ||
| ||
