|
If you don't kill an unarmed kid for fleeing from a routine traffic stop then the only alternative is to let everyone go on to commit more murders, libtard. Unless the police actually do sit back while one of their own commits a murder right in front of them, then that's just good policing and how dare you suggest the police use lethal force to stop a murderer, hypocrite.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
Toasticle posted:Well as you said people would freak if they drove away with a trunk full of straw, I'm just trying to help solve this dilemma. If a lone cop feels he cannot detain a teenager without bullets, perhaps following him until assistance arrives could work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:This is still the most amazing part of the incident to me. Is literally every cop a murderous version of Officer Farva or something? Only one of the taser prongs actually connected properly so the effect was minimal, not that I expect anyone in this thread to actually bother to do things like read the reports or facts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:31
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:I interpreted your remarks on better trained to include physical fitness, so I responded to that because it comes up so often in these types of threads. If I was trying to troll I guess I would suggest that cops just get warrants for anyone that chooses to not comply. Maybe you should go back and read the story, watch the video, and read my actual remarks then. Part of the training would be not escalating the situation to violence in the first place, like say, by using up your taser shot torturing the unarmed kid lying on the ground because he won't put his arms behind him, leaving you with no option other than your gun if your pointless sadism panics him and he gets the upper hand fighting back. Part of the training would be not getting into a physical altercation with someone who already complied with your instructions by lying on the ground, and instead calling for backup if you're afraid you won't be able to control him in close quarters. Part of it might be about how public safety is your first duty, not making sure everyone knows you have the biggest dick and you're willing to get into a scrap with a dumb teenager to teach him a lesson for smarting off. Jarmak posted:Only one of the taser prongs actually connected properly so the effect was minimal, not that I expect anyone in this thread to actually bother to do things like read the reports or facts. Gee, maybe that's why relying on the taser for compliance is a bad idea because if you gently caress up now you've just panicked and enraged someone with electric shocks and escalated the situation into violence. I love how we're never supposed to use any hindsight to judge cops because it was the heat of the moment and you weren't there man, but of course a kid who just got a jolt of electric pain while being pushed facedown into the dirt is supposed to be cool and rational and act like an accomplished civil rights lawyer, and any instinctive or emotional reaction means he deserves whatever happens next. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:44 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:38
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2007/11/06/67867-woman-21-blames-tempe-for-her-dui-crash/ If only we had some way of figuring out what the result of that ridiculous lawsuit was… This would've been better if I could link directly to the case history, but the website won't let that work: Search for last name Hoke, first name Korie. Terrible name, right? It was dismissed with prejudice. If you have other examples of officers facing civil liability (not just a dismissed lawsuit, that can literally happen for any/no actual reason) for making the judgement call to not arrest, I'm all ears. But it's not plausible that letting people off with a warning is something that cops avoid as a rule. Against specific people or groups of people, sure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
In any other western country what your cops do on a regular basis isn't considered policing. Not only do you not train them enough, you intentionally train them wrong. There is no minimum standards of practice or oversight or reporting or command structure or funding. You have hold overs from the wild west. Reject commando wannabes. An absurd focus on terrorism. Racist on an institutional level. A thin blue line so thick you could use it as a plank. Consistent lack of professionalism. Both too much manpower and money and not enough. You have people defending what should be abnormal and abhorrent. Laws so upside down that both cops and citizens get away with murder. A system that is so unjust and corrupt as to be considered brought. This is not normal, this is not how a country is suppose to be run.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:In any other western country what your cops do on a regular basis isn't considered policing. Not only do you not train them enough, you intentionally train them wrong. There is no minimum standards of practice or oversight or reporting or command structure or funding. You have hold overs from the wild west. Reject commando wannabes. An absurd focus on terrorism. Racist on an institutional level. A thin blue line so thick you could use it as a plank. Consistent lack of professionalism. Both too much manpower and money and not enough. You have people defending what should be abnormal and abhorrent. Laws so upside down that both cops and citizens get away with murder. A system that is so unjust and corrupt as to be considered brought. No I'm sorry, either cops get into fistfights with smartass teens and execute them, or all criminals are let go forever. Clearly all those other countries just have smiling obedient teenagers and that's why they so rarely get shot or get broken necks on the way to the police station.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
Seriously, could he not have just yanked the kid's hands behind his back? He wasn't thrashing or punching or anything, just leaving his arms where they were. All he had to do was put his taser away and he'd be able to arrest him just fine. There was absolutely no reason to use a taser.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:49
|
|
|
Hindsight is such a great thing, if only the police are able to use it at the actual time of the incident??
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
In retrospect I really shouldn't have murdered that person. Oh well, hindsight is 20/20, nothing I could've done at the time!
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
Hezzy posted:Hindsight is such a great thing, if only the police are able to use it at the actual time of the incident?? Yeah when bad things happen, we should never use hindsight to figure out why and then apply those lessons learned to procedures and training to prevent those things in the future.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The problem is that if you do this the public is going to freak the first time someone just drives away with a trunk full of kidnapped kids, cocaine, and automatic weapons. Then we'll get the Saving Our Children From Satanic Terrorism Act of 2017 that will make everything other than a fully transparent Smart ForTwo illegal and require us all to drive in our underpants. I'm sure there's a Southpark thread somewhere that would appreciate this sort of insight but its pretty weak poo poo here and I think you know that. gently caress this guy for the inevitable legislative response etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:It's almost as if police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving, about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation? You and Rent-A-Cop must be reading the same chain e-mails because you're both out of your minds and spouting this insane are litigious society poo poo. Even if there were a shred of plausibility to this scenario (all the soccer moms I know pack up the kids and drive around towniesville at 9:00 PM on a Saturday) there is actually just zero, I mean zero chance that the exposure to a civil suit for letting the driver get away is worse than loving shooting an unarmed teenager and even if it were civil liability is the least worst thing about a hypothetical in which a mom and her kids are killed you incredible rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Woozy posted:You and Rent-A-Cop must be reading the same chain e-mails because you're both out of your minds and spouting this insane are litigious society poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:38
|
|
|
Woozy posted:and even if it were civil liability is the least worst thing about a hypothetical in which a mom and her kids are killed you incredible rear end in a top hat. I don't understand, civil liability would affect the cop, that's definitely the worst thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:Why did they let him walk around and put the car with the victim in it between himself and them? chitoryu12 posted:When he began firing his gun into his wife a second time, maybe? Just a thought. Trabisnikof posted:When he took the gun from his head, walked around to the front of the car, and aimed at his victim. Lemming posted:I have never said or argued that they should have shot him at any point except for when he started shooting for the second time. I'm assuming that the cops weren't so hideously incompetent that they weren't set up that they didn't have a clean shot at the guy who had already shot someone. Lemming posted:In that case you were arguing that the suicidal guy with a gun was dangerous, and then earlier here you were arguing that the guy with the gun who had just shot somebody didn't seem like he was dangerous to anyone but himself. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You might be able to construct a reasonable narrative to justify shooting the suspect as soon as he started to walk around to the front of his ex-wife’s vehicle, but there were equally reasonable reasons to not start shooting based on what the officers likely believed at the time. (That they were getting through to him and could talk him down.) You’re trying to argue that not shooting him was an unreasonable course of action (based on hindsight) which is a very different thing. Lemming posted:Are you going to walk back this quote, too, where you're saying gee the nice cops did everything right like you wanted!! WHy are you so upset!!! VitalSigns posted:Now if this were the opposite situation, and they had shot him, and some hippy libtard was arguing "they should have talked him down for another 30 minutes and shown him pictures of his kids, and she died anyway so they should have known she was dead at the scene instead of shooting the guy and rendering aid to her" I'm sure you would agree and condemn the trigger-happy cops right? VitalSigns posted:I'm not saying anyone should be able to walk away from cops whenever they choose. But cops shouldn't be put in situations where they have to bring someone in alone, and if that situation does happen and the person isn't a danger why would you want a cop to risk his own life and the life of the suspect just so he doesn't have to go get the kid later and cite him for driving without a license? Toasticle posted:Well as you said people would freak if they drove away with a trunk full of straw, I'm just trying to help solve this dilemma. If a lone cop feels he cannot detain a teenager without bullets, perhaps following him until assistance arrives could work.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:43
|
|
|
You have an active shooter you have clearly identified as an actual threat, this is the time you shoot. Your cops broke their own lax rules and protocol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:You have an active shooter you have clearly identified as an actual threat, this is the time you shoot. Your cops broke their own lax rules and protocol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Why don't you step up and tell us what an active shooter is?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
Well it's definitely not someone who is actively shooting at his victim right in front of you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That isn't what "active shooter" means. As far as they could tell, they had a murder suspect who they were trying to talk into surrendering. An active shooter is someone who is engaged in killing or attempting to kill people. You are a loving dumbass. Need a clarification on that one too?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Why don't you step up and tell us what an active shooter is? C2C - 2.0 posted:An active shooter is someone who is engaged in killing or attempting to kill people. https://lmgtfy.com/?q=active+shooter IS-907: Active Shooter: What You Can Do - FEMA posted:An active shooter is an individual actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and other populated area. In most cases, active shooters use firearms and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
^^ good thing we have a FEMA training course to let us know that since this guy was only actively trying to kill and then killing a person, and not people, he wasn't an active shooter. ^^ No we don't understand. It is only an active shooting if we know 100% for certain that he will continue shooting. We have to assume that he's done, no matter how many times in a row he proves that false. thatdarnedbob fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:15
|
|
|
 Shooting someone on the street in the middle of town: definitely not a case of someone killing or attempting to kill someone in a populated area, no sirree
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:https://lmgtfy.com/?q=active+shooter IN MOST CASES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOD-loving-DAMNIT!!!!!!!!! Society & the rest of the civilized world recognize that the US & it's police forces are in need of serious remediation. You, Jarmak, et al? Nope, gotta' do what you can to make people understand that the way things are, getting shot's a real possibility...except, y'know, if you're a cop. Totes understand how they can commit felonies in plain view without lethal force consequences. EDIT: As per usual guys, he was being pedant about the definition. "In most cases..."
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
"Active shooter" is actually a term with a defined meaning that is used in the context of security and law enforcement. It does not refer to any random ongoing homicide involving firearms. I understand that none of you actually took the time to look that up before using the term, but the fact that you can't even admit you used the wrong term is breathtaking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
Oh ok he didn't fit the profile of most (but not all) active shooters, I guess he wasn't a threat to anyone's life then, whew.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
What's really funny/sad about the whole Jersey case is that if the shooter hadn't been a cop, the LEO knobs in this thread would've said, "See! This guy got taken in without force!" "But they woud've been justified in shooting him though!!!!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"Active shooter" is actually a term with a defined meaning that is used in the context of security and law enforcement. It does not refer to any random ongoing homicide involving firearms. I understand that none of you actually took the time to look that up before using the term, but the fact that you can't even admit you used the wrong term is breathtaking. In fact, I looked it up & re-read it a few times YESTERDAY!!! According to the definition you posted (which is the one I read), he did indeed meet the criteria. You're the one ascribing some other criteria that isn't mentioned in that definition.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning, exactly how do you manage to simultaneously say "It's justifiable to shoot someone unarmed if they're perceivable as an armed threat" and "It's not justifiable to shoot someone who's armed and just fired a gun into someone"? Because they're literally two different things that you're trying to claim.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:29
|
|
|
I'm looking at a list of active shooting incidents from the loving FBI and there are multiple cases on it where only one person was shot, and others where victim selection was not random, and it includes a note that the FBI considers the confined space criterion to be irrelevant because many of these things happen outside. edited for proper plurals thatdarnedbob fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So, through the car his wife was in. Got it. I suppose it’s possible they could have sent someone to flank around the side the instant he started walking back towards the vehicle, but that’s still a very short window of time to make that decision in. Oh don't worry, I get context plenty. The context is you automatically assume that the cops are always right, so the situation where nobody but a suicidal guy with a knife gets killed, you argue the guy was probably dangerous, whereas the situation where a cop shoots his ex wife in broad daylight the guy is not dangerous. And again, you continue to do your disingenuous bullshit. The second time the guy shot his wife, he did it four times over eight seconds. Eight loving seconds. Eight seconds is forever. It's an insane amount of time. When you say "split second" you're talking about instantaneous decisions. You're a boot licking caricature. http://www.app.com/story/news/crime/jersey-mayhem/2015/06/17/philip-seidle-deadly-force/28876439/ quote:Why police did not fire on Seidle during the shooting, which authorities said spanned several minutes and included two volleys of multiple shots, remains under investigation. Police at the scene knew who Seidle was, even though he was off-duty and out of uniform, authorities say. They didn't shoot him because they placed his life above that of his ex wife. There's really no more to it than that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Wait a second? Did DeadReckoning say "an ongoing homicide"? A homicide implies the positive ID of a DEAD victim, which the police on scene had zero ability to proclaim. The mental gymnastics that occur in this thread astound me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm fairly certain if the officer knew in advance that the traffic stop or even the arrest was going to end with him getting the poo poo beat out of him and shooting a guy, I think he probably would have let the headlight flash slide. Yeah he probably would have, which is why we should look at the circumstances leading up to it to find points where better resources (like a partner on the scene), better procedures, and better training could have prevented that situation. It's almost as if...reforming the police isn't a plot to kill cops but is actually a method to make policework safer for everyone involved, including the cops. Wouldn't someone who is all #bluelivesmatter be interested in discussing how better policing could have prevented this rear end-beating, instead of just going "yep, good shoot, no need to do anything to prevent situations like this from repeating themselves all over the country"
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:34
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Dead Reckoning, exactly how do you manage to simultaneously say "It's justifiable to shoot someone unarmed if they're perceivable as an armed threat" and "It's not justifiable to shoot someone who's armed and just fired a gun into someone"? Because they're literally two different things that you're trying to claim. If you read over his post on the matter, you'll see that he resolves this by completely abdicating judgment and insisting the cop is always right no matter whether he shoots or not. Dead Reckoning posted:Honestly? If someone ended up getting shot because they were impeding police access to their victim, that’s a really loving tough situation. Again, I don’t think you can make a declaration that “this way is always the right answer,” and two officers in the same situation might make opposite decisions based on the same information that could both be justified.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah he probably would have, which is why we should look at the circumstances leading up to it to find points where better resources (like a partner on the scene), better procedures, and better training could have prevented that situation. This forever. There's absolutely ZERO mention by LEO defenders that better training/policies might prevent a lot of these senseless tragedies. Instead, they're more concerned with check-marking everything and ultimately not giving a poo poo about human lives.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:36
|
|
|
You should have seen the BS Mental Gymnastics he was doing when the Russians shot down that Malaysian plane in the Ukraine. You could believe a man could fly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
That assumes that those people actually care about cops. It's similar to "support areee troops". It's fun to jerk off to, but that's it. It's the idea of authoritarianism that they want to ejaculate on. The single cop gets dogpiled as soon as it's about pay, pension, benefits, disability, workplace safety, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:That assumes that those people actually care about cops. "A tax hike!? gently caress those lazy union assholes!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
Vahakyla posted:That assumes that those people actually care about cops. That's the very reason I just automatically cull LEO defenders down to a certain population. I personally know staunch neo-cons...who are typically disturbed at legitimate police abuses. The only folks I know IRL who obstinately defend LEO actions, even when wrong or at the very least require further consideration, are LEO themselves or the people who are related to them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:42
|
|