|
VitalSigns posted: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. Jeez man. Shep answered questions and provided actual legit good points with no hyperbole, and elaborated with good posting and you just offer these hyperbolic hissyfits? I read what Shep posted two times with a critical eye and I just don't see where you get the outrage you are having. Come on. It's almost like you are legitimately trying to be some caricature.
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted: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. One of the defining characteristics of an active shooter is attacking multiple victims (hence, "people") often without respect to an individual motive for each one. It referrs to cases like Charles Whitman, the Columbine killings, and Virginia Tech shooting. I challenge you to find any source that considers single victim intimate partner homicides "active shooter" scenarios. 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. Lemming posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:LSU left a child behind. You posted the definition of "active shooter". Does the Jersey case meet that definition?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:55
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted: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. Any idiot can see that policing in America is incredibly hosed up, and needs massive amounts of reform on nearly every level and in nearly every part of the country. As many(but not all!) posters in this thread are not idiots, it becomes more clear that some posters are in a form of denial for either professional reasons, or because they have a fairly complex worldview that would need reconsideration if some of it's basis were to be shoddy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You have no idea what you are talking about. Even alerted perception-reaction time, where a person is taking a single action (like pushing a pedal) to react to a stimulus they have been expecting, tends to hover around 1-1.5 seconds. Humans are, for the most part, not actually capable of literal split second decision making. If you're trying to start an argument that using "split second" is wrong because something takes more than a literal second it means your gimmick is falling apart, dude. Like I recognize you haven't said word one in good faith but you're making it too obvious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Jeez man. Shep answered questions and provided actual legit good points with no hyperbole, and elaborated with good posting and you just offer these hyperbolic hissyfits? Cuz it wasn't directed at Shep, that's why you're having issues. Idk, maybe read my replies actually quoting shep to see how I was talking to him?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 09:04
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:You posted the definition of "active shooter". Does the Jersey case meet that definition? Lol no, not at all, active shooter is a term of art with a specific meaning, it isn't "person who is actively shooting"
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
Nobody gives a poo poo that someone got your milsim terms wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 09:14
|
|
|
This whole bullshit derail started with someone claiming that the police violated active shooter procedures, so maybe knowing what that term means actually matters.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 09:25
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This whole bullshit derail started with someone claiming that the police violated active shooter procedures, so maybe knowing what that term means actually matters. You posted the definition of "active shooter" in this thread. Does the Jersey case meet that definition?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 09:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This whole bullshit derail started with someone claiming that the police violated active shooter procedures, so maybe knowing what that term means actually matters. No, you started the derail because a lay person said that the police didn't shoot at someone who was actively shooting, which people can generally understand, so you disingenuously tried to interpret that as meaning some other bullshit blah blah blah blah. You started the derail when it was very clear what the guy meant, and now you're whining about it. Go gently caress yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 09:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:LSU left a child behind. lol you loving idiot, your definition of active shooter doesn't say that. quote: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. are you able to even comprehend that sentence? it means that there are cases of active shooters who do have patterns and methods with regards to the selection of their victims. also nothing in your definition states the shooter has to shoot multiple people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 09:48
|
|
|
oohhboy posted: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. C2C - 2.0 posted:You posted the definition of "active shooter" in this thread. Does the Jersey case meet that definition? Lemming posted:No, you started the derail because a lay person said that the police didn't shoot at someone who was actively shooting, which people can generally understand, so you disingenuously tried to interpret that as meaning some other bullshit blah blah blah blah. You started the derail when it was very clear what the guy meant, and now you're whining about it. Go gently caress yourself. Condiv posted:are you able to even comprehend that sentence? it means that there are cases of active shooters who do have patterns and methods with regards to the selection of their victims. also nothing in your definition states the shooter has to shoot multiple people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 10:53
|
|
|
If he wasn't an active shooter then what the hell was he? Police inaction turned what might have been a case of attempted murder to full on murder. What about the kid? Were they not in mortal danger? Wouldn't they make the situation from singular to plural if one is to be pedantic as you are? How populated does a place need to be to be populated? Were there not houses nearby where people live in or businesses where people work? How does what might be a minor misuse of the word "Active shooter" absolve what happened? A term that is poorly defined and at times not related to the very words it's made up of. When do you shoot? Clearly you have no idea since you're willing to excuse they moved as a reason to shoot or trespassing or not white enough or not rich or panicking or complying, but suddenly someone is shooting someone else in front of you and you don't shoot? What the hell. The key take away from this is the police failed in their duty again. When they fail yet again because nothing was learned, you will be there to defend their abhorrent actions and because people like you defend such actions they will continue to fail.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 11:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Nope. A vehicle is not an "enclosed and populated area." The suspect killed a single person, for personal reasons, and then stopped. The only thing that the suspect had in common with active shooters was that he used a firearm. You are one of the most willfully ignorant people I've ever come across on these forums. You are also going through back-breaking, strenuous mental exercise to defend those cops while simultaneously not giving any fucks about the fact that there was a woman inside one of the vehicles who was apparently still alive, not to mention other civilians close enough that they were able to film clear video via cellphone. God help us if you ever get elected to a city council or state legislature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This whole bullshit derail started with someone claiming that the police violated active shooter procedures, so maybe knowing what that term means actually matters. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that people were talking about how white terrorists get taken alive while cowardly baby police officers freak out when a brown kid is holding a melon baller and so you tried to shop talk it up to dodge racism chat. Am I right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
Guys, I just did my own research and a shooter is defined as "3. a marble used to shoot at other marbles" so it sounds like all of you are way off base.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:If he wasn't an active shooter then what the hell was he? Police inaction turned what might have been a case of attempted murder to full on murder. What about the kid? Were they not in mortal danger? What about the cop himself? How dare you say that a cop can act without perfect judgment! You're going to make the police there scared to do their jobs!!!! Every year passes after 2001 and we're seeing police act not just militarized, but downright barbaric. There's an us versus them mentality where they clearly see anyone not similar enough to them as a dire threat to their existence. We don't need to just stop them from being military LARP'ers with live ammo, there's an entire culture shift in the community and outside that is required. People were bitching and crying about the "stop snitching" campaign yet don't even for a second call out some of the most notorious offenders. People continually go through extreme mental gymnastics to place all culpability on people that are shot dead or injured by cops. No one says "hey, maybe we should look into this" -- it immediately turns into character assassinations and trying to mount a case in the eyes of the public of why we live in a just world and that is why some ne'er do well needed to die that day. Or simply straight up dehumanizing people; Michael "6'5" Brown was a gargantuan thug capable of razing buildings with merely his gaze and poor Darren "6'4" Wilson was lucky to escape without being savagely beaten to death, unable to defend against such an incredible monster. poo poo, we'd actually need Superman to defend against such a supervillain if it weren't for the heroic actions of an officer for the finest police force/revenue collection agency in the world! gently caress anyone who thinks that any of that was justified. Every single shooting we've seen these past few years is by someone who becomes frightened and has been trained to deal with fright by pulling a gun and to begin firing. Lethal force has been the only option each and every single time. We're not even seeing tasers/stun guns used in the oh-so-lovely American way as compliance weapons, either, just straight to the gun. It's inexcusable that we're continually seeing justification for cops to abandon communication as a tool. Each death makes the institution of policing look less like an effort to maintain public safety and more a constituted effort to bring back the glory days of the Antebellum South in which someone can be murdered with the popular support for perceived crimes. Hyperbole, sure, but I imagine the fervor we see on Facebook would have been around back then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This whole bullshit derail started with someone claiming that the police violated active shooter procedures, so maybe knowing what that term means actually matters. Please explain how it warranted a different response than an active shooter. Please come up with some more pedantry to cast a fog, and obscure what you are thinking and not saying. This is what you are thinking, and what all cops think. Every cop is wise and a hero everyone they kill deserved it. The cops crouched around the murdering cop as he prepared to commit murder. "Oh yay," they squealed, "Biff's finally going to off his nagging wife." Then the crime scene became one of ersatz cop group therapy. "That's right, let it all out brother," they murmured as the cop pumped bullets into his wife. "Let it all out. Let your feelings out. Have a good cry, but with bullets instead of tears." Sometimes a cop just has to murder his wife. We'll arrest him after he's done it, but don't expect us not to be resentful about it. Civilians just don't understand the hard choices we have to make.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
^^^^ You weren't THERE man! His wife was 10 feet tall if she was a foot! With arms the size of tree trunks, spitting flames and incanting the names of the Dark Lord Lucifer and Osama Bin Laden and Hitler. Her razor sharp claws could pierce metal and grind stone with ease! If not for this brave man who was so troubled by harming the beautiful demon whore spawned from the deepest pits of the darkest hells, we would be mourning the losses of innocent officers who simply let a man grieve by emptying his clip. Dead Reckoning posted:This whole bullshit derail started with someone claiming that the police violated active shooter procedures, so maybe knowing what that term means actually matters. Alright, fine, let's throw out the "active shooter" derail you totally didn't start. Why did the woman in the car not count as a civilian threatened by lethal force? Why did the child not count as threatened? Why did none of the cops attempt to stop him from moving? Why were none of the officers prepared for an armed suspect to use his weapon? Why were none of them trying to disarm him? Why were none of them prepared to open fire on an armed suspect threatening his wife and child in a populated area after he has already shot her once? Now, you'll definitely deflect with "But we DON'T KNOW!" But we DO know. It's either a sense nepotism, or it's just being lovely at their job. Furthermore, how the gently caress can you reasonably tell people that a cop was justified in shooting an unarmed teenager who got mouthy at a traffic stop, but not an armed suspect who just shot his wife? One of these people has already shown they are willing to hurt someone. One of these people was just being a dickbag with a big mouth. And yet one of these people DIDN'T get shot. Classtoise fucked around with this message at 15:58 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Would y'all tone it down, please? Dead Reckoning worked graveyard last night and between writing tickets, Googling for support for his arguments, and posting in this thread, I'm sure he's pretty tired.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Classtoise posted:^^^^ You weren't THERE man! His wife was 10 feet tall if she was a foot! With arms the size of tree trunks, spitting flames and incanting the names of the Dark Lord Lucifer and Osama Bin Laden and Hitler. Her razor sharp claws could pierce metal and grind stone with ease! "It's hard to kill your friends, even when they're committing murder and it's your job."  <---cop tears you should collect in a jar, because they are the quintessencee: I really love that a cop defender posted "render unto Caesar" as the reason you should comply with police. I wonder what Jesus or John the Baptist would have said to police, certainly it wouldn't have contained the phrase "woe unto you" or "evildoers." woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 16:16 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Classtoise posted:Now, you'll definitely deflect with "But we DON'T KNOW!" But we DO know.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok let's assume they were lovely at their job (I don't actually know this, because the trade off between trying to rescue a potentially dead victim and shooting someone is really unclear to me, but let's assume). What now? Is the purpose of this thread to discuss individual officers that are going to get sub-par performance reviews, because they didn't kill enough people? Huh, almost the exact same argument from Dead Reckoning that has already been dealt with and rightly criticized.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
twodot posted:Ok let's assume they were lovely at their job (I don't actually know this, because the trade off between trying to rescue a potentially dead victim and shooting someone is really unclear to me, but let's assume). What now? Is the purpose of this thread to discuss individual officers that are going to get sub-par performance reviews, because they didn't kill enough people? On occasion, cops will encounter people who threaten either their lives, or the lives of people around them. In your opinion, what is the minimum number of seconds required to identify such a threat?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that people were talking about how white terrorists get taken alive while cowardly baby police officers freak out when a brown kid is holding a melon baller and so you tried to shop talk it up to dodge racism chat. You are aware the governor had already gone on record urging the death penalty, right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:You are aware the governor had already gone on record urging the death penalty, right? You just compared the justice system giving due process to a person accused of nine murders to the police gunning down a kid playing with a toy gun in the park within 2 seconds, or shooting a man in a walmart holding an item sold at that store within 2 seconds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
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. No, as far as they could tell they had an armed attempted murder suspect, with his gunshot victim bleeding to death in the car. Even if he hadn't shot her the second time it would still be outrageous that they chose to spend 50 minutes or so negotiating while she's sitting there, status unknown. But of course he did shoot her again, right in front of them, and they didn't do anything, which pushes this beyond outrageous and into WTF territory. This whole situation is indefensible. From the fact that he was still a cop after all of his domestic violence issues, to the fact that he had access to guns, to his actions, and to the actions of the other officers there, this whole thing is a start to finish clusterfuck of police failure.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I didn't say that, because the corrolary of "It would be reasonable to shoot the suspect in this situation" is not "it would be unreasonable to not shoot the suspect in this scenario." I'm not sure how much more succinctly I can put it. I'm going to give you some direct quotes from your own posts. Are you ready? Police officer shoots unarmed person in back for pulling up pants quote:Are we now accepting the proposition that something which appears to pose an imminent lethal danger can be reasonably responded to with deadly force, even if later turns out to have not been dangerous? quote:No, he wasn’t doing what he was told. If a cop asks you if you have a weapon, that doesn’t mean “pull it out and show it to him.” Similarly, being told to show your hands doesn’t mean say, “No, fool!” then suddenly decide yes. Slowly taking your hands out is what that means. No one is demanding perfect behavior; there are plenty of reactions he could have had that wouldn’t have justified shooting him. If Taylor had just taken off running, the cops wouldn’t have been justified in pulling the trigger. quote:OK, what exactly should the legal liability be? If someone has, for example, an airsoft gun that looks entirely real, should the cops be on the hook for killing him because they didn't take the time to determine it was fake? If someone aims a nailgun at the police across a dark parking lot, should the police have to wait until he fires to find out whether or not it's dangerous? Unarmed person assaults officer, is shot to death quote:This whole discussion was prompted (this time around) by an officer, alone, being assaulted on the ground, who believed he was on the verge of being incapacitated. Does that not constitute deadly force? Do you accept that officers can use deadly force in response to a reasonable perception of deadly force, or should their use be considered unjustified if it is found after the fact that the threat was not as it appeared? Police officer murders own wife, continues firing into her while in front of multiple cops quote:This relies on the police either A) using foresight to know he was going back around the car to shoot his wife some more, B) seeing he was shooting her again, and instantly deciding to pull the trigger, or C) deciding enough was enough and killing him after he had shot her again. Depending on how long you wait for C), you get back into my earlier point. quote: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. quote:And I don't think it's mealy-mouthed to say that, without the responding officers' reports, there may be information not contained in the article that could have affected their decisions. You are literally arguing two different things depending on who's involved. When an unarmed person attacks a cop (even when we only have the officer's word that he was in mortal danger because his body camera stopped recording everything resulting in the shooting), you argue that the officer could shoot because he assumed he was in mortal danger. When an unarmed person hikes up his pants, you argue that the officer can shoot based on a perception (later proven to be false) that he was drawing a gun. You also argued that it's completely legitimate to shoot someone armed with a fake gun that they haven't fired, because it's a legitimate perception of mortal danger. But when an off-duty police officer is seen by cops firing at his wife, and then shoots her point blank repeatedly in front of them, you fall over yourself to find excuses for why the cops didn't shoot. "They'd need to shoot through the wife!" Why can't they go around the car? "They didn't have enough time to make a decision!" This is exactly why you're being called disingenuous. When an unarmed person is killed, you defend the police actions and argue that it's okay to use lethal force as long as the officer thinks it's okay. When a cop is now actively a danger to people's lives, you defend the police actions and argue that it would be irresponsible to use lethal force unless they can flank around to put him perfectly in aim and shoot him only when he's actively pulling the trigger and they have to stop and negotiate when he's not actually discharging rounds into a woman. You tailor your response to the idea of lethal force based on who's going to be receiving it. Civilians can't even make suspicious hand motions without you justifying their killing, while police officers can be wandering around with a loaded gun and repeatedly shooting an innocent person in a frenzy of rage-fueled insanity and suddenly the officers need to set up everything for a perfect, risk-free shoot. This is exactly why nobody wants you in this thread: you're not arguing based on anything but your personal desire to defend police officers regardless of the circumstances, even if you need to change your position repeatedly to do it. gently caress off. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:No, as far as they could tell they had an armed attempted murder suspect, with his gunshot victim bleeding to death in the car. Even if he hadn't shot her the second time it would still be outrageous that they chose to spend 50 minutes or so negotiating while she's sitting there, status unknown. But of course he did shoot her again, right in front of them, and they didn't do anything, which pushes this beyond outrageous and into WTF territory. Cops have a hard job man, why don't you give them a break? They'll get back to killing people at the drop of a hat when it's more reasonable, like when the suspect is black. chitoryu12 posted:I'm going to give you some direct quotes from your own posts. Are you ready? You don't understand, what he's trying to say is that cops have ultimate discretion, so whether they decide to kill someone or not doesn't matter. It's legal because the thoughts and heart of the officer are pure, and whatever he decides to do in each situation is correct. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
DARPA posted:You just compared the justice system giving due process to a person accused of nine murders to the police gunning down a kid playing with a toy gun in the park within 2 seconds, or shooting a man in a walmart holding an item sold at that store within 2 seconds. No I didn't. My point is simply that claims he is somehow getting a pass because he is white may be misguided when the state itself will now be actively seeking execution. What would you have preferred?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No I didn't. My point is simply that claims he is somehow getting a pass because he is white may be misguided when the state itself will now be actively seeking execution. I can't speak for DARPA but it would be nice if people weren't apologists for murderers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:No I didn't. My point is simply that claims he is somehow getting a pass because he is white may be misguided when the state itself will now be actively seeking execution. I can't tell if you're being purposely obtuse, but this multiple murder suspect is being treated properly by the system, while this thread has posted countless examples of the justice system and police treating people, particularly nonwhite people, in an incredibly violent and deadly manner. No one is saying police should have killed the suspect on the spot. They're saying Others always seem to get riddled with bullets for reaching for waistbands or making furtive movements when that should not be happening. DARPA fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
Did the South Carolina shooter do anything in the presence of law enforcement that could have been mistaken for reaching for a weapon? And how do you feel about him getting the death penalty?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Did the South Carolina shooter do anything in the presence of law enforcement that could have been mistaken for reaching for a weapon? The issue is police seem terrified of black 12 year olds while for some reason they manage to apprehend active murderers without an issue. quote:And how do you feel about him getting the death penalty? I'm personally anti-death penalty, but I'll shed no tears for him. What does this have to do with anything though? The justice system proving beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed murder is an entirely different issue than the handful of seconds officers give people before killing them on the street for perceived slights.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I'm going to give you some direct quotes from your own posts. Are you ready? How is it possible, after the pages of arguments in this thread, and a video of the incident, that you still haven't managed to even figure out this guy wasn't shot in the back.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
DARPA posted:The issue is police seem terrified of black 12 year olds while for some reason they manage to apprehend active murderers without an issue. You didn't answer my question. If he didn't do anything that could be misinterpreted as reaching for a weapon, it's not really a valid comparison, is it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:How is it possible, after the pages of arguments in this thread, and a video of the incident, that you still haven't managed to even figure out this guy wasn't shot in the back. Correction: he was shot in the front for pulling up his pants. God chitoryu is such an idiot for getting that wrong, it's above board because he got to look his killer in the eye before he was murdered.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
*nevermind*
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 21:19 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Correction: he was shot in the front for pulling up his pants. Well it certainly undercuts the "shot while fleeing" argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2015 18:14
|
|