|
I found this interesting paper. Appears well credentialed, and is in line with my own knowledge of firearms instruction. A few interesting points:quote:The combined Reaction time and Action time result in the average total time to make a decision and actually fire a pistol in simple and complex scenarios with the finger on the trigger was found to be 0.576 and 1.26 seconds and with the finger off the trigger 0.888 seconds and 1.576 seconds respectively. So in a complex scenario (which most police shootings would fall under, I imagine), there's an average of 1.6 seconds between stimulus and a bullet leaving the gun. 1.6 seconds is a lifetime in a firefight. Plus, let's say you fire 1 shot and re-assess. Say you missed, now you're trying to match your reaction time to the bad guys reaction time. As crass as it sounds, it's a hell of a lot more efficient to fire one too many bullets than one fewer than required. quote:Rate of fire is part of the equation when we look at how long an event takes. My own tests and tests of others [Ref. 16, 17] demonstrate that five (5) shots in one second is common. Five shots in one second results in a shot-to-shot interval of 0.25 seconds for the average shooter So in the 1.6ish seconds a cop is reassessing, a bad guy who is already firing or a threat could shoot 5 or 6 times. In theory.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:I'm astonished that the only time recently that cops have shown restraint with an armed suspect was when it was a cop...who was lording over his wife's bleeding body in a car in the middle of a street. She wasn't dead yet - you expect them to not let him finish the murder? He's their brother for god's sake. *wipes tear from eye* *destroys evidence*
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
That's fascinating. Especially how it applies to exactly zero of the cases this or the previous thread are talking about, and I can't think of a single instance where anyone said you shouldn't shoot back at someone shooting at you. Does this study cover "Guy with a knife limping away after getting beanbagged so they mag dumped him"? Or emptying your gun into a corpse? Or "Had gun pointed at guys head for loving reason then claimed he tried to run me down when the corpse hit the gas and dragged me down the street" You know, the situations actually being discussed in these threads? The last incident the guy was wandering away not shooting ant anyone, then they kept shooting him on the ground because "Maybe he was reaching for his gun while he was bleeding to death". Because I imagine you'd have more than a few seconds there. Just so it's clear: the number of cases being discussed that involved a "firefight" is zero. So what is your point? Toasticle fucked around with this message at 02:44 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:She wasn't dead yet - you expect them to not let him finish the murder? He's their brother for god's sake. The same people calling the Tamir Rice incident a "good shoot" were the exact same ones saying those cops were fine scrapbooking because the cop wasn't shooting someone that very instant. That should really tell you where they are coming from. Oh and arguing the semantics behind the phrase "active shooter" because that's surely the important thing to focus on. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
People asked why cops mag dump, or fire multiple shots instead of a single shot and reassessing. That's why. It's not justifying the egregious shootings we've been talking about, simply discrediting the idea that cops should shoot once then check. (Or at least WHY cops don't do that, currently)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:52
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:People asked why cops mag dump, or fire multiple shots instead of a single shot and reassessing. That's why. It's not justifying the egregious shootings we've been talking about, simply discrediting the idea that cops should shoot once then check. (Or at least WHY cops don't do that, currently) Cops should shoot never, friend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:The same people calling the Tamir Rice incident a "good shoot" were the exact same ones saying those cops were fine scrapbooking because the cop wasn't shooting someone that very instant. That should really tell you where they are coming from. Actually he shot her again while they were scrap booking. So she was probably alive after the first shooting and had they done anything whatsoever besides try and talk down good buddy sarge she may be alive today. Elendil004 posted:People asked why cops mag dump, or fire multiple shots instead of a single shot and reassessing. That's why. It's not justifying the egregious shootings we've been talking about, simply discrediting the idea that cops should shoot once then check. (Or at least WHY cops don't do that, currently) Not trying to be a dick but explaining why cops do things that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the subjects of the thread is a useless derail. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:And shot her again while his buddies put together a scrapbook. He shot her again as they were pulling his 7-year old daughter out of the other side of the car and getting her to safety. The "scrapbooking" was pulling out a phone with Facebook open and happened after the kid was clear of the car and shooting. OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 05:26
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:He shot her again as they were pulling his 7-year old daughter out of the other side of the car and getting her to safety. Jesus gently caress this same lie again. There were multiple officers from several departments at the scene by the time the second round of shooting occurred. quote:"The thing that was slid to him was actually a cell phone that contained photographs of his children," Gramiccioni said. "That was a request he had made. He had made that of the people that were trying to get him to surrender." Do you have any source at all that says they simply showed the guy a facebook page? Because I'm pretty sure you just made it up, like when Kalman made it up back when he posted the same cop defense back in June.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Jesus gently caress this same lie again. There were multiple officers from several departments at the scene by the time the second round of shooting occurred. Calm down. If I'm wrong that it was Facebook, I'm wrong that it was Facebook. It was still a phone, not a scrapbook.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 06:12
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Calm down. If I'm wrong that it was Facebook, I'm wrong that it was Facebook. It was still a phone, not a scrapbook. That they spent half an hour putting together instead of saving his wife. But glad to know we're right back into completely irrelevant pedantry yet again. So they put together a group of photos on a phone and not an actual 'scrapbook'. Which changes what exactly? Make sure to call us heartless for suggesting the cops shoot their friend.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 06:17
|
|
|
The difference between pulling out a phone to open a facebook profile, and delaying medical care for half an hour while a woman bleeds out to collate a family photo album to appease a killer mid-murder seems like a pretty big deal. Especially when any number of officers on scene could have treated him like an unarmed black male, and gotten the victim immediate, and potentially life saving, medical treatment. And don't tell me to calm down. You're the one who decided you had to post made up poo poo to make the police look not so bad when they stood idly by letting their buddy murder his wife in broad daylight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 06:21
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:I found this interesting paper. Appears well credentialed, and is in line with my own knowledge of firearms instruction. A few interesting points: It can't be as cut and dry as you put it though, because different police forces have different approaches to firearms. People posted stats earlier of German and Danish police shootings, the number of shots fired was pretty close to the number of people shot - there was no mag dumping going on. If fewer shots fired could result in fewer people dying, shouldn't American police forces reassess their tactics? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 06:42 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:It can't be as cut and dry as you put it though, because different police forces have different approaches to firearms. People posted stats earlier of German and Danish police shootings, the number of shots fired was pretty close to the number of people shot - there was no mag dumping going on. If fewer shots fired could result in fewer people dying, shouldn't American police forces reassess their tactics? And be like those bungling pansy-rear end Europeans too scared to take a bite out of crime? No way! And you're a cop hater who must want dead cops or you'd never even suggest that American cops die trying to match such superhuman feats of strength, courage, and heroism. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 07:01
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Oh and arguing the semantics behind the phrase "active shooter" because that's surely the important thing to focus on. I then explained that the reason they didn't was because the incident wasn't an active shooting according to the FEMA definition. Then oohhboy and VitalSigns got mad because they were wrong about what an active shooter is per the people who promulgate active shooter protocol.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 08:19
|
|
|
I was making fun of you for focusing on whether he met the technical definition of active shooter rather than whether he was actually shooting at someone and should have been stopped. It's hilarious that you'll defend killing a black boy for jumping when a car barrels up to him, but when a cop is firing bullets into his wife well let's not be too hasty I mean we haven't even waited to see if he's going to go on and murder strangers too so it's too early to tell if he's dangerous. That wife-murdering cop was more dangerous than most of the unarmed people whose executions you routinely defend, hmmmmmm VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:51 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 08:37
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Because you might miss, and then in the time it takes you to re-assess, he's shooting. Because your first shot might not be a disabling shot, and the same happens. Generally the training is "shoot until the thread is no longer a threat" which translates as shoot until they're down, because if they're down then they're no longer a threat. Generally the training is terrible, which is kind of what we're talking about here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 09:06
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:That they spent half an hour putting together instead of saving his wife. Scrapbooking is a significantly much more involved effort than putting pictures on a phone man. It implies cops were hitting up some arts and crafts store and raiding their house for photos and not like grabbing photos from facebook. I'm not really sure why you would think I'd call you heartless. DARPA posted:The difference between pulling out a phone to open a facebook profile, and delaying medical care for half an hour while a woman bleeds out to collate a family photo album to appease a killer mid-murder seems like a pretty big deal. Especially when any number of officers on scene could have treated him like an unarmed black male, and gotten the victim immediate, and potentially life saving, medical treatment. And don't tell me to calm down. You're the one who decided you had to post made up poo poo to make the police look not so bad when they stood idly by letting their buddy murder his wife in broad daylight. I was wrong about a minor detail. It wasn't intentional. Please, seriously, calm down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 11:40
|
|
|
Now that is some impressive pedantry even by this thread's standards. Uh excuse me did they literally use krazy glue to put together their 30-minute photo project for their friend as he repeatedly shot his victim right in front of them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 12:03
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Scrapbooking is a significantly much more involved effort than putting pictures on a phone man. It implies cops were hitting up some arts and crafts store and raiding their house for photos and not like grabbing photos from facebook. The most pertinent point of all this is that they spent half an hour (30 minutes) doing actions that did nothing to determine or possibly improve the health of the unarmed woman who one of the cops was married to. I mean, I guess whether or not they were braiding each other's hair and eating ice cream while putting together precious memories could potentially be looked at as the most important part of things if you look at it from the right angle- and then fold and write over it a lot- but that's not really the focus of things here. VitalSigns, I've totally forgotten, how exactly did she end up in a car heading towards her death? I ask you because you're good at summarizing things and not likely to bog it down in pedantic nit picks. RareAcumen fucked around with this message at 12:15 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 12:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Now that is some impressive pedantry even by this thread's standards. My grandparents were big into scrapbooking, and that's immediately what I think of when it comes to it. Minor pedantical detail I guess, but it was sticking with me after I was thinking about the time I spent with my grandfather over the last few days. But that's not really in scope for this discussion, so I apologize for the derail. RareAcumen posted:
The officer chased her and shot her a bunch after she crashed. OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:Scrapbooking is a significantly much more involved effort than putting pictures on a phone man. It implies cops were hitting up some arts and crafts store and raiding their house for photos and not like grabbing photos from facebook. Because anyone who knew the details of that tragedy knew it was a collection of pictures on a phone. Me calling it a scrapbook besides it being the exact same irrelevant argument that discussion kept getting dragged into there were two possibilities: -I meant they literally got out their glue and scissors and glitter and put together a little book for him -I was using the phrase colloquially to refer to a collection of photos. Neither of which had anything substantial to do with that conversation which as people keep repeating: rather than taze, beanbag, or even pepper spray the fucker who ran his wife off the road, shot her, then shot her AGAIN in front of them they bend over backwards to not hurt their friend while his wife is bleeding out. quote:I'm not really sure why you would think I'd call you heartless. May was well go for the trifecta. -Rather than address how a friend of the cops who not only did far more than 90% of the cases discussed but loving shot her again in front of all of them they still did nothing more than talk and show him pictures, dismiss the photo collection and repeat the same lies as you even after the police themselves said it took half an hour to put together. -argue over whether he was an "active shooter" and the definition which DR has jumped in to handle for you. Which was a particularly odious detail to argue over as this fucker actually shot her in front of the cops unlike the majority of the cases discussed. Rice gets blown away for making the wrong gesture, guy with a knife gets mag dumped because he was limping away but let's argue over whether sarge qualifies as an active shooter. -Try and derail the conversation by constantly clutching pearls over how heartless everyone is and how hard it is to shoot their friend. All just attempts to steer the conversation away from this rear end in a top hat ran his wife off the road, shot her, shot her AGAIN in full view of his cop buddies but still gets the most kid gloves treatment possible while unarmed mostly black people get blown away the moment they twitch the wrong way, sometimes to the point where they shoot the loving corpse. It's a touchy subject because it perfectly illustrated how arguing over nearly irrelevant details rather then over what actually happened is the norm. Had you just 'corrected' the word I use nobody would have jumped on you, repeating the same lie that they just tossed him some pictures on a phone when the cops themselves said it took half an hour to put together is why. It's as irrelevant to what happened as arguing over the textbook/legal definition of active shooter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:-argue over whether he was an "active shooter" and the definition which DR has jumped in to handle for you. Please stop with this, the whole derail did actually hinge on what an "active shooter" was since it was about the police not following their guidelines for dealing with active shooters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Regardless of the department definition of "active shooter", the fact remains that there was a man currently in the process of shooting a person and officers made no effort to save the victim's life (or prevent him from attacking other people) out of an attempt to avoid having to treat a fellow officer like a civilian would have been treated. The defense of "How can you expect them to shoot their friend?!" only ends up making it look worse when it's spouted by the same people who defended the shooting of unarmed people who merely looked like they were drawing a gun. The message that defense sends is that police simultaneously have such love for their co-workers that they can't be expected to harm them even when they're murdering people and should have so little care for civilian life that they can kill them immediately if they even look like they might be threatening without having to pause to confirm the situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Maybe people shouldn't use intentionally inaccurate language to score rhetorical points if they don't want to be called out on using inaccurate language to score rhetorical points? You're not using the word scrapbook because its a common colloquial phrase to refer to a collection of photos, (first off because it isn't) you're using it as a rhetorical flourish to juxtapose the images generally associated with scrap-booking with the police sitting around doing this while this women was getting shot. That's not meaningful content and its not accurate, and it adds nothing to the conversation other then white noise so you can make your sick burns sicker. And so instead of discussing what was the truly most disgusting part of that incident, the long history of domestic abuse coverups in that department, we spent pages debating exactly how long it takes to load photos into a cell phone, and struggling with the concept that even though the correct decision in that case would have been to shoot that cop, its a somewhat of an understandable human error of judgement to fail to do your duty to kill your friend and mentor. I mean why focus on the systemic corruption when the important part is making sure we secure this rhetorical cudgel we can use to laugh at how hypocritical "the police" are when a completely different cop, in a completely different department, in a completely different part of the country, in a completely different situation, acts differently. Likewise with "active shooter" bullshit, a poster didn't just use that colloquially, they very intentionally used the term of art and tried to argue that specific written SOPs were violated based off that technical definition of the phrase. Pointing out that the definition they were using was wrong and the SOP they were attempting to use as evidence of misdeed did not apply is directly substantive to the argument. Instead of just conceding the error we had posters try to argue that this is just pedantry and the main point still stands, which is loving insane, the entire point that was being made hinged on meeting the technical definition of the phrase so that the SOP applied. These are just a couple of examples, another big one is everyone insists on using the word "murder" for every killing. Its not a legal technicality to say the word murder involves illegality or at least malice, its what the word means in common usage. People keep wanting to try to hide behind calling it legal pedantry but it has absolutely nothing to do with that. The vast majority of the time the issue of controversy in this thread is whether a particularly killing is murder. Calling it murder as a point of order is nothing other then using loaded language that by definition presupposes one side of the argument is the correct one in order to score rhetorical points. So instead of "The police killed someone, I think this constitutes murder, how can you think this is a justified killing" we get "The police murdered this guy, how can you support the police murdering people". Its just a variation on the old "when did you stop beating your wife" crap, or perhaps more accurately "how can you support the murder of babies"(in regards to abortion). The answer of course is "I don't support the police murdering people, I reject your premise and do not think that was murder", but we've gotten to the point where people have gotten probated for pedantry for rejecting loaded language. Which brings me back to my original point, if you're using a bunch of loaded, inaccurate terms to score points, calling that out is not pedantry and its not a derail. The derail is going on for pages trying to weasel a way how your words weren't "technically" inaccurate if you squint at this alternate definition just right and ignore every bit of obvious cultural connotation that goes with the word, and then when that fails calling everyone a pedant and spending another page squabbling of what "pedantry" consists of. Toasticle posted:Not trying to be a dick but explaining why cops do things that has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the subjects of the thread is a useless derail. The post he was responding to was about the latest shooting, where the guy had a gun in his hand Toasticle posted:Yeah, someone said "I even agree the blame is spread all over, not just on crying cop" and said it was the result of "Multple systemic failures" Oh yeah that was me. In the post you just quoted. Is this a drunk post or something because for all your sweet burns about missing details the entire point of both of those posts seems to have flown over your head, let me help: Jarmak posted:You don't charge an individual with a criminal offense based on the results of the collective failings of an institution Toasticle posted:Nearly everyone except people who blow cops who saw the video knew drat well it was murder and a trial and jury should have been the outcome You notice how I came to a completely different conclusion then you even though I brought up some of the same facts? Its not because I didn't notice you'd acknowledged those facts, its because I was making an argument. Not every argument is about proving one set of facts or another correct, sometimes its over what conclusion we should draw from those facts Toasticle posted:And as the guy shot in the neck showed, being negligent with a gun doesn't count if you're a cop. Being held responsible for negligence with dangerous things only matters for citizens, although because it's a gun even citizens can get away with it like gun twirler. We can't hold people responsible for negligence with a gun or the NRA would cry. Jarmak posted:Literally the last page someone posted an article about a civilian shooting someone in the head trying to twirl their gun like a cowboy. On this one to be fair you were completely incoherent and contradicted yourself within the span of a single line, I was rolling with the belief that the last bit was an attempt to hand waive away the evidence that thoroughly disproved the first part of your statement, which I took to be your actual position Jarmak fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Dec 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:People asked why cops mag dump, or fire multiple shots instead of a single shot and reassessing. That's why. It's not justifying the egregious shootings we've been talking about, simply discrediting the idea that cops should shoot once then check. (Or at least WHY cops don't do that, currently) No, that's not why. They mag dump because they have inadequate training and high-capacity striker-fired pistols that invite poorly-trained shooters to fire more wild shots instead of maintaining focus on the front sight. Trainers don't teach you to mag dump, they teach you to fire a single shot or controlled pair. But that goes out the window if you don't have enough range time or force-on-force training.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Uh how is "refusing to stop your friend from murdering someone because he's your buddy buddy" not corruption? Abusing your position to do favors for friends is the very definition of corruption. Why do you think the domestic abuse coverups are unrelated to the fact that the perp's friends cared more about saving his life than the life of the abused wife he was murdering before their eyes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Uh how is "refusing to stop your friend from murdering someone because he's your buddy buddy" not corruption? Abusing your position to do favors for friends is the very definition of corruption. Because one of those things is abusing your position to cover up misdeeds and stop legals processes designed to protect the victim from running its course as a favor to a friend. The other is having trouble bringing yourself to fill that friend full of holes in the middle of the street. One of those things crosses the threshold of "you shouldn't have done that but its kind of understandable that you did because you are a human being that experiences emotions", and the other does not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
God we're really arguing over whether "scrapbook" can be metaphorically applied to a digital collection of photos like Windows Smart Scrapbook, pretending to be confused by metaphors as if people are complaining that cops were using krazy glue. We're just one more murder away from  Um excuse me, mammals such as humans are warm-blooded creatures who keep their body temperature within a narrow homeostatic range therefore it's biologically impossible for this murder to be in "cold blood" as the officer allegedly involved was not a reptile"
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
I seriously don't get your point here. Recently, it was argued that the SFPD shouldn't have shot a guy with a knife (who had already stabbed one person) because he tried to walk away. Yet now you're arguing that the police should have killed this guy dead before he could hurt his wife again. The police shouldn't have shot these other people, but since they did, they should also have to shoot this cop as a matter of fairness?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I seriously don't get your point here. Recently, it was argued that the SFPD shouldn't have shot a guy with a knife (who had already stabbed one person) because he tried to walk away. Yet now you're arguing that the police should have killed this guy dead before he could hurt his wife again. The police shouldn't have shot these other people, but since they did, they should also have to shoot this cop as a matter of fairness? I think they should have started shooting him as soon as he opened fire on his wife again, as he was now actually in the process of killing someone and needed to be immediately stopped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I seriously don't get your point here. Recently, it was argued that the SFPD shouldn't have shot a guy with a knife (who had already stabbed one person) because he tried to walk away. Yet now you're arguing that the police should have killed this guy dead before he could hurt his wife again. The police shouldn't have shot these other people, but since they did, they should also have to shoot this cop as a matter of fairness? Can you really see no difference between someone with a knife and not near their victim versus someone with a gun well within shooting range of the victim they had already shot?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:God we're really arguing over whether "scrapbook" can be metaphorically applied to a digital collection of photos like Windows Smart Scrapbook, pretending to be confused by metaphors as if people are complaining that cops were using krazy glue. No, we're arguing whether doing so is intentionally misleading
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Because one of those things is abusing your position to cover up misdeeds and stop legals processes designed to protect the victim from running its course as a favor to a friend. No it's not understandable to let your friends commit murder, the hell are you talking about, especially if that friend has been abusing his wife and you've been looking the other way the whole time. "They were paralyzed by human empathy" is a pretty weak defense when they already knew the guy was a beater and did not care. Again, you will defend cops pumping a man on the ground full of bullets because he was fleeing with a gun and might still limp away and shoot innocent people, but a cop actually murdering someone in front of them and well he's keeping his pistol pointed safely downrange at his greviously injured wife and his good fire control is ensuring the bullets lodge inside her instead of posing a threat to anyone else so clearly this calls for calm, slow negotiation. What is the number of people a killer cop has to execute in front of his friends before it ceases to become inhumane to stop him? 3? 4? Do we have to meet the definition of a mass shooting, or does it have to be dozens or what.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
If we're going to have armed police in the first place, then a situation that boils down to "put down your weapon and allow medical personnel to treat your victim or we will shoot," is pretty close to the platonic ideal of when the cops should use their guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Who's do you think is responsible for that kid being shot? Jarmak I'm still interested in your opinion in this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:If we're going to have armed police in the first place, then a situation that boils down to "put down your weapon and allow medical personnel to treat your victim or we will shoot," is pretty close to the platonic ideal of when the cops should use their guns. Seriously, even European cops will shoot someone if he's firing his pistol into someone right in front of them, it's mind-blowing that the same people who defend killing anyone who might have a gun (because you never know, a little boy might be the 3rd fastest gun in the west and outdraw and outshoot you when you're already drawn down on him) are suddenly all about human empathy for actual murderers while they are murdering people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it's not understandable to let your friends commit murder, the hell are you talking about, especially if that friend has been abusing his wife and you've been looking the other way the whole time. I've just read back and havent found any posts from Jarmak regarding the most current shooting involving the man being shot on the ground, so I don't know where you've gotten that hes defending cops 'pumping a man on the ground full of bullets'. I think it would be better if we focused on what people have actually said.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Speaking of European cops, amusing contrast betweenJarmak posted:That UK video is ridiculous, the cops have absolutely zero control of that situation and likely the only reason none of the cops got hosed up was the guy with the machete is too fat and slow to catch any of the cops he's chasing. and Jarmak posted:even though the correct decision in that case would have been to shoot that cop, its a somewhat of an understandable human error of judgement to fail to do your duty to kill your friend and mentor. UK cops took in a guy with a knife without anyone dying: what bumbling idiots! US cops let a guy murder his wife: bless their hearts they just love too much Dead Reckoning posted:I seriously don't get your point here. Recently, it was argued that the SFPD shouldn't have shot a guy with a knife (who had already stabbed one person) because he tried to walk away. Yet now you're arguing that the police should have killed this guy dead before he could hurt his wife again. The police shouldn't have shot these other people, but since they did, they should also have to shoot this cop as a matter of fairness? Except the killer cop was actually pulling the trigger in front of them and they still didn't stop him.  By your standard here, it's never appropriate to shoot someone, because while they're shooting it's all happening too fast to react, but in between shots they're not a threat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:14 |
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Jarmak I'm still interested in your opinion in this. Sorry, there was a lot of stuff to respond to, I wasn't avoiding your question on purpose. chiefly? The shooter, the driver, and the long line of people who should have recognized the fact the shooter was mentally unfit to carry a gun. The last of which is who I feel the most animosity toward, the shooter was obviously completely loving unstable and was making GBS threads a brick during the incident, driving up like that is completely idiotic but getting that outcome from driving up on a 12 year old kid isn't exactly the foreseeable outcome, but the people who signed on the dotted line for that guy to get a gun and a badge knew drat well (or should have) the potential consequences for putting someone that unfit on the street. I'm tempted to include whoever was responsible for not relaying the message it was believed to be a toy gun on that list, but the truth is if you're responding to a situation where you have information that someone might have a gun you treat it like a gun until you verify otherwise, much the same way you treat every gun as loaded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 22:42
|
|