|
Naked Bear posted:I've never been summoned for jury duty. I think I'd actually enjoy it. I got jury duty for a month once on a massive wrongful death lawsuit against Chrysler. It was pretty interesting/rewarding except for the whole not being paid part, although I was 18-19 and wasn't severely impacted by it.
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:52 |
|
mlmp08 posted:said no cop ever, unless it was a gun. well if it was a gun, it was an assault weapon
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:I got jury duty for a month once on a massive wrongful death lawsuit against Chrysler. It was pretty interesting/rewarding except for the whole not being paid part, although I was 18-19 and wasn't severely impacted by it. Whatever the payout, it wasn't enough. That company deserves the fate it's avoided several times over.
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59c23f23e4b0f22c4a8dce68?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009 Deescalation, what is it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
If the one idiot had followed some form of escalation of force to begin with then there wouldn't have been anything to deescalate. e: Yes, I'm well aware that I'm making that comment from the comfort of my armchair. I can sympathize with the stresses involved, I know it's never that simple, etc. There's no excuse for being a stupid, trigger-happy gently caress, though. Naked Bear fucked around with this message at 14:46 on Sep 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Sep 21, 2017 14:43
|
|
|
Hard to tell without context, but I'm not really siding with the cop here either Also don't click play because the kid gets shot a few times on camera and dies. https://twitter.com/Cali_Funk1/status/911268573170999296
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/OCHAWKNEWS/status/911286918536560640
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
I can't quite identify what he had in his hand..
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 23:07
|
|
DoktorLoken posted:I can't quite identify what he had in his hand.. i havent watched it but based on comments it was a pistol mag
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
Probably a pistol mag but I don't know how that cop had his belt set up. Or why they were fighting in the first place.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 22, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
EVERY other thing aside, I get why 1 round becomes 10 rounds when there's a perceived threat. Dude looked fine right up until his body realized it was dead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:EVERY other thing aside, Dealing with someone non-compliant (for whatever reason), radio on the ground, the individual grabs something off his belt which could be mace, and then he can't draw his gun. This particular instance is one where the fear is real. The purpose of mace is to incapacitate, and potential for the cop being incapacitated and then killed or severely injured is there. Whether or not the situation was handled correctly leading up to this point however is yet to be seen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 04:06
|
|
|
Holy gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
kupachek posted:Dealing with someone non-compliant (for whatever reason), radio on the ground, the individual grabs something off his belt which could be mace, and then he can't draw his gun. If that's justification, why are cops engaging people alone?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
I'm not saying it's justified, just that the fear is real in that situation. As for why they are engaging them alone, do you really think the profession attracts the best and the brightest who make smart choices all the time?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 14:18
|
|
|
kupachek posted:
But enough about agency administration.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
This is GiP. We all know the answer to that one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If that's justification, why are cops engaging people alone? In a lot of police departments, you can chalk that up to low manning. Agencies, especially smaller ones, can barely send one officer to calls, much less two. My city has a population of 70,000, with maybe 10 officers patrolling at any given time. We have at most one officer to a district, and some officers have to cover two districts. Whenever possible, the officers from the bordering districts will respond to calls so that two or three cops are available on-scene, but sometimes that's not possible. If the bordering district officers are busy, one cop will need to handle the situation. Manning is so low that reservists are allowed to patrol on their own and respond to calls. It's all about budget. Years ago, my department offered competitive pay, annual bonuses for degree holders, and stipends to attend college. During the recession, back in maybe 2009, pay stagnated and the educational bonuses were cancelled. Now we can't retain officers. 60% of my department has less than 3 years of experience. They train and qualify with my department, then laterally transfer to other agencies with better pay and benefits. A cop with three years on the job clears $1600 a month after taxes. Small wonder they jump ship.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
My local sheriff's office is open Tuesdays. We don't have a city PD, despite a population of about 20,000.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2017 22:37
|
|
|
imagine if 100+ "good guys with guns" are at a concert. if you're a psycho, you wouldn't even need a drum mag. just fire a few rounds into the sky and let them murder eachother for you.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
NUKES CURE NORKS posted:imagine if 100+ "good guys with guns" are at a concert. If there were anything I'd blame the media for about gun perception, it's the idea that you'd be John McClane if you had a gun in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
One of these days the domestic terrorist is going to be a chemist and that's a conversation post-mortem that I don't think the country is ready for. We're nice and solid in our blame guns viewpoints while still faithfully ignoring the cause of social isolation and extremism
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:56
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:One of these days the domestic terrorist is going to be a chemist and that's a conversation post-mortem that I don't think the country is ready for. Oklahoma City.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Do we know if the shooter was wearing the glove to make him fire on auto? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPWuyP5AwTk
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Oklahoma City. Nah, not a chemist. The poo poo you can mix up gets real nasty when you have someone who can actually produce their own reagents or just get/steal them at their college chemistry building. Explosives are very simple and modestly effective, but imagine Walter White making a nerve agent, or any simple toxin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:21
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Nah, not a chemist. The poo poo you can mix up gets real nasty when you have someone who can actually produce their own reagents or just get/steal them at their college chemistry building. Explosives are very simple and modestly effective, but imagine Walter White making a nerve agent, or any simple toxin. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack Bluntly, not as effective as shooting / ramming attakcs.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:Oklahoma City. Anfo doesn't take a genius.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/danmericacnn/status/914878987628896256
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack If you half-rear end the dispersion of your chemical weapons, yeah. Hopefully people with nerve gas and bad intentions will be so incompetent in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 21:51
|
|
|
So carrying over from the proper gunchat thread. Guns were invented and perfected for killing people. The second amendment protects your right to be armed such that you can kill people in extreme situations. Hunting is an added benefit to owning a gun and while a luxury in most parts of the country is occasionally a necessity for survival and good for survival planning for the more rural areas. Now owning rifles for hunting is pretty easy to justify, solid bolt action rifle, even something new and tactical has the same capability. If youre poor enough to occasionally need to hunt to eat then owning 10 different rifles is idiotic. Shotguns are great for bird hunting and self defense. Handguns are excellent for self defense because unlike a rifle its practical to actually have it on you all the time. So where does the need for magazine fed shotguns and semi-auto rifles come in? That comes back to the original point, which is for warfare. Heres where constitutional law comes in because yes on paper the second amendment was written for warfare, but its 2017 an  if you think youre going to be part of the insurgency against enemy invaders. If you want to argue that the second amendment covers modern war then youre also arguing for civilian ownership of anti-aircraft and anti-tank weaponry.chitoryu12 posted:What method do you have for banning and confiscating millions of firearms in a cost-effective manner to (in the absolute best case scenario) reduce homicide by 5%? The thing about this line, especially in the line after vegas, is that youre saying that "50 or 60 lives dont matter" The shooter not having semi-automatic weaponry would have guaranteed reduced casualties by a very large amount. Just like how him not having easy access to a belt fed weapon likely prevented this from being even worse. Your same line of reasoning that claims that regulation is already enough hinges on the fact that the existing regulation has not reduced gun deaths at all, and qed the right to own gun X also means I should be able to own machine gun Y. Yes evil people are going to evil, but putting up some barrier to entry would help, even if its only a few lives.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:He wanted to get rid of semi-automatic rifles, specifically. Didn't say a word about anything else, just putting semi-autos on the NFA. It would stop future tragedies like this and sandy hook. If there are no legal means to acquire them then you have much higher risk of getting caught before going nuts on some kids. You'll never stop crime, knives and guns will always play a part in violence, you can mitigate the possibility for someone to unload 500 rounds on a crowd. The only reason to not confiscate them all is all the people like us who want to keep them because they're ours and they're fun
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:
If you would like to understand the context in which the second amendment was proposed and written, please read David Vandercoy's paper: The History of the Second Amendmend (pdf link). I strongly recommend that everyone take a few minutes out of their day to read this, regardless of whether they are supportive of or critical of the second amendment. Knowledge is power, yo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Naked Bear posted:Real quick: that's not why the second amendment exists. It exists as a check on your own government, should that need ever arise. All other benefits of an armed populace are secondary to this purpose. Our own country's birth through violent revolution should be proof enough of this need; there are plenty of other examples of governments turning on their own (disarmed) people in the twentieth century alone. Additionally, if you believe that people with rifles are powerless against a military with armor and aircraft, you need only look at the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan; tell me again that people with rifles are combat ineffective against a modern military. Iraq and Afghanistan don't exist as stable states where armed insurgents have any chance of meaningfully ejecting American power. They might have the chance at killing their own opposition political leaders but they are ants under the boot. Serving as a defense against our own government is equally a lost cause and equally effective if armed with hunting rifles or machine guns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
Also there are absolutely such things as belt-fed uppers and more reliable high cap mags than the surefire pancakes the shooter used. Dude, not to poo poo on you but if you seriously wanted to confiscate any semiautomatic firearm, my only question is "how many people are you willing to have die in the process?" That's literally the moment all those Bundy Ranch types are waiting for. Putting semiautomatic weapons on the NFA wouldn't have stopped Vegas (and is also ignorant, just less so).
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:15
|
|
|
So the solution you put forward can be summarized as "live with mass shootings just like we live with natural disaster deaths" Banning semi autos also eliminates belt fed uppers. Banning bump fire and other gimmicks would be the tinyest start
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:So the solution you put forward can be summarized as "live with mass shootings just like we live with natural disaster deaths" If you want to live in a free and democratic society then sometimes crazy assholes are going to go through every bullshit hoop you put in front of them in order to carry out whatever batshit murder plan they have. Look at Anders Breivik. Dude spent years going through the process of legally getting weapons and then executed a plan no one knew about. You want to solve gun crime? Work on solving poverty, on destigmatizing mental illness, and talk to your goddamned neighbors every week. Banning poo poo is an ignorant, knee-jerk reaction with no actual thought put into the actual process. It's wishful thinking at its worst, because it's the sort of obvious stepping stone to full confiscation out there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:24
|
|
|
We can do all that in parallel. Fixing society is a difficult thing. But what does that have to do with people needing to own deadly weapons that are particularly good at killing people? Yes maybe we can finally knee jerk into banning them, but why was there a need for civilian ownership in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:We can do all that in parallel. Fixing society is a difficult thing. Because technology advances and the AR platform is the perfect jack-of-all-trades rifle. Also, the 2A doesn't limit itself to "some weapons" (which is how you find gun owners that feel the entire NFA is unconstitutional). Honestly dude I hate to say it but I'm glad people like you don't get to quickly affect national policy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
Bring back the old assault weapon ban and ban handguns too. Then hike up the penalties for ownership without registration.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 18:35
|
|