|
Godholio posted:Are you arguing in favor of cops shooting people or guys pulling guns from waistbands shooting people? this was not the choice presented to the officer who started this convo
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Godholio posted:Are you arguing in favor of cops shooting people or guys pulling guns from waistbands shooting people? its not a binary choice
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
https://harpers.org/blog/2017/12/weekly-review-41/
Eugene V. Dubstep fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Dec 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
If the cops can't kill innocent people THEY MIGHT GET HURT! That kind of attitude is why people hate cops. The bad ones want authority without sacrifice and the good ones cover for them. gently caress cops
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 21:24
|
|
|
45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:its not a binary choice It is in Cole's post that I was questioning. Who is shooting what innocent people?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 01:32
|
|
Godholio posted:It is in Cole's post that I was questioning. Who is shooting what innocent people? lol i guess i could ask if you're arguing that it's okay for cops to shoot an innocent person every now and then if it means they overall die less, because that's pretty much the idea that my post was making fun of. and i'm pretty sure you know that. boop the snoot fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Dogges posted:pretty sure everyone has seen this by now I have, in fact, not seen this before and now I wish you would explain it to my wife because the looks she's giving me are pretty terrible. It was the flexing pecs scene that caught her attention when I started laughing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Pec attack is good, but horse slide is better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imM6omziU_I
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
Seems weird to me that people in the military forum are outraged that armed agents of the state charged with making life or death decisions may get it wrong sometimes and kill the wrong people on the basis of imperfect knowledge, without any malice or having committed a crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 07:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Seems weird to me that people in the military forum are outraged that armed agents of the state charged with making life or death decisions may get it wrong sometimes and kill the wrong people on the basis of imperfect knowledge, without any malice or having committed a crime. we do that over there so they don't have to do that over here IDIOT
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Seems weird to me that people in the military forum are outraged that armed agents of the state charged with making life or death decisions may get it wrong sometimes and kill the wrong people on the basis of imperfect knowledge, without any malice or having committed a crime. It's because it's not us, you see. Or you know, we've just gained additional wisdom. But my nickel is still on the fact that it's not us, so we can be critical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Seems weird to me that people in the military forum are outraged that armed agents of the state charged with making life or death decisions may get it wrong sometimes and kill the wrong people on the basis of imperfect knowledge, without any malice or having committed a crime. There's a difference between a mistake and what happened to shaver, castile, or any other number of people senselessly murdered for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Seems weird to me that people in the military forum are outraged that armed agents of the state charged with making life or death decisions may get it wrong sometimes and kill the wrong people on the basis of imperfect knowledge, without any malice or having committed a crime. oh my god are you loving retarded
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
i want to become a cop just so i can legally kill some of the people in this thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:35
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Seems weird to me that people in the military forum are outraged that armed agents of the state charged with making life or death decisions may get it wrong sometimes and kill the wrong people on the basis of imperfect knowledge, without any malice or having committed a crime. i don't think it's okay to kill the wrong people on a deployment either hth
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:39
|
|
|
Issuing traffic tickets and rounding up drunks in your hometown is similar to patrolling a foreign war zone, you see,
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
at the date posted:Issuing traffic tickets and rounding up drunks in your hometown is similar to patrolling a foreign war zone, you see, I had an 11B turned police officer tell me that his infantry experience in "peace enforcement" was good training for being a police officer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
it really isnt a mystery as to why we're so lovely at COIN when we can't even get our own police forces to not be roving death squads
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 16:51
|
|
SimonCat posted:I had an 11B turned police officer tell me that his infantry experience in "peace enforcement" was good training for being a police officer. i was an 11b and i was pretty fuckin crazy with bloodlust when i was in afghanistan and started looking up how much being a police officer pays in various cities around the US. take that for what you will.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
Pretty sure I had stricter ROE in Iraq than most cops do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:06
|
|
McNally posted:Pretty sure I had stricter ROE in Iraq than most cops do. There's a big mismatch between the civil ROE of most police departments and the criminal statues. Some departments will fire officers who are found not guilty in shootings although it is very rare. I think Milwaukee has done it. The NYPD was moving to fire the officer who shot Ramarley Gharam when the officer resigned.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 20:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Seems weird to me that people in the military forum are outraged that armed agents of the state charged with making life or death decisions may get it wrong sometimes and kill the wrong people on the basis of imperfect knowledge, without any malice or having committed a crime. Right? Smiling Jack posted:There's a big mismatch between the civil ROE of most police departments and the criminal statues. Some departments will fire officers who are found not guilty in shootings although it is very rare. I think Milwaukee has done it. The NYPD was moving to fire the officer who shot Ramarley Gharam when the officer resigned. Milwaukee cop was fired for putting himself in a position where justifiable use of lethal force was his only option. I guess MPD has a strict "no solo v. crazy hobo" policy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 07:00
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:There's a difference between a mistake and what happened to shaver, castile, or any other number of people senselessly murdered for no reason. McNally posted:Pretty sure I had stricter ROE in Iraq than most cops do.  And I'm pretty sure cops aren't allowed to shoot anyone they see wearing gang colors as uniformed members of a hostile force, or break into suspects' homes at 3 AM and kidnap them. It doesn't really matter though, because warfighting and civilian law enforcement are an apples to oranges comparison. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 08:28 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 07:07
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:People on the last page were arguing that police needed to wait until they could see and somehow empirically verify the presence of a gun rather than the current "reasonable belief" standard, because too many unarmed people were getting killed. That's a rather different complaint than the idea that the police are maliciously killing people and being inadequately prosecuted. I wasn't kicking in doors or calling in airstrikes while in Iraq, but you seem confused so I'll rephrase myself. The rules regarding the use of force which I personally was required to follow while in Iraq were probably stricter than the rules regarding the use of force that most police officers in the United States are required to follow.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 07:20
|
|
|
The supreme Court ruling states that an officer is allowed to use dealt physical force when they have probably cause to believe deadly physical force is shoot to her used against them or another person. Tennessee vs Garner and Graham v. Connor Smiling Jack fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 07:38
|
|
|
McNally posted:I wasn't kicking in doors or calling in airstrikes while in Iraq, but you seem confused so I'll rephrase myself. What- How WHAT?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 07:40
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:And I'm pretty sure cops aren't allowed to shoot anyone they see wearing gang colors as uniformed members of a hostile force, or break into suspects' homes at 3 AM and kidnap them. Shooting people in the back who are running away because they might do something out of a John Woo movie and shoot you with a taser is probably just as lovely as targeting someone because of the colors they are wearing. Also there are no uniformed hostile forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, unless you want to count the military and police that US forces are training.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 13:16
|
|
|
Turning and shooting is neither magical nor rare for fleeing (armed) suspects. The officer that shot Scott got 20 years, so I'm not sure why this is even being argued about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 16:16
|
|
|
Shooting people makes me feel funny in my pants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 18:17
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:And I'm pretty sure cops aren't allowed to shoot anyone they see wearing gang colors as uniformed members of a hostile force, or break into suspects' homes at 3 AM and kidnap them. That last one they're absolutely allowed to do, so long as they they get a rubber stamp from a judge. https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police-practices/war-comes-home
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Turning and shooting is neither magical nor rare for fleeing (armed) suspects.  Yeah, great point, better pre-emptively return fire just to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:
Duh?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:What- How was I not kicking in doors or how were my rules stricter? I wasn't kicking in doors because my unit was assigned convoy security. How were my rules stricter? Basically I was told that I was only allowed to open fire if I had a gun pointed at me, preferably after they pulled the trigger (just in case it's a misunderstanding).
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
tfw you find out it isn't extremely normal at all to murder people you might feel vaguely threatened by 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
McNally posted:I was told that I was only allowed to open fire if I had a gun pointed at me, preferably after they pulled the trigger (just in case it's a misunderstanding). .. in a turret? I'm still baffled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:.. in a turret? I'm still baffled. Oh, the turret made it even better. They told us that our .50 caliber machine gun was not to be our primary weapon. In the event that we need to return fire, we needed to engage with our M4s and we were to shoulder our M4s and return with deliberate, aimed fire. Which, we discovered, was impossible. The turret shield was too high to be able to shoulder the rifle and engage a target outside the vehicle. Following those rules would have required me to remove my harness, climb out of the turret, grab the M4 out of its little holder in the turret, stand on top of the vehicle and return fire, exposed to the world and probably trying to surf an MRAP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 00:02
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:
Are you dissatisfied with the legal standard?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 03:00
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:.. in a turret? I'm still baffled. this was literally SOP. warning shots in a direction where nobody could possibly get hit weren't even allowed. if a car was speeding at you in a convoy, you just had to let that motherfucker speed at you and hope pointing your barrel at him worked (it did 99% of the time). pulling the trigger was a no-go unless you were over 100% sure they were trying to kill you, which meant pointing a weapon at you, or you see the bombs in the trunk of their VBIED. look up felipe pereira. he got the DSC after his platoon got blown the gently caress up by a motorcycle IED because they couldn't do poo poo about it even though they were on the radio saying the guy on the bike was suspicious. i wasn't even a quarter of a mile away from that poo poo when it happened, and the explosion was so massive that there's no loving way you wouldn't know that dude was packing explosives. but guess what, you couldn't actually see any explosives because they were covered, so you're just hoping it's not going to explode. SOPs in Afghanistan are way, WAY more strict than they are against cops pulling the trigger on other Americans and if you're cool with that, then gently caress you, you're a piece of poo poo. you can't even shoot a dude in the back if he has a loving AK, but some people in here think it's okay to do so if they have a taser? gently caress off. boop the snoot fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Dec 14, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Are you dissatisfied with the legal standard? I think it'd be pretty creepy if I wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
boop the snoot posted:this was literally SOP. warning shots in a direction where nobody could possibly get hit weren't even allowed. if a car was speeding at you in a convoy, you just had to let that motherfucker speed at you and hope pointing your barrel at him worked (it did 99% of the time). pulling the trigger was a no-go unless you were over 100% sure they were trying to kill you, which meant pointing a weapon at you, or you see the bombs in the trunk of their VBIED. My favorite part of the escalation of force rules was that they had us throwing chemlights BEFORE we were allowed to shoot flares. Because I can totally throw a chemlight farther than I can shoot a loving flare, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2017 03:59
|
|