• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Protests over Missouri teen's death turn violent[W:647,807]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thorgasm said:
I seriously doubt the officer missed center mass the first 8 shots. The man was unarmed. Even if the officer's canned claim of "he went for my gun" the officer obviously had control of his firearm for the last 8 shots.
Click to expand...

No department has a shoot to wound policy. This isn't TV or the movies dead eye.
 
SMTA said:
You mean like 8 or 10 shots to stop a human?
Click to expand...
Are you not paying attention?
That is the approximate number of times the Officer fired.

Like I said; You are speaking nonsense.
 
Thorgasm said:
I seriously doubt the officer missed center mass the first 8 shots. The man was unarmed. Even if the officer's canned claim of "he went for my gun" the officer obviously had control of his firearm for the last 8 shots.
Click to expand...

And? He fired until the threat was mitigated.
So again. What is so hard to understand about that?
 
Thorgasm said:
I seriously doubt the officer missed center mass the first 8 shots. The man was unarmed. Even if the officer's canned claim of "he went for my gun" the officer obviously had control of his firearm for the last 8 shots.
Click to expand...

Actually not surprising from what poor police marksmanship has been reported these days.

Then couple that with lack of emotional control and poor supervision, and these shoots happen.
 
Excon said:
Are you not paying attention?
That is the approximate number of times the Officer fired.

Like I said; You are speaking nonsense.
Click to expand...

How odd that law enforcement survived all those years with 6 shot revolvers, when they barely had half the rounds necessary to mitigate threats!

I am shocked!
 
Ockham said:
Missouri police shooting of teen Michael Brown sparks protests, looting, vandalism - CBS News


The looting and violence is in response to the shooting of Michael Brown when, according to police, Brown and another man assaulted the police officer, there was a struggle and shots were fired, ultimately killing Brown. The two men in the alleged assault were not armed. However, a different account was provided by one Dorian Johnson, who says the struggle was initiated by the police officer, who assaulted Brown - Brown broke free and started to run when the police officer then shot Brown.

The point of this post is NOT justifying or dismissing the shooting which was the flashpoint of the violence (though I am resigned to the fact it will devolve into that at some point) but I'm more interested in why looting is the preferred method of showing distrust and dissatisfaction with police actions, when the owners of these stores which were broken into have absolutely NOTHING to do with the police shooting. Why is looting and destroying innocent people's livelihoods the preferred method of action in these circumstances? We see this time and time again - and I'm reminded of the 1992 So.Central LA riots.
Click to expand...

The looting and rioting are incidental to each other. Rioting is a blow against the civic order. Seeing that order crumble brings the animal in people to the surface. Most looters would at best offer vague explanations for the moral credibility of their actions in terms of what incited the riot.
 
clownboy said:
No department has a shoot to wound policy. This isn't TV or the movies dead eye.
Click to expand...

Shoot until no longer a threat. That doesn't mean until dead every time.

I know police officers that have managed with one or two shots. They must be super cops!
 
Excon said:
And? He fired until the threat was mitigated.
So again. What is so hard to understand about that?
Click to expand...

Ah, so you were sitting there in the cruiser?
 
SMTA said:
How odd that law enforcement survived all those years with 6 shot revolvers, when they barely had half the rounds necessary to mitigate threats!

I am shocked!
Click to expand...
Good for you?
Their experience with 6 rounds told them they needed more. Thanks for showing that.
 
Morality Games said:
The looting and rioting are incidental to each other. Rioting is a blow against the civic order. Seeing that order crumble brings the animal in people to the surface. Most looters would at best offer vague explanations for the moral credibility of their actions in terms of what incited the riot.
Click to expand...

Which doesn't make much sense since the violent and destructive actions they take have nothing to do with the source - the people they are hurting are just as innocent as the person who was hurt by the police (in this case). It's like saying my dog was run over by a car, so that justifies me breaking into your house and trashing it and stealing your stuff and getting away with it.
 
Excon said:
Good for you?
Their experience with 6 rounds told them they needed more. Thanks for showing that.
Click to expand...

And they were unable to mitigate any threats for all of those years.

Quite fascinating.
 
Morality Games said:
The looting and rioting are incidental to each other. Rioting is a blow against the civic order. Seeing that order crumble brings the animal in people to the surface. Most looters would at best offer vague explanations for the moral credibility of their actions in terms of what incited the riot.
Click to expand...
And still illegal.
 
SMTA said:
And they were unable to mitigate any threats for all of those years.

Quite fascinating.
Click to expand...
Fascinating that you think anybody said that?
 
Thorgasm said:
Shoot until no longer a threat. That doesn't mean until dead every time.

I know police officers that have managed with one or two shots. They must be super cops!
Click to expand...

That or they don't exist. Look, you fire your weapon at someone in these situations there are only two outcomes you can have in mind - they die or you do.
 
Excon said:
Didn't need to be to know what they are taught.
Click to expand...

So you know exactly what that cop was thinking at the time.

Impressive.
 
clownboy said:
That or they don't exist. Look, you fire your weapon at someone in these situations there are only two outcomes you can have in mind - they die or you do.
Click to expand...

Or you miss.
 
Morality Games said:
The looting and rioting are incidental to each other. Rioting is a blow against the civic order. Seeing that order crumble brings the animal in people to the surface. Most looters would at best offer vague explanations for the moral credibility of their actions in terms of what incited the riot.
Click to expand...

Rioting brings out the worst in cops also.
 
Excon said:
Even though they may sincerely desire such, I seriously doubt they think anybody is going to comply with their request, so it appears to be just another attempt to bring attention on the subject.
Click to expand...

So rather than assume parental naivety, you'd rather beat up the bereaved. OK.
 
SMTA said:
Or you miss.
Click to expand...

You don't fire your weapon thinking you're going to miss. I don't think you're getting the point. You do not fire unless you are in the place where you use deadly force. Once you pull that trigger it's to make the other fellow dead.
 
SMTA said:
So you know exactly what that cop was thinking at the time.

Impressive.
Click to expand...
How absurd of you to say.
I do not need to know the specifics at this time.
All that is needed is knowledge of how LEO are taught to respond to threats.
He didn't fire beyond the approximate number already stated.

So you are talking nonsense.
And apparently it seems in an attempt to save face from your previously being wrong in regards to your initial calculation comment.
You have just continued to evolve your nonsense from one post to another and have been absurdly wrong each time.
Figures.
 
Manc Skipper said:
So rather than assume parental naivety, you'd rather beat up the bereaved. OK.
Click to expand...
You are confused. I have not beat up the bereaved at all.
So stop with the silly claim.
 
Excon said:
How absurd of you to say.
I do not need to know the specifics at this time.
All that is needed is knowledge of how LEO are taught to respond to threats.
He didn't fire beyond the approximate number already stated.

So you are talking nonsense.
And apparently it seems in an attempt to save face from your previously being wrong in regards to your initial calculation comment.
You have just continued to evolve your nonsense from one post to another and have been absurdly wrong each time.
Figures.
Click to expand...

As nonsensical as, say, spouting that 8 to 10 rounds are required to mitigate threats?
 
SMTA said:
As nonsensical as, say, spouting that 8 to 10 rounds are required to mitigate threats?
Click to expand...
Wrong. Absurdly wrong.
Just more silliness from you, especially as that us not what I said.

I said the number of rounds can vary.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
Wrong. Absurdly wrong.
Just more silliness from you, sspecially as that us not what I said.

I said the number of rounds can vary.
Click to expand...

Really?

Excon said:
Irrelevant to the quotes.

How many? Clean straight shots, or just glances and no critical ones?


Regardless of any guilt or innocence in this case, around eight to ten I would say.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom