- Joined
- Sep 22, 2012
- Messages
- 42,420
- Reaction score
- 12,593
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Wendys calls that the "Ruger". We've heard that stuff will kill ya, and now we know exactly how.
Off-duty officer shoots, kills man in St. Louis - CNN.com
What's the over/under on riots?
Also, why did CNN & AP decide that this time an 18 year old was a "man"?
And this 'kid' was an aspiring astronaut like Treyvon..............
Cops are not trained to shoot to disable. They shoot to kill after being shot at. If this kid(I consider him a kid whether or not he was 18. All 18 year olds are kids to me) shot first, he gets what he got.
Now if the cop saw he was disabled and then shot him again, that is a problem.
The 'he was turning his life around, and was a good boy' speech will surely be coming shortly.
Is there any evidence that the man fired a shot at the officer other than what the police say?
In real life is it not true that if someone fires at you once your life is threatened and that your instinctual reaction would be to empty your magazine? I mean, do you take a timeout to check his pulse or what?
How many real life shootings were you involved in?
There is zero chance of charges, as long as there really was a shot from the other guy. It's how cops are trained.
You can argue with me all you want on here and try to justify whatever you'd like. But the law is the law.
It's relevant because having experience in a fire fight provides a state of mind as well as actions that may explain or not explain so many shots being fired. It's not difficult to understand that being in a shooting would cause a rush of adrenaline and as such, the cop may not have even realized he fired that many shots, is my point.Ive been shot twice. never shot at anyone. Not sure how that is relevant.
They are trained but they are not used to it. For example, I was trained in basic training how to shoot targets, that does not mean that I was used to shooting live moving targets on a battle field. That is the difference between training and experience. Assuming once a person is trained that they will act the same in a real situation is a bad assumption.It is not. Cops are trained to stop the threat, not shoot until you are out of bullets. Where do you guys come up with this stuff?
It's relevant because having experience in a fire fight provides a state of mind as well as actions that may explain or not explain so many shots being fired. It's not difficult to understand that being in a shooting would cause a rush of adrenaline and as such, the cop may not have even realized he fired that many shots, is my point.
.
They are trained but they are not used to it. For example, I was trained in basic training how to shoot targets, that does not mean that I was used to shooting live moving targets on a battle field. That is the difference between training and experience. Assuming once a person is trained that they will act the same in a real situation is a bad assumption.
Are you a lawyer?
In the first 28 seconds of this video you can see the protesters assaulting police, kicking their vehicles, and taunting them begging for confrontation...This is absurd. The man fired on the officer, and got what he was looking for...
Many won't be happy until there are dead cops.
You can argue with me all you want on here and try to justify whatever you'd like. But the law is the law. If someone shoots at you, you can shoot back. If you continue shooting them after they stop being a threat you will go to prison. Self defense is not a free pass to excessive force.
And if you go back and read my posts my point is this may not be "internet rambo's" it may just be how one reacts given adrenaline and the fight/flight response.If you go back to my posts regarding this I said it should be questioned why 17 shots were returned for a one shot fired. But I clearly stated I don't know the details of this exact incident. Then all the internet rambos started in with the if someone shot at me i'd do this and that and what the **** ever.
He may or may not be justified and I can agree with most of what you stated. I think it's just as much bull**** to criticize the 17 shot as it is to justify the shots. My view is it may be justified given the circumstances and it may not. He may not have even known he fired 17 shots. And yes it's still a bad assumption.It is not a bad assumption to expect cops to know how to react during a shooting and act according to the law. Every time a cop fires his weapon it needs to be investigated. If someone shoots at a cop, threatens a cop or whatever the case is the cop has a reasonable expectation to protect his life and the lives of those around him. It isn't about revenge, it isn't about being macho or anything of those things. It is simply a question of protecting innocent lives (cops included). I dont know the gun he had, how fast the shots were fired, or what the kid was doing when he was shot or a ton of other information that would be needed to know if 17 shots were justified or not. But this blanket argument that so many people seem to have that anything a cop does is justified is bull**** and flat out wrong. A kid is dead. A cop shot him. And discharged 17 bullets. That needs to be justified and explained.
And if you go back and read my posts my point is this may not be "internet rambo's" it may just be how one reacts given adrenaline and the fight/flight response.
He may or may not be justified and I can agree with most of what you stated. I think it's just as much bull**** to criticize the 17 shot as it is to justify the shots. My view is it may be justified given the circumstances and it may not. He may not have even known he fired 17 shots. And yes it's still a bad assumption.
are you a fish?
I haven't criticised the shots. I don't know what happened. All I said was shooting 17 times should be looked in to and questioned.
Interesting and yes, you're right. Michael Brown was a teen. Trayvon Martin was a teen. This teen was a man. I'm glad they at least caught up with that.
"Loud protests in the area"? What are they protesting here? The teen/man opened fire. What exactly were they supposed to do?
Imagine how different things could be if those loud protests were protesting the criminal activities within their communities committed by these young black men instead of trying to portray such criminals as the victims.