• 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!

Police: Off-duty St. Louis officer shoots, kills man who fired at him

humbolt said:
Wendys calls that the "Ruger". We've heard that stuff will kill ya, and now we know exactly how.
Click to expand...

'Taint the calories, but the caliber.

They also weigh one down during flight - the grease doesn't help traction, either.
 
Samhain said:
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"?
Click to expand...



Well society has regressed to the point where 18 is no longer a man but a "boy" (but race also plays a factor, an 18 year old black kid is a boy for example) - hell 100 years ago you were a "man" at 16 and 50 years before that you were a man at 14.

As far as the shooting - if someone was shooting at me I would shoot back, weather he was a cop or not, because once cops start firing at you they want you dead.
 
And this 'kid' was an aspiring astronaut like Treyvon..............
 
northwinds said:
And this 'kid' was an aspiring astronaut like Treyvon..............
Click to expand...

The simple fact these two got into an altercation shows how stupid they both are....

You can bet your ass there are plenty of cops out there that just cant wait to shoot and kill someone.... Most cops have an authority complex, in which they believe they're above the law and the law doesn't apply to them....
 
Top Cat said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't see that as a problem. The kid's gun jammed, but that doesn't mean that he can't quickly unjam it and start firing again. I side totally with the cop here. This is nothing like the Brown shooting, and shame on those who have the damned gall to protest this one.
 
SMTA said:
The 'he was turning his life around, and was a good boy' speech will surely be coming shortly.
Click to expand...

"He was a good boy" and "He didn't do anything wrong" are standard comments from family members of Black criminals.
 
reinoe said:
Is there any evidence that the man fired a shot at the officer other than what the police say?
Click to expand...

The forensic boys can swipe the kid for gunshot residue.
 
Ahlevah said:
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? :confused: I mean, do you take a timeout to check his pulse or what?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ockham said:
How many real life shootings were you involved in?
Click to expand...

Ive been shot twice. never shot at anyone. Not sure how that is relevant.

There is zero chance of charges, as long as there really was a shot from the other guy. It's how cops are trained.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Kreton said:
Ive been shot twice. never shot at anyone. Not sure how that is relevant.
Click to expand...
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.

Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.

 
Ockham said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
j-mac said:
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.

Click to expand...


The race hustlers are hoping for more dead black people.
 
Kreton said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's why a first, or second shot kill is best.
 
Kreton said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Kreton said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ockham said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Kreton said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why? What difference does it make how many rounds were fired? The perp is no more dead than if the cop fired one round..
 
tres borrachos said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Baralis said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's no political value in that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom