• 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!

Officer kills woman inside her Texas home after welfare call

Lursa said:
"Gun at window" not at cop :doh



Yep, you and he are definitely on the same page...and the fact that he's facing charges is pretty strong evidence that both of you are both wrong. And that he quit immediately. And was going to be fired.
Click to expand...

You're correct. He's alive and I would be, too, in that scenario. Yourself? Yeah, your chances of survival are going to be very, very slim.
 
apdst said:
You've never had any training, obviously, if you believe that. The cop saw a person pointing a gun at him. That's all the target identification he was obligated to do.

Please, get some training from a reputable instructor. This stuff you're dreaming up, is going to get you killed.
Click to expand...

Has he said that?

If, as you say he saw the gun pointed at him, then why didn't he yell FWPD, drop your weapon? Which again comes back to them not announcing their presence from point A.

Sometimes all the spinning in the world won't make a bad shoot turn good. Afaik the ex cop hasn't come to his own defense.
 
Kiwimac said:
You are an ass.
Click to expand...

Reality too hard for you people to handle? Obviously it is. It's a good thing you all live in your safe gated neighborhoods, protected by people with guns, who will risk their own lives to protect yours. The sad part: their lives don't amount to the **** on the heel of your shoe.
 
SkyFox76 said:
I didn't ask you what her nephew saw. You said the ex cop saw the gun pointed at him. His own command doesn't reflect that.
Click to expand...

The cop is excercising his right to remain silent.
 
apdst said:
You're correct. He's alive and I would be, too, in that scenario. Yourself? Yeah, your chances of survival are going to be very, very slim.
Click to expand...

Yes...he's a live, cowardly piece of **** and a failure at his job. And will likely do jail time...I'm glad that you identify so closely with him.
 
Lursa said:
Yes...he's a live, cowardly piece of **** and a failure at his job. And will likely do jail time...I'm glad that you identify so closely with him.
Click to expand...

And she's dead. Would you rather be tried by 12, or carried 6?
 
apdst said:
Reality too hard for you people to handle? Obviously it is. It's a good thing you all live in your safe gated neighborhoods, protected by people with guns, who will risk their own lives to protect yours. The sad part: their lives don't amount to the **** on the heel of your shoe.
Click to expand...

Don't live in a gated community and most police in NZ are not armed.
 
apdst said:
And she's dead. Would you rather be tried by 12, or carried 6?
Click to expand...

At the expense of killing an innocent person? Dead with dignity. And since he had a choice, (I would in this case)...then I'd deserve it. How on earth can it be better that the innocent person be dead than the person who ****ed up?

But at least you own it.
 
Lursa said:
At the expense of killing an innocent person? Dead with dignity. And since he had a choice, (I would in this case)...then I'd deserve it. How on earth can it be better that the innocent person be dead than the person who ****ed up?

But at least you own it.
Click to expand...

Said every person who's never been in a life threatening situation.
 
apdst said:
Said every person who's never been in a life threatening situation.
Click to expand...

If you mean me, you'd be wrong. And you're still the one identifying with the POS piece of garbage that *made a choice* to kill someone unnecessarily out of fear and incompetence...and feels that shoe fits him perfectly.

Like I said...glad you at least own it.
 
Last edited:
Lursa said:
If you mean me, you'd be wrong. And you're still the one identifying with the POS piece of garbage that *made a choice* to kill someone unnecessarily out of fear and incompetence...and feels that shoe fits him perfectly.

Like I said...glad you at least own it.
Click to expand...

Yeah...sure! :lamo
 
Lursa said:
If you mean me, you'd be wrong. And you're still the one identifying with the POS piece of garbage that *made a choice* to kill someone unnecessarily out of fear and incompetence...and feels that shoe fits him perfectly.

Like I said...glad you at least own it.
Click to expand...
apdst said:
Yeah...sure! :lamo
Click to expand...

:applaud :applaud
 
If you have read through this thread, and come to the conclusion that some people really believe their own Rambo fairy tales about the rules of engagement. I think you are entirely justified. From the perspective of someone who has never served, their perspective is insane. We have military people who dont think there was anything justified about this shoot. I don't think it's crazy for me to say 'something wrong with police creeping through backyards and killing citizens'.

Some people remain convinced that this woman really is responsible for her murder. Their pattern of dismissal has not changed one bit since Trayvon Martin. There isn't one murder they won't justify. There isn't one shooting they won't see how great the cop was for getting rid of the menace.

They've given the game up by now and been exposed for what they really are. Why keep going? Why make these herculean efforts to save cops from consequences of killing people without cause?

Sent from the Matrioshka in the WH Christmas tree.
 
apdst said:
He saw a person pointing a gun at him. He killed her with one shot. I'd say he identified his target. Identifying your target doesn't mean getting their name, their sign and their favorite color.
Click to expand...

Using your definition of "identifying your target", you are quite correct.

apdst said:
Also, there the rule: never point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.
Click to expand...

Well, there isn't any doubt that the former police officer followed that rule.

We don't know if the dead woman followed that rule and we can't ask her, can we?

apdst said:
Why was she pointing a gun at a cop?
Click to expand...

And exactly how do you propose to establish that she knew that the person prowling around in her backyard was a police officer? Have you asked her? Did the bodycam recording show that the person prowling around in her backyard actually identified themselves as a police officer?

apdst said:
Maybe she should have done that? Firearms safety id everyone's responsibility.
Click to expand...

I presume that you meant "should NOT have done that".

I can tell you without much fear of contradiction from any rational person that, had the woman fired a gun in the general direction of the police officer, the woman would be the object of massive return fire and would almost certainly have been killed in a "regrettable, but completely justified exchange of fire between police officers carrying out their duties and a person who fired upon police officers carrying out their duties".
 
apdst said:
When she raised and pointed her weapon, she should have pulled the trigger.
Click to expand...

Indeed, that would have resulted in the arrival of many more heavily armed police officer in short order and then they could have gunned the woman down with impunity because she had "shot at a police officer". Had she pulled the trigger and actually hit the police officer, her odds of survival would have been halved. Had she hit the police officer and wounded him seriously, her odds of survival would have been halved again. Had she hit the police officer and killed him, her odds of survival would have been negligible.

BUT, the police would have been "completely justified" in "returning fire" and so (unless he was killed) the police officer who shot the woman would have been exonerated and returned to duty as a police officer.

apdst said:
Firearms Safety 101: never point you gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.
Click to expand...

Firearms Safety 102: "Know that what you intend to destroy is what you think it is."
 
Lursa said:
WIthout identifying a threat? If she saw he was a cop...should she have shot him?

LOL You are now not making a single bit of sense.

And no, drawing does NOT mean you have to shoot. It means you see an imminent lethal threat. If that threat stops before you fire OR you identify the target as not a threat...then you dont shoot. It's pure idiocy to imagine there's a law or even a recommendation that you still shoot someone if they turn out not to be a threat :doh

OTOH, you dont know if she would have shot someone to defend herself and the boy...because an idiot cop killed her first.
Click to expand...

The odds that "apdst" would be hailing the woman as an upright defender of the sanctity of her own home if she had shot and killed the police officer closely approximate nil.
 
SkyFox76 said:
I didn't ask you what her nephew saw. You said the ex cop saw the gun pointed at him. His own command doesn't reflect that.
Click to expand...

I'd be tempted to take what an 8 year old child tells anyone in a "forensic investigation" when the child's rights are not being protected and when there is no independent record of exactly what was said, how it was said, and how "stressed out" the child was while being subjected to a "forensic investigation" with a slight grain of salt if I wasn't about to take a third hand report of what the child said with a large grain of salt.
 
apdst said:
You're lucky to be alive, then.
Click to expand...

Really?

I don't live in a gated community and most police in Canada are armed.

  1. In 2018 there were four people killed by police in Canada.
    *
  2. In 2018 there were 992 people shot and killed by police in the US.
    *
  3. The population of the US is approximately 8.83 times as large as the population of Canada.
    *
  4. If the number of people shot and killed by police in Canada (in 2018) is adjusted by multiplying by 8.83 (to "normalize" the populations) then the result is 35.32.
    *
  5. 35.32 is approximately 3.56% of 992.

I guess that I'm lucky to be alive too.
 
apdst said:
You've never had any training, obviously, if you believe that. The cop saw a person pointing a gun at him. That's all the target identification he was obligated to do.

Please, get some training from a reputable instructor. This stuff you're dreaming up, is going to get you killed.
Click to expand...

It is obvious from the outcome that the (now ex) police officer also had his gun pointed at the same window. Would you be just as sure that it was a good shoot had the (now ex) police officer been killed by the woman inside the house?

Why, exactly, would some 'trained professional' say "show me your hands" rather than "drop the gun, I'm a police officer"? That (now ex) police officer was doing nothing but defending his right to (be wrong and?) prowl around outside of a private home, unannounced, at 2:30 AM while shining a flashlight into the windows.
 
apdst said:
The cop is excercising his right to remain silent.
Click to expand...

Ex-cop.

That distinction is important here, because as an officer, he wouldn't have the option to remain silent. He walked away without even filing a report. That's a good indication that he realizes what a bad position he's in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom