• 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!

Dad calls cops on son...cops shoot son

Can you blame them, there are more gun owners out there and more nutballs out there then there ever have been. Of course this is going to increase the number of officers shooting people. When people think they can just say or do anything around a police officer because the constitution says they can, you going to have some conflicts. Officers, like people, run on emotion. If they feel threatened, or are taunted enough, they will act out. You don't poke a tiger with a stick, so why poke an officer with a gun. Does not seem very smart to me no matter what a piece of paper tells you your legally entitled to. Fight the officer in court, not on the street. If he is wrong, then it will be easy to prove it in a court of law. Which is what the constitution was designed to encourage. You have rights, sure.. But there is a time and place to fight that fight, and its not on the street with the officer, right or wrong.
What gun owner had anything to do with this situation?
 
LiveLeak.com - POLICE DASH CAM FATAL SHOOTING Now tell us how the sweet young man should have been treated.

Thanks for the link.

Shooting was unnecessary and complete over kill (no pun intended). No officer's life was in danger. They got out of their cars and they STILL were not in immediate danger. They just started blasting away.

Hey, I am all for cops killing bad guys. I am pro-DP. This incident though, is utter bull****. The cop should be put in jail but at the very least fired from his job.
 
They knew. You we're there?? Do tell. DO TELL. :doh

In an police event you don't know who is armed. Ever. If I had a nickel for every time the police arrested someone and I was told a patient was unarmed and then to my shock found a patient was armed at the hospital...I'd have some dough. So your assumption falls right flat on it's face.

However YOUR opinion, however laughable it is, assuming you are an adult, is noted. :2wave:

Just MAYBE, MAYBE you should chill and look at the big picture instead of running your mouth lol


The assertion you make is the one that is unacceptable - that the police assume everyone is armed and therefore must be shot. That is what you are arguing comes down to.

"Why did you shoot that person, officer?"

The officer: "Because I thought he might have a gun!"

"Did he say he had a gun? Anyone say he had a gun? Did he point a gun at you? Did you see a gun? Did he reach in a way you thought he was going for a gun? Did he say he was going to shoot you or threaten you with a gun?"

The officer: "No, none of those things. But you never know when someone might have a gun and is going to use it on you. I wasn't going to take any chances that he had a gun and was going to shoot me with it."

Under your logic, the police could shoot anyone, everyone, at any time, under your anyone "might have a gun justifies shooting someone" theory.
 
Sounds easy, you should try it sometime.

That is their job. If they can't or won't do it they should not be cops.

I was a fire fighter for three years. Putting out a fire sounds easy, you should try it sometime. Those that can't do their job aren't fire fighters. Same thing. You put yourself in dangerous situations knowingly...
 
That is their job. If they can't or won't do it they should not be cops.

I was a fire fighter for three years. Putting out a fire sounds easy, you should try it sometime. Those that can't do their job aren't fire fighters. Same thing. You put yourself in dangerous situations knowingly...

Under some member's logic, no fire fighter should EVER take the slightest risks. All they should ever do is tape off the area and watch it all burn down. If anyone is trapped inside that's too bad, fire fighters shouldn't take any risks. Besides, one of those people might have a gun, might be delirous or a criminal. Or anything else could happen. Like all those risk taking firefighters on 911. What the hell were they thinking? Don't they know their only job is to keep themselves safe? So by all means stay away from fires - other than maybe pump kerosene on it to make it burn faster so they can leave faster back to the safety of the firehouse.

That seems to be the attitude by some about the police. When in any doubt, shoot to kill.
 
Can you blame them, there are more gun owners out there and more nutballs out there then there ever have been. Of course this is going to increase the number of officers shooting people. When people think they can just say or do anything around a police officer because the constitution says they can, you going to have some conflicts. Officers, like people, run on emotion. If they feel threatened, or are taunted enough, they will act out. You don't poke a tiger with a stick, so why poke an officer with a gun. Does not seem very smart to me no matter what a piece of paper tells you your legally entitled to. Fight the officer in court, not on the street. If he is wrong, then it will be easy to prove it in a court of law. Which is what the constitution was designed to encourage. You have rights, sure.. But there is a time and place to fight that fight, and its not on the street with the officer, right or wrong.

OF course you blame them. When they shoot an innocent person they broke the law. They are trained. We are seeing more innocent people being shot due to no knock warrants than ever... cases like this kid getting shot too. BAd cops ruin it for the good ones but to justify the idiocy and criminal behaviour of some is ridiculous.
 
Under some member's logic, no fire fighter should EVER take the slightest risks. All they should ever do is tape off the area and watch it all burn down. If anyone is trapped inside that's too bad, fire fighters shouldn't take any risks. Besides, one of those people might have a gun, might be delirous or a criminal. Or anything else could happen. Like all those risk taking firefighters on 911. What the hell were they thinking? Don't they know their only job is to keep themselves safe? So by all means stay away from fires - other than maybe pump kerosene on it to make it burn faster so they can leave faster back to the safety of the firehouse.

That seems to be the attitude by some about the police. When in any doubt, shoot to kill.

Cops here are unarmed... they seem to be able to deal with gangs and difficult situations most of the time. Very VERY rarely is the Armed Offenders Squad (SWAT) called in.

...and how many times was I almost hit by a car while securing a scene? More than a few. I should have shot them for Assault on a Fire Fighter.
 
Can you blame them, there are more gun owners out there and more nutballs out there then there ever have been. Of course this is going to increase the number of officers shooting people. When people think they can just say or do anything around a police officer because the constitution says they can, you going to have some conflicts. Officers, like people, run on emotion. If they feel threatened, or are taunted enough, they will act out. You don't poke a tiger with a stick, so why poke an officer with a gun. Does not seem very smart to me no matter what a piece of paper tells you your legally entitled to. Fight the officer in court, not on the street. If he is wrong, then it will be easy to prove it in a court of law. Which is what the constitution was designed to encourage. You have rights, sure.. But there is a time and place to fight that fight, and its not on the street with the officer, right or wrong.

Oh swell, blame gun owners for the unarmed kid getting gunned down by a police officer. :roll:

Police officers aren't suppose to be tiger's that kill in response to being poked with a stick. The complaint is that too many are.
 
What gun owner had anything to do with this situation?

Gun owners have everything to do with this situation. Due to the easy access of firearms, the prevailence of them is high. Which means, as an officer, you have to presume that everyone you encounter is armed. To do otherwise, is simply ignorant.
 
Under some member's logic, no fire fighter should EVER take the slightest risks. All they should ever do is tape off the area and watch it all burn down. If anyone is trapped inside that's too bad, fire fighters shouldn't take any risks. Besides, one of those people might have a gun, might be delirous or a criminal. Or anything else could happen. Like all those risk taking firefighters on 911. What the hell were they thinking? Don't they know their only job is to keep themselves safe? So by all means stay away from fires - other than maybe pump kerosene on it to make it burn faster so they can leave faster back to the safety of the firehouse.

That seems to be the attitude by some about the police. When in any doubt, shoot to kill.
And cops should just let out of control scumbags drive around with a 4500lb weapon at their disposal.
 
Thanks for the link.

Shooting was unnecessary and complete over kill (no pun intended). No officer's life was in danger. They got out of their cars and they STILL were not in immediate danger. They just started blasting away.

Hey, I am all for cops killing bad guys. I am pro-DP. This incident though, is utter bull****. The cop should be put in jail but at the very least fired from his job.
It was not only the officers safety that is in danger here. This individuals driving was dangerous enough to kill a member of the public. Now I could see there being a case made that they should have stopped the chase in hopes the irradict driving would cease once the teen was not being followed by police. Then again, an argument could be made that if police stopped persuing people when things got dangerous, people would feel inclided to flee more often then give up in hopes they would get away. There is value in deterrence.
 
OF course you blame them. When they shoot an innocent person they broke the law. They are trained. We are seeing more innocent people being shot due to no knock warrants than ever... cases like this kid getting shot too. BAd cops ruin it for the good ones but to justify the idiocy and criminal behaviour of some is ridiculous.
People would not be getting shot if they just complied with an officers orders, legal or not. And then taking their fight to the courthouse rather than on the street with the officer.
 
It was not only the officers safety that is in danger here. This individuals driving was dangerous enough to kill a member of the public. Now I could see there being a case made that they should have stopped the chase in hopes the irradict driving would cease once the teen was not being followed by police. Then again, an argument could be made that if police stopped persuing people when things got dangerous, people would feel inclided to flee more often then give up in hopes they would get away. There is value in deterrence.

When he blew through that light they should have backed off and re-acquired. But they didn't and that is fine too... the officers "safety" is not the reason to produce deadly force. The officer's life being in jeopardy is. Their lives were NOT in jeopardy. Cops jump into fights to break them up line up in front of rioters throwing things at them and don't just start blasting away. False argument.

People would not be getting shot if they just complied with an officers orders, legal or not. And then taking their fight to the courthouse rather than on the street with the officer.

Of course people are getting shot. No knock warrants are one example. Read up on them if you are not knowledgeable.

Gun owners have everything to do with this situation. Due to the easy access of firearms, the prevailence of them is high. Which means, as an officer, you have to presume that everyone you encounter is armed. To do otherwise, is simply ignorant.

Most people do not own guns. Most gun owners own multiple guns. To assume that everybody is armed is ridiculous. To go in thinking that a gun encounter might occur is retarded beyond comprehension.
 
When he blew through that light they should have backed off and re-acquired. But they didn't and that is fine too... the officers "safety" is not the reason to produce deadly force. The officer's life being in jeopardy is. Their lives were NOT in jeopardy. Cops jump into fights to break them up line up in front of rioters throwing things at them and don't just start blasting away. False argument.

Your cops do it differently I know, and for a number of good reasons that don't work here. One you have CCTV and road license and reg checks everywhere so you can always pick the perp up later. We don't go for that crap. Two, your roadways (not the large arteries but the small roadways) are make for hobbit town and barely fit two way traffic as it is. Three, different culture - your folks use knives and bats where ours use guns. Your cops are also hamstrung by a system that almost always lets the perp walk even when they have presented a significant public danger.

I don't think you're in any position to evaluate what the danger is here.

Of course people are getting shot. No knock warrants are one example. Read up on them if you are not knowledgeable.

I've seen your drug raids and they have even less of a standard to enter and toss. Once they have said warrant they do not have to knock and announce, at least I've never seen them do so.

Most people do not own guns. Most gun owners own multiple guns. To assume that everybody is armed is ridiculous. To go in thinking that a gun encounter might occur is retarded beyond comprehension.

This kid as we call him has a previous record with the police, a record we are not party to here and may indeed include gun charges. You are correct that not everyone owns a gun here, but most everyone may. Officers need to treat each stop as if they do. That's not retarded, that's basic common sense in our culture. In yours I can understand where it isn't.
 
Your cops do it differently I know, and for a number of good reasons that don't work here. One you have CCTV and road license and reg checks everywhere so you can always pick the perp up later. We don't go for that crap. Two, your roadways (not the large arteries but the small roadways) are make for hobbit town and barely fit two way traffic as it is. Three, different culture - your folks use knives and bats where ours use guns. Your cops are also hamstrung by a system that almost always lets the perp walk even when they have presented a significant public danger.

I don't think you're in any position to evaluate what the danger is here.

First. I am an American. I was born in Corvallis, lived in Portland and lived in Southern California for 30 years. I taught in a drug and gang infested school in the East Bay north of Oakland. I know what I am talking about and judging.

I've seen your drug raids and they have even less of a standard to enter and toss. Once they have said warrant they do not have to knock and announce, at least I've never seen them do so.

They don't do many no knock drug raids here. And how do you know where I am anyway?

This kid as we call him has a previous record with the police, a record we are not party to here and may indeed include gun charges. You are correct that not everyone owns a gun here, but most everyone may. Officers need to treat each stop as if they do. That's not retarded, that's basic common sense in our culture. In yours I can understand where it isn't.

They need to be aware that they may be armed... that is not the argument. The argument is do you start shooting at a person that has not produced a gun. You keep changing the standard of the argument.
 
Gun owners have everything to do with this situation. Due to the easy access of firearms, the prevailence of them is high. Which means, as an officer, you have to presume that everyone you encounter is armed. To do otherwise, is simply ignorant.

That should be the default assumption in every free and civilized society.

And cops should just let out of control scumbags drive around with a 4500lb weapon at their disposal.

Scumbag, seriously? This was an idiot with self-control problems. Nothing in any of the articles published contains anything to suggest that he was more than a troubled youth.
 
When he blew through that light they should have backed off and re-acquired. But they didn't and that is fine too... the officers "safety" is not the reason to produce deadly force. The officer's life being in jeopardy is. Their lives were NOT in jeopardy. Cops jump into fights to break them up line up in front of rioters throwing things at them and don't just start blasting away. False argument.

Your talking about making a judgement call. For everyone, that is going to be different. There is no way to place a clear line in the sand as to when a person should feel their life is in danger or not. If you want to give rights to individuals to protect themselves you have to give them the leway to determine themselves when they feel their lives are in danger. Cops are people as well, and as people, they have families that rely on them. They have every right to determine, just as individual citizens do, when to act in defense of their life.

Of course people are getting shot. No knock warrants are one example. Read up on them if you are not knowledgeable.

People are being shot by.... arrows... slingshots....ummmm... lasers... no GUNS!!! And officers are going to be more edgy when they are dealing with people who may or may not be more heavily armed then they are.

Most people do not own guns. Most gun owners own multiple guns. To assume that everybody is armed is ridiculous. To go in thinking that a gun encounter might occur is retarded beyond comprehension.

You have never seen the officer training videos where officers became complacent, and as a result, got themselves killed because they were not on guard. This also proves the point that even if you have a firearm, it does not guaruntee your safety or that you will even survive a conflict with someone else who owns a weapon. In a lot of cases these officers were armed, and still were killed. One could make an argument that the fact the officers were armed in the first place elevated the situation which was the reason the criminal felt the only way out was to kill the officer or be killed themselves. This same comparrison can be made when dealing with armed robbers. Many of whom shoot their victims out of fear that their victims may pull a gun on them.
 
Your talking about making a judgement call. For everyone, that is going to be different. There is no way to place a clear line in the sand as to when a person should feel their life is in danger or not. If you want to give rights to individuals to protect themselves you have to give them the leway to determine themselves when they feel their lives are in danger. Cops are people as well, and as people, they have families that rely on them. They have every right to determine, just as individual citizens do, when to act in defense of their life.

Dude, get serious. We are talking a out trained professionals... not some untrained guy or mom worried about their kid standing behind them...

People are being shot by.... arrows... slingshots....ummmm... lasers... no GUNS!!! And officers are going to be more edgy when they are dealing with people who may or may not be more heavily armed then they are.

What in the **** are you talking about? Educate yourself.

According to Balko, there's been a huge increase in the use of SWAT teams from 3,000 a year in 1981 to 40,000 a year by 2000. That means on average more than 100 times a day in the U.S., a SWAT team is breaking into a home or business. It's difficult to say how many of these raids go wrong, but there are some prominent cases.

In 2003, based on a tip from an informant, police broke down the door to Alberta Sproul's(ph) apartment in Harlem. The 57-year-old woman had a heart attack and died after the SWAT team entered using flash grenades.

In 1999 in Denver, police entered the home of Ismael Mena using a no-knock warrant. They were looking for drugs. They shot and killed Mena, but found no drugs.


Police Re-Examining Policy of 'No-Knock' Searches : NPR

The rush to clear police in shootings - chicagotribune.com

There is tons of evidence... look it up yourself.

You have never seen the officer training videos where officers became complacent, and as a result, got themselves killed because they were not on guard. This also proves the point that even if you have a firearm, it does not guaruntee your safety or that you will even survive a conflict with someone else who owns a weapon. In a lot of cases these officers were armed, and still were killed. One could make an argument that the fact the officers were armed in the first place elevated the situation which was the reason the criminal felt the only way out was to kill the officer or be killed themselves. This same comparrison can be made when dealing with armed robbers. Many of whom shoot their victims out of fear that their victims may pull a gun on them.

Watch the video. The cop was never in life ending danger. He jumped out of his car and instantly opened fire. Cases like this happen ALL THE TIME. Ignore it if you like but you are making one piss poor argument.
 
Dude, get serious. We are talking a out trained professionals... not some untrained guy or mom worried about their kid standing behind them...

Anyone who is anyone will tell you that training does not accurately portray a real life scenario. All training will do is provide you with the skills to operate a gun in the most efficient manner. Training will not trump human instinct. Everyone has a different threshold of tollerance when it comes to when that instinct kicks in. We are not robots programmed with precise emotion / training reflexes. How one person assesses a situation may differ a great deal from another person. So it is virtually impossible to predict when someone is to feel or not feel that their life is in danger. Saying that, and in the face of the vast proliferation of firearms out there, the unpredictibility alone is a precursor to a potential violent confrontation. One that officers MUST be ready to deal with. Other than just an outright shooting of someone dead, which this was not, I think officers deserve a large area of leway when determining what constitutes a threat. And what people need to get thru their heads is that when confronted by an ARMED officer, you should comply with all instructions and take your fight to the courthouse where it belongs and not on the street with the officer.

What in the **** are you talking about? Educate yourself.

According to Balko, there's been a huge increase in the use of SWAT teams from 3,000 a year in 1981 to 40,000 a year by 2000. That means on average more than 100 times a day in the U.S., a SWAT team is breaking into a home or business. It's difficult to say how many of these raids go wrong, but there are some prominent cases.

In 2003, based on a tip from an informant, police broke down the door to Alberta Sproul's(ph) apartment in Harlem. The 57-year-old woman had a heart attack and died after the SWAT team entered using flash grenades.

In 1999 in Denver, police entered the home of Ismael Mena using a no-knock warrant. They were looking for drugs. They shot and killed Mena, but found no drugs.


Police Re-Examining Policy of 'No-Knock' Searches : NPR

The rush to clear police in shootings - chicagotribune.com

There is tons of evidence... look it up yourself.



Watch the video. The cop was never in life ending danger. He jumped out of his car and instantly opened fire. Cases like this happen ALL THE TIME. Ignore it if you like but you are making one piss poor argument.

Of course swat teams have been utilized more now than ever, because there are more armed people than ever. I'm not talking about legal owners, I am talking about the combined number of legal and illegal gun owners. That, and the increase in the number of people who feel they need to confront authority with non-compliance or even force. So of course there will be an increase in force by police when there is an increase in force by civilians.
 
Anyone who is anyone will tell you that training does not accurately portray a real life scenario.

As a trained fire fighter I bet I know far more about training and real life scenarios than you ever will. Anyone who is anyone... :roll:

All training will do is provide you with the skills to operate a gun in the most efficient manner. Training will not trump human instinct. Everyone has a different threshold of tollerance when it comes to when that instinct kicks in. We are not robots programmed with precise emotion / training reflexes. How one person assesses a situation may differ a great deal from another person. So it is virtually impossible to predict when someone is to feel or not feel that their life is in danger. Saying that, and in the face of the vast proliferation of firearms out there, the unpredictibility alone is a precursor to a potential violent confrontation. One that officers MUST be ready to deal with.

Training provides a base. Those that train stretch their tolerance and learn to expect, anticipate and deal with the unpredictable. Training takes individuals that assess a situation differently and helps/makes them asses situations in a more similar manner so as to provide stability and uniformity.

Other than just an outright shooting of someone dead, which this was not, I think officers deserve a large area of leway when determining what constitutes a threat. And what people need to get thru their heads is that when confronted by an ARMED officer, you should comply with all instructions and take your fight to the courthouse where it belongs and not on the street with the officer.

Cops are not always right. Taking a fight to the courthouse is a better thing to do than to fight but cops win that almost every time. If you are charged you are rarely going to get that over turned, if not ever.

Of course swat teams have been utilized more now than ever, because there are more armed people than ever. I'm not talking about legal owners, I am talking about the combined number of legal and illegal gun owners. That, and the increase in the number of people who feel they need to confront authority with non-compliance or even force. So of course there will be an increase in force by police when there is an increase in force by civilians.

You have not educated yourself and you apparently have no idea what a no knock warrant is or how and why that has led to the deaths of innocent children, elderly in addition to people thinking that they are facing a home invasion robbery... and all innocent people where the police went to the wrong house as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom