• 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 "Go **** Yourself" Threatens to kill journalist

Ikari said:
It's anti-cop because pointing firearms at the press telling them to STFU is perfectly fantastic? An interesting take indeed.
Click to expand...

No YOUR take on the whole thing is anti-cop. Once again, no press involved, just a few jackoffs looking for a cool YouTube moment and a little fame. They even managed to get their own mugs in the video.

And where did I say it was "perfectly fantastic"? Definitely against policy and, though understandable, not a sound reaction given the nature of the moron mob surrounding him.
 
clownboy said:
Agreed. And as I previously said, he probably violated policy. But not illegal and your argument that you somehow magically know why he raised his rifle in the first place is done.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about why he raised his rifle in the first place. All of my comments referred to his keeping it raised while pointing it at the journalist

I know what happened there and just before. I know the journalist gave him no reason to keep his gun raised and pointed at him. I know that he threatened the journalists life for no good reason.

What happened just before that is as irrelevant as what he had for breakfast that morning.
 
Wiggen said:
so pointing a rifle at somebody and stating "I'm going to ****ing kill you" isn't evidence of intent? Would he actually have to pull the trigger before you would be satisfied as to intent?

It's a very interesting legal world you live in.
Click to expand...

Well, I imagine it's possible that the officer accidently threatened to kill the journalist. :shrug:
 
roguenuke said:
We have not done well with allowing private police forces to run the system. It simply does not work well, not having them alone enforcing laws of the country.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you assume there should be a "system." If the goal of a private police force is to protect private property, they have resounding success. If the goal of any police force is to prevent otherwise peaceful people from performing certain actions or consuming certain substances, then the result will always be violence and failure.
 
TNAR said:
The problem is that you assume there should be a "system." If the goal of a private police force is to protect private property, they have resounding success. If the goal of any police force is to prevent otherwise peaceful people from performing certain actions or consuming certain substances, then the result will always be violence and failure.
Click to expand...

That is not the goal of police forces.
 
sangha said:
I never said anything about why he raised his rifle in the first place. All of my comments referred to his keeping it raised while pointing it at the journalist

I know what happened there and just before. I know the journalist gave him no reason to keep his gun raised and pointed at him. I know that he threatened the journalists life for no good reason.

What happened just before that is as irrelevant as what he had for breakfast that morning.
Click to expand...

Except that was what I was posting about when you quoted my response in the first place. It's easily explainable:

Officer perceives a direct threat and raises his rifle.
The crowd calls out, hey he's got his weapon raised.
The morons with the camera rush over to film.
The officer sees a small bunch of idiots rushing towards him and swivels.

Now, AGAIN, I don't know that's what happened before the video. But then neither do you.

Not irrelevant at all and you only believe so because you won't ever admit you got it wrong. Those old goalposts just move or you claim you're talking about something else. It's a long standing pattern.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Screaming "STAY BACK OR I WILL F*CKING SHOOT YOU!!! DO YOU F*CKING UNDERSTAND?!?!" is basically what the military explicitly trains you to do in those kinds of situations. lol
Click to expand...

The cops are not the military and should not emulate or resemble the military.
 
Anomalism said:
The cops are not the military and should not emulate or resemble the military.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because when faced with military grade weapons and tactics they should just die, right?
 
sangha said:
Well, I imagine it's possible that the officer accidently threatened to kill the journalist. :shrug:
Click to expand...

He was explaining the consequences of attacking him. "I'll kill you" = "It will be legal for me to use lethal force".
 
ecofarm said:
He was explaining the consequences of attacking him. "I'll kill you" = "It will be legal for me to use lethal force".
Click to expand...

Lmao... Keep telling yourself that.

They suspended the officer indefinitely because of how professionally he was acting.

This guy was acting like a thug, other officers had to talk the guy down, or he would have killed journalists (yes journalists, like the cops had been generally doing for the better part of the week, all captured on video).

But, let's pretend you are right, this action was warranted, why was nobody placed under arrest?

A professional police officer should not be threatening people with death if they are not involved in some sort of crime. Of course, the message here is that journalism, and protest is against the law. By that same merit, the majority of the looters have been ignored while these militarized goons attack media on the sidelines.

It's ok, we are just one or two steps in escalation from just mowing people down, and people, like yourself, will apologize for this, until it's you getting gunned down in the street for some heinous crime, like walking your dog.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Lmao... Keep telling yourself that.

They suspended the officer indefinitely because of how professionally he was acting.
Click to expand...

I'm not claiming he is innocent. I'm claiming saying "I'll kill you" could be regarding the likely outcome of legal defense, in the event he is attacked.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm not claiming he is innocent. I'm claiming saying "I'll kill you" could be regarding the likely outcome of legal defense, in the event he is attacked.
Click to expand...

Really? What part of that video gives you any indication that this is the case?
 
BmanMcfly said:
Really? What part of that video gives you any indication that this is the case?
Click to expand...

He felt his security was compromised (it certainly was, he was alone and surrounded). The people were too close to prevent being rushed. He panicked. I don't believe he meant "I want to kill you", I believe he meant "I'll kill you because if you attack lethal force is legal and will probably result in your death". Obviously, the latter is too long so he just says the beginning.

He probably meant "I'll shoot if you get closer". The situation makes that likely. Much more likely than a psycho admitting to being a psycho. People usually say what he did as a matter of fear and not real homicidal urges.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
He felt his security was compromised (it certainly was, he was alone and surrounded). The people were too close to prevent being rushed. He panicked. I don't believe he meant "I want to kill you", I believe he meant "I'll kill you because if you attack lethal force is legal and will probably result in your death". Obviously, the latter is too long so he just says the beginning.

He probably meant "I'll shoot if you get closer". The situation makes that likely. Much more likely than a psycho admitting to such.
Click to expand...

1- he was walking through a crowd of people
2- nobody attacked him in any sense
3- if the guy is that scared of life, he should not be a cop
4- he is acting crazed enough that he had to be walked away with another cop (supervisor?)
5- the cop approached the media .
 
clownboy said:
Except that was what I was posting about when you quoted my response in the first place. It's easily explainable:

Officer perceives a direct threat and raises his rifle.
The crowd calls out, hey he's got his weapon raised.
The morons with the camera rush over to film.
The officer sees a small bunch of idiots rushing towards him and swivels.
Click to expand...

IOW, in the story you just told, the officer sees a threat, raises and points his gun at it, and then turns away from the threat.

He's an incompetent moron. If there was threat, he shouldn't turn away from it. If there was no threat, he should have lowered his weapon.
 
BmanMcfly said:
Really? What part of that video gives you any indication that this is the case?
Click to expand...

Exactly, nobody was threatening him. But you argue with someone who loves the projection of force.
 
clownboy said:
Except that was what I was posting about when you quoted my response in the first place. It's easily explainable:

Officer perceives a direct threat and raises his rifle.
The crowd calls out, hey he's got his weapon raised.
The morons with the camera rush over to film.
The officer sees a small bunch of idiots rushing towards him and swivels.
Click to expand...

PS - You're story is BS and directly contradicted by the video

There's no evidence that he had the gun raised before he saw the journalists, the crowd doesn't call out that he's got his gun raised, and the group filming did not rush over to him. He rushed over to them.

Furthermore, while approaching them, the officer swivels to his left and then back. If the officer thought they were a threat, he should not have turned away from them. If he didn't, he should have lowered his weapon

Also, immediately before the camera turned to face the officer, they were directly behind another police officer. After the camera turns to film him, a police care enters the frame. IOW, there were plenty of other cops around, and none of them show any signs of perceiving any threats.
 
clownboy said:
Cases then. And again no it's not unless it's provable to a reasonable man that there is real intent to harm behind that threat. Even in California.
Click to expand...

I'd say pointing a rifle at somebody while you say it would lead a reasonable man to conclude he'd just been threatened with death.
 
clownboy said:
Nope, not in this context or the way this happened. And yes, the real world I live in is very interesting, you should try it. It's quite different from the world you've only read about.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm willing to bet I've seen a hell of a lot more of the real world in my life than you have in yours. I get it. You love cops. You defend them even when their own department doesn't. That is real loyalty.
 
sangha said:
PS - You're story is BS and directly contradicted by the video

There's no evidence that he had the gun raised before he saw the journalists, the crowd doesn't call out that he's got his gun raised, and the group filming did not rush over to him. He rushed over to them.

Furthermore, while approaching them, the officer swivels to his left and then back. If the officer thought they were a threat, he should not have turned away from them. If he didn't, he should have lowered his weapon

Also, immediately before the camera turned to face the officer, they were directly behind another police officer. After the camera turns to film him, a police care enters the frame. IOW, there were plenty of other cops around, and none of them show any signs of perceiving any threats.
Click to expand...

In fact he had to be pulled away by another cop. So instead of rushing to the defense of this 'threatened' cop, his fellow cops hauled his ass out of their before he did something stupid. Apparently the threat wasn't readily visible to them. Could be because it didn't exist.
 
TNAR said:
The problem is that you assume there should be a "system." If the goal of a private police force is to protect private property, they have resounding success. If the goal of any police force is to prevent otherwise peaceful people from performing certain actions or consuming certain substances, then the result will always be violence and failure.
Click to expand...

Private police forces exist to make money protecting people or people's property who pay them. There is no higher goal of private "police" forces. The goal of police needs to be to protect citizens from other people and help them in the pursuit of justice. This should not be just those who can afford to pay someone who are able to get this. As I said, this was tried in our past, and it failed miserably.
 
Wiggen said:
So in your world threatening to kill somebody is not an illegal act? Really?
Click to expand...
Cops and military are supposed to give a verbal warning whenever possible. It's part of the escalation-of-force procedure, official doctrin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom