• 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 shoot man who disarmed gunman.

spud_meister said:
Ok, so exercising a legal right warrants the death penalty, if a government agent is scared, regardless of the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...

WHAT legal right???

You are SO wrong in your assessment of this situation.

By your talk you just encourage more people getting shot.

OBEY the officer........the disobedience, in this case, caused the problem.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?
 
Casper said:
Because it often leads to the death of an officer when the person holding a gun is not complying and they give them more time than it should take to simply comply. Stop with the murder "stuff" it only makes people think you are not interested in truth or justice.
Click to expand...

So why do police have this special right to safety that isn't granted to other citizens? Why does my right to go home hinge on how scared a police officer is at a given time?
 
spud_meister said:
Ok, so exercising a legal right warrants the death penalty, if a government agent is scared, regardless of the reality of the situation.
Click to expand...
You go ahead and run with that nonsense next time you confront a LEO, nope, you will do exactly what they tell you too and whine about it later to all your friends, meh.
Run along Skippy, you had your say, for what it was worth.
 
spud_meister said:
So why do police have this special right to safety that isn't granted to other citizens? Why does my right to go home hinge on how scared a police officer is at a given time?
Click to expand...

You've had this explained several times.

You just don't get it or don't want to get it.

Have a nice day.
 
Utility Man said:
garces1


Tony Garces shows one of his wounds after being shot twice by Amarillo police. KVII Screenshot from video
​

.....After Garces wrestled the gun away from 35-year-old Joshua Len Jones, and helped prevent what could have been another mass shooting on the same day as the school shooting at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., at least one Amarillo police officer shot Garces. He was hit twice, in the chest and neck......

....“I said: ‘Hey, hey, I got the gun. I took the gun away from him,’” Garces told KVII. “[The police] said throw it down. I wasn’t going to throw it down because it could have fired. It had bullets in it, you know. I didn’t want anyone else getting hurt. ... Then pop, pop, they shot me. ... I went down, then a puddle of blood. ... I thought I was a goner.”.....
joshualenjones


Joshua Len Jones Randall County Jail

Read more here: Amarillo Texas cops shoot man who took gun away from hostage-taker | Fort Worth Star-Telegram

Interesting story, hadn't seen it posted, thought I would share.

Any thought or comments ?


​
Click to expand...

I think what would happen if the police came on a hectic scene with 10 or 20 armed individuals like teachers. Could be ugly.
 
Vox said:
WHAT legal right???

You are SO wrong in your assessment of this situation.

By your talk you just encourage more people getting shot.

OBEY the officer........the disobedience, in this case, caused the problem.

Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Click to expand...

The right to bear arms. You said armed individuals deserve to be shot for non-compliance. It's not hard to comprehend, it's just stupidity. Police should not be allowed to kill innocent people for non-compliance, and the attitude that permits that is one that belongs in North Korea.
 
spud_meister said:
The right to bear arms. You said armed individuals deserve to be shot for non-compliance. It's not hard to comprehend, it's just stupidity. Police should not be allowed to kill innocent people for non-compliance, and the attitude that permits that is one that belongs in North Korea.
Click to expand...

How do they know if a man holding a gun is innocent?
 
spud_meister said:
The right to bear arms. You said armed individuals deserve to be shot for non-compliance. It's not hard to comprehend, it's just stupidity. Police should not be allowed to kill innocent people for non-compliance, and the attitude that permits that is one that belongs in North Korea.
Click to expand...

You are one of those that would get killed in this situation.......because you have a need to think you know something.

You don't.

Good luck.
 
Vox said:
What is WRONG with you?

The "innocent" man was not innocent. He failed to obey the officer who was trying to protect and serve.

OBEY and you will come out ok.

Why is this so hard to understand?

The man was guilty of failing to obey and thus he was shot.

This is not rocket science.
Click to expand...

Refusing to obey a police officer is not a crime in Texas. And the punishment is not death. What is wrong with you that you think police can kill based on how they're feeling at the time?
 
Casper said:
You go ahead and run with that nonsense next time you confront a LEO, nope, you will do exactly what they tell you too and whine about it later to all your friends, meh.
Run along Skippy, you had your say, for what it was worth.
Click to expand...

I'm Australian. Our police don't shoot innocent people because they're frightened.
 
Rucker61 said:
How do they know if a man holding a gun is innocent?
Click to expand...

That's my point, they have no idea. And instead of assessing the situation, they kill people and hope they're getting the right one. That's not ok.
 
Vox said:
You are one of those that would get killed in this situation.......because you have a need to think you know something.

You don't.

Good luck.
Click to expand...

Why is the onus on me to stay calm when confronted with an armed person, and not on the "highly trained" cop?
 
spud_meister said:
I'm Australian. Our police don't shoot innocent people because they're frightened.
Click to expand...

Well they disarmed you sheep, now didn't they. Our criminals, for all their faults, are not sheep and do not comply with laws or orders by LEO's, they often try and kill them instead, we live in different worlds, or do you not grasp that Fact.
 
Casper said:
Well they disarmed you sheep, now didn't they. Our criminals, for all their faults, are not sheep and do not comply with laws or orders by LEO's, they often try and kill them instead, we live in different worlds, or do you not grasp that Fact.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I live in a world where state enforcers are accountable to the people, and the people don't have to live in fear of being shot by them. Your world, on the other hand, allows the state to murder innocent people.
 
spud_meister said:
Yeah, I live in a world where state enforcers are accountable to the people, and the people don't have to live in fear of being shot by them. Your world, on the other hand, allows the state to murder innocent people.
Click to expand...
Actually no it does not, more than one ex-officer is sitting in Prison because your statement is Not truth.
 
spud_meister said:
Refusing to obey a police officer is not a crime in Texas. And the punishment is not death. What is wrong with you that you think police can kill based on how they're feeling at the time?
Click to expand...

Police don't kill based on "how they're feeling."

Police kill based on training and the actions of the person in question.

By refusing to throw down the gun the perp became a threat. That's a fact.

No feelings involved.

Training and actions.

Now......unless you're just trolling.....you've had more than enough instruction. Think about it and maybe you'll understand.

I've been very patient and I'm done.
 
spud_meister said:
So that justifies killing innocents? Can we say police state?
Click to expand...

Is that all you got out of that? So in that video who was the innocent victim? Good grief, no one is justifying the killing of innocents, stop with the BS and start thinking, or not, I am done with your circular argument since nothing will change your obvious hate of law enforcement doing their job, strange since it isn't even your country, go figure.
 
Vox said:
Police don't kill based on "how they're feeling."

Police kill based on training and the actions of the person in question.

By refusing to throw down the gun the perp became a threat. That's a fact.

No feelings involved.

Training and actions.

Now......unless you're just trolling.....you've had more than enough instruction. Think about it and maybe you'll understand.

I've been very patient and I'm done.
Click to expand...

He's not a "perp", a "perp" has perpetrated a crime. And the police felt threatened, the man was not a threat. The police failed to assess the situation, and attempted to kill a man because of their stupidity.
 
Casper said:
Is that all you got out of that? So in that video who was the innocent victim? Good grief, no one is justifying the killing of innocents, stop with the BS and start thinking, or not, I am done with your circular argument since nothing will change your obvious hate of law enforcement doing their job, strange since it isn't even your country, go figure.
Click to expand...

I don't hate law enforcement, I hate the attitude that law enforcement should get away with murder. People are literally saying that non-compliance by innocent people means they deserve to be killed, that is justifying the killing of innocents. Non-compliance is not a crime, holding a weapon is not a crime, and people can do either for any number of lawful reasons, and should not face death because of that.
 
spud_meister said:
I don't hate law enforcement, I hate the attitude that law enforcement should get away with murder. People are literally saying that non-compliance by innocent people means they deserve to be killed, that is justifying the killing of innocents. Non-compliance is not a crime, holding a weapon is not a crime, and people can do either for any number of lawful reasons, and should not face death because of that.
Click to expand...

Do yourself a favor, never pursue a career in law enforcement.
 
spud_meister said:
He's not a "perp", a "perp" has perpetrated a crime. And the police felt threatened, the man was not a threat. The police failed to assess the situation, and attempted to kill a man because of their stupidity.
Click to expand...

Hello??? He was holding a gun and did not drop it when being told to. Know what cops call that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom