• 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!

Legal means to kill

To those it applies to...

Kids throw rocks at cars.. person dies... MURDER!

Cops pointing gun at innocent unarmed man complying with conflicting orders while cops screaming we will kill you... eh... nothing wrong... the stupid innocent unarmed guy didn't listen well enough... cops did nothing wrong.


:lol:
 
OldFatGuy said:
No, I go to the range three times a week and I am retired. Part of the problem with police officers is that they don't practice enough, because many become complacent and don't expect to slap leather. When I worked, I was at the range 5 mornings each week. The idea is that the more proficient you are as a shooter, the less likely you are to miss the target and shoot someone else you had no intention to shoot. During my career I drew down once on a suspect. He had already killed my partner and put one round in my leg. I took him with 2 .44 rounds, one in his neck, the second in his head from 18' away. That was my back up weapon, a Charter Bulldog. It had the firepower my .38 couldn't muster.

I've always carried revolvers until recently. Semi automatic hand guns make shooters lazy when it comes to proficiency. A wall of lead is the substitute. That's why we hear about officers firing a fusillade of rounds. An officer should be capable of taking a target with one or two rounds. Unfortunately, criminals started an arms race by using semi-automatic and unlawful automatic weapons. When weapons like Mac 10's and Tec-9's started showing up in the hands of drug dealers and street hoods, the .38 was no longer viable.

You have just learned why second guessing a police officer is easily a mistake.

BTW, even with a dead partner and a round in leg, I went through a vigorous departmental review process.
Click to expand...

I have to say.. this post smells fishy to me.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmmm... :think:

No.

The actions of a small fraction of police officers is not reflective of the vast majority who do their jobs as best they are able.

We ignore the vast majority who do their jobs, because we see the sensationalized actions of a few and project their faults onto the whole. :twocents:
Click to expand...

Would be interested to know your opinion of the officers who do not engage directly in "bad" behavior, but stand by and watch / don't report / etc., the behavior of their fellow officers. Is it their duty to uphold the law, even if it is other police breaking it? Is it unsafe for them to do so, and if so, what does that imply?
 
OldFatGuy said:
No, I go to the range three times a week and I am retired. Part of the problem with police officers is that they don't practice enough, because many become complacent and don't expect to slap leather. When I worked, I was at the range 5 mornings each week. The idea is that the more proficient you are as a shooter, the less likely you are to miss the target and shoot someone else you had no intention to shoot. During my career I drew down once on a suspect. He had already killed my partner and put one round in my leg. I took him with 2 .44 rounds, one in his neck, the second in his head from 18' away. That was my back up weapon, a Charter Bulldog. It had the firepower my .38 couldn't muster.

I've always carried revolvers until recently. Semi automatic hand guns make shooters lazy when it comes to proficiency. A wall of lead is the substitute. That's why we hear about officers firing a fusillade of rounds. An officer should be capable of taking a target with one or two rounds. Unfortunately, criminals started an arms race by using semi-automatic and unlawful automatic weapons. When weapons like Mac 10's and Tec-9's started showing up in the hands of drug dealers and street hoods, the .38 was no longer viable.

You have just learned why second guessing a police officer is easily a mistake.

BTW, even with a dead partner and a round in leg, I went through a vigorous departmental review process.
Click to expand...

Head shots after being shot... NICE.

But I thought you could put a knife in a guys neck before he could even draw a weapon?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Head shots after being shot... NICE.

But I thought you could put a knife in a guys neck before he could even draw a weapon?
Click to expand...

I could have easily enough but for the typical civilian police officer 18 feet away is a pretty tall order. I certainly don't blame him for using the .44.

Reminds me of the time when I found myself knee deep in the **** back in Saigon in about '68. Company got ambushed and after about a 20 minute firefight, me and my platoon sergeant were pinned down and running low on ammo. I took out about 25 VC using a make-shift slingshot that I made from the elastic band from my underwear.
 
Jack Fabulous said:
I could have easily enough but for the typical civilian police officer 18 feet away is a pretty tall order. I certainly don't blame him for using the .44.

Reminds me of the time when I found myself knee deep in the **** back in Saigon in about '68. Company got ambushed and after about a 20 minute firefight, me and my platoon sergeant were pinned down and running low on ammo. I took out about 25 VC using a make-shift slingshot that I made from the elastic band from my underwear.
Click to expand...

They musta been terrified... you chasing them around naked with a sling shot.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I said SOME join as a legal means to kill... do you agree or not?
Click to expand...

May I ask how you know that? Are you relating your own personal experience?

You might be right, but you might be wrong.
 
Thoreau72 said:
May I ask how you know that? Are you relating your own personal experience?

You might be right, but you might be wrong.
Click to expand...

Common sense and movies...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Common sense and movies...
Click to expand...

Well thank you for an honest reply. Yes, movies inform so much if one is into fantasy.

I don't see how common sense suggests that some individuals become cops so that they can kill others. My grandfather was a cop, and several of my friends are cops, and I don't know a single one who chose that profession in order to kill others.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Well thank you for an honest reply. Yes, movies inform so much if one is into fantasy.

I don't see how common sense suggests that some individuals become cops so that they can kill others. My grandfather was a cop, and several of my friends are cops, and I don't know a single one who chose that profession in order to kill others.
Click to expand...

Movies was a joke... ;)
 
Bodhisattva said:
Movies was a joke... ;)
Click to expand...

Does this mean you are abandoning your position that some people become cops so that they can legally kill people, or was that a joke too?

When in the Army, I knew people who joined to kill others, so I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Does this mean you are abandoning your position that some people become cops so that they can legally kill people, or was that a joke too?

When in the Army, I knew people who joined to kill others, so I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely.
Click to expand...

No joke on that. I never said it was a lot but certainly there have to be a few.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Well thank you for an honest reply. Yes, movies inform so much if one is into fantasy.

I don't see how common sense suggests that some individuals become cops so that they can kill others. My grandfather was a cop, and several of my friends are cops, and I don't know a single one who chose that profession in order to kill others.
Click to expand...

Its justa truism. Like if you wanna find all the druggies in your town go to the local court house or a rehab center. Or if you wanted to spy on peoples computers youd work at geeksquad. Or if you were some sicko pedo that wanted to get closer to kids youd become a youth counselor or a volley ball coach. Molesters become priests because people trust them and they can get away with more.
 
Bodhisattva said:
No joke on that. I never said it was a lot but certainly there have to be a few.
Click to expand...

So you're just betting on the odds of it? You have no evidence of it, just a certain probability that exists in your mind?
 
Thoreau72 said:
So you're just betting on the odds of it? You have no evidence of it, just a certain probability that exists in your mind?
Click to expand...

And video of cops shooting unarmed people under police control...

...so there is that.
 
Bodhisattva said:
And video of cops shooting unarmed people under police control...

...so there is that.
Click to expand...

Yes there absolutely is that, no question.

But to go from such actions as that, and quickly reach a conclusion that certain individuals became police officers so that they could do that is not a logical conclusion, it is a huge leap of faith, likely in error.

What we see on those videos is a very large part of what Philip Zimbardo discovered in the Stanford Prison Experiment of the 70's, and comparatively consistent with Stanley Milgram's experiments which I think were years before that. Under certain conditions humans behave badly.

That humans behave badly does not mean that it was a conscious decision to join the police for SO THAT he could behave badly. I don't think you can establish a cause and effect relationship here.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes there absolutely is that, no question.

But to go from such actions as that, and quickly reach a conclusion that certain individuals became police officers so that they could do that is not a logical conclusion, it is a huge leap of faith, likely in error.

What we see on those videos is a very large part of what Philip Zimbardo discovered in the Stanford Prison Experiment of the 70's, and comparatively consistent with Stanley Milgram's experiments which I think were years before that. Under certain conditions humans behave badly.

That humans behave badly does not mean that it was a conscious decision to join the police for SO THAT he could behave badly. I don't think you can establish a cause and effect relationship here.
Click to expand...

So kindergarten teachers dont do so because they love little kids... that is something those really nice moms learn later under certain conditions?
 
Bodhisattva said:
So kindergarten teachers dont do so because they love little kids... that is something those really nice moms learn later under certain conditions?
Click to expand...

You're comparing kindergarten teachers to prison guards and cops? And this is rational dialogue? Sorry Bod, I'll pass
 
Thoreau72 said:
You're comparing kindergarten teachers to prison guards and cops? And this is rational dialogue? Sorry Bod, I'll pass
Click to expand...

No. I am comparing YOUR INCLUSION of whether or not a person goes into something for a pre-determined behaviour trait or if they learn that behaviour due to the environment of their job.

You brought it up dude...
 
Bodhisattva said:
No. I am comparing YOUR INCLUSION of whether or not a person goes into something for a pre-determined behaviour trait or if they learn that behaviour due to the environment of their job.

You brought it up dude...
Click to expand...

I forgot to mention that if you really want to find out what I'm talking about in this area of human behavior, you should read Zimbardo's book "The Lucifer Effect" documenting SPE and more, and the work of Milgram, I think entitled "Obedience to Authority". I shan't hold my breath waiting for that. Do the condensed version at Wikipedia or something.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I forgot to mention that if you really want to find out what I'm talking about in this area of human behavior, you should read Zimbardo's book "The Lucifer Effect" documenting SPE and more, and the work of Milgram, I think entitled "Obedience to Authority". I shan't hold my breath waiting for that. Do the condensed version at Wikipedia or something.
Click to expand...

So you are bailing just when it got interesting...
 
Thoreau72 said:
Does this mean you are abandoning your position that some people become cops so that they can legally kill people, or was that a joke too?

When in the Army, I knew people who joined to kill others, so I'm not saying it's impossible, just highly unlikely.
Click to expand...



They would probably be very disappointed if they did join for that reason.

Very few cops actually ever kill anyone. Fewer still more than one. Most will retire having never even shot someone, let alone shot-and-killed.


It is something every cop thinks about. Some with dread, some with ambivalence, and perhaps some with anticipation. The usual fantasy is arriving in the nick of time to stop a heinous crime by shooting a murderous perp... not simply killing someone just to be killing someone.

There is a certain sort of "bragging rights" about having "killed your man"... but only if it was necessary and in the line of duty. Things like the New Mex incident tend to end your career even if you don't go to prison, and would not be viewed with respect but as an example of how to frack up by the numbers.


I'm not going to say there are no borderline sociopaths behind the badge, because there are.... I've known some. There are adrenaline junkies too, who aren't necessarily looking to kill but who are looking for some "action". I knew a Deputy US Marshal who liked to be the first man in the door on a felony fugitive warrant arrest, for the "rush".


Everybody that decides to wear the badge for a career is a different sort of character from Joe Wage-earner in some sense. Some are motivated by a strong sense of duty to society and a desire to help; others are motivated by more personal reasons. Most have more than one reason; humans are complicated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom