NationStates Jolt Archive

So, out of curiosity, is your position that because it all happened on live TV and we have continuity of ID on the person who shot the cop and dog, that that makes arrest and trial moot? That we just go straight to execution?

Absolutely! See my next post below this one.

So you're fine with the police performing executions on suspects?

Yes, if they murder a cop. What don't you understand? The idiot raised a gun at the SWAT team, that alone is a death wish.

If the idiot would of been unarmed and raised his hands, then he would have been arrested, tried, convicted, and then put on death row.

If there's a bright side to this story, it would be that the SWAT team saved the tax payers a bundle of money.

Moral of the story: Don't raise a gun to cops, it's a death wish if you do. The police have every right to defend themselves with deadly force. The suspect has already murdered 2 cops, one of which was a K-9 which is considered to be the same as killing a regular cop.

I'm amazed at how some of you are actually sympathizing for the cop killer.

*agress with King B*

A first time for everything eh:)

the man was suspected of the crime and yet they still shot him to pieces. whatever happened to innocent til proven guilty? i'm so glad i don't live in the us.

This "suspect" was shooting at police. He wasnt just some innocent in the wrong place at the wrong time who happened to have a gun & ammo.
At the very least, he was guilty of aiming weapon at police.

A weapon, it turns out, belongs to a deputy he already shot.

One less scumbag to grandstand in court.

Nine officers fired at him at the same time. He probably looked like an anatomy lesson after the bursts of fire.

Considering how violent he himself had been (shooting a police officer eight times and killing him), it's going to be easy to justify this here in the US. I was wondering if police would have a more difficult time justifying something like this in other countries.

I, for one, am OK with this in this instance. Your opinions?

Anatomy lesson? He probably looked like a Jackson Pollock painting (http://www.albrightknox.org/ArtStart/art/K1956_7.jpg).

If he was only suspected I'm not sure how I feel about a swat team (which I believe is supposed to be an urban assault team) shooting a guy in the woods. Was he fighting, just hiding, running? The article is silent on this point. It says its source is the AP, but a search for Angilo Freeland on the AP website turned up no results.

Now, I'm no coroner, but if the police fire 110 rounds at a man who is brought into the morgue, I don't think an autopsy is needed to reveal the cause of death.

Lead poisoning?

Boy, talk about a lack of detail in a story...
A better local news story is here http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060930/NEWS26/609300403

Yes. That's much better coverage. Just goes to show that FOX is not simply biased, it's also simply a really bad news organization. Of course they're mainly for propaganda. Their news content is a bit like playboy having movie reviews and interviews with politicians.

And in that situation I agree the cops had every right to shoot. They may have been over armed, but if 9 cops shoot you, it doesn't matter much what they shoot you with.

I'm amazed at how some of you are actually sympathizing for the cop killer.

I'm surprised at the amount of excuses and congratulations being made for the grudge killing by the police.

I don't exactly like it...

I mean, I understand seaking out revenge but at the same time that is a bit extreme for the Police.

See, the only thing that keeps it 'legal' for Police most of the time is because it is in their jurisdiction to do so.

But lets say everyone knows for sure this guy was the killer of my daughter, and the Police weren't moving on him or just got lazy. I would probably kill the guy my self, but I'd be an automatic bad guy and not a hero. For the Police, it's like this. Officer X gets shot and killed by Badguy Y, Officer A, B, and C go after Y. A, B, and C all shoot Y up even after getting all the paper work in saying he is the prime suspect. A, B, and C are awarded medals and thanked by the Governor of their state for making everyon'e lives much safer.

It's just...stupid. Seriously, Cops should not be allowed to kill someone like this *multiple rounds when they know 1 or 2 will do* just because they have high reason to believe *and perhaps proof* that this guy killed a cop. Instead of bringing him to justice, they just kill him. I'm sure they could have had a negotiation. But no, then again I'm speaking of a lot of scenarios. I understand force being used if he is going to ram you with a truck, or if he had a gun pointed to the head of an innocent. Or if he just shot up a courhouse, and was shooting at police.

But to indiscriminantly kill like this is total bullshit, because 4/5 times the Police are made heroes for doign so. And 4/5 times, Civilians who do this are considered 'In need of Psychiatric Evaluation' and 'Life Sentances'.

I'm surprised at the amount of excuses and congratulations being made for the grudge killing by the police.

What excuses? I have only spoken of the facts. If you point a gun at a cop expect to be shot.

Turns out to be the gun of the murdered cop. So, yes, a congrats is in order for the SWAT team and medals should be awarded for outstanding service to the community and the entire state of Florida.

any time a suspect dies as a result of fighting with/fleeing police it could be called a "grudge killing", depending on what side of the law you dwell on subconsciously.

What excuses? I have only spoken of the facts. If you point a gun at a cop expect to be shot.

Turns out to be the gun of the murdered cop. So, yes, a congrats is in order for the SWAT team and medals should be awarded for outstanding service to the community and the entire state of Florida.

More like an investigation as to the necessity for excesive force.

any time a suspect dies as a result of fighting with/fleeing police it could be called a "grudge killing", depending on what side of the law you dwell on subconsciously.

Hell I aint sad he is dead but with 68 hits and 110 shots fired, I would probably look into this grudge killing thign a bit more

More like an investigation as to the necessity for excesive force.

Well, look at the bright side......1. He obviously didn't suffer and 2. Tax payers saved a lot of dollars since he wasn't arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to Death Row where he would of sat for 20-30 yrs before ultimately being executed. Only costed us the Swat's time and a hundred rounds. Go Police!!! :D

May God be with the fallen officer, also with his wife and children. RIP

Well, look at the bright side......1. He obviously didn't suffer and 2. Tax payers saved a lot of dollars since he wasn't arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to Death Row where he would of sat for 20-30 yrs before ultimately being executed. Only costed us the Swat's time and a hundred rounds. Go Police!!! :D

May God be with the fallen officer, also with his wife and children. RIP

Hurray for the police state where the SS, I mean police, are judge, jury, and executioner and all people are equally guilty under the law.

Hell I aint sad he is dead but with 68 hits and 110 shots fired, I would probably look into this grudge killing thign a bit more

Certainly not with the guns they were using. Each cop probably depressed the trigger for little more than a second and a half.

Certainly not with the guns they were using. Each cop probably depressed the trigger for little more than a second and a half.

They should all have been better trained as SWAT members.

They should all have been better trained as SWAT members.

They were all using the M16 Assault Rifle, which has a rate of fire in excess of 650 rounds a minute, with newer versions ranging in at 750 RPM and 800 RPM, or well over ten rounds a second. Nine cops depressing the trigger for one second or less, apiece, would account for the amount of bullets that were fired. That nine of them fired at once is little surpirse, given that they saw a gun go up, and their instincts kicked in.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm

....
See, the only thing that keeps it 'legal' for Police most of the time is because it is in their jurisdiction to do so.
................
But to indiscriminantly kill like this is total bullshit, because 4/5 times the Police are made heroes for doign so. And 4/5 times, Civilians who do this are considered 'In need of Psychiatric Evaluation' and 'Life Sentances'.

Again here, we go back to the issue of self defense. It is legal for police to use deadly force to protect themselves and others. While in their jurisdiction, they are permitted by law to use deadly force. And guess what? So are you! In the case of the public, if you are in your home (your "jurisdiction" if you will), and threatened by an individual, you are allowed to use deadly force to protect yourself and your family from the threat of harm. A 17 year old boy in our town a few weeks ago stabbed an intruder that was in the process of breaking into his home. Result? Intruder dead, boy not charged. Specific laws vary by state, and I believe it's up to the District Attorney to decide whether to consider the incident justified or not. In that sense, you are correct that the general public is at a much higher risk for facing consequences if they kill a person "in self defense"...

On another note, to call a swat team killing an armed suspect who had already killed one cop and wounded another and then pointed (the dead cops) weapon at the swat team "indiscriminate" is just silly. "Indiscriminate killing" is what the guy did yesterday at the Amish school.... but that's a whole different subject.

Hell I aint sad he is dead but with 68 hits and 110 shots fired, I would probably look into this grudge killing thign a bit more

maybe they were all thinking of the horror of this guy escaping again and killing an innocent civilain with a police weapon.

we're all better off this scumbag is dead, wether it was 1 shot or 100 that did the job.
Even the whiners.

maybe they were all thinking of the horror of this guy escaping again and killing an innocent civilain with a police weapon.

we're all better off this scumbag is dead, wether it was 1 shot or 100 that did the job.
Even the whiners.

People must believe that if a suspect points a gun at you that you should try to shoot the gun out of his hand or some shit like that. :rolleyes:

They should all have been better trained as SWAT members.

Why? No, seriously, I'm not trying to be funny. To me, this result is about right; suspect aims a gun at a cop, and every other cop with a clear line of fire opens up on him. Because they happen to be SWAT, they're armed with burst-fire capable rifles, and the guy gets very effectively perforated.

I'm trying to understand your problem with this. This guy was responsible for it being SWAT, since he killed a cop earlier - I don't know about elsewhere, but here the Tactical Response Group (our SWAT analogue) is automatically mobilized in a cop killing. He was then responsible for their shooting him, since he aimed up on them. If the cops had done anything less, we might well be mourning another cop as well as the killer and his previous victims.

Where did the cops go wrong, in your opinion?

How much do bullets cost?

Isn't it fiscally irresponsible to keep on shooting a corpse? Assuming that the bullets are paid for by taxes of course.

I know, I'm being ridiculous.

I don't exactly like it...

I mean, I understand seaking out revenge but at the same time that is a bit extreme for the Police.

See, the only thing that keeps it 'legal' for Police most of the time is because it is in their jurisdiction to do so.

But lets say everyone knows for sure this guy was the killer of my daughter, and the Police weren't moving on him or just got lazy. I would probably kill the guy my self, but I'd be an automatic bad guy and not a hero. For the Police, it's like this. Officer X gets shot and killed by Badguy Y, Officer A, B, and C go after Y. A, B, and C all shoot Y up even after getting all the paper work in saying he is the prime suspect. A, B, and C are awarded medals and thanked by the Governor of their state for making everyon'e lives much safer.

It's just...stupid. Seriously, Cops should not be allowed to kill someone like this *multiple rounds when they know 1 or 2 will do* just because they have high reason to believe *and perhaps proof* that this guy killed a cop. Instead of bringing him to justice, they just kill him. I'm sure they could have had a negotiation. But no, then again I'm speaking of a lot of scenarios. I understand force being used if he is going to ram you with a truck, or if he had a gun pointed to the head of an innocent. Or if he just shot up a courhouse, and was shooting at police.

But to indiscriminantly kill like this is total bullshit, because 4/5 times the Police are made heroes for doign so. And 4/5 times, Civilians who do this are considered 'In need of Psychiatric Evaluation' and 'Life Sentances'.


In this case the reports say that he pointed a gun at them if so then they were right to shoot him.

In Florida as a citizen I also have a right to defend myself.
If some one threatens me, if you pull a gun/knife/bat/chain on me, I have a right to blow you away and will not spend any time in jail. (it has happened several times)

To (mis)quote Ted Nugent:
" If someone tries to carjack me I will call the police,
When I run out of bullets"

If you pull a weapon on me I am not going to count how many shots I am firing until I am safe and you are dead.( it's the only way I can be sure that you won't try to pick up your weapon again)

In the case you use
But lets say everyone knows for sure this guy was the killer of my daughter, and the Police weren't moving on him or just got lazy.

Perhaps she was really ugly?
I don't see this happening.
However:
If in Florida if I am out in the woods searching for him with my friends ( no I wouldn't be stupid enough to go alone) and he draws a gun on us I am not going to debate with my friends who should shoot and who shouldn't
As to how many shots would be fired See the Ted nugent quote above

Why? No, seriously, I'm not trying to be funny. To me, this result is about right; suspect aims a gun at a cop, and every other cop with a clear line of fire opens up on him. Because they happen to be SWAT, they're armed with burst-fire capable rifles, and the guy gets very effectively perforated.
Do you udnerstand the difference between burst fire and automatic fire? Apparently not. Burst fire fires a set of round, usually three. It would take a shitload more people than nine to fire 110 rounds in burst mode.

I don't know what fucking part of "excessive force" you don't understand.


If you pull a weapon on me I am not going to count how many shots I am firing until I am safe and you are dead.( it's the only way I can be sure that you won't try to pick up your weapon again)
Gee, I guess the SWAT team consists of every Tom, Dick, and stupid dumbass who they an eqiuip with an automatic weapon.

Gee, I guess the SWAT team consists of every Tom, Dick, and stupid dumbass who they an eqiuip with an automatic weapon.

No It consist of people who want to go home to their families with-out the body bag

No It consist of people who want to go home to their families with-out the body bag

So, it's every Tom, Dick, and dumbass they can arm with an automatic rifle.

So, out of curiosity, is your position that because it all happened on live TV and we have continuity of ID on the person who shot the cop and dog, that that makes arrest and trial moot? That we just go straight to execution?
Absolutely! See my next post below this one.
Huh.

...

(1) I should probably reassured that several hundred years of British and American legal tradition can be made obsolete by one video camera. For some reason, I'm not.

(2) I don't think cops lives are more valuable than civilian's lives. Because it was a cop and a K-9 cop that were killed doesn't make the suspect more or less evil than someone who killed a non-cop.

Wow, thats truely the new american way of handling things, ain't it?

Wow, thats truely the new american way of handling things, ain't it?

It's more like the way most cops around the world handle it when someone points a gun at them.

IMHO
1. All guns should be licensed.
2. A gun is a lethal weapon. Anyone who wishes to own a gun
must prove a need to own one. Licences to own guns should only be given to those who can show a genuine need.
3. No one has a fundamental right to own a lethal weapon.
4. Anyone who carries a gun without a licence will be subject to a minimum term of imprisonment of 5 years.
5. Only those police officers with special weapon training should be permitted to carry guns. Ordinary police officers should be unarmed in any civilized society.

It's more like the way most cops around the world handle it when someone points a gun at them.

Some one has only been here for one page obviously.

It's more like the way most cops around the world handle it when someone points a gun at them.

Not in my part of the world. Here they shoot to incapacitate.

Not in my part of the world. Here they shoot to incapacitate.

I seriously doubt that. Basic firearms discipline, taught the world over, is that a gun's only purpose, when pointed at a human being, is to kill. If you are aiming at anything other than the centre of mass, you are deliberately trying to miss.

Do you udnerstand the difference between burst fire and automatic fire? Apparently not. Burst fire fires a set of round, usually three. It would take a shitload more people than nine to fire 110 rounds in burst mode.

I don't know what fucking part of "excessive force" you don't understand.

I probably know a lot better than you do what the difference between full-auto and burst fire is. And you're quite completely wrong about how many people it would take.

It's simple mathematics. Nine people fire three burst apiece - 81 rounds. Four bursts - 108 rounds. Five bursts - 135 rounds.

I can tap out four bursts in about four seconds with a burst-fire M-16 or variant. I won't be real accurate at that rate - probably be firing into the sky at the end of it - but I can do it.

Guy points a pistol at a group of men armed with Assault Rifles and wearing body armour. They turn said idiot into swiss cheese. That's not excessive - it's perfectly appropriate.

I seriously doubt that. Basic firearms discipline, taught the world over, is that a gun's only purpose, when pointed at a human being, is to kill. If you are aiming at anything other than the centre of mass, you are deliberately trying to miss.

Doubt all you want, but all i can say is that on average only 13 to 15 people per year die from gunwounds caused by the police in Germany. And before you argue that we are such a small country compared to the US, that would be 55 people killed if extrapolated to american population figures.

A police officer is a representative of law and justice..

EXACTLY. So using more force than necessary is setting a majorly bad example, encouraging more people to hate cops.

Doubt all you want, but all i can say is that on average only 13 to 15 people per year die from gunwounds caused by the police in Germany. And before you argue that we are such a small country compared to the US, that would be 55 people killed if extrapolated to american population figures.

That really says nothing about how they shoot. It only says how many are killed by PO's, not how the German PO's are trained to fire their weapons.

That really says nothing about how they shoot. It only says how many are killed by PO's, not how the German PO's are trained to fire their weapons.

They aim for the upper legs usually. At least is says something about german cops not firing four or five bursts which is a sure-fire kill.

They aim for the upper legs usually. At least is says something about german cops not firing four or five bursts which is a sure-fire kill.

If they're aiming for the upper legs, A) they'll mostly miss, and B) most of the people they hit will die. There are two major blood vessels, basically unprotected, in the thighs, and severing just one gives a person a less than 50% survival rate. No one in his right mind would implement such a stupid policy.

The reason german police kill less people is because they are placed in a position to shoot people less often. As well as the population differences, and the lower rate of gun ownership (which reduces the number of times police are threatened with guns), Germany tends to score lower on crime rates anyway, and this is often attributed to cultural differences. Since the police deal with fewer dangerous situations per capita, the fatality rate is naturally lower. But place a german tactical team in the same position as the US SWAT team, and you'd almost certainly have the same result - with the sole exception that the german tac teams, being equipped with MP-5 SMGs instead of Assault Rifles, would probably fire more bullets.

However "cop-killers" are handled, it should be the same for any other murderer.

I agree.

shame they ran out of bullets

more perps need that treatment to fix the chemical unbalance they suffer from - 230 gr lead

Hate currupts, dude. Why you gatta spread hate?

Boy, it must suck where you live.

There have been police abuses as long as there's been police, but (at least in my area), the police seem pretty honest. Add to the fact that I have 3 relatives that are cops (and I know they're honest), and I'm inclined to believe the cops right now. If new information comes out that shows that the cops didn't act within the constraints of the law, then I'll have to adjust my opinion of the matter.

It all depends on where you live. Here in MoCo, the cops are pretty nice people, for the most part. But the next county over, PG, I wouldn't want to walk around in at night. And it's not the drug dealers I'm afraid of. It's the cops.

I personally know several cops, and the first hand accounts I've heard are enough to make me take anything a police force says with a grain of salt.

So, out of curiosity, is your position that because it all happened on live TV and we have continuity of ID on the person who shot the cop and dog, that that makes arrest and trial moot? That we just go straight to execution?

They didn't stand the guy up, put him up against a tree, and put a bullet in his head. They had a gun pointed at them, so they fired. Not an execution.

I wonder, what would happen, if they kill a guy with a faked gun in such a way.

It's happened many times.


The suspect has already murdered 2 cops, one of which was a K-9 which is considered to be the same as killing a regular cop.

Bullshit. A dog is a dog, and a person is a person. Killing a dog is never the same a killing a person, no matter what attack training that dog has had.


An animal is an animal.


IMHO
3. No one has a fundamental right to own a lethal weapon.


The issue is, no one has a fundimental right to take mine from me. Including the government.

I don't own a gun, but you or the government can have my knives, bow, extendable baton, axe, sword, throwing knife, shuriken, baseball bats, kictian knives, rocks, boots, heavy figures, pointy paperweights, pens, car, dirt bike, power saw, router, sawzaw, hammers, nails, nail guns, screw drivers, household chemicals, arms, legs, hands, and feet when you pry all those things from my cold, dead body. And I'm taking a couple of you with me.

All those things are lethal weapons.

They are also my righ to have, just like a gun.

It is not my right to threaten or hurt anyone with those things, except in self-defence.

End of story.

I have a right to defend myself, ya know.

Cant we just aggree that in this case jutice was served.

Cant we just aggree that in this case jutice was served.

Certainly. I haven't argued anything else.

They didn't stand the guy up, put him up against a tree, and put a bullet in his head. They had a gun pointed at them, so they fired. Not an execution.

po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to.

po-TAY-to, po-TAH-to.

No, executing someone and shooting someone who's pointing a gun at you are two different things.

No, executing someone and shooting someone who's pointing a gun at you are two different things.

Yes, it's an excuse to do what you planned to do anyway. Cops kill those who kill their own when they can get away with it. These ones just got lucky that the guy pointed the gun at them, giving them the "reason" to do it. I'm sure if he hadn't, he would have had an "accident" at the station house. Or he would have hanged himself in remorse. Or someone would have been "on a tour" when another inmate shanked him.

I have little faith in cops' objectivity.

Yes, it's an excuse to do what you planned to do anyway. Cops kill those who kill their own when they can get away with it. These ones just got lucky that the guy pointed the gun at them, giving them the "reason" to do it. I'm sure if he hadn't, he would have had an "accident" at the station house. Or he would have hanged himself in remorse. Or someone would have been "on a tour" when another inmate shanked him.

I have little faith in cops' objectivity.
then have faith in IA-Internal Affairs, they investigate every shooting and death when cops are involved, especially if a cop killer was involved.

No, executing someone and shooting someone who's pointing a gun at you are two different things.

Only if you define execution solely as mob-style hits.

then have faith in IA-Internal Affairs, they investigate every shooting and death when cops are involved, especially if a cop killer was involved.

Maybe... I see your point. But I still say that punishing the punishers can't undo the belief structure of retribution.

No, executing someone and shooting someone who's pointing a gun at you are two different things.

but the gloating tone of the OP was that they set out to kill him regardless

so it was a pre-meditated hit in that case

Maybe... I see your point. But I still say that punishing the punishers can't undo the belief structure of retribution.

better than not punnishing them...

I can see your point about cops reaction to cop killers. but remember this, the Police are the sheild that stands between innocents and the criminal element. they purposely put themselves between the knife, bullet, etc of the criminal and innocent victims. rarely it's a job they're thanked for, and more often people scruitinze them.

I work with cops when I do finance for our state fair, and I see them in action.

if the choice is an innocent or them, they will choose to take the bullet for the innocent. that type of working environment forms bonds of trust between officers. so when one goes down, everyone feels that loss. if someone kills a cop, that means they will tend to kill another cop with less hesitation.

I disagree with your thought that cop killers are killed no matter what.. because of the training officers go through... That doesn't mean it won't happen, but when it does, IA will nail that officers hide to the wall, and the worst thing you can do with a cop is send em to jail.

but the gloating tone of the OP was that they set out to kill him regardless

so it was a pre-meditated hit in that case

The gloating tone of the OP is just his spin on the story. It is very clear that the officers surrounded the suspect in order to capture him and then had a gun raised to them so they returned fire as any sane person would.

IMHO
1. All guns should be licensed.
2. A gun is a lethal weapon. Anyone who wishes to own a gun
must prove a need to own one. Licences to own guns should only be given to those who can show a genuine need.
3. No one has a fundamental right to own a lethal weapon.
4. Anyone who carries a gun without a licence will be subject to a minimum term of imprisonment of 5 years.
5. Only those police officers with special weapon training should be permitted to carry guns. Ordinary police officers should be unarmed in any civilized society.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7538/owllolno2nx.jpg


1: If guns were required to be licensed, only the responsible gun owners would license them. Criminals wouldn't, because they're not supposed to have firearms anyway (so a criminal licensing one would be like carrying a big sign that says, "arrest me, I'm breaking the law").

2: Who determines what constitutes a genuine need? What if the person in charge of that decision was against hunting and said, "Hey, you don't need to hunt, you can buy meat at the store". What if the person in charge of that decision didn't like someone, and denied their license for that reason only? Requiring someone to show a need just opens the door to that decision making being abused.

3: Then you need to get rid of knives, archery equipment, baseball bats, tire irons, lengths of metal pipe, rocks, bricks, etc....

4: If licensing was required, this would be redundant, as only criminals would be carrying unlicensed firearms around (and since they're criminals, they've already commited a crime that should land them in jail).

5: Police officers often have to deal with situations that would get them killed, if not for the fact that they're armed. What about the guy who holds up a convenience store with a weapon. An unarmed police officer wouldn't stand a chance in that situation.

Firearms licensing and/or bans aren't the answer, as the only people that are affected by these laws are the people that don't commit crimes in the first place.

1: If guns were required to be licensed, only the responsible gun owners would license them. Criminals wouldn't, because they're not supposed to have firearms anyway (so a criminal licensing one would be like carrying a big sign that says, "arrest me, I'm breaking the law").
If people were required to have license to drive a car, criminals wouldn't get licenses. "Criminals wouldn't x" does not negate good, reasonable laws. Being required to license your firearm in no way violates the right to keep and bear arms.

2: Who determines what constitutes a genuine need? What if the person in charge of that decision was against hunting and said, "Hey, you don't need to hunt, you can buy meat at the store". What if the person in charge of that decision didn't like someone, and denied their license for that reason only? Requiring someone to show a need just opens the door to that decision making being abused.
Like the people who deny all the hunting licenses for turkey, deer, bear, boar, etc and all those fishing licenses. Not only is your strawman really deformed, it is made out of cardboard. At least try next time.

4: If licensing was required, this would be redundant, as only criminals would be carrying unlicensed firearms around (and since they're criminals, they've already commited a crime that should land them in jail).
Splitting one point into two points and pretending they are two different points. Nice try.

Firearms licensing and/or bans aren't the answer, as the only people that are affected by these laws are the people that don't commit crimes in the first place.
Horseshit. Firearms licensing should already be happening. Firearms themselves are one of the only god damn thing you don't have to license and pretty much one of the few things you should have to.

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7538/owllolno2nx.jpg


1: If guns were required to be licensed, only the responsible gun owners would license them. Criminals wouldn't, because they're not supposed to have firearms anyway (so a criminal licensing one would be like carrying a big sign that says, "arrest me, I'm breaking the law").

2: Who determines what constitutes a genuine need? What if the person in charge of that decision was against hunting and said, "Hey, you don't need to hunt, you can buy meat at the store". What if the person in charge of that decision didn't like someone, and denied their license for that reason only? Requiring someone to show a need just opens the door to that decision making being abused.

3: Then you need to get rid of knives, archery equipment, baseball bats, tire irons, lengths of metal pipe, rocks, bricks, etc....

4: If licensing was required, this would be redundant, as only criminals would be carrying unlicensed firearms around (and since they're criminals, they've already commited a crime that should land them in jail).

5: Police officers often have to deal with situations that would get them killed, if not for the fact that they're armed. What about the guy who holds up a convenience store with a weapon. An unarmed police officer wouldn't stand a chance in that situation.

Firearms licensing and/or bans aren't the answer, as the only people that are affected by these laws are the people that don't commit crimes in the first place.

Sorry but that argument is rather stupid … its like saying we should not have drivers licenses because only people who are not eligible to drive will break the law

While I am for firearms ownership saying that we should not have a licensing system based on the fact that some people will choose to break that system seems rather naieve.

I mean how many times were illegal guns taken from people who should NOT be in possession of a gun that would at some future date be used in a crime of sorts … I am betting in the thousands or more.

Where the “limits” should be at can and should be debated but saying that we should not have limits because some people will just break them is rather short sighted

If people were required to have license to drive a car, criminals wouldn't get licenses. "Criminals wouldn't x" does not negate good, reasonable laws. Being required to license your firearm in no way violates the right to keep and bear arms.

It is a requirement to have a license to drive a car. Also, it's not illegal for criminals to drive. It IS illegal for criminals to own/operate/posess firearms, so a criminal licensing a firearm would be an invitation for them to be arrested. And what makes firearms licensing a good, reasonable law?

Like the people who deny all the hunting licenses for turkey, deer, bear, boar, etc and all those fishing licenses. Not only is your strawman really deformed, it is made out of cardboard. At least try next time.

Do you even know how those licenses are issued? Fishing licenses don't require anything other than the fee for the license (which, last time I got one, which was more than a few years ago, was $15). To get a hunting license, all you need to do is pass a background check and a hunter's safety course, and pay the fee (I can't remember what the amount was). There's no subjectivity in getting a hunting or fishing license. Requiring proof of need in getting a license for firearms would be subjective, and would be something that could be abused.

Splitting one point into two points and pretending they are two different points. Nice try.

I don't believe the way I worded that came out right. Basically what I'm saying is, if licensing were required, I wouldn't agree with it, but I would abide by it. I wouldn't risk jail time and the loss of ability to own/operate/posess firearms because I disagree with firearms licensing. I'd be willing to bet that most (if not all) responsible firearms owners would as well. Since criminals can't legally own/operate/posess firearms, they wouldn't register them (it would be an admission that they're breaking the law already). Therefore, it would be only criminals walking around with unlicensed firearms, and they should already be in jail for the crime of owning/using/posessing firearms.


Horseshit. Firearms licensing should already be happening. Firearms themselves are one of the only god damn thing you don't have to license and pretty much one of the few things you should have to.

Why should firearms owners have to register our firearms? It it to reduce crime? How would firearms licensing reduce crime? Criminals will get firearms any way they can (the fact that there is gun crime in the UK, even though there is a firearms ban in that country, is proof of that). Is licensing to reduce accidents? How would a piece of paper change anything? I'd think that a proper safety course (like the NRA course I've taken) would do more to reduce accidents. I honestly cannot see a reason that firearms should be licensed, when I can't see how it would affect anything.

It is a requirement to have a license to drive a car. Also, it's not illegal for criminals to drive. It IS illegal for criminals to own/operate/posess firearms, so a criminal licensing a firearm would be an invitation for them to be arrested. And what makes firearms licensing a good, reasonable law?
Wait, wait, wait. You are against criminals being arrested? I would say we are through here but I can't wait to see what other sort of inane arguments you have put forward.



Do you even know how those licenses are issued? Fishing licenses don't require anything other than the fee for the license (which, last time I got one, which was more than a few years ago, was $15). To get a hunting license, all you need to do is pass a background check and a hunter's safety course, and pay the fee (I can't remember what the amount was). There's no subjectivity in getting a hunting or fishing license. Requiring proof of need in getting a license for firearms would be subjective, and would be something that could be abused.
How the licenses are issued are entirely irrelevant when you argued that "people would be denied because they don't need to go hunting." It doesn't matter how the licenses are issued but what they are issued for - hunting. Your point is rendered what it is - stupid.



Since criminals can't legally own/operate/posess firearms, they wouldn't register them (it would be an admission that they're breaking the law already). Therefore, it would be only criminals walking around with unlicensed firearms, and they should already be in jail for the crime of owning/using/posessing firearms.
Which is no different than it is now as criminals already steal their guns from idiots who shouldn't be allowed to own one or they get it from a friend who legally bought it for them, a fence.



Why should firearms owners have to register our firearms? It it to reduce crime? How would firearms licensing reduce crime?
It will easier pinpoint the source of a gun.

Criminals will get firearms any way they can (the fact that there is gun crime in the UK, even though there is a firearms ban in that country, is proof of that).
Look more stupidity. Licensing firearms isn't banning them.

Sorry but that argument is rather stupid … its like saying we should not have drivers licenses because only people who are not eligible to drive will break the law.

Drivers licenses are issued after testing to make sure you're competent to drive. The licenses have a purpose that I can understand. Firearms licensing, I cannot understand, as it won't affect crime or criminals, only responsible firearms owners.

While I am for firearms ownership saying that we should not have a licensing system based on the fact that some people will choose to break that system seems rather naieve.

But what will firearms licensing accomplish, other than waste time and money? Responsible firearms owners aren't the people that need to be targeted by these laws. They're not the ones commiting the crimes.

I mean how many times were illegal guns taken from people who should NOT be in possession of a gun that would at some future date be used in a crime of sorts … I am betting in the thousands or more.

I don't see how licensing would affect that. Criminals will get firearms regardless of any firearms laws we have. So only the responsible firearms owners are being affected.

Where the “limits” should be at can and should be debated but saying that we should not have limits because some people will just break them is rather short sighted

I'm not saying we shouldn't have limits either, but firearms licensing will do nothing to affect crime. Laws like firearms licensing target the wrong people. What would be better is stronger punishments for firearms crimes, and more funding to prevent/investigate firearms crimes.

Drivers licenses are issued after testing to make sure you're competent to drive. The licenses have a purpose that I can understand. Firearms licensing, I cannot understand, as it won't affect crime or criminals, only responsible firearms owners.



But what will firearms licensing accomplish, other than waste time and money? Responsible firearms owners aren't the people that need to be targeted by these laws. They're not the ones commiting the crimes.



I don't see how licensing would affect that. Criminals will get firearms regardless of any firearms laws we have. So only the responsible firearms owners are being affected.



I'm not saying we shouldn't have limits either, but firearms licensing will do nothing to affect crime. Laws like firearms licensing target the wrong people. What would be better is stronger punishments for firearms crimes, and more funding to prevent/investigate firearms crimes.

Just like driving laws target the wrong people ...

I find it fairly amusing when liberals , those elite among us who KNOW just how we should live and are willing to regulate us to death to prove it . Come up with all these dumb ass gun controll Ideas.


Please Mr . liberal leave those of us that FOLLOW the law alone and go play around with stopping criminals so we DONT have to arm ourselves .

Make yourself really usefull and rack your brains on how to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals ..instead off the easy stuff like removing them from law abiding citizens .


I am sure in your brilliant mind taking a RIGHT and turning it into a privilage makes perfect sense and that somehow having the lawfull among us have to get a licesnse for our weapons will somehow deter gun violence.


The actual thought that GOVERNMENT is not to intrude on the rights of its citizens and become onerouse has never penetrated a liberal brain .

Sure PUNISH the law abiding by taxing them for owning a gun..after all it cant be free to run a NEW beuracracy and who gets to set the standards for the test ? Now I can see how liberals think its a fine thing to come up with regulations for the law abiding people of thhe good old USA...but I fail to see how it actually serves any purpose other than to burden normal people for no damm good reason except to make the liberals think they are actually doing something ...

Makes you wonder WHy they think they are elite....how can you be so stupid and irrational and consider yourself to be the elite..and the people who should Govern and regulate the living shit out of the rest of us ???


Why cant you stick to saving whales or making gas out of french fries ? Do something usefull .

Yeah, because nothing else in the world would need a license but guns. Not licenses to operate a boat, a car a motorocycle, a jetski, a plane, to hunt, to fish, to sell liquor.

Wait, wait, wait. You are against criminals being arrested? I would say we are through here but I can't wait to see what other sort of inane arguments you have put forward.

I didn't say that I was against criminals being arrested. My statement points out that criminals won't license firearms, as they don't want to get arrested.

How the licenses are issued are entirely irrelevant when you argued that "people would be denied because they don't need to go hunting." It doesn't matter how the licenses are issued but what they are issued for - hunting. Your point is rendered what it is - stupid.

Wrong! I offered up a hypothetical situation, an example of how the subjective license approval for firearms could be abused. And yes, it does matter how licenses are issued. Issuance of hunting or fishing licenses is not subjective (and therefore, can't be abused), whereas gun licensing (as Dunroaming suggested) would be subjected (and could be abused).

Which is no different than it is now as criminals already steal their guns from idiots who shouldn't be allowed to own one or they get it from a friend who legally bought it for them, a fence.

Criminals can obtain firearms from multiple sources. They can get them from stealing them, straw purchases (having someone else buy one with the intention of re-selling it to a criminal), smuggling it in from another country, or manufacturing their own (it's not that hard, just ask Philip Luty, who served a jail term in the UK for making an open bolt SMG). BTW, firearms get stolen all the time from all over (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/19/181249.shtml, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/5293504.stm, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/06/AR2006070601614.html, http://www3.whdh.com/news/articles/national/BO25420/).


It will easier pinpoint the source of a gun.

It would pinpoint who owned that firearm last. What if that firearm had been stolen? Then it wouldn't really pinpoint anything.


Look more stupidity. Licensing firearms isn't banning them.

But it shows that it's possible to posess a firearm and get around the licensing process (if a criminal can get around a ban, they can get around a licensing).

Just like driving laws target the wrong people ...

Driving laws are there to add safety to driving (which can become hazardous when done wrong). There's a definite benefit to society with these laws. After all, allowing people to do 90 mph in a school zone wouldn't be a good thing for the pedestrians and other motorists in the school zone. DUI laws benefit the driving public, as a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol can become a danger to other people and property.

Firearms licensing wouldn't add to the public safety, as the people that this would affect don't need it. Responsible firearms owners usually don't commit crimes, and usually have safe firearms handling procedures. As I said in an earlier post, the time and money spent on licensing would be better spent on enforcement of the current laws, tougher sentences for firearms crimes, and safety courses, like those offered by the DEP or NRA.

I find it fairly amusing when liberals , those elite among us who KNOW just how we should live and are willing to regulate us to death to prove it . Come up with all these dumb ass gun controll Ideas.


Please Mr . liberal leave those of us that FOLLOW the law alone and go play around with stopping criminals so we DONT have to arm ourselves .

Make yourself really usefull and rack your brains on how to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals ..instead off the easy stuff like removing them from law abiding citizens .


I am sure in your brilliant mind taking a RIGHT and turning it into a privilage makes perfect sense and that somehow having the lawfull among us have to get a licesnse for our weapons will somehow deter gun violence.


The actual thought that GOVERNMENT is not to intrude on the rights of its citizens and become onerouse has never penetrated a liberal brain .

Sure PUNISH the law abiding by taxing them for owning a gun..after all it cant be free to run a NEW beuracracy and who gets to set the standards for the test ? Now I can see how liberals think its a fine thing to come up with regulations for the law abiding people of thhe good old USA...but I fail to see how it actually serves any purpose other than to burden normal people for no damm good reason except to make the liberals think they are actually doing something ...

Makes you wonder WHy they think they are elite....how can you be so stupid and irrational and consider yourself to be the elite..and the people who should Govern and regulate the living shit out of the rest of us ???


Why cant you stick to saving whales or making gas out of french fries ? Do something usefull .

Hey, don't knock the making diesel fuel out of vegetable oil. From what I hear, it's a hell of a lot cheaper than buying diesel at the pump (and has no negative side effects versus regular diesel). :D

Yeah, because nothing else in the world would need a license but guns. Not licenses to operate a boat, a car a motorocycle, a jetski, a plane, to hunt, to fish, to sell liquor.

Licenses for operating a boat, car, motorcycle, jetski, or a plane make sense, as you have the ability to affect more than yourself while operating these vehicles. A license for these also shows that you have the proper training and have been tested to show you can properly and safely operate these vehicles.

A hunting license is issued only after a background check and a hunter's safety course. It is only issued after you have passed the background check (to show that you can legally own/operate/posess a firearm), and had training and have been tested to show you can operate a firearm in a safe manner.

I license to sell liquor is issued after you prove you can operate your business within the laws of your state, and after there is a hearing (in case someone in the area has a strong objection to the issuance of the liquor license). It increases safety by showiing that you can operate a liquor store/bar in a safe manner (like preventing underage persons from buying alcohol, preventing a sale of alcohol to obviously intoxicated people, etc).

A firearms license (as decribed by Dunroaming) does nothing to address safe operation of a firearm, and therefore does nothing to increase safety. As I've said before, there are better uses of the time and money that would be spent on licensing.

SWAT has monstah balls!

Oo-ah!

No matter that they were only a suspect!

The SWAT team was a suspect? I thought they were tracking the suspect? Now I'm confused.

So, what part of the news story did you not understand? Because you obviously missed the part about him showing a gun AFTER they told him to put his hands out where they can see them.

You can shoot any criminal 60+ times for all I care.

Once again I'm glad that I don't live in a country where police carry guns... or are as trigger happy as they seem to be in the US.
Goodness knows I wouldn't want to be suspected of anything over there.

Once again I'm glad that I don't live in a country where police carry guns... or are as trigger happy as they seem to be in the US.
Goodness knows I wouldn't want to be suspected of anything over there.

Detectives have guns here man but not the Garda regulars.

Detectives have guns here man but not the Garda regulars.

Fair enough. It's still a good feeling, somehow.
I'm originally from Germany, and police and special forces there would occasionally shoot the wrong people as well. It would have more serious consequences for them than it apparently does in the States, but still... makes me feel a lot safer to live here, to be honest.

Edit: Oh, and it's "woman" for you, thanks. ;)

Fair enough. It's still a good feeling, somehow.
I'm originally from Germany, and police and special forces there would occasionally shoot the wrong people as well. It would have more serious consequences for them than it apparently does in the States, but still... makes me feel a lot safer to live here, to be honest.

Edit: Oh, and it's "woman" for you, thanks. ;)

The man part wasnt a remark on your sex, just slang you know.
Lived in Berlin never had any problems with the police or the GSG 9 so I don't know but I never heard about the police shooting the wrong people. Strange.

The man part wasnt a remark on your sex, just slang you know.
Lived in Berlin never had any problems with the police or the GSG 9 so I don't know but I never heard about the police shooting the wrong people. Strange.

Ever heard the name Benno Ohnsorg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benno_Ohnesorg), to give the most famous example in the history of the republik?

Other than that, there are some statistics about people shot by the police here (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei).

Goodness knows I wouldn't want to be suspected of anything over there.

Or point a weapon at ten SWAT officers surrounding you.::rolleyes::

Funny, I always thought it was the court that decided on guilt and innocence, not a SWAT team and an internet troll. I guess in a country where you have to have armed guards on your schools to protect them from your own citizens that it shouldn't be a suprise that the police wouldn't be above vigilantism.

A police officer is a representative of law and justice hence any attack on a police officer is implicitly an attack on the law and justice of the country in addition to an attack on the officer.


Naaaaa it aint. Any attack on the police is an attack for the most part on dirty, facist, currupt individuals. Whats worse though ask yourselves killing a cop, or killing a paramedic?

Once again I'm glad that I don't live in a country where police carry guns... or are as trigger happy as they seem to be in the US.
Goodness knows I wouldn't want to be suspected of anything over there.

ehh, the ERU? Abbylara? The ones that are armed are more than willing to use them.

bet no US cop ever planted bombs.....

Funny, I always thought it was the court that decided on guilt and innocence, not a SWAT team and an internet troll. I guess in a country where you have to have armed guards on your schools to protect them from your own citizens that it shouldn't be a suprise that the police wouldn't be above vigilantism.

Ah, did you read the article? I don't care if the guy was a saint, he pointed a loaded firearm at cops. If anything, I'd refer to it as suicide.

Funny, I always thought it was the court that decided on guilt and innocence, not a SWAT team and an internet troll. I guess in a country where you have to have armed guards on your schools to protect them from your own citizens that it shouldn't be a suprise that the police wouldn't be above vigilantism.

See, what most people are failing to realize is that, if it was a 12 year old kid (with no prior criminal background) that pointed a firearm (or a realistic enough toy firearm) at the SWAT officers, the result would be the same. Even if 12 year old didn't have any intention of shooting at the SWAT officers (they're not mind readers), the officers need to respond in a way that will allow them to go home at the end of their shift.

Same response if it was a 82 year old person with no prior criminal background.

Funny, I always thought it was the court that decided on guilt and innocence, not a SWAT team and an internet troll. I guess in a country where you have to have armed guards on your schools to protect them from your own citizens that it shouldn't be a suprise that the police wouldn't be above vigilantism.

Whats that got to do with a guy pointing a gun at them Mr troll ?


Hmmmmmmm Easy question.....:D

See, what most people are failing to realize is that, if it was a 12 year old kid (with no prior criminal background) that pointed a firearm (or a realistic enough toy firearm) at the SWAT officers, the result would be the same. Even if 12 year old didn't have any intention of shooting at the SWAT officers (they're not mind readers), the officers need to respond in a way that will allow them to go home at the end of their shift.

Same response if it was a 82 year old person with no prior criminal background.


Even a naked blonde babe pamela Anderson...bet most of the shots would have gone high though...

Even a naked blonde babe pamela Anderson...bet most of the shots would have gone high though...

With as much plastic she has in her, I doubt anything short of a BMG would have much effect.:D

Yes, it's an excuse to do what you planned to do anyway. Cops kill those who kill their own when they can get away with it. These ones just got lucky that the guy pointed the gun at them, giving them the "reason" to do it. I'm sure if he hadn't, he would have had an "accident" at the station house. Or he would have hanged himself in remorse. Or someone would have been "on a tour" when another inmate shanked him.

I have little faith in cops' objectivity.

So no matter what, the cops are fucked. By your standard of judgement, they can't win.

"They didn't do anything wrong, but in my mind they would have, so they're still wrong."

Wonderful logic.

Only if you define execution solely as mob-style hits.

What do you define it as? Any killing, including a clear case of self-defence?

SWAT has monstah balls!

Oo-ah!

No matter that they were only a suspect!

As I said earlyer, don't be a dick.

You can shoot any criminal 60+ times for all I care.

Seems the assholes have arrives ::rolleyes::

Once again I'm glad that I don't live in a country where police carry guns... or are as trigger happy as they seem to be in the US.
Goodness knows I wouldn't want to be suspected of anything over there.

The guy pointed a gun at them. Trigger happy? It was a fucking self defence shooting.

Funny, I always thought it was the court that decided on guilt and innocence, not a SWAT team and an internet troll. I guess in a country where you have to have armed guards on your schools to protect them from your own citizens that it shouldn't be a suprise that the police wouldn't be above vigilantism.

Vigilantism?

SELF-DEFENCE.

THE MAN POINTED A GUN AT COPS. THE COPS FIRED TO SAVE THEIR LIVES.


If you're going to come with these smug little remarks about how superior you are to us poor barbarians, at least have some logic to it. Respond to our points. Because all you are doing is annoying people.

Obviously you tickle them to death by feathering-squad!

Obviously you tickle them to death by feathering-squad!

Erm, what if they aren't ticklish?

Then we unleash Tickle-Me-Elmo! Death by constant laughter.

oh, geez. I thought that was banned by the Genevas'?

Or point a weapon at ten SWAT officers surrounding you.::rolleyes::or any officer.. period!

Then we unleash Tickle-Me-Elmo! Death by constant laughter.

you know they now have a TICKLE-ME-ELMO EXTREME (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tickle_Me_Elmo)... the escallation never stops...

i think police in the us feel they are a part of a high society with greater freedoms. i think that they are important but their deaths should not be held higher than that of a common citizen of any sort, so maybe if they treated all murders this way, plus its a great population control hehehehe. i think the important part is to define whether or not the retaliation is that of justice or progression or just plain vengence. i think all cases like these should be investigated to determine if it was justice, being that they were still dangerous and they killed for the betterment of the community, and not out of anger. i doubt busting a guy seventy million times in the face is justice, and i highly doubt it'll better the society. you know the police are doing something wrong when the majority of the country hates them... OMG ROMANS!!

Honestly, i feel that if a person is stupid enough to try and shoot at an officer of the law, they deserve to be turned into swiss cheese. As corrupt as some cops may be, most are there for the same purpose as the one they are sworn into, to protect and serve the people. If the police officer doesn't kill the guy for drawing his weapon, then i believe it would be only right for a sentence of life in prison or the death penalty for doing so.

i think police in the us feel they are a part of a high society with greater freedoms. i think that they are important but their deaths should not be held higher than that of a common citizen of any sort, so maybe if they treated all murders this way, plus its a great population control hehehehe. i think the important part is to define whether or not the retaliation is that of justice or progression or just plain vengence. i think all cases like these should be investigated to determine if it was justice, being that they were still dangerous and they killed for the betterment of the community, and not out of anger. i doubt busting a guy seventy million times in the face is justice, and i highly doubt it'll better the society. you know the police are doing something wrong when the majority of the country hates them... OMG ROMANS!!

The majority of the population has no problems with our police, or how they do their jobs.
Now, this can't really be characterized as justice. A truly just result would have been the idiot surrendering to the SWAT team, tried, and either found innocent or guilty. But it was not the SWAT team that denied the suspect his day in court - he managed that one all by himself.

So no matter what, the cops are fucked. By your standard of judgement, they can't win.

"They didn't do anything wrong, but in my mind they would have, so they're still wrong."

Wonderful logic.

How very trollish of you, Kat. How odd, I didn't expect you to sink that low. :rolleyes: You can spin it however you like, but I don't claim my position to be logical. As a matter of fact, there's no logic at all to it, because there is no logic in the police culture of retribution.

I don't trust the police. I don't trust them to do their jobs in rounding up the bad guys and only the bad guys. I don't trust them to serve or protect the law while remaining within the confines of those laws. Hell, I'd look up if a cop told me the sky was blue, just to make sure.

And THAT, my friend, is borne from hard experience. I'm too lazy to search and find the quote right now because I have to get to work, but as someone here said, "Anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence has never been arrested."

of course, but police and SWAT teams in particular are trusted with firearms and trusted to use them responsibly and reasonably, if that reason becomes clouded when one of their own is killed then some other team should be brought in from another state or county or a federal team should be brought in.

And You F'ing die. What is so hard to understand? You want to cry about how many bullets were used? Raise a weapon to an officer of the law and it is their duty to shoot. Further, in the United States we have a "shoot to kill" procedure. We don't aim for legs, arms, etc. If we use our weapons it is in result to a deadly situation. Equal force met with equal force. Was the "suspect" only going to shoot 1 shot at the officer's leg? God this has become such a feminized culture. Killing of innocents = wrong. Killing of a guy with a gun aimed at you= just Fing logical. :headbang:

:sniper:

Shouldn't
this thread
be dead?

No. Uh-uh.

When someone pulls a gun on you, you don't aim for the shoulder. You aim for center body mass. Period. You don't face a man with a gun armed with a taser or pepper spray. ANd when he's already killed two of your family members less than a day ago, you empty your weapon into him. It's not rocket science.

"stupid Wop, you brought a knife to a gun fight."

SHOOT TO KILL is the USA. You do not use non lethal force against someone who is using lethal force against you. Furthermore, the official police report will show that he did, in fact, possess the weapon of the officer he killed. He did, in fact, bring said weapon with him from the point of the murder to the location where he was killed. He did, in fact, brandish said weapon with the intent to fire against the officers. They then, in fact, filled him do full of lead as to use his dick for a pencil. Tough tiitties when you aim a gun at the police. :headbang: :mp5:

Shouldn't
this thread
be dead?

You would think so … no one has said anything new in pages … this is even more repetitive then the religious debates

Police should use surrounded suspects as target practice?


Anyone who takes out a gun deserves to die?



Does anyone, anywhere even try to think before they post anymore?

Aim a gun at me and I'll kill you. Is that easy enough to follow. What? Were you pointing the gun at me as a joke? Real funny now that you're dead :cool:

Aim a gun at me and I'll kill you. Is that easy enough to follow. What? Were you pointing the gun at me as a joke? Real funny now that you're dead :cool:

Even if it is a cop that points a gun at you?
You are sounding an awful lot like what that idiot who pulled the gun on the swat team must have been thinking.

How very trollish of you, Kat. How odd, I didn't expect you to sink that low. :rolleyes: You can spin it however you like, but I don't claim my position to be logical. As a matter of fact, there's no logic at all to it, because there is no logic in the police culture of retribution.
Once again, what evidence do you have that this was a case of police retribution? You are making plenty of unsupported claims, with a total lack of any supporting evidence.

As it stands, this case is rather clean cut and straightforward, a guy who had killed one cop and wounded another, pointed a gun at some more cops, they acted as the law and conscience would dictate.

I don't trust the police. I don't trust them to do their jobs in rounding up the bad guys and only the bad guys. I don't trust them to serve or protect the law while remaining within the confines of those laws. Hell, I'd look up if a cop told me the sky was blue, just to make sure.


And THAT, my friend, is borne from hard experience. I'm too lazy to search and find the quote right now because I have to get to work, but as someone here said, "Anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence has never been arrested."

Which is of course absurd. Innocence until proven guilty is something that is dealt with in courts and with juries, legally a much lower threshold is set for police action, espescially because the job of the police is not to prosecute criminals, but to ensure law and order.

Even if it is a cop that points a gun at you?
You are sounding an awful lot like what that idiot who pulled the gun on the swat team must have been thinking.


As a police officer/soldier, if you pull a gun on me I will kill you. Clear enough? :sniper:

As a police officer/soldier, if you pull a gun on me I will kill you. Clear enough? :sniper:

No I didn’t at 350+ posts … I missed a few I apologize.

But the question still stands a cop draws on you in error … you are still right to shoot them.

You also made no provision for being in uniform … if you drew on someone in plain cloths and you got shot by another cop would that be justified?

No I didn’t at 350+ posts … I missed a few I apologize.

But the question still stands a cop draws on you in error … you are still right to shoot them.

You also made no provision for being in uniform … if you drew on someone in plain cloths and you got shot by another cop would that be justified?

If a uniformed officer points a gun at one in plain clothes then the latter would shout back that they are also a police officer. If the latter turned his gun on the uniform then that person is an idiot. Besides, it is hard to come up with a situation where an undercover/off duty cop will get shot by another without being told that they are also an officer.

No I didn’t at 350+ posts … I missed a few I apologize.

But the question still stands a cop draws on you in error … you are still right to shoot them.

You also made no provision for being in uniform … if you drew on someone in plain cloths and you got shot by another cop would that be justified?

A civilian who is being unlawfully arrested and threatened by a police officer has the right to resist or shoot that police officer. Please reference this for me as I'm too lazy to do so. However, I am well vereded in the law of the United States. If an officer draws a weapon against you with malintent (illegal) amd threatens your life (also illegal) you have the right to shoot and kill that officer (legal). The tricky part is proving that their actions are illegal. If one would concede that most police officers would never do such a thing, there would have to be extenuating circumstances for you to do so. Such as: Cop is dirty; cop's gone crazy, or both of the former. However, let's keep it relevent to this thread. If you're :eek: a cop killer who was in 2 other shootouts with fellow officers and you raise a gun to me...I'll empty a clip in your body mass and or head if need be. Have a nice day.

How very trollish of you, Kat. How odd, I didn't expect you to sink that low. :rolleyes: You can spin it however you like, but I don't claim my position to be logical. As a matter of fact, there's no logic at all to it, because there is no logic in the police culture of retribution.

I don't trust the police. I don't trust them to do their jobs in rounding up the bad guys and only the bad guys. I don't trust them to serve or protect the law while remaining within the confines of those laws. Hell, I'd look up if a cop told me the sky was blue, just to make sure.

And THAT, my friend, is borne from hard experience. I'm too lazy to search and find the quote right now because I have to get to work, but as someone here said, "Anyone who believes in the presumption of innocence has never been arrested."

I'm not telling you to trust cops. I'm not even arguing that point, I take a somewhat similar view. My problem with your post was, in this specific situation, you made said that while the cops were jusified in shooting the man, they were still wrong because if they had not been, they still would have killed him in some way. This is a Catch 22, there's no way for the sops to win, even though they did nothing wrong in this instance. That's what set me off.

That's what I took away from your post anyway. I apologize if I misenterpreted.

This thread should pull a gun on a bunch of Cops so it will die .

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216898,00.html

Consider also that these were SWAT team members, who use fully automatic weapons, usually at very close range.



Nine officers fired at him at the same time. He probably looked like an anatomy lesson after the bursts of fire.

Considering how violent he himself had been (shooting a police officer eight times and killing him), it's going to be easy to justify this here in the US. I was wondering if police would have a more difficult time justifying something like this in other countries.

I, for one, am OK with this in this instance. Your opinions?

Depending on the situation this sounds like some capital punishment to me. 'Course if he was a threat to the other officers at the time then that's a different case.

This thread should pull a gun on a bunch of Cops so it will die .

You. Thread! step AWAY from the firearm!

!!BLAM!!

Sorry sir, this thread just didn't know when to quit.

Cant even read it now its got 194 holes in it .

And you ain't missing much either, bubba!

I have no problem with it; anyone moronic enough to raise a gun to police deserves everything he gets. Overkill like this just means he doesn't get a chance to hurt anybody else.
Unfortunately, here in Aus there's an idiot lobby that goes crazy every time a cop uses lethal force. There was an incident a while back of a whole group of police on a Sydney beach and a seriously disturbed (and well armed) man. Clear case of suicide-by-cop, but who were the ones criticized..?
The only good thing is that the various state police services (we don't have local cops or Sheriff's Departments) don't seem to listen. Our police are still properly armed.
Yeah, there's some weird double standards. In my neighborhood, police got called to a mental hospital because someone had escaped. When they arrived, he was wielding a large metal bar and promptly charged police. They shot him twice, killing him.

And guess what? Everyone claims, "It's cuz he was Mexican." I tell you one thing: If I see a blond, blue-eyed, white-skinned person recently escaped from a mental hospital and charging me with a metal bar, I'll shoot him just as soon as if he were latino, black, asian, what-have-you.