To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#5,901
#5,901
Well, at least it wasn't the Crown Vic this time. Cop will probably get a medal.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEayncD82FY[/youtube]

Martinez said he was only aiming to "disable" the motorcycle, but he ended up striking Gaydos in his right thigh with one of the bullets.
Click to expand...

So wait... so this cop was intentionally aiming to disable the suspect and ended up shooting his leg. I thought we had been told that aiming to disable suspects was unreasonable?

And really??? A high speed chase after running a stop sign? Really? Its worth putting every other vehicle in harms way because you have to get this cockroach off the streets? Running a stop sign at night... probably on a dead intersection with no traffic at that hour.
 
Last edited:
#5,903
#5,903
Ras, just submit to your political overloads. They only have your best interests in mind. C'mon man, it's for the common good.

None of these cases matter, the police will investigate themselves and of course find no wrong doing on their part.

Just submit Ras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,904
#5,904
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well, at least it wasn't the Crown Vic this time. Cop will probably get a medal.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEayncD82FY[/youtube]



So wait... so this cop was intentionally aiming to disable the suspect and ended up shooting his leg. I thought we had been told that aiming to disable suspects was unreasonable?

And really??? A high speed chase after running a stop sign? Really? Its worth putting every other vehicle in harms way because you have to get this cockroach off the streets? Running a stop sign at night... probably on a dead intersection with no traffic at that hour.
Click to expand...

Martinez said he was only aiming to "disable" the motorcycle, but he ended up striking Gaydos in his right thigh with one of the bullets.
Click to expand...

Actually, that quote suggests the exact opposite of what you assert. In fact, he states he was intentionally trying to miss they guy but hit him anyway.
 
#5,905
#5,905
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well, at least it wasn't the Crown Vic this time. Cop will probably get a medal.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEayncD82FY[/youtube]



So wait... so this cop was intentionally aiming to disable the suspect and ended up shooting his leg. I thought we had been told that aiming to disable suspects was unreasonable?

And really??? A high speed chase after running a stop sign? Really? Its worth putting every other vehicle in harms way because you have to get this cockroach off the streets? Running a stop sign at night... probably on a dead intersection with no traffic at that hour.
Click to expand...


Impossible. The police ranks are filled with "great guys."
 
#5,906
#5,906
hndog609 said:
Actually, that quote suggests the exact opposite of what you assert. In fact, he states he was intentionally trying to miss they guy but hit him anyway.
Click to expand...

It is about intent and the outcome. He intended to disable him, so he didn't intend to "eliminate the threat" or go for a kill shot. Instead, his intent was to just slow him down. Yet, over the past few days, we had law enforcement guys tell us that shooting to disable was impractical and not even worth discussing. As a result the guy didn't die.

But will that said, what was the Mortal Kombat nonsense at the end? And why are cops going on high speed chases because a guy made a rolling stop at midnight? Really???
 
Last edited:
#5,907
#5,907
Rasputin_Vol said:
It is about intent and the outcome. He intended to disable him, so he didn't intend to "eliminate the threat" or go for a kill shot. Instead, his intent was to just slow him down. Yet, over the past few days, we had law enforcement guys tell us that shooting to disable was impractical and not even worth discussing. As a result the guy didn't die.

But will that said, what was the Mortal Kombat nonsense at the end? And why are cops going on high speed chases because a guy made a rolling stop at midnight? Really???
Click to expand...

He was shooting at the bike, missed and hit the rider.

Not sure how you're missing this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,909
#5,909
Rasputin_Vol said:
It is about intent and the outcome. He intended to disable him, so he didn't intend to "eliminate the threat" or go for a kill shot. Instead, his intent was to just slow him down. Yet, over the past few days, we had law enforcement guys tell us that shooting to disable was impractical and not even worth discussing. As a result the guy didn't die.

But will that said, what was the Mortal Kombat nonsense at the end? And why are cops going on high speed chases because a guy made a rolling stop at midnight? Really???
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight... you deride there being a high speed chase at all and then try to put a positive spin on the use of lethal force by saying the cop didn't intend to shoot the guy he actually shot anyway?
 
#5,910
#5,910
Grand Vol said:
He was shooting at the bike, missed and hit the rider.

Not sure how you're missing this.
Click to expand...

Again? I'm focusing on his intent and the outcome. He did not intend to kill him and the outcome is that the guy stopped.

Had the guy in Arizona been involved, he may have used his Crown Vic to run this stop sign violator off the road.
 
#5,911
#5,911
Rasputin_Vol said:
Again? I'm focusing on his intent and the outcome. He did not intend to kill him and the outcome is that the guy stopped.

Had the guy in Arizona been involved, he may have used his Crown Vic to run this stop sign violator off the road.
Click to expand...

U can't see a difference between a guy running on motorcycle and carrying a loaded shot gun down the street.
 
#5,913
#5,913
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
The point is, we are taxed to pay for the roads. The government takes that money and gives it to contractors who provide the service of paving the roads. (Rather poorly on the interstates in bham btw)

So in a world without government, do you honestly believe 300+ million people across the country couldn't do the very same thing. Minus of course the violence of government.
Click to expand...

This is really funny to me. I live on a private road with 12 other owners. Everytime someone decides something needs to be done to maintain the road an argument ensues. "Why should I have to pave a road that I don't use", "I'm paying more than so and so", etc. If you want a good laugh look at the responses to proposed road maintenance agreements by searching Google. Obviously your theory sounds good on paper about the people taking care of it, but its downright laughable in reality.

And to Sam that brought up the honor system argument.....are you serious?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,914
#5,914
Rasputin_Vol said:
Again? I'm focusing on his intent and the outcome. He did not intend to kill him and the outcome is that the guy stopped.

Had the guy in Arizona been involved, he may have used his Crown Vic to run this stop sign violator off the road.
Click to expand...

And if he had shot out the tire, wrecked the motorcycle and the rider dies from injuries sustained......what horse manure are you on here slinging?
 
#5,915
#5,915
YorkVol said:
That is a stupid argument. When you pervert the rule of law to the extreme you end up with fascism. I'm not talking about blind obedience to a system controlled by someone else. We are Americans, not Nazi Germans. We American citizens are responsible for the laws we have. And, we have the ability to influence those laws. Consequently we should show some measure of respect to those laws and should also value the process that we can use to change those laws when they prove to be wrong somehow. That respect should be extended to those who are responsible for operating our legal system. That doesn't mean you have to accept an individual officer being a jerk or abusing his or her power. Nor should we accept malfeasance at any level of our legal system. But, if you accept the fact that we need these laws to enable a civil society, then you can at least be polite and courteous to those individuals authorized to enforce them. And if they give you a lawful directive you should follow it.

If you are so small minded that you can't do that without being a jerk to those individual officers simply because of your code of "not blindly giving respect to anyone" (which I highly doubt is true, btw), then you can't be helped.
Click to expand...

I have changed my mind about you since this post and your last few. You make some good points.
 
#5,916
#5,916
volbeast33 said:
U mean the cellphone incident....I think the guy should have been reprimanded but the b&tch with the phone was definitely in the wrong there.
Click to expand...

Could you please explain how she was "definitely in the wrong"? When you look at the news report where they show the house were the police were standing, you can't even see the house that she was in front of. How far back does she need to be if she chooses to record?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,917
#5,917
jp1 said:
And if he had shot out the tire, wrecked the motorcycle and the rider dies from injuries sustained......what horse manure are you on here slinging?
Click to expand...

The same horse manure I'm slinging right now... why in the hell are we going on high speed chases trying to catch rolling stop sign violators at midnight?

In other words, there was multiple layers of stupidity mixed in with this one incident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,918
#5,918
Rasputin_Vol said:
The same horse manure I'm slinging right now... why in the hell are we going on high speed chases trying to catch rolling stop sign violators at midnight?

In other words, there was multiple layers of stupidity mixed in with this one incident.
Click to expand...

I prefer to sling yak squeeze myself.😜
 
#5,919
#5,919
YorkVol said:
That is a stupid argument. When you pervert the rule of law to the extreme you end up with fascism. I'm not talking about blind obedience to a system controlled by someone else. We are Americans, not Nazi Germans. We American citizens are responsible for the laws we have. And, we have the ability to influence those laws. Consequently we should show some measure of respect to those laws and should also value the process that we can use to change those laws when they prove to be wrong somehow. That respect should be extended to those who are responsible for operating our legal system. That doesn't mean you have to accept an individual officer being a jerk or abusing his or her power. Nor should we accept malfeasance at any level of our legal system. But, if you accept the fact that we need these laws to enable a civil society, then you can at least be polite and courteous to those individuals authorized to enforce them. And if they give you a lawful directive you should follow it.

If you are so small minded that you can't do that without being a jerk to those individual officers simply because of your code of "not blindly giving respect to anyone" (which I highly doubt is true, btw), then you can't be helped.
Click to expand...

That sounds all well and good and all that, but the fact is that our govt, like all govts, has a tendency to grow and infringe on human rights. We have reached the point in this country where we have nuisance laws that are enforced with great zeal by law enforcement because there is a financial incentive in doing so. So you get incidents where people get frustrated at law enforcement for picking on them and harassing them for victimless, petty crimes like selling loose cigarettes, rolling stops, and broken taillights. The ability of govt to create more of these nuisance laws has greater momentum than the ability of the people to change or overturn them in the traditional means given to the people in a republic.

We arrest far too many people on far too trivial of offenses. And the Average Joe dealing with the normal pressures of life will snap back if some ballbreaking cop interrupts his day or blows his buzz by stopping him for some of the most ridiculous reasons imaginable. Then, to add insult to injury, the cop will then take that opportunity to go on a fishing expedition where they can find more fabulous gifts and prizes on a person or on their property by searching without probable cause or a warrant. Again, there is a profit incentive in going the extra mile to do this, it has little to do with public safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,924
#5,924
Rasputin_Vol said:
The same horse manure I'm slinging right now... why in the hell are we going on high speed chases trying to catch rolling stop sign violators at midnight?

In other words, there was multiple layers of stupidity mixed in with this one incident.
Click to expand...

Who said it was a rolling stop and the guy ran bc he wasn't legally allowed to be driving at all.
 
#5,925
#5,925
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top