To Protect and to Serve...

Status
Not open for further replies.
#476
#476
hog88 said:
You are the fool, no where did I say wing or shoot the gun out of his hand. I stated I might be able to understand 1 shot, not multiple with no return fire. What this demonstrates is the LEO is incompetent with a firearm!
Click to expand...

Actually, pretty standard practice is a minimum of double tap with a lot of agencies going to a Mozambique drill type of triple tap.

So minimum of three. But you are also discounting the fact that in the heat of the moment people (all people, not just cops) will react and probably start blasting away.

Think back to your Army training, did you just fire one shot on an ambush and call it good? Or think of the first time you ever got ambushed on an exercise. You probably sent off half a mag without even thinking of it.

I'd like to see you in a pressure situation like that and see if you do any better...
 
#477
#477
hndog609 said:
Hope you don't use that in court counselor. You are trained to shoot 'til you believe you've "ended the threat". Ending a threat is self-defense, trying to kill is an execution. In the former death may be the result whereas in the latter death is the intent.
Click to expand...


Of course. Was using short hand to try to help him understand its not like in the movies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#478
#478
Grand Vol said:
And that's the point. They are automatically guilty in your mind, evidence be damned. You will Monday morning quarterback each and every decision they make because you have already determined their guilt before even knowing the facts.

Someone should because without citizen outrage the LEO wouldn't.

And I'll go to my standby of "you cannot expect a citizen to be put into that type of situation."

But you know, let's game this out. Say you are out on your property and you find a vehicle out there with expired tags. You are a private citizen, but hold the landowners rights and the castle doctrine applies. There have been some trespassers lately and perhaps even some theft of your property. You approach the person and they start reaching into the bed of a truck and point an object at you that appears to be a firearm. And you shoot, obviously better than cops because you are an excellent marksman. It turns out to be an old man with a cane that you shot because you thought he was pointing a gun at you.

Pizz poor analogy. First, I wouldn't approach, I would be behind cover while communicating and then if IF I felt in danger you are correct, I would fire. And yes I am an excellent marksman. However I don't have to "earn my bones". I know that once a round is unleashed it cannot be taken back. Cops or civilians MUST be 100% sure and prepared to live with the consequences BEFORE pulling the trigger. Sorry this is hard for you to comprehend.

Wouldn't you want the cops to investigate things from your perspective instead of automatically tossing you into jail?

You know dang well outside of a cut and dry case, you will be in jail WHILE they investigate.


Which does prove my point that you are so incensed with outrage before even knowing all the facts of the matter. And since this investigation is ongoing, nothing has been determined yet. Now I'll also say we have a single side to this story. And as always, until ALL the facts are known, it's not possible to pass judgment.
Click to expand...

Why do you have a problem holding police to at least similar standards as citizens.
 
#479
#479
Grand Vol said:
Actually, pretty standard practice is a minimum of double tap with a lot of agencies going to a Mozambique drill type of triple tap.

So minimum of three. But you are also discounting the fact that in the heat of the moment people (all people, not just cops) will react and probably start blasting away.

Think back to your Army training, did you just fire one shot on an ambush and call it good? Or think of the first time you ever got ambushed on an exercise. You probably sent off half a mag without even thinking of it.

I'd like to see you in a pressure situation like that and see if you do any better...
Click to expand...

And here we go. Let me point out a little fact to you.

The streets of America are not a WAR ZONE! US citizens are not the enemy!

React to, break contact and ambush drills are not applicable here. As a matter of fact what is the SOP when ambushed? Charge! I have been in way more pressure situations than this deputy was.
 
#480
#480
lawgator1 said:
Of course. Was using short hand to try to help him understand its not like in the movies.
Click to expand...

That may have been your intent but that's not some small nuance we're talking about...there's a pretty strong distinction between the two.

As to your observation about movies you're correct, movies and TV are absolutely awful in how inaccurately they portray almost anything involving firearms.
 
#482
#482
hog88 said:
Why do you have a problem holding police to at least similar standards as citizens.
Click to expand...

The analogy is actually spot on although again, you refuse to admit it.

And no, depending on the situation, you wouldn't necessarily be in jail. Because police can actually look at it objectively from your point of view, something you are entirely incapable of doing.

And no, I have no problems holding police to the same standards as citizens. But AFTER all the facts are known and AFTER the investigation is complete and AFTER it is proved there was criminal negligence.
 
#483
#483
hog88 said:
And here we go. Let me point out a little fact to you.

The streets of America are not a WAR ZONE! US citizens are not the enemy!

React to, break contact and ambush drills are not applicable here. As a matter of fact what is the SOP when ambushed? Charge! I have been in way more pressure situations than this deputy was.
Click to expand...

And you miss and avoid the point. Not surprising.
 
#484
#484
Grand Vol said:
The analogy is actually spot on although again, you refuse to admit it.

And no, depending on the situation, you wouldn't necessarily be in jail. Because police can actually look at it objectively from your point of view, something you are entirely incapable of doing.

And no, I have no problems holding police to the same standards as citizens. But AFTER all the facts are known and AFTER the investigation is complete and AFTER it is proved there was criminal negligence.
Click to expand...

I would be fine with this if it were not for the fact the investigators in these matters tend to slant their investigation towards protecting their brother. More so than determining facts.
 
#485
#485
Grand Vol said:
And you miss and avoid the point. Not surprising.
Click to expand...

No, didn't miss your point at all. The cop used pizz poor judgment.

If he was so worried about the possibility of a confrontation, why didn't he take cover as soon as the old man started getting out of the truck? Then again when he started reaching into the bed of his pickup? Then again when he told him to put it down (or whatever). There was plenty of time to avoid this.
 
#486
#486
hog88 said:
No, didn't miss your point at all. The cop used pizz poor judgment.

If he was so worried about the possibility of a confrontation, why didn't he take cover as soon as the old man started getting out of the truck? Then again when he started reaching into the bed of his pickup? Then again when he told him to put it down (or whatever). There was plenty of time to avoid this.
Click to expand...

Since you can't see the officer in the video, you are assuming he didn't take cover. And if you are as familiar with ballistics as you claim, you would know a car door doesn't stop squat. And the positioning of the vehicles prohibited the engine block from being used as effective cover.

So the cop is faced with a fight or flight. Flight means he will have to remove himself from his current position and move to the rear of the vehicle where he can possibly lose sight of the aggressor (if indeed he was).

And plenty of time lol. You are reaching. It's obvious you didn't watch the video at all since your concept of "time" does not match what happened.

But you keep fighting the good fight. Keep thinking you're objective and correct in all these assumptions. Keep believing you can play the "what if" card and game this out because you obviously know exactly how you would react in this situation.

Funny.
 
#489
#489
Grand Vol said:
Since you can't see the officer in the video, you are assuming he didn't take cover. And if you are as familiar with ballistics as you claim, you would know a car door doesn't stop squat. And the positioning of the vehicles prohibited the engine block from being used as effective cover.

So the cop is faced with a fight or flight. Flight means he will have to remove himself from his current position and move to the rear of the vehicle where he can possibly lose sight of the aggressor (if indeed he was).

And plenty of time lol. You are reaching. It's obvious you didn't watch the video at all since your concept of "time" does not match what happened.

But you keep fighting the good fight. Keep thinking you're objective and correct in all these assumptions. Keep believing you can play the "what if" card and game this out because you obviously know exactly how you would react in this situation.

Funny.
Click to expand...

Love ya brother but your eyes are shaded blue to the point where you have no objectivity in these matters.

You know I'm right.
 
#490
#490
hog88 said:
Love ya brother but your eyes are shaded blue to the point where you have no objectivity in these matters.

You know I'm right.
Click to expand...

No, I can actually look at it objectively because my first reaction isn't to scream and be outraged at any type of perceived police impropriety without knowing the facts. You automatically expect me to take the cops side, which I don't always do. Just like that situation posted a few pages back where the cops beat someone to death. I said wait until the facts are known and then pass judgment. From right now, it does appear the cops were entirely in the wrong. And just like that other video you asked me to comment on, we have half the story at the moment and it's probably best to get all the circumstances behind the situation before passing judgment. All we have is the story from the victim(?) in this case. And it's not like the media would ever put out a slanted or biased article. No way ever...

Do you honestly think from that initial video the cop believed he made a huge mistake? Because I do. And that is going to follow him around the rest of his life and chances of him hesitating in the future will be greatly increased. Furthermore, he will be a liability to himself and others because of that hesitation. Even if he is faced with a good shoot scenario in the future there will be a hesitation that can get himself, fellow officers or the people in the general public killed.

And if you actually read my first post, I said can see this from both sides. It was not necessarily a good shoot, but I can see where he reacted to a perceived threat and the conditions surrounding it. He wasn't "trigger happy" like you are claiming. You ignore the other factors involved in this situation because again, you cannot look at this objectively because in your mind the officer was already guilty. I never specifically stated it was a good shoot, but the conditional factors behind it must be considered and it has to be considered from the officer's perspective.

And that's something you completely fail to do because of your built in bias.
 
#491
#491
Skip to the 6:30 mark. Can any of you see where this guy posed a threat to the cops?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/Muko5Osh_2o[/youtube]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#492
#492
I just saw this. It's unbelievable. Guy was turning to run and they shot him in the back.

THEN they continue to pelt him with bean bag guns and let the dog bite him as he obviously lies unconscious on the ground.

Also a good chance he was mentally ill.

Here's the uncut version of the helmet cam.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DngOL6LokN4[/YOUTUBE]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#494
#494
whocaresgobobcats said:
I just saw this. It's unbelievable. Guy was turning to run and they shot him in the back.

THEN they continue to pelt him with bean bag guns and let the dog bite him as he obviously lies unconscious on the ground.

Also a good chance he was mentally ill.

Here's the uncut version of the helmet cam.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/v/DngOL6LokN4[/YOUTUBE]
Click to expand...

I don't want to watch. I just read about it. If others don't want to watch, but want to know...

Apparently he argued with the cops for 3 hours about "illegal camping" and then they gave him some sort of command (like kneel down, or something). He said, "that wasn't part of the agreement" and he tried to pick up his things and walk down the mountain. They hit him with a flash bang and while he is obviously disoriented it appears he grabs a knife or something and then they iced him.

It seems like this sort of thing is happening every week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#495
#495
Surely they could have tried a few non-lethal measures first. There was a pretty big distance between them with a rocky terrain, so they were not in immediate danger when he pulled the knives.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement

Back
Top