Black Lives Matter: to the tune of $4 each

[s0me0nesmind1]

That's absolutely insane.

Absolute stupidity as well - but for some reason that is in the warped world we are in at the moment. Hope we can only learn the insanity of these types of statements in the near future.

 

[Greenman]

Absolute stupidity as well - but for some reason that is in the warped world we are in at the moment. Hope we can only learn the insanity of these types of statements in the near future.

Think about training cops and how that lesson would go. "In an armed confrontation you may only discharge your weapon after allowing the suspect the first shot".

I can see the trainees looking up from their desks and saying "wut?".

 

[nickqt]

Think about training cops and how that lesson would go. "In an armed confrontation you may only discharge your weapon after allowing the suspect the first shot".

I can see the trainees looking up from their desks and saying "wut?".

And if a police officer raises their gun at a civilian, should the civilian be able to fire the first shot? What about after the police officer fires a shot, can a civilian shoot back? How many shots can a police officer take at a civilian before the civilian can defend themselves?

If police officers are allowed to shoot someone because they were "threatened", then every single shooting is going to be justified, because every single police officer is just going to say they were threatened.

You imagine police officers looking up from their desks and saying "wut".

Imagine the absolute horror and terror of being a police officer where they don't carry guns. Yet, those police officers exist.

But don't do any critical thinking about that. Much too uncomfortable. Easier to just continue letting the police shoot people and claim they were threatened.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Think about training cops and how that lesson would go. "In an armed confrontation you may only discharge your weapon after allowing the suspect the first shot".

I can see the trainees looking up from their desks and saying "wut?".

Pretty simple - everyone would reply - "Yeah, fuck this I quit." on the spot.



I mean just imagine the stupidity of you can't defend yourself with a lethal weapon in an armed robbery on your own home only after the robbery has fired their weapon. Pure insanity.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Pretty simple - everyone would reply - "Yeah, fuck this I quit." on the spot.

Excellent. Those that would quit because they are not allowed to be the aggressor is exactly the types we don't want as police.
The police are supposed to be peace officers. If they can't manage a situation without murdering someone then we don't want them.
Their firearm should literally be a weapon of last resort. They should never fire until they have absolutely no other choice.

They are not above the law. There should not even be any special dispensations for the police. If it would not be legal for some random people on the street to shoot, it is not legal for a police office to.

 

[Paladin3]

Excellent. Those that would quit because they are not allowed to be the aggressor is exactly the types we don't want as police.
The police are supposed to be peace officers. If they can't manage a situation without murdering someone then we don't want them.
Their firearm should literally be a weapon of last resort. They should never fire until they have absolutely no other choice.

They are not above the law. There should not even be any special dispensations for the police. If it would not be legal for some random people on the street to shoot, it is not legal for a police office to.

I agree with most of what you are saying. Just not about cops never shooting first. Why would any armed individual, when they have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm from an attacker, have to let that attacker shoot or act first before they can defend themselves? The right to self-defense does not hinge on allowing the attacker to act first. That's just fucking stupid.

Now, it does hinge on my belief in the danger of death or great bodily harm being REASONABLE and the threat being IMMEDIATE and (in some states at least) only after I have tried to retreat. But this BULLSHIT about valuing the life of the criminal attacker over the life of his intended victim has got to stop.

If you are unfortunate enough to ever be attacked, go ahead and let your attacker act or shoot first if it makes you feel better, but that's a pretty good recipe for loosing the fight. If I can't avoid or run from the attack, I'm going to do my best to shoot first and go home to my loved ones. And, citizen or cop, that's not murder by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[mindless1]

It's VERY SIMPLE. Ask others, don't take against their will.

 

[zinfamous]

Pretty simple - everyone would reply - "Yeah, fuck this I quit." on the spot.

well, that would be a good start, considering the cheeseball fucking recruits these days that have no fucking frontal lobe cognitive function...and for sure as shit should probably never be handling firearms.

Bedwetters should never be cops, sad to say. But that is what we have today, and that is a large part of the problem. Very few of them have a modicum of calculation to fall back on in those dusty, C- skulls of theirs.

 

[mindless1]

Robots for the win.

 

[ivwshane]

There is no where in the world where anyone would sign up to be a police officer if they couldn’t have a gun!!

Oh except these countries:

Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland excepted), Maldives.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I agree with most of what you are saying. Just not about cops never shooting first. Why would any armed individual, when they have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm from an attacker, have to let that attacker shoot or act first before they can defend themselves? The right to self-defense does not hinge on allowing the attacker to act first. That's just fucking stupid.

The problem is that they keep getting it wrong, or they overreact and shoot someone in a situation where it could have been avoided. Right now our court system is basically set up so that there is no real oversight on cops. The system relies on them to police themselves and they have told us in no uncertain terms this year that they have no intention of doing so. So, we need some extreme solutions to force it on them.
Basically, I'm saying that since we can't easily fix the court system, we need to make it easier for them to find cops guilty.

Overall I would prefer a system that fixes the major holes in our courts system. I personally would create a citizen review board that has the ability to discipline, fire, or recommend criminal charges against cops and set it up to work a lot like the grand jury system works, but with real teeth. It would have to work very independently, give anonymity to those serving on it, and be able to do it's own investigation. It would probably require that every county have a special prosecutor who only job is to run it and prosecute crimes by the police, or if county is to small a area set up special districts and have it run by the state.

Now, it does hinge on my belief in the danger of death or great bodily harm being REASONABLE and the threat being IMMEDIATE

This is the problem. That definition has slipped so far that it is all to easy to simply imagine a reasonable and immediate danger, even when it would not really there. Combined with just a little effort on the polices part and literally any situation can be pitched as that.

But this BULLSHIT about valuing the life of the criminal attacker over the life of his intended victim has got to stop.

I don't value a criminals life over his victim. I value an innocent's life over the one that pledged to protect it.
If you believe that it is okay to kill innocent people so that you don't have to risk your life then you should not be a cop.

 

[Paladin3]

The problem is that they keep getting it wrong, or they overreact and shoot someone in a situation where it could have been avoided. Right now our court system is basically set up so that there is no real oversight on cops. The system relies on them to police themselves and they have told us in no uncertain terms this year that they have no intention of doing so. So, we need some extreme solutions to force it on them.
Basically, I'm saying that since we can't easily fix the court system, we need to make it easier for them to find cops guilty.

Overall I would prefer a system that fixes the major holes in our courts system. I personally would create a citizen review board that has the ability to discipline, fire, or recommend criminal charges against cops and set it up to work a lot like the grand jury system works, but with real teeth. It would have to work very independently, give anonymity to those serving on it, and be able to do it's own investigation. It would probably require that every county have a special prosecutor who only job is to run it and prosecute crimes by the police, or if county is to small a area set up special districts and have it run by the state.


This is the problem. That definition has slipped so far that it is all to easy to simply imagine a reasonable and immediate danger, even when it would not really there. Combined with just a little effort on the polices part and literally any situation can be pitched as that.


I don't value a criminals life over his victim. I value an innocent's life over the one that pledged to protect it.
If you believe that it is okay to kill innocent people so that you don't have to risk your life then you should not be a cop.

Stop with the strawman argument. You are the one that said cops should never shoot first. Nobody supports shooting innocent people.

Cops or armed citizen, it's the same thing. If you think a victim has to wait to for his attacker to shoot first or it's murder then you are nuts. Yes, legal self-defense (by a cop or anyone else) hinges on belief in the danger of death or great bodily harm being REASONABLE and the threat being IMMEDIATE and (in some states at least) only after having tried to retreat. Please stop ignoring that fact or saying courts never hold anyone to that standard. No legal definition has slipped.

I'm not going to get into this debate about how racist cops are or how stacked the courts are against blacks. Here is an article that sums up a lot of what I feel is wrong with both side's narrative on that: Desmoinesregister.com: police-and-racism-what-statistics-show-stereotypes. You can choose to acknowledge this or not.

Have a nice day.

 

[ivwshane]

Stop with the strawman argument. You are the one that said cops should never shoot first. Nobody supports shooting innocent people.

Cops or armed citizen, it's the same thing. If you think a victim has to wait to for his attacker to shoot first or it's murder then you are nuts. Yes, legal self-defense (by a cop or anyone else) hinges on belief in the danger of death or great bodily harm being REASONABLE and the threat being IMMEDIATE and (in some states at least) only after having tried to retreat. Please stop ignoring that fact or saying courts never hold anyone to that standard. No legal definition has slipped.

I'm not going to get into this debate about how racist cops are or how stacked the courts are against blacks. Here is an article that sums up a lot of what I feel is wrong with both side's narrative on that: Desmoinesregister.com: police-and-racism-what-statistics-show-stereotypes. You can choose to acknowledge this or not.

Have a nice day.

Well that’s completely bull shit as if there was a standard for what reasonably would be, we wouldn’t have plenty of video evidence where a cop isn’t in immediate danger killing someone while they run away or while handcuffed and on the ground.

The problem with ignorant people like you and yes you are ignorant, is that you think “reasonable and immediate” aren’t open to interpretation and therefore cases involving such claims are black and white. They aren’t and cops are given extreme prejudice and ignorant people like you accept the outcomes unquestioningly.

 

[fleshconsumed]

Stop with the strawman argument. You are the one that said cops should never shoot first. Nobody supports shooting innocent people.

Cops or armed citizen, it's the same thing. If you think a victim has to wait to for his attacker to shoot first or it's murder then you are nuts. Yes, legal self-defense (by a cop or anyone else) hinges on belief in the danger of death or great bodily harm being REASONABLE and the threat being IMMEDIATE and (in some states at least) only after having tried to retreat. Please stop ignoring that fact or saying courts never hold anyone to that standard. No legal definition has slipped.

I'm not going to get into this debate about how racist cops are or how stacked the courts are against blacks. Here is an article that sums up a lot of what I feel is wrong with both side's narrative on that: Desmoinesregister.com: police-and-racism-what-statistics-show-stereotypes. You can choose to acknowledge this or not.

Have a nice day.

No, cops and armed citizens are not the same things. Armed citizens don't get anywhere near the same protections the cops do when they fuck up. Numerous footage shows time and time again cops overstepping what any person would consider reasonable bounds and not suffering any real consequences.

If we are going to shield our cops from any responsibility for their actions when they overstep their bounds, then we should also make it really difficult for them to overstep those bounds.

 

[dank69]

Think about training cops and how that lesson would go. "In an armed confrontation you may only discharge your weapon after allowing the suspect the first shot".

I can see the trainees looking up from their desks and saying "wut?".

Yeah, why should cops be held to the same standard our US military is held to against civilians? That's absurd!

 

[SMOGZINN]

Stop with the strawman argument. You are the one that said cops should never shoot first. Nobody supports shooting innocent people.

Not a strawman argument. I already said that the reason I am against cops being able to shoot first is that it is plainly obvious that if you do sometimes they will sometimes shoot an innocent person. If they wait until the person shoots first, then that will basically never happen, or when it does it is obviously the cops fault. Once you accept that it is plainly obvious that right now we have a situation where people like you are saying that it is okay to kill some innocent people in order to protect cops. That is not a strawman, that is just you trying to dodge the conclusion of your argument.

Cops or armed citizen, it's the same thing.

No it is not. Cops are given huge amount of benefit of the doubt that no armed civilian gets. The legal system bends over backwards to protect them.

Please stop ignoring that fact or saying courts never hold anyone to that standard. No legal definition has slipped.

Not anyone, police. The courts rarely even prosecute a police office unless there is overwhelming evidence against him, and even then they get off the vast majority of the time.

I'm not going to get into this debate about how racist cops are or how stacked the courts are against blacks. Here is an article that sums up a lot of what I feel is wrong with both side's narrative on that: Desmoinesregister.com: police-and-racism-what-statistics-show-stereotypes. You can choose to acknowledge this or not.

Now who is making a strawman. I never mentioned race or discrimination against race in the courts or enforcement. I am making a logical argument about the simple inescapable fact that if you allow cops to fire first they will sometimes get it wrong and kill an innocent.

 

[nickqt]

Not a strawman argument. I already said that the reason I am against cops being able to shoot first is that it is plainly obvious that if you do sometimes they will sometimes shoot an innocent person. If they wait until the person shoots first, then that will basically never happen, or when it does it is obviously the cops fault. Once you accept that it is plainly obvious that right now we have a situation where people like you are saying that it is okay to kill some innocent people in order to protect cops. That is not a strawman, that is just you trying to dodge the conclusion of your argument.


No it is not. Cops are given huge amount of benefit of the doubt that no armed civilian gets. The legal system bends over backwards to protect them.


Not anyone, police. The courts rarely even prosecute a police office unless there is overwhelming evidence against him, and even then they get off the vast majority of the time.



Now who is making a strawman. I never mentioned race or discrimination against race in the courts or enforcement. I am making a logical argument about the simple inescapable fact that if you allow cops to fire first they will sometimes get it wrong and kill an innocent.

And don't forget. What happens when a cop fires on someone because they're an idiot, and the person being fired on has a gun? Are they allowed to fire back to defend themselves? Me thinks not. Which means, cops can shoot first, and citizens can't shoot at all. All that equals is a lot of dead citizens who did nothing wrong but make some idiot cop nervous while he was holding a gun.

 

[brycejones]

And don't forget. What happens when a cop fires on someone because they're an idiot, and the person being fired on has a gun? Are they allowed to fire back to defend themselves? Me thinks not. Which means, cops can shoot first, and citizens can't shoot at all. All that equals is a lot of dead citizens who did nothing wrong but make some idiot cop nervous while he was holding a gun.

Yeah, but did they follow directions? If not they should be executed!

 

[Greenman]

Yeah, why should cops be held to the same standard our US military is held to against civilians? That's absurd!

Because cops don't wonder around in squads with automatic weapons, grenades, and air support. As a rule of thumb, cops don't get to kill off most of a city and call it collateral damage.
A soldiers job is to kill people and break things, police officers don't operate under the same ROE. You knew all this, and still asked the stupid question.

 

[ivwshane]

Because cops don't wonder around in squads with automatic weapons, grenades, and air support. As a rule of thumb, cops don't get to kill off most of a city and call it collateral damage.
A soldiers job is to kill people and break things, police officers don't operate under the same ROE. You knew all this, and still asked the stupid question.

Are you sure about that?

 

[dank69]

Because cops don't wonder around in squads with automatic weapons, grenades, and air support. As a rule of thumb, cops don't get to kill off most of a city and call it collateral damage.
A soldiers job is to kill people and break things, police officers don't operate under the same ROE. You knew all this, and still asked the stupid question.

Correct, soldiers operate in battle zones 100 times more dangerous than any cop and yet have to follow strict ROE including not firing unless fired upon and even not firing when fired upon until authorized to do so. Yet cops essentially have no rules. We can produce hundreds of examples of police using excessive force and getting no punishment whatsoever.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I see the resident dum dum liked cluessman's dum dum post.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Correct, soldiers operate in battle zones 100 times more dangerous than any cop and yet have to follow strict ROE including not firing unless fired upon and even not firing when fired upon until authorized to do so. Yet cops essentially have no rules. We can produce hundreds of examples of police using excessive force and getting no punishment whatsoever.

Hey, do you know how the latest wars have been going?

They are actually very similar to what cops experience, they are in an overall city that supports their help and assistance.... but some people are dressed in a friendly manner (not in an enemy derived uniform).... and they randomly start opening fire.

Sound familiar?

 

[cytg111]

Hey, do you know how the latest wars have been going?

They are actually very similar to what cops experience, they are in an overall city that supports their help and assistance.... but some people are dressed in a friendly manner (not in an enemy derived uniform).... and they randomly start opening fire.

Sound familiar?

Wtf

 

[dank69]

Hey, do you know how the latest wars have been going?

They are actually very similar to what cops experience, they are in an overall city that supports their help and assistance.... but some people are dressed in a friendly manner (not in an enemy derived uniform).... and they randomly start opening fire.

Sound familiar?

And?