Man killed by police after angry CoD gamer SWATs player for lost $1.50 wager match

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

RobertEHouse:
One thing people forget is SWAT is NOT the normal police department. SWAT is supposed to be only called if its the last resort as the Sh@t has hit the fan. That means heavy armor and military grade rifles, platoon tactics to stop a hostage situation from getting out of hand. Unlike the normal men in blue they are not the type to talk, as the situations they are normally placed into are times when talking is not a option.

SWAT uses lethal force all the time , while the regular guys in PD have options. That is why SWATTING someone is so horrible as it could lead to someone ending very much dead.

Lethal force is still a last resort for SWAT as well. For that matter, they are supposed to differentiate between threats and victims.

But yeah, they are only (supposed) to be used when things have gotten really bad.

Oh shit, on top of it all, it was a fake address?

The guy who called the swat team should get charged with at least second degree murder (I mean, seriously, considering how trigger-happy the cops are known to be in the US, I'm shocked a lethal event didn't happen sooner), and the guy who gave the fake address should probably be investigated for manslaughter for basically egging the guy on.

I hope they make an example of that little shit.

As for the Swat guy himself...At the very least he should redo basic training completely. I sympathize that swat is called in when "oh shit people are dying, we need maximum force to save lives, teh help us literally right this second!" and thus would likely be trained to shoot to kill the second someone looks like they're planning to reach for a gun...But it's still way too goddamn trigger happy.

Ezekiel:

Captain Marvelous:
Don't really want to defend the police, but it isn't as if they can walk up to the front door and ask if there's a hostage situation going on. They can't handle the situation with kiddy gloves just because of an anonymous tip. As far as they know, lives are at risk. One man has already been shot and a woman is being held captive in a closet.

There are windows all around the house they could have used to verify the situation. They wouldn't even have to put their faces in front of possible gunpoint. They can use mirrors and other tools. If they had looked into those windows, they could have seen that he was doing nothing at all. They could have also listened in. And if you're ready to kill at the slightest sign of threat, maybe you should come with more armor and a shotgun so that you don't have to be so twitchy. If this keeps, shouldn't that be a message that they need to change their procedure? Cops in America are frightening. I don't know if I would have been smart enough not to get shot in the face too in such a confusing, scary situation.

Assuming they had the chance and the equipment, maybe. But from what I understand, the man opened the door before they could make contact. Even if they had more protective armor, I don't think any officers are keen on taking any fire, so it'd have likely ended the same way.

The way I see it, the big mistake that was made, aside from the swatting, was the victim not keeping his hands up like the officers ordered. American citizens need to understand that when an officer gives an order it's in everyone's best interest to comply. When an officer approaches what they assume to be a hostile suspect, they're also scared for their lives. They don't want to kill you, but they don't want to die either. It's easy to picture them as trigger-happy, blood-thirsty, maniacs, but the reality is they're human and are just as afraid of death. If you're innocent, comply. It wont fix the problem, but at least the officer wont be able to say "I saw him reach for a gun"

Captain Marvelous:

Ezekiel:

Captain Marvelous:
Don't really want to defend the police, but it isn't as if they can walk up to the front door and ask if there's a hostage situation going on. They can't handle the situation with kiddy gloves just because of an anonymous tip. As far as they know, lives are at risk. One man has already been shot and a woman is being held captive in a closet.

There are windows all around the house they could have used to verify the situation. They wouldn't even have to put their faces in front of possible gunpoint. They can use mirrors and other tools. If they had looked into those windows, they could have seen that he was doing nothing at all. They could have also listened in. And if you're ready to kill at the slightest sign of threat, maybe you should come with more armor and a shotgun so that you don't have to be so twitchy. If this keeps, shouldn't that be a message that they need to change their procedure? Cops in America are frightening. I don't know if I would have been smart enough not to get shot in the face too in such a confusing, scary situation.

Assuming they had the chance and the equipment, maybe. But from what I understand, the man opened the door before they could make contact. Even if they had more protective armor, I don't think any officers are keen on taking any fire, so it'd have likely ended the same way.

The way I see it, the big mistake that was made, aside from the swatting, was the victim not keeping his hands up like the officers ordered. American citizens need to understand that when an officer gives an order it's in everyone's best interest to comply. When an officer approaches what they assume to be a hostile suspect, they're also scared for their lives. They don't want to kill you, but they don't want to die either. It's easy to picture them as trigger-happy, blood-thirsty, maniacs, but the reality is they're human and are just as afraid of death. If you're innocent, comply. It wont fix the problem, but at least the officer wont be able to say "I saw him reach for a gun"

Literal victim blaming.

Saelune:

Captain Marvelous:

Ezekiel:
There are windows all around the house they could have used to verify the situation. They wouldn't even have to put their faces in front of possible gunpoint. They can use mirrors and other tools. If they had looked into those windows, they could have seen that he was doing nothing at all. They could have also listened in. And if you're ready to kill at the slightest sign of threat, maybe you should come with more armor and a shotgun so that you don't have to be so twitchy. If this keeps, shouldn't that be a message that they need to change their procedure? Cops in America are frightening. I don't know if I would have been smart enough not to get shot in the face too in such a confusing, scary situation.

Assuming they had the chance and the equipment, maybe. But from what I understand, the man opened the door before they could make contact. Even if they had more protective armor, I don't think any officers are keen on taking any fire, so it'd have likely ended the same way.

The way I see it, the big mistake that was made, aside from the swatting, was the victim not keeping his hands up like the officers ordered. American citizens need to understand that when an officer gives an order it's in everyone's best interest to comply. When an officer approaches what they assume to be a hostile suspect, they're also scared for their lives. They don't want to kill you, but they don't want to die either. It's easy to picture them as trigger-happy, blood-thirsty, maniacs, but the reality is they're human and are just as afraid of death. If you're innocent, comply. It wont fix the problem, but at least the officer wont be able to say "I saw him reach for a gun"

Literal victim blaming.

Maybe it is. The truth of the matter is the suspect has a lot of input in how the situation ends. It's best for everyone involved for suspects to comply with officers. When the suspect reaches for their waist or ignores an officers orders then that's their input and they're partly to blame for the outcome.

Captain Marvelous:
Maybe it is. The truth of the matter is the suspect has a lot of input in how the situation ends. It's best for everyone involved for suspects to comply with officers. When the suspect reaches for their waist or ignores an officers orders then that's their input and they're partly to blame for the outcome.

Can any of us realistically claim to know how we would react if we expected it to be an ordinary day, and in a minute's time, we're faced with loaded guns and yelled instructions? No.

Shooting to kill is not an appropriate response in any way to an action as innocuous as touching one's waist. There cannot be said to be any reasonable expectation on the victim's part of what would happen, so no, they are not partly responsible. The killer is responsible.

As are those who created the situation, of course: the two players. All three should be charged.

Silvanus:

Captain Marvelous:
Maybe it is. The truth of the matter is the suspect has a lot of input in how the situation ends. It's best for everyone involved for suspects to comply with officers. When the suspect reaches for their waist or ignores an officers orders then that's their input and they're partly to blame for the outcome.

Can any of us realistically claim to know how we would react if we expected it to be an ordinary day, and in a minute's time, we're faced with loaded guns and yelled instructions? No.

Shooting to kill is not an appropriate response in any way to an action as innocuous as touching one's waist. There cannot be said to be any reasonable expectation on the victim's part of what would happen, so no, they are not partly responsible. The killer is responsible.

As are those who created the situation, of course: the two players. All three should be charged.

Officers are trained to shoot to stop and aim for center mass. This can be fatal, but their intention isn't to kill. shooting as a response is appropriate if the suspect is ordered to put their hands up, and do so, but then reach for their waist. Any reasonable person would assume he's reaching for a gun. The officer was doing what he was trained to do and did it right. No, he shouldn't be charged.

If at the very least the caller isn't charged with manslaughter and put in jail, and the other guy who egged him on to do it isn't charged with anything either, I will have lost hope in America as a whole. If injustice like this goes unpunished for the perpetrators, then there is no justice at all in America.

Other than that, I do think that the cop that shot needs to at the VERY least be fired. No one as trigger happy as him should be in the police force. Fuck you and your "I feared for the other cop's life" excuse. You know it's a bullshit story to get yourself out of trouble and so do we.

Captain Marvelous:

Silvanus:

Captain Marvelous:
Maybe it is. The truth of the matter is the suspect has a lot of input in how the situation ends. It's best for everyone involved for suspects to comply with officers. When the suspect reaches for their waist or ignores an officers orders then that's their input and they're partly to blame for the outcome.

Can any of us realistically claim to know how we would react if we expected it to be an ordinary day, and in a minute's time, we're faced with loaded guns and yelled instructions? No.

Shooting to kill is not an appropriate response in any way to an action as innocuous as touching one's waist. There cannot be said to be any reasonable expectation on the victim's part of what would happen, so no, they are not partly responsible. The killer is responsible.

As are those who created the situation, of course: the two players. All three should be charged.

Officers are trained to shoot to stop and aim for center mass. This can be fatal, but their intention isn't to kill. shooting as a response is appropriate if the suspect is ordered to put their hands up, and do so, but then reach for their waist. Any reasonable person would assume he's reaching for a gun. The officer was doing what he was trained to do and did it right. No, he shouldn't be charged.

And therein lies the problem. Officer's are barely trained and what they are trained to do is Shoot First, Ask Ques- Shoot Second, Get the persons nam- Shoot third.

It's an awful combination of

1) give everyone in every household and school room a gun including kids so that the NRA and Conversative politicians can make money

2) mythologize police into omnipotent protectors

3) police are trained to shoot on sight if they believe someone has a gun, which is everyone, so they always shoot first

4) give police paid vacation when they fuck up until the media blitz died down tied into #2 since cops can do no wrong and are never fired

America's fucked up

undeadsuitor:

Captain Marvelous:

Silvanus:

Can any of us realistically claim to know how we would react if we expected it to be an ordinary day, and in a minute's time, we're faced with loaded guns and yelled instructions? No.

Shooting to kill is not an appropriate response in any way to an action as innocuous as touching one's waist. There cannot be said to be any reasonable expectation on the victim's part of what would happen, so no, they are not partly responsible. The killer is responsible.

As are those who created the situation, of course: the two players. All three should be charged.

Officers are trained to shoot to stop and aim for center mass. This can be fatal, but their intention isn't to kill. shooting as a response is appropriate if the suspect is ordered to put their hands up, and do so, but then reach for their waist. Any reasonable person would assume he's reaching for a gun. The officer was doing what he was trained to do and did it right. No, he shouldn't be charged.

And therein lies the problem. Officer's are barely trained and what they are trained to do is Shoot First, Ask Ques- Shoot Second, Get the persons nam- Shoot third.

It's an awful combination of

1) give everyone in every household and school room a gun including kids so that the NRA and Conversative politicians can make money

2) mythologize police into omnipotent protectors

3) police are trained to shoot on sight if they believe someone has a gun, which is everyone, so they always shoot first

4) give police paid vacation when they fuck up until the media blitz died down tied into #2 since cops can do no wrong and are never fired

America's fucked up

Agreed. Something has to be done. Maybe change the way they're trained. Maybe put some funding toward more non-lethal means. But putting officers on trial for doing their jobs as they were trained is not the answer. It should be clear by now that the officers aren't the problem... sometimes. Anyway, I'm off. Happy New Year, all.

undeadsuitor:
snip

Iirc U.S. police are required to write a report everytime they draw their gun, and they face serious consequences if they do not have a legitimate reason. They won't draw a gun every time you reach for your waist, otherwise they can't get your driver and registration.

Silvanus:

Captain Marvelous:
Maybe it is. The truth of the matter is the suspect has a lot of input in how the situation ends. It's best for everyone involved for suspects to comply with officers. When the suspect reaches for their waist or ignores an officers orders then that's their input and they're partly to blame for the outcome.

Can any of us realistically claim to know how we would react if we expected it to be an ordinary day, and in a minute's time, we're faced with loaded guns and yelled instructions? No.

Having had that happen (Walking down the street near a school with an AR-15 shaped airsoft rifle without orange tip. Gets some cop attention) I can tell you, its really fucking easy to follow instructions properly.

Shooting to kill is not an appropriate response in any way to an action as innocuous as touching one's waist. There cannot be said to be any reasonable expectation on the victim's part of what would happen, so no, they are not partly responsible. The killer is responsible.

And you fail completely and utterly here. The only time you shoot is shooting to kill. If you think there are other options you don't draw the gun, or put it away. You never shoot to wound, you never try to leg someone. A gun is a tool with a very pecific purpose. And winging a person is not it.

Warhound:

Silvanus:

Captain Marvelous:
Maybe it is. The truth of the matter is the suspect has a lot of input in how the situation ends. It's best for everyone involved for suspects to comply with officers. When the suspect reaches for their waist or ignores an officers orders then that's their input and they're partly to blame for the outcome.

Can any of us realistically claim to know how we would react if we expected it to be an ordinary day, and in a minute's time, we're faced with loaded guns and yelled instructions? No.

Having had that happen (Walking down the street near a school with an AR-15 shaped airsoft rifle without orange tip. Gets some cop attention) I can tell you, its really fucking easy to follow instructions properly.

Shooting to kill is not an appropriate response in any way to an action as innocuous as touching one's waist. There cannot be said to be any reasonable expectation on the victim's part of what would happen, so no, they are not partly responsible. The killer is responsible.

And you fail completely and utterly here. The only time you shoot is shooting to kill. If you think there are other options you don't draw the gun, or put it away. You never shoot to wound, you never try to leg someone. A gun is a tool with a very pecific purpose. And winging a person is not it.

"Shoot only to kill" is a way of thinking that police would do well to get rid of. I think it might be a major source of the problem with gun nuts. Imagine if more cops shot to impede? Imagine if both innocent people had atleast a chance to live and guilty people had a chance to speak directly on why they did whatever they did. Too many shootings end with a dead perp and a mystery.

"Shoot only to kill" is a way of thinking that police would do well to get rid of. I think it might be a major source of the problem with gun nuts. Imagine if more cops shot to impede? Imagine if both innocent people had atleast a chance to live and guilty people had a chance to speak directly on why they did whatever they did. Too many shootings end with a dead perp and a mystery.[/quote]

This is the worst line of thinking ever. Please, never go near a firearm. There is no "shoot to impede" in ANY country. You know why? People with two braincells to rub together know that there is no way to do that that doesn't put the person shooting in more danger the person being shot till has a very good chance to die. (THis isn't the movies you know.) and puts by-standards in danger too. Go suggest that to a police officer (from any country) and they would laugh (or yell) at you.

Warhound:
The only time you shoot is shooting to kill. If you think there are other options you don't draw the gun, or put it away. You never shoot to wound, you never try to leg someone.

This is the worst line of thinking ever. Please, never go near a firearm.

Saelune:

Warhound:
The only time you shoot is shooting to kill. If you think there are other options you don't draw the gun, or put it away. You never shoot to wound, you never try to leg someone.

This is the worst line of thinking ever. Please, never go near a firearm.

Except this comes from ex-military and police officers who have served over 20 years. Where as your line of thinking comes from some imagination land. Go talk to an armed police officer from the UK, they will tell you the exact same thing.

Warhound:

Saelune:

Warhound:
The only time you shoot is shooting to kill. If you think there are other options you don't draw the gun, or put it away. You never shoot to wound, you never try to leg someone.

This is the worst line of thinking ever. Please, never go near a firearm.

Except this comes from ex-military and police officers who have served over 20 years. Where as your line of thinking comes from some imagination land. Go talk to an armed police officer from the UK, they will tell you the exact same thing.

You were a cop? Considering how you act, I only feel more sure of my views.

Saelune:

Warhound:
The only time you shoot is shooting to kill. If you think there are other options you don't draw the gun, or put it away. You never shoot to wound, you never try to leg someone.

This is the worst line of thinking ever. Please, never go near a firearm.

Sorry, Saelune, but he's right.

"If you pull it you'd better be prepared to use it." This is a maxim for any firearm.

Moreover real firearms aren't Hollywood accurate. Even trained marksmen can't "shoot a gun out of someone's hand". Moreover shooting anyone in the leg isn't easy, either. People are trained to target "Center of Mass" because that's the best way to actually hit what you're aiming for and avoid hitting innocent bystanders.

Especially with pistols. Rifles and shotguns can be used for hunting but pistols are difficult as heck to aim and they're killing tools. Pistols exist primarily to kill other people, sadly enough: They aren't much use for anything else.

Warhound is right.

Saelune:

Warhound:

Saelune:

This is the worst line of thinking ever. Please, never go near a firearm.

Except this comes from ex-military and police officers who have served over 20 years. Where as your line of thinking comes from some imagination land. Go talk to an armed police officer from the UK, they will tell you the exact same thing.

You were a cop? Considering how you act, I only feel more sure of my views.

Well, you are sure of your views because you have a fantasy version of reality.

But no, I wasn't a cop, I just took firearm training classes as a teen and an adult so I had a proper respect for the tools I was inheriting from my parents. You should take one as well since you don't understand the basics of what you are talking about.

Basement Cat:

Saelune:

Warhound:
The only time you shoot is shooting to kill. If you think there are other options you don't draw the gun, or put it away. You never shoot to wound, you never try to leg someone.

This is the worst line of thinking ever. Please, never go near a firearm.

Sorry, Saelune, but he's right.

"If you pull it you'd better be prepared to use it." This is a maxim for any firearm.

Moreover real firearms aren't Hollywood accurate. Even trained marksmen can't "shoot a gun out of someone's hand". Moreover shooting anyone in the leg isn't easy, either. People are trained to target "Center of Mass" because that's the best way to actually hit what you're aiming for and avoid hitting innocent bystanders.

Especially with pistols. Rifles and shotguns can be used for hunting but pistols are difficult as heck to aim and they're killing tools. Pistols exist primarily to kill other people, sadly enough: They aren't much use for anything else.

Warhound is right.

Then my response is that you are also wrong.

Using it and using it explicitly to kill arent the same. Sure, you should probably be prepared for killing them, even f you dont intentionally mean to, but this killer mentality well, that is a clear problem.

But then maybe cops just shouldnt all have guns then? That the cop problem here is distinctly American is very telling.

Warhound:

Saelune:

Warhound:

Except this comes from ex-military and police officers who have served over 20 years. Where as your line of thinking comes from some imagination land. Go talk to an armed police officer from the UK, they will tell you the exact same thing.

You were a cop? Considering how you act, I only feel more sure of my views.

Well, you are sure of your views because you have a fantasy version of reality.

But no, I wasn't a cop, I just took firearm training classes as a teen and an adult so I had a proper respect for the tools I was inheriting from my parents. You should take one as well since you don't understand the basics of what you are talking about.

I was too busy building a respect for innocent lives, not metal weapons of death.

Saelune:

Warhound:

Saelune:
You were a cop? Considering how you act, I only feel more sure of my views.

Well, you are sure of your views because you have a fantasy version of reality.

But no, I wasn't a cop, I just took firearm training classes as a teen and an adult so I had a proper respect for the tools I was inheriting from my parents. You should take one as well since you don't understand the basics of what you are talking about.

I was too busy building a respect for innocent lives, not metal weapons of death.

Funny I had time to do both, never too late for you to learn, but I suspect you have 0 interest in actually learning, you just want to reinforce your own strange world views, eh? After all you just got told you were wrong by several people and your responce is "NAH NAH NAH YOU ARE ALL WRONG."

Warhound:

Saelune:

Warhound:

Well, you are sure of your views because you have a fantasy version of reality.

But no, I wasn't a cop, I just took firearm training classes as a teen and an adult so I had a proper respect for the tools I was inheriting from my parents. You should take one as well since you don't understand the basics of what you are talking about.

I was too busy building a respect for innocent lives, not metal weapons of death.

Funny I had time to do both, never too late for you to learn, but I suspect you have 0 interest in actually learning, you just want to reinforce your own strange world views, eh? After all you just got told you were wrong by several people and your responce is "NAH NAH NAH YOU ARE ALL WRONG."

There have been times where I have been on the side with most of the people agreeing against one person, and I do usually think "Everyone else thinks you're wrong so you probably are" but I dont say it cause...thats bullshit. Just because a majority of people agree on something, doesnt make it right, case in point most Civil Rights issues. And plus you are only going on right now. Silvanus, undeadsuitor, bastardofmelbourne and others tend to be on the same page as me on this topic. Just because they arent here right now defending me or disagreeing with you doesnt mean they suddenly change their mind.

And what of your responses? You are very rude and directly insulting.

Saelune:

Warhound:

Saelune:
I was too busy building a respect for innocent lives, not metal weapons of death.

Funny I had time to do both, never too late for you to learn, but I suspect you have 0 interest in actually learning, you just want to reinforce your own strange world views, eh? After all you just got told you were wrong by several people and your responce is "NAH NAH NAH YOU ARE ALL WRONG."

There have been times where I have been on the side with most of the people agreeing against one person, and I do usually think "Everyone else thinks you're wrong so you probably are" but I dont say it cause...thats bullshit. Just because a majority of people agree on something, doesnt make it right, case in point most Civil Rights issues. And plus you are only going on right now. Silvanus, undeadsuitor, bastardofmelbourne and others tend to be on the same page as me on this topic. Just because they arent here right now defending me or disagreeing with you doesnt mean they suddenly change their mind.

And what of your responses? You are very rude and directly insulting.

I am sorry, but are you seriously saying that the fact that you, Silvanus, undeadsuitor, and bastardofmelbourne think its seriously OK for cops to go around trying to shoot people in the arms and legs is similar to the Civil Rights struggles?

Dear god. As for my responses, they are blunt, if you think the truth is rude and insulting thats on you.

Saelune:

Warhound:

Saelune:
I was too busy building a respect for innocent lives, not metal weapons of death.

Funny I had time to do both, never too late for you to learn, but I suspect you have 0 interest in actually learning, you just want to reinforce your own strange world views, eh? After all you just got told you were wrong by several people and your responce is "NAH NAH NAH YOU ARE ALL WRONG."

There have been times where I have been on the side with most of the people agreeing against one person, and I do usually think "Everyone else thinks you're wrong so you probably are" but I dont say it cause...thats bullshit. Just because a majority of people agree on something, doesnt make it right, case in point most Civil Rights issues. And plus you are only going on right now. Silvanus, undeadsuitor, bastardofmelbourne and others tend to be on the same page as me on this topic. Just because they arent here right now defending me or disagreeing with you doesnt mean they suddenly change their mind.

And what of your responses? You are very rude and directly insulting.

No, he isn't.

In fact I find myself agreeing with him. You're unfamiliar with firearms--nothing wrong with that--but in addition to hating firearms in general you ooze contempt and disgust over those who wield them and/or are trained to handle them.

Basement Cat:

Saelune:

Warhound:

Funny I had time to do both, never too late for you to learn, but I suspect you have 0 interest in actually learning, you just want to reinforce your own strange world views, eh? After all you just got told you were wrong by several people and your responce is "NAH NAH NAH YOU ARE ALL WRONG."

There have been times where I have been on the side with most of the people agreeing against one person, and I do usually think "Everyone else thinks you're wrong so you probably are" but I dont say it cause...thats bullshit. Just because a majority of people agree on something, doesnt make it right, case in point most Civil Rights issues. And plus you are only going on right now. Silvanus, undeadsuitor, bastardofmelbourne and others tend to be on the same page as me on this topic. Just because they arent here right now defending me or disagreeing with you doesnt mean they suddenly change their mind.

And what of your responses? You are very rude and directly insulting.

No, he isn't.

In fact I find myself agreeing with him. You're unfamiliar with firearms--nothing wrong with that--but in addition to hating firearms in general you ooze contempt and disgust over those who wield them and/or are trained to handle them.

It worries me that you are condoning his posts then, but fine.

I hate the idolization of deadly weapons by so many here. I ooze contempt and disgust over murderers who get away with it because of unreasonable worship of organizations that repeatedly fail to uphold the law they are supposed to enforce and defend, as well as for the people who outright defend them on flimsy and unfair reasoning. Why is it ok for cops, people with guns and supposed training, to kill out of fear and cowardice, but its not ok for an innocent person to fumble in fear when yelled at by said gun toting monsters? I believe that is the definition of a double standard.

I think gun nuts are far too biased in their idol worship that they lack objective thinking and outright dismiss anyone who doesnt fall in line with their deadly thinking.

I did not start off this way. Hell, I used to think black people were exaggerating and overreacting, but time and time, murder after murder, excuse after excuse, and unpunished killer after unpunished killer, here I am.

Warhound:

Saelune:

Warhound:

Funny I had time to do both, never too late for you to learn, but I suspect you have 0 interest in actually learning, you just want to reinforce your own strange world views, eh? After all you just got told you were wrong by several people and your responce is "NAH NAH NAH YOU ARE ALL WRONG."

There have been times where I have been on the side with most of the people agreeing against one person, and I do usually think "Everyone else thinks you're wrong so you probably are" but I dont say it cause...thats bullshit. Just because a majority of people agree on something, doesnt make it right, case in point most Civil Rights issues. And plus you are only going on right now. Silvanus, undeadsuitor, bastardofmelbourne and others tend to be on the same page as me on this topic. Just because they arent here right now defending me or disagreeing with you doesnt mean they suddenly change their mind.

And what of your responses? You are very rude and directly insulting.

I am sorry, but are you seriously saying that the fact that you, Silvanus, undeadsuitor, and bastardofmelbourne think its seriously OK for cops to go around trying to shoot people in the arms and legs is similar to the Civil Rights struggles?

Dear god. As for my responses, they are blunt, if you think the truth is rude and insulting thats on you.

You are rude and insulting. Your bias is not truth.

Saelune:
It worries me that you are condoning his posts then, but fine.

I hate the idolization of deadly weapons by so many here. I ooze contempt and disgust over murderers who get away with it because of unreasonable worship of organizations that repeatedly fail to uphold the law they are supposed to enforce and defend, as well as for the people who outright defend them on flimsy and unfair reasoning. Why is it ok for cops, people with guns and supposed training, to kill out of fear and cowardice, but its not ok for an innocent person to fumble in fear when yelled at by said gun toting monsters? I believe that is the definition of a double standard.

I think gun nuts are far too biased in their idol worship that they lack objective thinking and outright dismiss anyone who doesnt fall in line with their deadly thinking.

You're painting whole populations of the U.S. with the same brush, Saelune.

BTW: My late maternal grandmother (who lived alone for decades) owned a .22 revolver for home protection. Not exactly a gun nut, there.

Saelune:

Using it and using it explicitly to kill arent the same. Sure, you should probably be prepared for killing them, even f you dont intentionally mean to, but this killer mentality well, that is a clear problem.

So, we're just going to magically use inherently lethal methods of force on people and try and make them not harmless. We're just going to lower the barrier for entry and make the use of lethal force more commonplace because you can totally shoot someone in a magic(nonexistent) place and they'll have no chance of dying. You are entirely ignoring reality here.

But then maybe cops just shouldnt all have guns then? That the cop problem here is distinctly American is very telling.

So they're just going to walk into an armed robbery with pepper spray?

Basement Cat:

Saelune:
It worries me that you are condoning his posts then, but fine.

I hate the idolization of deadly weapons by so many here. I ooze contempt and disgust over murderers who get away with it because of unreasonable worship of organizations that repeatedly fail to uphold the law they are supposed to enforce and defend, as well as for the people who outright defend them on flimsy and unfair reasoning. Why is it ok for cops, people with guns and supposed training, to kill out of fear and cowardice, but its not ok for an innocent person to fumble in fear when yelled at by said gun toting monsters? I believe that is the definition of a double standard.

I think gun nuts are far too biased in their idol worship that they lack objective thinking and outright dismiss anyone who doesnt fall in line with their deadly thinking.

You're painting whole populations of the U.S. with the same brush, Saelune.

BTW: My late maternal grandmother (who lived alone for decades) owned a .22 revolver for home protection. Not exactly a gun nut, there.

Is wanting accountability for killer cops really such a vile thing?

That depends. Does she think owning a gun makes her free to kill whoever she wants? Does she think that anyone who doesnt own a gun cant have a worthwhile opinion on guns? Does she think cops are incapable of wrong doing? Did she vote Trump just cause she wanted to keep her gun (possibly while also liking Trump taking away peoples immigrant relatives cause guns > people)? Does she think everyone and anyone should have a gun, background checks be damned?

Saelune:

Basement Cat:

Saelune:
There have been times where I have been on the side with most of the people agreeing against one person, and I do usually think "Everyone else thinks you're wrong so you probably are" but I dont say it cause...thats bullshit. Just because a majority of people agree on something, doesnt make it right, case in point most Civil Rights issues. And plus you are only going on right now. Silvanus, undeadsuitor, bastardofmelbourne and others tend to be on the same page as me on this topic. Just because they arent here right now defending me or disagreeing with you doesnt mean they suddenly change their mind.

And what of your responses? You are very rude and directly insulting.

No, he isn't.

In fact I find myself agreeing with him. You're unfamiliar with firearms--nothing wrong with that--but in addition to hating firearms in general you ooze contempt and disgust over those who wield them and/or are trained to handle them.

It worries me that you are condoning his posts then, but fine.

I hate the idolization of deadly weapons by so many here. I ooze contempt and disgust over murderers who get away with it because of unreasonable worship of organizations that repeatedly fail to uphold the law they are supposed to enforce and defend, as well as for the people who outright defend them on flimsy and unfair reasoning. Why is it ok for cops, people with guns and supposed training, to kill out of fear and cowardice, but its not ok for an innocent person to fumble in fear when yelled at by said gun toting monsters? I believe that is the definition of a double standard.

I think gun nuts are far too biased in their idol worship that they lack objective thinking and outright dismiss anyone who doesnt fall in line with their deadly thinking.

Again you use the word murderers, you don't know what that word means clearly, and you lessen the meaning of it by applying it incorrectly.

The douche in the charger who ran people over at a nazi rally? THATS a murderer.

A cop who makes a split second judgment call and is wrong? Still wrong, but not a murderer.

Also its laughable that you call everyone else biased and lacking objectivity and then call people cowards, idol worshipers. You say they have 'supposed training' yet you, someone who has never seemingly been in the same room as a firearm, can't even respect the very basic rule of firearms, that you don't point it at anything you don't want to die/destroy AND endorse the cops shooting at people's legs and arms to disable them.

Saelune:

I think gun nuts are far too biased in their idol worship that they lack objective thinking and outright dismiss anyone who doesnt fall in line with their deadly thinking.

Saelune, you're the one here wanting firearms to be used for non-lethal means. Please let that sink in and see how insane that sounds to people that have experience with firearms and do practice basic safety. If you're against firearms being drawn so quickly in these situations, that's one thing. You're talking about using firearms for something they are inherently designed against as per the laws of the universe.

Warhound:

Saelune:

Basement Cat:

No, he isn't.

In fact I find myself agreeing with him. You're unfamiliar with firearms--nothing wrong with that--but in addition to hating firearms in general you ooze contempt and disgust over those who wield them and/or are trained to handle them.

It worries me that you are condoning his posts then, but fine.

I hate the idolization of deadly weapons by so many here. I ooze contempt and disgust over murderers who get away with it because of unreasonable worship of organizations that repeatedly fail to uphold the law they are supposed to enforce and defend, as well as for the people who outright defend them on flimsy and unfair reasoning. Why is it ok for cops, people with guns and supposed training, to kill out of fear and cowardice, but its not ok for an innocent person to fumble in fear when yelled at by said gun toting monsters? I believe that is the definition of a double standard.

I think gun nuts are far too biased in their idol worship that they lack objective thinking and outright dismiss anyone who doesnt fall in line with their deadly thinking.

Again you use the word murderers, you don't know what that word means clearly, and you lessen the meaning of it by applying it incorrectly.

The douche in the charger who ran people over at a nazi rally? THATS a murderer.

A cop who makes a split second judgment call and is wrong? Still wrong, but not a murderer.

Also its laughable that you call everyone else biased and lacking objectivity and then call people cowards, idol worshipers. You say they have 'supposed training' yet you, someone who has never seemingly been in the same room as a firearm, can't even respect the very basic rule of firearms, that you don't point it at anything you don't want to die/destroy AND endorse the cops shooting at people's legs and arms to disable them.

See again I go back to if thats the case then clearly cops should not be allowed to have guns if they are going to just kill innocent people left and right over the slightest things. You want me to not call cops murderers but say that they HAVE to be murderers to even have guns. Make up your mind.

Saelune:
You want me to not call cops murderers but say that they HAVE to be murderers to even have guns. Make up your mind.

So, everyone who owns guns is a murderer now? Good to know.

But no, murderers are murderers, cops who make bad judgment calls aren't murderers and neither is everyone who owns a gun. That isn't to say that there aren't some who ARE IN FACT murderers, (Like the ones who go into a cell and beat the inmate to death.)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here