Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Some More Cops Who Need to Be Fired


Dan T.
 Share

Recommended Posts

On December 8, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

Do think he will be declared not guilty bc of race or bc of the stand your ground laws in LA?

Both. It's not like they're mutually exclusive. However I was talking about the cop that shot the guy in the back but I'm almost certain this one will be found innocent. Since the courts aren't set up to provide justice for some people, they'll eventually learn that they're going to have to take matters into their own hands.

Edited by The Sisko
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Police shot unarmed grandfather 7 times killing him. Apparently the grandfather had dementia and was acting strange with neighbors and acting like he had a gun in his pocket. when police arrived, neighbor pointed him out and grandfather walked towards officer and not responding to requests to take his hands out of his pockets. 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-man-killed-officer-driveway-didnt-gun-201005063.html

 

Much like Tamir Rice who was shot when police were responding to what they thought was a person with gun, it puts officers in a tough position. By all accounts this grandpa in CA was acting like he had a gun and multiple neighbors told police he did as well. 

The toy pellet gun (top right) used by 12-year-old Tamir Rice when he was shot and killed by police in Cleveland in Nov. 2014 is pictured beside a real gun. (Image: Cuyahoga County Prosecutor's Office)

^^ Tamir Rice's "toy" gun

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, youngchew said:

Doesn't sound like the responding officers had much choice, unfortunately.  Reports of a guy with a gun, and you show up and the guy walks towards you and won't show you his hands.

 

Don't the police come equipped with anything that could, you know, subdue a disorderly individual without blowing him away? Something like a taser or a beanbag shotgun? Last I heard, walking toward the police with your hands in your pockets is not a capital crime. I appreciate the police can be put in a tough situation, but unless he whipped his hands out of his pockets in a sudden movement and/or suddenly pointed something at them, I still won't believe this is a situation that couldn't have been resolved without blasting him away.

 

This is the problem with police today. They aren't trained to handle any kind of mentally unstable person. They automatically assume the use of deadly force if anything/anyone gives them a sketchy glance or doesn't immediately comply. We have a bunch of Judge Dredds out there.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fairfax County police have killed mentally ill people too. It's shoot first and see what's going on later, and oh gee too bad so sad that a mentally ill person is no longer living.

 

I thought tasers could be used. Police need training in handling situations with non-lethal means.

Edited by LadySkinsFan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Fairfax County police have killed mentally ill people too. It's shoot first and see what's going on later, and oh gee too bad so sad that a mentally ill person is no longer living.

 

I thought tasers could be used. Police need training in handling situations with non-lethal means.

You don't use a taser on someone with a gun, or someone who might have a gun,  PERIOD. What happens when you get tased? Every muscle in your body fires. That includes your trigger finger. If you have a gun in your hands it is too risky to use a taser.

 

Additionally, there is a saying: "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight."  You meet force with equal or greater force. 

 

The police were told that the man had a revolver. Are you really advising that they wait until a man reported to have a revolver levels said revolver at them to respond?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

You don't use a taser on someone with a gun, or someone who might have a gun,  PERIOD. What happens when you get tased? Every muscle in your body fires. That includes your trigger finger. If you have a gun in your hands it is too risky to use a taser.

 

Additionally, there is a saying: "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight."  You meet force with equal or greater force. 

 

The police were told that the man had a revolver. Are you really advising that they wait until a man reported to have a revolver levels said revolver at them to respond?

Stop it, man. You're making too much sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think you guys are severely overestimating the training cops get on just basic things. I know i always did but cops really dont get training past the academy on much of anything.

 

Like shooting, i always assumed it was like a show or movie with cops in the range all the time shooting the cutouts, but that is indeed just fantasy. in reality, many cops can't shoot for ****, and its laughable to ask why they shoot to kill when the real answer is that many cops cant shoot well enough to hit someone in the leg or arm. They'd miss. Ex-military cops seem to have this sentimemt. 

 

What shocked me and i even asked a cpl cops i know, is that most patrol cops dont even get trained on how to drive. again i just assumed that because they're cops; high-speed chases, pulling ppl over, and all that.. but nope. 

 

It actually makes sense considering training costs time+money and departments work on a budget. 

 

Thats why i hate the body cams even though they seem like a necessity. They must cost a **** ton. 

Edited by Mooka
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mooka said:

Think you guys are severely overestimating the training cops get on just basic things. I know i always did but cops really dont get training past the academy on much of anything.

 

Like shooting, i always assumed it was like a show or movie with cops in the range all the time shooting the cutouts, but that is indeed just fantasy. in reality, many cops can't shoot for ****, and its laughable to ask why they shoot to kill when the real answer is that many cops cant shoot well enough to hit someone in the leg or arm. They'd miss. Ex-military cops seem to have this sentimemt. 

 

What shocked me and i even asked a cpl cops i know, is that most patrol cops dont even get trained on how to drive. again i just assumed that because they're cops; high-speed chases, pulling ppl over, and all that.. but nope. 

 

It actually makes sense considering training costs time+money and departments work on a budget. 

 

Thats why i hate the body cams even though they seem like a necessity. They must cost a **** ton. 

 

The one and only time I went to a pistol range with a friend, I fired at a paper target with his pistol.  

 

When he brought the paper back in, to read, he commented to me that, except for my speed (I probably fired like two rounds a minute), that I had fired well enough to qualify for the Virginia Beach police department.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

You don't use a taser on someone with a gun, or someone who might have a gun,  PERIOD. What happens when you get tased? Every muscle in your body fires. That includes your trigger finger. If you have a gun in your hands it is too risky to use a taser.

 

Additionally, there is a saying: "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight."  You meet force with equal or greater force. 

 

The police were told that the man had a revolver. Are you really advising that they wait until a man reported to have a revolver levels said revolver at them to respond?

 

Right.  According to the way we do things now you kill them just to err on the safe side.  If that results in children shot down in a park, old men out for a walk with a crucifix, or a man begging for his life while being made to crawl towards officers, we can just write that off as the cost of doing business. 

 

But some people think the current way of doing things isn't so great. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Destino said:

 

Right.  According to the way we do things now you kill them just to err on the safe side.  If that results in children shot down in a park, old men out for a walk with a crucifix, or a man begging for his life while being made to crawl towards officers, we can just write that off as the cost of doing business. 

 

But some people think the current way of doing things isn't so great. 

Congrats, you win the award for over generalizing a response!

 

Seriously, I am all in for overhauling training and weeding out the psychos. I have not, nor will I, blindly defend cops. But to suggest cops responding to MULTIPLE reports of a man with a gun be passive is insane. Cops die that way. Cops put their live show on the line every time they leave their house. You can't expect them to respond to multiple reports of a man with a gun by being passive. The assumption has to be that the suspect has a gun. And if the suspect has his hands in his pockets and refuses to remove them while ignoring commands to stop approaching the officers, what do you expect the cops to do? Wait until the guy is close and pulls a gun to shoot? Its called suicide by cop. It's awful trusting of YOU to value the suspects life more than the cops life from behind a keyboard. Did you even read the reports? The cop clearly didn't want to shoot the guy. He was responding to a call, talking to witnesses when the guy walked out his house and approached the officer. The witnesses identified him as the guy who had a gun. It was bad information, and that information placed the cop in a situation where he has to make decisions on that bad information. 

 

I criticized the response of the Cleveland officers in Tamir Rices death. But, he had a realistic replica handgun. Dude in Minnesota did nothing wrong. Dude crawling did nothing wrong. Walter Scott did not deserve to be shot in the back and killed. 

 

I am mot a carte blanche supporter of the cops in these shootings. You know how I know I sit with a reasonable perspective? I get likes from both viewpoints and I get negative reponses from both viewpoints. If both sides can agree and disagree with me, I'm probably in the ballpark of middle ground.  

1 hour ago, Larry said:

 

I agree.  All citizens who are not naked should be shot immediately.  

 

Really? You know I meant responding to a call of someone reported as being armed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

 

  

Really? You know I meant responding to a call of someone reported as being armed. 

 

I know what you said. 

 

And what hat you said was that "well, he might have been armed" means that the option of using less than lethal force is off the table. 

 

And while I'll freely agree with your new position, that REPORTS of a gun certainly justifies increased caution, I'll assert that even they do not move the line all the way to "shoot if he MIGHT BE armed". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I know what you said. 

 

And what hat you said was that "well, he might have been armed" means that the option of using less than lethal force is off the table. 

 

And while I'll freely agree with your new position, that REPORTS of a gun certainly justifies increased caution, I'll assert that even they do not move the line all the way to "shoot if he MIGHT BE armed". 

It was shoot if the reports are he was brandishing a revolver and then started walking up to the cops with his hands in his pockets and was unresponsive. 

 

At at what point is it acceptable for the cop to respond to a perceived mortal threat? The cop had bad information, but that is the what he had to make his decision on. You can fault the information giver, but how is the cop supposed to vet a complaint when the person being complained about shows up?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I know what you said. 

 

And what hat you said was that "well, he might have been armed" means that the option of using less than lethal force is off the table. 

 

And while I'll freely agree with your new position, that REPORTS of a gun certainly justifies increased caution, I'll assert that even they do not move the line all the way to "shoot if he MIGHT BE armed". 

The bottom line is, do what the cop tells you to do, so you don't put yourself, or the cop, in a compromising situation. 

 

In the case of the mentally ill guy..how are the cops supposed to know a guy is not right? They aren't mind readers. If they've been told a guy is armed, you don't wait until they pull the gun, to shoot them.

Edited by Ray-Ban Dan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

The bottom line is, do what the cop tells you to do, so you don't put yourself, or the cop, in a compromising situation. 

 

The bottom line is, there's a whole bunch of really stupid people out there who have decided that "not doing what the cop tells you" (or "he might have been armed") justifies shooting somebody.  

 

Now no, I'm not saying that a police officer has to allow a Bad Guy to fire two rounds at him before he is allowed to draw his weapon.  

 

But I don't think it's unreasonable to think that the guy has to be armed, before you can shoot him.  (At least as a general guideline.  No doubt there are exceptions.)  

 

The impression I've got (and I'll admit, that impression might be incorrect, and might simply be based on watching 50s TV shows) is that, when a cop shoots somebody, then that person had better have a gun in his hand, or the cop is in at least a whole bunch of trouble.  

 

And I can see an argument that maybe that rule (assuming it was a rule) is obsolete, and needs to be changed.  

 

But shooting someone is supposed to be the response to "he was within a fraction of a second of killing somebody".  Not the response to "I told him to get on his knees, and he didn't."  

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of a police officer's training should be to be taught how to tell when someone is mentally ill and when they're violently dangerous. The two terms aren't always in play with every mentally ill or disabled person they encounter. How do you think officers in other countries who don't carry guns handle these situations? You don't hear about them begging to have a gun so they don't have to think the situation through. 

 

Also, Pink brough up Tamir Rice as a similar case to that grandfather. And I'm sorry, they just don't compare. The officer who killed Tamir was unfit to be a police officer, and we know this because he was fired from the previous county he worked for due to that very reason. The video showing Tamir's murder displayed two police officers who acted in a way that put themselves in danger from the very start. They drove right up to Tamir at the bench he was sitting on at the park. Sideways. So if Tamir really was the dangerous, suspicious person the idiot who called in the report said he was, he could've easily blown the both of them away. The unfit officer who shot Tamir pulled his gun and shot him before he even fully got out of the vehicle. He gave a 12 year old no chance to respond in any way but fear and confusion, and he died because that police department didn't even call the previous county to properly vet their new hire. 

Edited by Gamebreaker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry, do you think it's just a coincidence that in nearly every all of these national police shootings, that the person shot, that didn't follow instructions, has a prior criminal record?

 

Call me stupid all you want. But know this: I'm a college educated person that has no police record. Never have had the slightest trouble with any cop. And I've been pulled over many times. Same goes for everyone in my immediate family, as well as all my friends. Guess I've (and all my family and friends) just been lucky huh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

Larry, do you think it's just a coincidence that in nearly every all of these national police shootings, that the person shot, that didn't follow instructions, has a prior criminal record?

 

 

 

No, "prior criminal record" is not a justification for "shooting an unarmed person", either. 

 

But please, feel free to keep trying to move that line. There must be SOME reason why shooting unarmed people is justified. I'm sure you will think of one, if you keep going through the menu. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

No, "prior criminal record" is not a justification for "shooting an unarmed person", either. 

 

But please, feel free to keep trying to move that line. There must be SOME reason why shooting unarmed people is justified. I'm sure you will think of one, if you keep going through the menu. 

No, it's not. Just illustrating a point that usually the people that end up getting shot, are no stranger to the law. In other words, most people that follow simple instructions, don't usually find themselves in these positions. Funny how that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

Larry, do you think it's just a coincidence that in nearly every all of these national police shootings, that the person shot, that didn't follow instructions, has a prior criminal record?

 

Call me stupid all you want. But know this: I'm a college educated person that has no police record. Never have had the slightest trouble with any cop. And I've been pulled over many times. Same goes for everyone in my immediate family, as well as all my friends. Guess I've (and all my family and friends) just been lucky huh.

I fit your description and I've had a cop pull a gun on me and **** it, another threatened to escalate a dumb traffic stop because he thought (correctly) that I was trying to get his badge number after he made a snide remark questioning whether I'd had a Len Bias ****tail and most recently, I had one jump out suddenly with his hand on his weapon. Thing is, there's nothing about any of your criteria that matters regarding deadly force. A person with no record could mean the cop harm and the guy with a record might not. It all depends on the situation and how the officer and the department want to handle it. Unfortunately, our lawmakers and the so-called justice system have given them carte blanche to kill anyone, anytime for any reason - just say "I felt threatened" and *POOF* you're free to go. 

 

4 hours ago, Ray-Ban Dan said:

No, it's not. Just illustrating a point that usually the people that end up getting shot, are no stranger to the law. In other words, most people that follow simple instructions, don't usually find themselves in these positions. Funny how that works.

Funny how cops often get their asses beat or worse when they're off duty or undercover and they get pulled over. How is it they don't know how to avoid it and us laypeople are supposed to?

 

As for the whole no stranger to the law deal, that sounds like common sense but there's more at work there. A LOT of people, mostly of color have records for no other reason than an increased frequency of stops due to profiling. "But the cops go where the crime is" is usually the response. However the data say otherwise. Whites and others use drugs at similar rates and in many cases sell a little to friends or just share it. So Dillon smokes and sells a little weed to his friends but the cops aren't going to stop him. DaQuan or Raul do it and simply by virtue of fitting the profile, they've got a record. Nixon's boys admitted the get tough on crime thing was just a way to target minorities and hippies so please don't try to say it's crazy conspiracy theory. 

 

At the next step of the so-called justice system, if Dillon happens against the odds to get caught, chances are he'll be given the benefit of the doubt by prosecutors/judges that it was a minor indiscretion by a good kid whereas DaQuan gets the book thrown at him. To make matters worse, in many cases, these "criminals" haven't even committed a crime. They get charged, threatened with a ridiculous number of charges to coerce them into taking a plea bargain to avoid the need for a trial and oftentimes, with nothing more than a public defender to back him/her up, they take the plea deal instead of going to trial. I'm sure that's what the founding fathers meant by the right to a speedy trial by an all white jury of your peers. No, I'm not making it up. I'll post the data later when I have time. Eventually people are going to get fed up with that kind of treatment. Hell, if it was good, middle and upperclass white folks being treated this way, we'd have already had another civil war.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The Sisko, Brick wall there sir. Built by Mexican folks...and paid for by them. Get with twa and figure that mess out. 

 

I do notice that if I drive a more expensive car ...I get pulled over less often. Maybe because of my tinted windows. I also notice that I am more likely to get pulled when I have out of state tags. I fly all the time now...damn, I am slightly tan. 

 

Wonder if there is some profiling going on there. 

My dad has always sped through the highways...been pulled over so many times that I can't count. He whips out his military ID..."slow it down sir". 

 

I loved that ID when I was a kid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...