[Verbiage]

Suit yourself. Carry on.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by grimlock

damn right I'm not.

proud of it. no thanks are required from anyone with a daughter, sister, granddaughter..

Pics of said daughter, sister and granddaughter

[grimlock]

Haha, verb. When will you learn, stop blaming police brutality and get some morals.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by csu87

Pics of said daughter, sister and granddaughter

[Doc Oc]

Originally Posted by csu87

There have been multiple studies showing unarmed white males are more likely to be shot by police than unarmed black males; but let's not let facts get in the way of the agrnda here.

Tell that to the loved ones of these two guys....I am sure that'll make them feel better. Until videos start surfacing of white guys getting shot multiple times at point blank range, studies don't mean jack.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by nyalpine90

well explain 6 shots fired in one incidents and 4 shots in different incident.. trigger happy??

Originally Posted by nyalpine90

it only takes 1 bullet to kill someone.

You'd be surprised what someone hopped up on just adrenaline can do with multiple bullets in them.

But to specifically answer your question, because they are trained to keep firing until the threat no longer exists.

From the stand point of the law, when deadly force is used, 1 bullet or 6 makes no difference. The only question in the investigation is whether or not the use of deadly force was justified. Once it's justified, what does it matter how many times the person was shot. If you're correct about the 1 bullet theory, the 5 additional shots were inconsequential.

Even in self defense courses, we're taught that once you pull the trigger, you keep pulling it until there is not longer a threat to your life.

This is why training is part of the issue. The training the police need is general interaction. They've got the deadly force training down because that's what they focus their training on. That's why when a cop shoots his gun, they shoot it several times. It's engrained in them.


Make no mistake, a police officers main objective is to get home to their family. It is not to place your life over theirs. The Supreme Court of has upheld the notion that a police officer is not obligated to put their lives in danger to save yours. They are not robotic heroes nor are they power hungry racist killers. By and large, they are every day people trying to make a living. It's not an easy job but it is a thankless job. They deal with the bottom of the barrel every day they go to work. 95% of the people they deal with lies to them, hides something from them and dislikes them.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Quickly googled some stats and the police homicide rate in the US is off the charts. Despite living here i am not Canadian so have no horse int he race so to speak but the numbers are alarming. The police homicide rate in the USA in 2014 was 8 times higher than in Canada.

What the HELL is going on down there?

Nothing, the US has about 8.5x more people than Canada.

I read about the Castle shooting, that's just heartbreaking if it went down how I think it went down. Why continue to reach when told not to? I guess I'm trained to deal with panicked situations and more importantly, know when someone is nervous or is panicking and act appropriately. Sounds like the officer was spooked once he was informed that the driver was a legal carry gun owner and told the guy to keep his hands up after initially asking for his ID.

[csu87]

Originally Posted by Doc Oc

Tell that to the loved ones of these two guys....I am sure that'll make them feel better. Until videos start surfacing of white guys getting shot multiple times at point blank range, studies don't mean jack.

Not saying it makes anything right. Just pointing out the fact that it isn't a race thing.

You never hear the media cover these stories though so no one knows about them. I know in Colorado alone there have been several in the past year or so but you have to look long and hard to see them on any national news channel. 2 involved college age guys on campuses. One was naked and high but clearly not packing

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

You'd be surprised what someone hopped up on just adrenaline can do with multiple bullets in them.

But to specifically answer your question, because they are trained to keep firing until the threat no longer exists.

From the stand point of the law, when the use of deadly force is used, 1 bullet or 6 makes no difference. The only question in the investigation is whether or not the use of deadly force was justified. Once it's justified, what does it matter how many times the person was shot. If you're correct about the 1 bullet theory, the 5 additional shots were inconsequential.

Even in self defense courses, we're taught that once you pull the trigger, you keep pulling it until there is not longer a threat to your life.

This is why training is part of the issue. The training the police need is general interaction. They've got the deadly force training down because that's what they focus their training on. That's why when a cop shoots his gun, they shoot it several times. It's engrained in them.


Make no mistake, a police officers main objective is to get home to their family. It is not to place your live over theirs. The Supreme Court of has upheld the notion that a police officer is not obligated to put their lives in danger to save yours. They are not robotic heroes nor are they power hungry racist killers. By and large, they are every day people trying to make a living. It's not an easy job but it is a thankless job. They deal with the bottom of the barrel every day they go to work. 95% of the people they deal with lies to them, hides something from them and dislikes them.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

Nothing, the US has about 8.5x more people than Canada.

Sigh. Just sigh.

I said RATE, as in over the population. In Canada 14 people were killed by police, in the US it was 1100. That is 8 times the rate.

Blimey.

[Verbiage]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

You'd be surprised what someone hopped up on just adrenaline can do with multiple bullets in them.

But to specifically answer your question, because they are trained to keep firing until the threat no longer exists.

From the stand point of the law, when the use of deadly force is used, 1 bullet or 6 makes no difference. The only question in the investigation is whether or not the use of deadly force was justified. Once it's justified, what does it matter how many times the person was shot. If you're correct about the 1 bullet theory, the 5 additional shots were inconsequential.

Even in self defense courses, we're taught that once you pull the trigger, you keep pulling it until there is not longer a threat to your life.

This is why training is part of the issue. The training the police need is general interaction. They've got the deadly force training down because that's what they focus their training on. That's why when a cop shoots his gun, they shoot it several times. It's engrained in them.


Make no mistake, a police officers main objective is to get home to their family. It is not to place your live over theirs. The Supreme Court of has upheld the notion that a police officer is not obligated to put their lives in danger to save yours. They are not robotic heroes nor are they power hungry racist killers. By and large, they are every day people trying to make a living. It's not an easy job but it is a thankless job. They deal with the bottom of the barrel every day they go to work. 95% of the people they deal with lies to them, hides something from them and dislikes them.

Let me play devil's advocate here, since that seems to be the name of the game in this thread.

What's to say that those individuals who serve as law enforcement are not operating with preconceived notions and underlying stereotypes? For example, how is a man who hates black people going to be identified after becoming a police officer (other than the hearsay surrounding the circumstances of him killing one, in self-defense or otherwise)? Or, does his hatred for a specific race bar him from entering the profession, because of opportunities that may cure an insatiable appetite for destruction?

Again, purely devil's advocacy. My point is, labels cannot be given to a group of individuals solely based on the premise of their role in society. Much of the time, it is irrelevant.

[Verbiage]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Sigh. Just sigh.

I said RATE, as in over the population. In Canada 14 people were killed by police, in the US it was 1100. That is 8 times the rate.

Blimey.

[grimlock]

Originally Posted by Verbiage

Let me play devil's advocate here, since that seems to be the name of the game in this thread.

What's to say that those individuals who serve as law enforcement are not operating with preconceived notions and underlying stereotypes? For example, how is a man who hates black people going to be identified after becoming a police officer (other than the hearsay surrounding the circumstances of him killing one, in self-defense or otherwise)? Or, does his hatred for a specific race bar him from entering the profession, because of opportunities that may cure an insatiable appetite for destruction?

Again, purely devil's advocacy. My point is, labels cannot be given to a group of individuals solely based on the premise of their role in society. Much of the time, it is irrelevant.

Exactly. Like not every guy on tinder is a lying, manipulative, zero empathy thief.

[fecurtis]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Sigh. Just sigh.

I said RATE, as in over the population. In Canada 14 people were killed by police, in the US it was 1100. That is 8 times the rate.

Blimey.

You'll have to excuse me I'm retarded, today is my first day with English.

[Blksnowflake]

Originally Posted by Alfisti

Oh, I need "training".

A good portion of human beings are not intellectually or emotionally capable of handling a weapon yet they are handed out like candy at a birthday party. This is the result, every time a cop pulls someone over he has no fucking idea what the passengers are carrying, in most civilised countries the cop is 99% sure there's no gun.

We can argue all day but we will never agree so there is no point but this whole "training" or "education" thing is bullshit of the highest order, people in general are just too unstable and emotional to handle it.

You know, I wrote a bunch of crap in rebuttal but decided it would probably be lost on you since you continue to make these bizarre and ignorant statements. It seems obvious you've never been in a weapon rich environment and your exposure to weapons has been completely negative or nonexistent.

It is absolutely positively a training, familiarisation and sensitivity issue, in both the area of the officers dealing with the presence of a weapon and the issue of officers interacting with minorities, or more clearly stated, black males(and to an extension, latinos).

If you cannot see or understand how beneficial and crucial the training and exposure to these issues is, I cannot even begin to acknowledge anything you say seriously.

[Maniac0908]

I just saw the video....2 cops had him pinned down. You can see in the video his left hand is pinned under the cops leg. That leaves one arm open that we cant see. Theres another video from a diffrent angle showing his shoulders, which dont move. Now that doesnt mean he wasnt reaching with the other hand for a gun, but im pretty sure they could have restrained his other hand fairly easy as he was also tasered. Now im not taking sides, and im neither black or white but weve all seen videos of black and white people being shot by cops, the only reason its such a big hype right now for the black being shot is because the media knows there gonna make the most money with them. Anyway, the way i look at it is yes, they could have handled this better, he did not need to be shot and definatly not 7 times. But if it was my job to arrest people and i thought there was even a slight chance of them touch a trigger of a gun thats near me im putting them down. Do you wait for the guy whos breaking into your house with a gun to shoot first? And from the video your cant tell where his right hand is. What if his hand is on a gun pointed at the officer? Then was it justified? Lets also take into account he was illegally carrying a firearm with a criminal history.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by fecurtis

You'll have to excuse me I'm retarded, today is my first day with English.

Well played, credit where it's due.

[Alfisti]

Originally Posted by Blksnowflake

You know, I wrote a bunch of crap in rebuttal but decided it would probably be lost on you since you continue to make these bizarre and ignorant statements. It seems obvious you've never been in a weapon rich environment and your exposure to weapons has been completely negative or nonexistent.

It is absolutely positively a training, familiarisation and sensitivity issue, in both the area of the officers dealing with the presence of a weapon and the issue of officers interacting with minorities, or more clearly stated, black males(and to an extension, latinos).

If you cannot see or understand how beneficial and crucial the training and exposure to these issues is, I cannot even begin to acknowledge anything you say seriously.

Non-existant, as it should be. You only need the training etc if the weapons are sold at Walmart to begin with.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Verbiage

Let me play devil's advocate here, since that seems to be the name of the game in this thread.

What's to say that those individuals who serve as law enforcement are not operating with preconceived notions and underlying stereotypes? For example, how is a man who hates black people going to be identified after becoming a police officer (other than the hearsay surrounding the circumstances of him killing one, in self-defense or otherwise)? Or, does his hatred for a specific race bar him from entering the profession, because of opportunities that may cure an insatiable appetite for destruction?

Again, purely devil's advocacy. My point is, labels cannot be given to a group of individuals solely based on the premise of their role in society. Much of the time, it is irrelevant.

Complicated. We can't see into peoples hearts and minds to make these determinations. We can ask questions and make judgments based on their answers but we still don't know how they arrived at their answers.

For instance, you could ask... Do you think that black males ages 16-24 are more likely to commit a violent crime than white males of the same age.

A man with no exposure to black culture and little exposure to black people has a very limited amount of information at his disposal to base his answer on. Maybe he remembers incarceration statistics and draws a conclusion that since a higher percentage of the black male population is incarcerated than white males of the same age, the answer is yes. In my eyes, that doesn't make him a racist. If the man thought, well, one group is black and one group is white and white people are better than black people, so the answer is yes. That man is clearly racist.

But how do we know what they were thinking when they answered?

Complicated.


In my opinion, self governance within the ranks of the police force should be prevalent. If an officer shows racist tendencies, try some rehabilitation tactics on him. If that doesn't work termination.

I'm all for letting people think and say what they want. But there is no room for racism in the judicial system. Top or bottom.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by Maniac0908

I just saw the video....2 cops had him pinned down. You can see in the video his left hand is pinned under the cops leg. That leaves one arm open that we cant see. Theres another video from a diffrent angle showing his shoulders, which dont move. Now that doesnt mean he wasnt reaching with the other hand for a gun, but im pretty sure they could have restrained his other hand fairly easy as he was also tasered. Now im not taking sides, and im neither black or white but weve all seen videos of black and white people being shot by cops, the only reason its such a big hype right now for the black being shot is because the media knows there gonna make the most money with them. Anyway, the way i look at it is yes, they could have handled this better, he did not need to be shot and definatly not 7 times. But if it was my job to arrest people and i thought there was even a slight chance of them touch a trigger of a gun thats near me im putting them down. Do you wait for the guy whos breaking into your house with a gun to shoot first? And from the video your cant tell where his right hand is. What if his hand is on a gun pointed at the officer? Then was it justified? Lets also take into account he was illegally carrying a firearm with a criminal history.

This is what's clearly overlooked by the masses. They play on emotion and profit from it while dividing the masses.

[Verbiage]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Complicated. We can't see into peoples hearts and minds to make these determinations. We can ask questions and make judgments based on their answers but we still don't know how they arrived at their answers.

For instance, you could ask... Do you think that black males ages 16-24 are more likely to commit a violent crime than white males of the same age.

A man with no exposure to black culture and little exposure to black people has a very limited amount of information at his disposal to base his answer on. Maybe he remembers incarceration statistics and draws a conclusion that since a higher percentage of the black male population is incarcerated than white males of the same age, the answer is yes. In my eyes, that doesn't make him a racist. If the man thought, well, one group is black and one group is white and white people are better than black people, so the answer is yes. That man is clearly racist.

But how do we know what they were thinking when they answered?

Complicated.


In my opinion, self governance within the ranks of the police force should be prevalent. If an officer shows racist tendencies, try some rehabilitation tactics on him. If that doesn't work termination.

I'm all for letting people think and say what they want. But there is no room for racism in the judicial system. Top or bottom.

Bottom line, agreed. It is difficult to draw a conclusion or make an adequate inference, in situations like those. Especially when context is so easily taken literally, or out of the proper perspective.

I think that the image is also a determining factor. Blacks are not cleaning up their perception by taking positive steps forward. Period. We do not need to march when a white cop kills a black man, or cry out in agony for the injustice or whatever the label is.

We need to march when two black men get into a fight, one pulls out a pistol, and blows the others' brains out. THAT is preventable. That can incite a changed image which can overflow/waterfall into our law enforcement for the mentalities to change.

I am far from ignorant to what is happening, as I have been labeled by others in this thread, but I also know when to look in the mirror for the problem.

[Blksnowflake]

Originally Posted by Maniac0908

I just saw the video....2 cops had him pinned down. You can see in the video his left hand is pinned under the cops leg. That leaves one arm open that we cant see. Theres another video from a diffrent angle showing his shoulders, which dont move. Now that doesnt mean he wasnt reaching with the other hand for a gun, but im pretty sure they could have restrained his other hand fairly easy as he was also tasered. Now im not taking sides, and im neither black or white but weve all seen videos of black and white people being shot by cops, the only reason its such a big hype right now for the black being shot is because the media knows there gonna make the most money with them. Anyway, the way i look at it is yes, they could have handled this better, he did not need to be shot and definatly not 7 times. But if it was my job to arrest people and i thought there was even a slight chance of them touch a trigger of a gun thats near me im putting them down. Do you wait for the guy whos breaking into your house with a gun to shoot first? Lets also take into account he was illegally carrying a firearm.

I can't say I saw anything really. But I do know this, he was absolutely 1000% wrong to resist, that already raises red flags to officers. That's the first issue.
Controlling a person's arm in a life or death situation(not sure if was but could be, especially to the cop that also wants to go home to his kiddos) is extremely difficult by one or even two people, and in most cases impossible in particular during weird angles like on the ground, off balance, etc....was that hand reaching? was he complying? and in the end he did have a gun. That's the second issue.
However, shooting the guy six or seven times is definitely questionable.

These videos that show "the moment of truth" always leave me inconclusive. There was a video some time back showing an officer shooting and "unarmed" latino male with his hands seemingly up. What it didn't show was the previous five minutes where this dude refused arrest, was tasered, got into a scuffle with an officer ultimately picking up a rock and opening an officers skull leaving him on the ground bleeding semi-conscious. And as he ran continued to pick up objects and hurl them at chasing officers, before he was shot he was threatening to throw another said rock, which he dropped right before being shot. The video just showed him standing there as if surrendering. The shooting was justified.

As for someone coming into your home, that's completely out of context, 100%. Common sense, criminal broke into your house, you have rights, a lot more inside your home. Too much to discuss and would derail the thread into a different argument, but it doesn't apply in relation to this.