Liberal logic: boy shot after menacing cops with fake weapon, paint toy guns

SmarterthanYou said:
so you've got no retort? find where I said I would shoot first and never ask questions. also, again, explain WHY we spend millions on this so called expert training only to excuse their irrational actions.
Click to expand...

You've already stated numerous times what you would do, if you felt threatened; but then, you have that special sense that allows you to automatically know what everyone's intentions are. :palm:

Please continue to bloviate.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
You've already stated numerous times what you would do, if you felt threatened; but then, you have that special sense that allows you to automatically know what everyone's intentions are. :palm:

Please continue to bloviate.
Click to expand...
or continue to embarrass you. congratulations on sounding exactly like zappa when it comes to your cop excuses.
 
:lol:

these cops are royally screwed. the citizens will have to pay for their murderous act now.

http://isysweb.ca4.uscourts.gov/isy...94c068a-ad86-413f-b8ba-7c60446f03dc/1/hilite/

from the above decision.......

When the Officers fired on Cooper, he stood at the threshold of his home, holding the shotgun in one hand, with its muzzle pointed at the ground. He made no sudden moves. He made no threats. He ignored no commands. The Officers had no other information suggesting that Cooper might harm them. Thus, the facts fail to support the proposition that a reasonable officer would have had probable cause to feel threatened by Cooper's actions.

suck it cops.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
How long should they have waited?
If it was your intention to shoot someone, how long after turning would it take you to pull the trigger?

I'm not saying that it's a good thing for the boy to be dead; but what if the gun had been real, the officers "took cover", and the boy had shot someone?
I know exactly what would be happening.
The "all knowing public" would be screaming that the cops were cowards and derelict in their duties, for hiding and not taking action.
This is a no win situation.
Click to expand...

I'd like to believe that police are all professionals who want to make sure there is a real threat before they pull the trigger.

Being a cop is a risky profession; they should never fire before being fired upon. This event was an example of poor judgement on the part of the police with a juvenile who has not developed good judgement yet.

I've had cops at my house, three units, because someone reported seeing my kids car and his friends looking at "weapons" in the trunk of his car. He was showing some friends a new air soft gun he had purchased.

I asked the cops if they wanted to wait until I called my son to drive home so they could inspect the gun; they politely declined saying it was a parental matter.

If we have regressed to this paranoid state due to a few nutcases, then we really are doomed to lose all of our liberties and freedoms and becoming willing wards of the State.
 
Truth Detector said:
I'd like to believe that police are all professionals who want to make sure there is a real threat before they pull the trigger.

Being a cop is a risky profession; they should never fire before being fired upon. This event was an example of poor judgement on the part of the police with a juvenile who has not developed good judgement yet.

I've had cops at my house, three units, because someone reported seeing my kids car and his friends looking at "weapons" in the trunk of his car. He was showing some friends a new air soft gun he had purchased.

I asked the cops if they wanted to wait until I called my son to drive home so they could inspect the gun; they politely declined saying it was a parental matter.

If we have regressed to this paranoid state due to a few nutcases, then we really are doomed to lose all of our liberties and freedoms and becoming willing wards of the State.
Click to expand...

This was unfortunate; but expecting the police to wait until they're fired upon, is ridiculous.
Would wait until someone had the opportunity to shoot at you first?
So what do you think the officers should have done; seeing as how men this age are not only killing each other, but have also fired upon law enforcement?
Take it step by step, without leaving anything open to a different interpretation.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
This was unfortunate; but expecting the police to wait until they're fired upon, is ridiculous.
Would wait until someone had the opportunity to shoot at you first?
So what do you think the officers should have done; seeing as how men this age are not only killing each other, but have also fired upon law enforcement?
Take it step by step, without leaving anything open to a different interpretation.
Click to expand...

Step one; approach the young man walking with the "presumed" weapon.

Step 2; announce that you are police and have been contacted to investigate someone walking with a weapon.

Step 3; ask to inspect the weapon to determine whether any laws have been broken.

Step 4; instruct the young man why it is not a good idea to walk around with airsoft weapons that look real.

Step 5; tell the boy to have a nice day and play safe.

Not very hard actually; but you cannot be macho and paranoid.
 
Truth Detector said:
Step one; approach the young man walking with the "presumed" weapon.

Step 2; announce that you are police and have been contacted to investigate someone walking with a weapon.

Step 3; ask to inspect the weapon to determine whether any laws have been broken.

Step 4; instruct the young man why it is not a good idea to walk around with airsoft weapons that look real.

Step 5; tell the boy to have a nice day and play safe.

Not very hard actually; but you cannot be macho and paranoid.
Click to expand...

And if it turns out that the "young man" actually has a real weapon; you would probably be dead after Steps 1 or 2.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
This was unfortunate; but expecting the police to wait until they're fired upon, is ridiculous.
Would wait until someone had the opportunity to shoot at you first?
So what do you think the officers should have done; seeing as how men this age are not only killing each other, but have also fired upon law enforcement?
Take it step by step, without leaving anything open to a different interpretation.
Click to expand...

There is no indication that the muzzle of the gun was ever pointed at the cops or at anyone else, so there was no imminent threat to anyone. There were no aggressive actions from the kid. If the cop had the kid in his sights, he still could have been talking to the kid AND maintaining his line of fire.

Sounds like he blew it to me, without further info.

With that said...who gave the kid that gun and allowed him to leave home with it? I blame the parents as well (if they gave the kid the gun or allowed him to have it.)
 
Lorca said:
There is no indication that the muzzle of the gun was ever pointed at the cops or at anyone else, so there was no imminent threat to anyone. There were no aggressive actions from the kid. If the cop had the kid in his sights, he still could have been talking to the kid AND maintaining his line of fire.

Sounds like he blew it to me, without further info.

With that said...who gave the kid that gun and allowed him to leave home with it? I blame the parents as well (if they gave the kid the gun or allowed him to have it.)
Click to expand...

So now the muzzle of a firearm must be pointed at a Police Officer, or someone else, before they're allowed to act??
Is that what you would wait to occur, before you decided to defend yourself?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So now the muzzle of a firearm must be pointed at a Police Officer, or someone else, before they're allowed to act??
Is that what you would wait to occur, before you decided to defend yourself?
Click to expand...

The lethal threat or threat of gross bodily harm must be imminent, unless you are covered by Castle Law or similar. Could be different, depending on state, but what would give a cop justification for doing so?

If there was no immediate target for the boy....the cop had no reason to use lethal force, unless there are other factors.

Cop had him targeted (obviously) and had only to squeeze the trigger if that muzzle started to focus on him or a bystander. But he chose to squeeze the trigger without that.
 
Lorca said:
The lethal threat or threat of gross bodily harm must be imminent, unless you are covered by Castle Law or similar. Could be different, depending on state, but what would give a cop justification for doing so?

If there was no immediate target for the boy....the cop had no reason to use lethal force, unless there are other factors.

Cop had him targeted (obviously) and had only to squeeze the trigger if that muzzle started to focus on him or a bystander. But he chose to squeeze the trigger without that.
Click to expand...

Just curious; but what makes you qualified to determine the amount of time it takes to point and aim the muzzle of a firearm, whether it's a rifle, shotgun, or pistol?
Because you're "solutions" are not one that anyone with a sense of self preservation would take.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Just curious; but what makes you qualified to determine the amount of time it takes to point and aim the muzzle of a firearm, whether it's a rifle, shotgun, or pistol?
Because you're "solutions" are not one that anyone with a sense of self preservation would take.
Click to expand...

The laws are pretty clear on what constitutes an imminent threat.....JOA, for instance is a standard. How many times did I write 'unless there are other factors'? But someone turned away and with their muzzle pointed elsewhere is not an imminent threat.

The courts also take into consideration the research into this stuff, including the Tueller drill altho that is not based on where a muzzle is pointed it. It and other studies are all based on research on how quickly people can draw and shoot, aim, squeeze a trigger, etc etc.

Maybe you are judging the cops performance on your own shooting ability. That's not practical. If we're going to do that, then I know that *I* have time to fire if someone is turned away (as in article) and doesnt have their muzzle pointed at me.
 
David Eckert Appears To Clench His Buttocks; Cops Order Enemas, Colonoscopy, X-Ray For Non-Existent Drugs

1.Eckert’s abdominal area was X-rayed; no narcotics were found.
2.Doctors then performed an exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
3.Doctors performed a second exam of Eckert’s anus with their fingers; no narcotics were found.
4.Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
5.Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a second time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
6.Doctors penetrated Eckert’s anus to insert an enema a third time. Eckert was forced to defecate in front of doctors and police officers. Eckert watched as doctors searched his stool. No narcotics were found.
7.Doctors then X-rayed Eckert again; no narcotics were found.
8.Doctors prepared Eckert for surgery, sedated him, and then performed a colonoscopy where a scope with a camera was inserted into Eckert’s anus, rectum, colon, and large intestines. No narcotics were found

The innocent man did not even receive an apology.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So now the muzzle of a firearm must be pointed at a Police Officer, or someone else, before they're allowed to act??
Is that what you would wait to occur, before you decided to defend yourself?
Click to expand...
yes, that is the actual standard that gets applied to most people. otherwise people would get shot for simply open carrying.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
So now the muzzle of a firearm must be pointed at a Police Officer, or someone else, before they're allowed to act??
Is that what you would wait to occur, before you decided to defend yourself?
Click to expand...

this is your neck of the woods, right?

http://www.azcentral.com/community/...at-shoplifting-suspects-may-face-charges.html

A citizen accused of shooting at two shoplifting suspects at a Glendale mall could be facing charges.

Glendale police say they’ve submitted a felony charge of unlawful discharge of a firearm to the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office for review against 61-year-old Mervin Brewer.

The ex-Marine was waiting for his wife in the Sears parking lot of Arrowhead Towne Center last Friday.

Brewer saw a woman pull a gun on a loss-prevention officer although authorities say the gun turned out to be a toy.

Police say Brewer fired his gun four times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top