Crazy world

[TexasFreedom]

Rather than separate posts, I'm combining two topics.

First, a video of police showing up at a domestic violence call, the idiot meets them at the door with a handgun held high and tells them he as a gun and to back up. Gun at first was aimed up but he turns it toward them as he spoke. Police immediately shoot him a dozen+ times. The question is, was it a justified shooting? Watch, share your opinion.

https://www.citizenfreepress.com/br...ce-after-pointing-gun-at-officers-you-decide/

Second story related to "Red Flag" laws. Author makes a really good point: red flag laws are though-crimes. It illustrates a college kid arrested & guns taken because he reposted a meme. He didn't say anything, didn't threaten anyone, just reposted. And he sits in jail with $250k bond. He did nothing. Thoughts?

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/pre-c...ed-of-firearms-for-posting-social-media-meme/

 

[Proud Prepper]

The first is justified, the second is an abuse of power and unconstitutional.

 

[tmttactical]

The first is justified, the second is an abuse of power and unconstitutional.

I agree 200 percent with both opinions. Maybe our Liberals will also realize the "Red Flag" Laws are part of that "Slippery Slope" and just one more step to disarming us. These "Common Sense" laws only make sense to those that are too afraid to protect themselves and are willing to become slaves of the Nanny state. It is either "STAND TAll" or get on your knees. It is time to legally take back our freedom.

 

[KateMTx]

If the second story is true and "posting a meme" is actually all he did then that is a horrific abuse of power and violation of rights. But the article doesn't show what meme he is alleged to have posted - if it was somehow a legitimate and specific threat then that is the only way this could be justified. But without knowing what the "meme" was I don't know. But "thought crime" may be coming or "pre-crime" like Minority Report (the movie where Tom Cruise chases around his eyeballs and there are robot spiders).

 

[Kevin L]

As a writer (even a liberal one), I find the idea of a "thought crime" horrible, and totally against the spirit of our constitution.

As a writer, free speech puts money in my pocket.....so I'm really screwed depending upon how the powers that be use red flag laws.

Will I end up in jail if I write a murder mystery? How about if I express a negative opinion of a politician?

I think the red flag laws will be heavily abused by authority until there's an outcry.

You all should read 1984 by George Orwell.

As for the guy who got hosed down with bullets....I hate to say it, but he brought it upon himself.

Cops have been getting shot a lot lately, and they know they're possibly going up against almost any kind of semiauto rifle....so they reacted quickly.

Cops are entitled to want to go home to their famlies and spouses.....so the hosed down a skell who pointed a gun at them.

The skell got what he deserved.

 

[KateMTx]

I don't have sympathy for the person who pointed a gun at the cops. If a normal person got a gun pointed at them, we would agree that they have the right to defend themselves; the same goes for cops. The stories I have problems with are the ones where the "law enforcement" officers are the clear aggressors. But this sounds like it was completely justified.

 

[Arcticdude]

I think the cops were probably justified in shooting this guy, but not a dozen times. Also whatever happened to using pepper spray, tasers or even a billy club?
Years ago there was a nutty woman wearing a bath robe sitting on a curb holding a squirt gun. The cops shot her 23 times. How can this be anywhere close to being justified?
I know that I'm a minority here as many people have put cops on a pedestal and think anything they do is right.
Maybe this guy deserved what he got, but it isn't up to a cop to decide that.

 

[tmttactical]

okay, you have until the count of 1-- now 1, Was I holding a gun, cell phone of squirt gun. guess wrong and you are dead. Where does it say to stop shooting after the first round. Once a cop has to fire, they do not stop until the target is down and stops moving. Multiple cops, multiple cops shooting. the only real determining factor, was there reasonable cause for the cop to fear for their lives. Less than lethal force is guided by many factors, distance, threat level (bar -empty hands --- knife and distance, apparent aggression level (crazy / drugged out / threatening) and many more. Cops are not required to go hand to hand and have to make visit the hospital to get patched up. Here is the simple solution --- badge, gun = do as instructed. File complaint later. There are no extra brownie points for being "DEAD RIGHT".

 

[Kevin L]

I think the cops were probably justified in shooting this guy, but not a dozen times. Also whatever happened to using pepper spray, tasers or even a billy club?
Years ago there was a nutty woman wearing a bath robe sitting on a curb holding a squirt gun. The cops shot her 23 times. How can this be anywhere close to being justified?
I know that I'm a minority here as many people have put cops on a pedestal and think anything they do is right.
Maybe this guy deserved what he got, but it isn't up to a cop to decide that.

I'm sympathetic to your position about pepper spray and tasers, but I don't agree with you.

I worked in public safety as a medic, and things like tasers and spray have their place.....but a skell pointing a gun at you justifies hosing him down.

Tasers and spray don't always work as fast as they should. If someone is on drugs, such things are even less effective.*

Besides, pointing a gun at a cop (or anyone else) endagers uninvolved third parties. The cops weren't just protecting themselves, they were protecting an innocent bystander who might take a bullet during an exchange of fire.

I'm a liberal (by the standards of this forum), I don't believe in the death penalty, and I think police often go too far......but they were right to hose the guy down with bullets.

I would have as well.

 

[tmttactical]

Kevin, we seem to have is a failure to communicate. (sorry could not resist -- Cool Hand Luke) ). I must have really failed to communicate my position. I was supporting the cops and their shooting. Anybody pointing something at me that I believe to be a firearm and I am going for my firearm. The police have a tough job and need to make life and death decisions in a split second. Too many people talk about what they would do but have never been placed in that situation. 40 or more years ago I participated in a video test (on TV) regarding shoot or don't shoot scenario. Bottom line, I was killed twice and I killed a deaf guy. I sure wish they would put that test video back on TV. I found it real easy to spout off about what I would do, until I tested and got killed. That was just a video, real life produces a lot more adrenaline and the need to react faster.

 

[TexasFreedom]

I think the cops were probably justified in shooting this guy, but not a dozen times. Also whatever happened to using pepper spray, tasers or even a billy club?
Years ago there was a nutty woman wearing a bath robe sitting on a curb holding a squirt gun. The cops shot her 23 times. How can this be anywhere close to being justified?
I know that I'm a minority here as many people have put cops on a pedestal and think anything they do is right.
Maybe this guy deserved what he got, but it isn't up to a cop to decide that.

AD, a couple of note. A cop's response should match the threat. The guy had a gun and the cop pulled his gun.

Regarding # of shots. The first officer fired for about 3 seconds. He fired about 5-6 rounds as the man fell backwards. It was over in 4 seconds. The second officer was just following the first one's lead & fired maybe 6 shots. Keep in mind that the majority of shots by police completely miss the target. One 'rule of thumb' is to fire two rounds. Another is to fire until the offender is no longer a threat. That took maybe 10 rounds. For the first officer, he fired maybe 10-12 rounds. Could he have stopped at 4 or 6 or 8? Maybe. But I'm not going to argue over an extra second of rounds when the first 3 seconds were justified.

And for the second officer, he was following the lead of the first. I thought he did a great job to step left to have a clear shot which took 2 seconds and at that point he was just following the lead, and he fired for maybe 2 seconds, and I think he fired 6-7 rounds. His job was backup, he didn't have time to count which rounds hit.

Did 20 or 23 rounds do the job? Yes. Would 10 or 15 have done it? Probably. 5? Maybe. But it takes a second to register things, and half the rounds were in the last second (2 guns).

So yes, 23 rounds were excessive, but justified.

Nobody is happy with how this ended up (well, maybe his ex?). But 100% of the fault lies with the dead. And maybe this will be a lesson for other idiots to not point guns at police (or anyone).

 

[Kevin L]

AD, a couple of note. A cop's response should match the threat. The guy had a gun and the cop pulled his gun.

Regarding # of shots. The first officer fired for about 3 seconds. He fired about 5-6 rounds as the man fell backwards. It was over in 4 seconds. The second officer was just following the first one's lead & fired maybe 6 shots. Keep in mind that the majority of shots by police completely miss the target. One 'rule of thumb' is to fire two rounds. Another is to fire until the offender is no longer a threat. That took maybe 10 rounds. For the first officer, he fired maybe 10-12 rounds. Could he have stopped at 4 or 6 or 8? Maybe. But I'm not going to argue over an extra second of rounds when the first 3 seconds were justified.

And for the second officer, he was following the lead of the first. I thought he did a great job to step left to have a clear shot which took 2 seconds and at that point he was just following the lead, and he fired for maybe 2 seconds, and I think he fired 6-7 rounds. His job was backup, he didn't have time to count which rounds hit.

Did 20 or 23 rounds do the job? Yes. Would 10 or 15 have done it? Probably. 5? Maybe. But it takes a second to register things, and half the rounds were in the last second (2 guns).

So yes, 23 rounds were excessive, but justified.

Nobody is happy with how this ended up (well, maybe his ex?). But 100% of the fault lies with the dead. And maybe this will be a lesson for other idiots to not point guns at police (or anyone).

Even if you and I don't see eye-to-eye on certian things, I agree 100% with your view of this situation.

I have treated lots of bystanders that caught stray bullets during a gun battle, and as I said earlier, downing the criminal quickly was a way of protecting the uninvolved people in the area.

Criminals don't usually have the training and discipline that's invested into police officers, so they tend to spray bullets with no sense of discretion.

A thing that always bothered me is the idea that families who live in the ghetto sometimes make up the bathtub like a crib when there's tension or disquiet in the neighborhood. They have the baby or toddler sleep in the bathtub, since the thick porcelain is good at stopping most bullets.

 

[Arcticdude]

I'll stick to my earlier comment. I think too many cops are trigger happy and don't have the sense to know when to stop pulling the trigger. And when there's more than one cop they all have to get in on the action.
I do agree that this guy probably needed to be shot. But not that many times. Of course I wasn't there so I don't know all the details.
I'm glad to see that's there's more scrutiny put on cops killing now days.
One last comment, if this guy was black there'd already be burning and looting over it. And of course all the race baiters would be out in force. But since he was white everyone is fine with the cops killing him.

 

[Gazrok]

Maybe this guy deserved what he got, but it isn't up to a cop to decide that.

The cops didn't.

The man did.

When he aimed his gun at the cops. This is pretty simple really. You aim your gun at someone else with a gun, and one of you (or both) are going to get shot.

 

[KateMTx]

I'll stick to my earlier comment. I think too many cops are trigger happy and don't have the sense to know when to stop pulling the trigger. And when there's more than one cop they all have to get in on the action.
I do agree that this guy probably needed to be shot. But not that many times. Of course I wasn't there so I don't know all the details.
I'm glad to see that's there's more scrutiny put on cops killing now days.
One last comment, if this guy was black there'd already be burning and looting over it. And of course all the race baiters would be out in force. But since he was white everyone is fine with the cops killing him.

I absolutely agree about trigger happy cops and needing to do something about that; too many people get shot - by mass shooters, by cops, accidentally because of irresponsible gun owners, just in general. And my first thought seeing this story was dang, 23 times? But then I thought that if shooting him once was justified, because he was a threat, then it was justified to shoot as many times as needed to neutralize the threat. So yeah it was bit excessive, perhaps, but he was pointing a gun at them. I was thinking, what would normal armed citizens do in response to an armed threat? They would use their weapon, and probably shoot enough times that they would be sure there was no longer a danger. This happened in the space of a few seconds and cops try to protect their fellow officers so of course more than one person was shooting.
I am not pro-cop or anti-cop but I believe in justice, and that people should be able to defend themselves, regardless of who they are. When a SWAT team breaks into the wrong house and innocent people defend themselves, then I side with the home owners, not the cops. If it's someone selling some damn cigarettes or bootleg dvds on the street, that is nothing someone should be killed over. If someone is minding their own business in their car, they should be left alone. But if it's a criminal and they are threatening cops just doing their jobs and pulling guns on them, that's a whole other story.

 

[Kevin L]

I absolutely agree about trigger happy cops and needing to do something about that; too many people get shot - by mass shooters, by cops, accidentally because of irresponsible gun owners, just in general. And my first thought seeing this story was dang, 23 times? But then I thought that if shooting him once was justified, because he was a threat, then it was justified to shoot as many times as needed to neutralize the threat. So yeah it was bit excessive, perhaps, but he was pointing a gun at them. I was thinking, what would normal armed citizens do in response to an armed threat? They would use their weapon, and probably shoot enough times that they would be sure there was no longer a danger. This happened in the space of a few seconds and cops try to protect their fellow officers so of course more than one person was shooting.
I am not pro-cop or anti-cop but I believe in justice, and that people should be able to defend themselves, regardless of who they are. When a SWAT team breaks into the wrong house and innocent people defend themselves, then I side with the home owners, not the cops. If it's someone selling some damn cigarettes or bootleg dvds on the street, that is nothing someone should be killed over. If someone is minding their own business in their car, they should be left alone. But if it's a criminal and they are threatening cops just doing their jobs and pulling guns on them, that's a whole other story.

I agree with you. Good post.