The Glade 4.0

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I like the way you keep posting irrelevant pictures and making one liners as if they established anything other than that you are expressing an opinion on how to properly conduct work in a field you have at best a cursory understanding of. The adorable puppy in particular.

Your opinion on what the police should do in any particular situation is about as useful as those same polcie officer's opinions on how to set up one of Farsky's websites. Self-defense is self-defense; had someone lunged at a non-cop in the same way you'd be singing a different tune.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I agree with this completely. Unfortunately, many people believe that it's harmless to inform police of suspicious activity, and that the police will respond and make sure everything is ok. It is far better to avoid any and all contact with the police unless absolutely necessary. You open up a big potential can of worms by doing so.



Yes, deadly keys. If I were a cop, I would certainly be shocked to find anything in the hand of a guy getting into a car - especially keys. Sarcasm aside, any intelligent person would expect a guy, criminal or not, rooting around in a car to come out of it with an object of some kind.

It's amazing how **** blind and afraid police officers are.

I had a minor personal experience with this last week, actually. I called the cops to check out a guy going door to door with a fishy story about "processing" billing errors for the utility company (I suspected it was an outright scam, since I had first called the utility company to confirm it wasn't them, but it turned out to just be a shady hook to get people to switch utility providers). Anyway, the cops came to my door for some follow-up questions, and when I opened the outer door, my dog poked her head around the inner door behind me and grumbled. The immediate, practically involuntary reaction of the cop was to move his hand to his gun. My dog wasn't snarling and barking, wasn't charging (or even approaching) or anything like that. She was 8 feet away, behind two partially-closed doors, with only her head visible and with me between her and the cop, and the cop's instinctive reaction to a little grumble (not even a real growl) was to reach for his gun. ****. That. See if I ever play the vigilant citizen again.

*ETA: Before anyone points it out, I'll note that I thought I had closed the inner door completely for exactly this reason. Apparently it didn't latch and she was able to nudge it open with her nose.

Agreed on both counts. I might go so far as to punch my partner afterwards for emptying a whole clip to my three rounds.

_________________

Knowing me, I probably would have totally chewed the guy out. Pussy. Oh, and then gotten a ticket for parking my car too many inches away from the curb or something.

Your opinion of my posts means next to nothing DE. Ever since you went on your crusade to paint everything said here that contradicts your worldview as being "fringe", your interactions here have been little more than "N'uh" and "You don't know what you're talking about, you're just a crazy libertarian."




You see, maybe those police officers designed websites before they joined the force, or maybe they do it as a side job. What you think of the source of information should be irrelevant when considering it's worth. Yet you find it much easier to just attack the source. I understand, using logic correctly is hard work for some people.



Yes, let's see what my tune would be if two armed men, with their weapons drawn, approached a 60 year old man, on his own property, who was in his car looking for something, then made demands of him (those demands made under circumstances designed to surprise and startle), then proceeded to fire 15 rounds at him (hitting him twice, the car 5 times and God knows what the other 8 times) because he didn't comply in the manner they desired. I think my tune would be that those criminals shot like cops, and they should be facing charges of 1st degree attempted murder.

As it stands, my tune is that I'm not going to be surprised when these perpetrators are placed on paid administrative leave until it is found (by an "internal investigation" no less) that their actions were justified, if not commendable.

It is rather predictable that you adamantly believe the magazine emptying cops story that he "lunged" at them, instead of giving even a modicum of credit to the story the 60 year old victim with a bad back who had difficulty extricating himself from the car told. I'm sure that won't stand as an example of cops getting any special treatment in the fallacy that cops don't get special dispensation regarding testimony.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

As I said, it appeared that way to them. That may or may not have been reasonable. However, if you think its necessarily unreasonable just because in hindsight they turned out to be keys then you are not viewing the situation in light of what it is actually like to be there. This would be unfair to do to you if you defended yourself and is unfair to do to the police. Human perception under pressure

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Its amazing how people who sit in an office all day think that they're in a position to judge this.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I've had a gun held to my face and I've stood in driveways with 60 year old men. I think I can understand the subtle differences. Two police officers killed an innocent man and, big surprise, you're completely apologetic toward them.

Just to be clear, Lenas, they attempted to kill him. Their expert police training obviously failed them, because with fifteen shots fired, they failed in their attempt to kill an innocent man for "non-compliance".

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Because that's all it takes to do the job is know the difference between a driveway and a gun. In any case, he wasn't killed. Since you can't even understand that, I think its pretty clear that no, you don't understand ****. You exemplify why reasoned discussion of police matters is impossible here - facts are totakly subordinated to the need to find fault with anyone in a uniform.

Vindi - sorry to hear you have problems using logic. It might help if you didn't uncritically accept the person who wS shot's story, then complain if someone ekse accepts the cops.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Your monty-esque use of predjudicial languge demonstrates why you cannot be taken seriously. Its a shame; at one point you were articulate and reasonable.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

In general, I may agree with you, though nobody here is suggesting the bullets do anything other than go past the intended target on a miss. They aren't magic and take random trajectories. We all know this. What is behind the target is the issue though, and the potential these officers acted recklessly and endangered the public.

15 shots were fired, of which 2 hit the man in the legs and 5 hit the car (presumably 5 different shots and not impacts after exiting the legs). That is at least 8 additional rounds fired in the direction of a carport that weren't reported. I would hope the officers had enough presence of mind to actually clear their firing direction beyond the target, but I doubt it. I find it unlikely that someone that would fire off 12 rounds in quick succession without adequately identifying the object in question took notice of the back stop, or lack there of.

In my opinion, attempting to label this situation as more evidence of lack of accuracy and range training is erroneous (a 13% hit rate though clearly does demonstrate at least one of those officers is significantly deficient in ability). To me, this indicative of the mentality that I feel is becoming more prevalent in younger police officers... When people talk of militarization of the police, I don't think it is accurately recognized as a reference to their equipment, but a reflection on the mental state of officers in dealing with situations and the public that even 10 years ago would have elicited different, less confrontational, responses. Its as if young officers think Southland and other related shows are documentaries.

Sorry, the discussion doesn't get any better when you replaced "killed" with "shot multiple times in an attempt to kill." You don't shoot to injure, right? I do however understand the difference between someone holding a gun in my face and threatening my life when compared to the shuffle of an old man with keys in his hand. I don't have a need to find fault in anyone wearing a uniform any more than you have a need to dismiss any complaints against someone in a uniform.

What prejudicial language, Diamondeye? I didn't say he lunged. I didn't bring Monty into this. Those are examples of using prejudicial language. Is it prejudicial to say that they attempted to kill him? Are police now trained to shoot to injure? Is it prejudicial to say he is innocent of any crime (except the, apparently, capital crime of non-compliance)? Could you be so kind as to popint out my prejudicial language?

Oh, and once again, we're back to your usual responses of "N'uh!" and "No, you are!"

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

From my point of view, it's not necessary to accept the victim's version of events (though it is by far the more plausible) to find the cops at fault here. Cops should be held to a much higher standard of restraint with respect to self-defense than normal citizens, not a lower one. In my opinion, the cops' own version of events - i.e. that the guy "lunged" in their direction with an unidentified metallic object in his hand - isn't even close to being sufficient to justify opening fire. There's too much uncertainty in that scenario to justify the cops' use of deadly force. In my view, the risk associated with that uncertainty is theirs to bear as part of the duties and burdens that go hand in hand with the power and authority they're granted as cops.

This is hellfire. There is no "we all know this". Therefore, I must, of course, introduce evidence of magic bullets:

http://fearless-assassins.com/topic/44132-hunters-stray-bullet-kills-man-after-a-mile-long-ricochet-off-a-boar/

What a way to go. Anyway, carry on.

Also: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/2 ... 30007.html


Not exactly magic bullets, but ricochets and fragments are definitely possible.

This. Either the "lunge" needs to consist of a substantial effort to engage the police (i.e. several rapid steps in their direction in an aggressive manner) or the metallic object needs to be identified as a projectile weapon and being brought to bear. Either/or.

A quick lunge serves no threat to an officer standing back a bit. I must assume they are standing back a bit in order to even contemplate the marksmanship.

I think it really illustrates the sad state of affairs we've gotten ourselves into that a person such as yourself (sorry if I'm being stereotypical, or making inferences that aren't true), a rational, white, male, well educated, (rather) liberal, metropolitan, cosmopolitan, upper income, (non-defense) attorney, would have sufficient cause to feel that way.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Calling BS on this story as presented. Unless they have the body of the boar showing a wound consistant with this story, its much more likely the hunter flat missed the shot, didnt clear the back stop and the driver was hit.

Any impact on the body of a boar capable of diverting the flight path of that bullet by the reported 90 deg would badly deform the round, stop spin and bleed even more range than was already lost by the transfer of energy related to the impact.

There are two spots on a boar that can effectively impede a bullet from penetrating the body... the skull and the mantle. On a very large boar, the mantle is of sufficient thickness to stop a 180 grain 30-06 round from 100 yards without injury to the animal. It is not however capable of deflecting the round. The skull could, though I have a hard time believing any round with sufficient energy to tumble another mile after impact and turning 90 deg wouldn't have obliterated the skull. It would stop a low calibre round like a .223 or .277, but you are a fool to hunt boar with that kind of gun, and I would still think the bullet would be far too deformed or fractured from the initial impact to travel another mile with lethal force.

They can't put anything on the internet that isn't true.