You were in the Marines. You are going down a dark alley. Guy points at an object at you. You are going to light him up. You know you would. I am not ready to judge the cops.
Last edited:
Stephon Clark shooting
- Thread starter ThunderCat98
- Start date
I am not the idiot. this thread is about a man who was shot 20 times while holding a cell phone,
one example of thousands.
warning shots used to be standard procedure, unless the officer was being shot at.
nothing idiotic about that. the idiocy is shooting an unarmed person 20 times, again,
one instance of thousands.
and, last I checked a gun can be aimed in any direction including into the air or ground.
less chance that way of hitting an innocent person than if you aim at them.
it depends......do you mean in the CNN news feed? do you mean like in Chicago where black on black killing is rampant? or do you mean by cops?
Guy is running FROM you, not at you. LEOs are required to exercise due diligence before they use lethal force. Furthermore, usually after you give a command, you wait more than 1/2 of one second to see that he complied instead of saying "hands up", bang, almost simultaneously.
Apples to oranges comparison. Our ROE are not the same as cops. This guy would be considered a non combatant and if shot by us, we’d be going to a court martial.
He was in his grandmothers backyard. We wont know the facts because the body camera was turned off.
Just another unfortunate situation regarding the police overzealous actions of using their firearm. 20 shots? Serious that is too much.
Nothing good comes from running from the police. This is evolution of the species in action.
Exactly. Better to let your lawyer figure out and not your brain against a Glock
I was asking Marine about his situation.
I guess they would never shoot a cop either.
Jesus Christ, I am glad you are anti-gun, because you are too fvcking stupid to responsibly own one. Do you think bullets just go up in the air and disappear? Or just hit the ground and instantly stop?
I might dig for this later, I am sure it is still out there....you know how dumbass Arabs like to shoot guns into the air for shits and giggles? There's a video of a man on the street that takes a bullet right in the mellon from that, and he dies dead as fried chicken on the spot. I also remember a man in NOLA dying from that a few years ago, on New Years.
I would never want to go to the range with dtard. what an idiot. He does not need his hands on a firearm.
warning shot? What the hell?
I got my first Shotgun when I was 10 I got my 1st rifle when I was 12 And I can Shoot the eye out of a knat at 100 yds so don't try to tell me about handling a gun. A bullet shot into the ground does not ricachet And the bullet fired into the air has much less chance hitting someone than one fired At someone that misses. And anyone who thinks a warning shot is bad or more dangerous thing is the real idiot.
NOT SURPRISED - REALITY HAS ALWAYS BEEN A STRANGER TO YOU.
You are so ignorant, it's not even funny anymore. If anything, it's sad.
Go ask a lawyer or any firearms instructor about firing a warning shot.
Just rewatched the helicopter and body cam vids again. Absolutely no problem with the officers' actions here. Guy ignored several commands to stop, had been running through the neighborhood on a crime spree (and b/f one of you misrepresent my position, I am not saying theft or property damage warrants deadly force), acting erratically, and carrying/holding something he refused to show/drop.
Hindsight is 20/20, and some of you want to question things that are happening in an intense, highly dangerous situation with no regard to those underlying circumstances.
Fact is, if this guy had listened to commands and responded as directed, he'd be alive right now, and probably out of jail already.
My guess - the guy was under the influence of a controlled substance which contributed to his series of ignorant choices, leading to his death.
Hindsight is 20/20, and some of you want to question things that are happening in an intense, highly dangerous situation with no regard to those underlying circumstances.
Fact is, if this guy had listened to commands and responded as directed, he'd be alive right now, and probably out of jail already.
My guess - the guy was under the influence of a controlled substance which contributed to his series of ignorant choices, leading to his death.
Constitutionally, "police officers are allowed to shoot under two circumstances," David Klinger, a University of Missouri St. Louis professor who studies use of force, told Vox's Dara Lind. The first circumstance is "to protect their life or the life of another innocent party" — what departments call the "defense-of-life" standard. The second circumstance is to prevent a suspect from escaping, but only if the officer has probable cause to think the suspect poses a dangerous threat to others.
-------------------------------------
After review of the video several times, IMO, the police officers were justified in the actions in accordance with their constitutional authority.
-------------------------------------
After review of the video several times, IMO, the police officers were justified in the actions in accordance with their constitutional authority.
It’s a spilt hair decision by the officers to fire and not to fire. With the intensity surrounding the situation I would have a hard time pushing for a prosecution against them. I agree the perp should’ve stopped running, but on the flip side I think the rules of engagement for officers to fire shots should be looked at. There have been entirely too many people shot and killed who were unarmed by officers with itchy trigger fingers.
Last edited:
I mean its pretty much frowned upon to shoot a cop in the criminal world.
This was not your original argument. You blamed the cops upfront. I think the vast majority of people would agree it's a good thing to review rules of engagement within the law enforcement community. But don't act like cops are just rolling up and then busting a cap in someone's ass because that it ant happened get either
TYPICAL OF YOU CONS - ALWAYS SHOOTING YOUR MOUTH OFF LIKE YOU'RE SOME KIND OF
EXPERT WHEN YOU ARE ACTUALLY ASS BACKWARDS.
Last fall, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and 10 other law enforcement groups got together to work out a consensus policy on the use of force — a sort of model document for local departments that want to update their rules. When the document came out in January, it contained a surprise: It allowed for warning shots.
http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/National_Consensus_Policy_On_Use_Of_Force.pdf
I know of no actual trainers or police departments or otherwise that teach or train on warning shots.
What is this shit? The UN of police departments or something? You are crazier than hell. Did you read the opening statement?
This National Consensus Policy on Use of Force is a collaborative effort among 11 of the most significant law enforcement leadership and labor organizations in the United States (see back panel for list). The policy reflects the best thinking of all consensus organizations and is solely intended to serve as a template for law enforcement agencies to compare and enhance their existing policies.
But since you disagree with it, it doesn't exist. Kind of like the gun show loop hole.
Oh, I don’t blame the guy who got shot near as much as I think the cops should be responsible for it. Don’t get confused by my understanding of what they’re going through, and not simply calling for them to be held accountable through prosecution. I think they need trained better, that’s my opinion
No idea what the actual numbers show, but 10 years ago I would have agreed with this statement. Now, however, the disregard for life in general and disrespect for law enforcement has progressed so far, I no longer believe this to be the case.
And I think we all agree the more training the better
The number of police officers criminally killed has been steadily falling since 1973 from about 130 per year to about 45 per year as of 2015.
It says "warning shots are inherently dangerous" and then goes on to advise officers to do something illegal: fire a warning shot if "the use of deadly force is justified". If you have time to fire warning shots, deadly force is not justified. You can ask an attorney about this if you don't believe me. Sounds and reads like some lobbying BS to get some heat off of cops (actually that organization does do lobbying, go figure).
