But people still defending those who don't while blaming the victim.
In other countries highly skilled ninjas dressed as cops are managing to incapacitate targest by not lethally shooting them, but yes shoot to end the threat is the Amurican moto.
But people still defending those who don't while blaming the victim.
In other countries highly skilled ninjas dressed as cops are managing to incapacitate targest by not lethally shooting them, but yes shoot to end the threat is the Amurican moto.
Last edited by Keosen; 2016-07-14 at 03:48 PM.
My first thought after reading the first couple of sentences were "Probably did something stupid" whicth is what I think of all police shootings involving a white male victim.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ther-countries
Such memes
Everywhere
It's easy in hindsight to act like this is some tragedy; I suspect you'd be singing a different tune had it turned out he was armed.
Yes, I am saying the cops have a right to use lethal force if they feel you're a threat AND you refuse to comply to eliminate that threat. All he had to do was show his hands. That's it.
US population is 318.9 million. UK population in 1895 was 56.55 million.
Why are you even comparing this?
What are crime rates in the UK major cites vs population and what are crime rates in US major cities vs crime rates.
How many cops are shot each year in UK cities vs rural areas. How many US cops are shot in American Cities vs Rural areas.
How many Officers in the UK die each year in UK cities. How many US cops die each year in US cities.
Those are all relevant statistics. Your bullshit month to year comparison is completely asinine. They are incomparable. The UK isnt the US. Unless you can prove that in every statistical category that the UK has the same % of everything that the US has. Then these numbers are incomparable.
Maybe it's time for some other way to control a suspect, rather than just death. I don't think the possibility of suicide by police sounds humane, or something we should just be ok with. I'm not blaming either side, but I'm blaming the outcome, we can do better than that.
Yes. I think people's reactions here really show a kind of moral degradation of our society, definitely a low value on human life. It really is the law of the jungle for some people, and that's because they aren't in touch with their humanity. This is post-modernism at its finest, pals.
Religion isn't the absence of reason. It's merely the presence of faith.
Heroes of the Storm : all day erryday
If someone is walking to you, one hand concealed and not following the order "put your hands up" even with guns trained on him, then yes, he is a threat.
Or, you could be an idiot, and assume hes not a threat and proceed to get shot.
You're forgetting the part where this is a volatile situation, and instead trying to imply what i meant was
"A cop can walk up to you, shoot you and just pretend you were a threat"
Please don't be obtuse, it just makes you look stupid.
Let's make sure we're clear on this: If you have one hand behind your back, you are walking toward a police officer, that officer engages you, tells you to bring your hand to your front, tells you you will be shot if you don't, you are a threat.
There is no two ways about this. Clear cut and dry. The fact that he didn't have a gun behind his back didn't make him less of a threat to the officer in question at the time.
I am as left-wing, anti-gun, sjw as they come on these forums, but when someone is overtly refusing to comply with reasonable requests, assuming the worst is the only option available to the cop. You don't "keep your distance" and you don't "shoot to wound"; either the person is a threat or they are not.
Really would not be. Anyone walking toward a cop with a hand behind their back refusing to comply would be downright stupid at best, and murderous at worst.
Deadly force should always be the first response by police before anythung else has been tried.
You fail at reading because it was prety damn obvious that such statistics can't go as far back as 1895, that would be such a ludicrous claim. Especially in the light of the link I provided next to put even more eight on my initial argument.
US Ppolice officers are badly trained, trigger happy and completely lack any kind of mental preparation to deal with civilians on a daily basis judging by the sole number of civilian deaths at their hands yearly
When you have to compile 3 decades worth of killings in the 5th economical power to even match a single month of regular police shootings in the US, you *know* something is terribly wrong and using lame ass excuses like "Not the same number of guns", "Not the same country", "Apples and oranges" and all those usual driveby comments made to disregard anything that remotely encourages you to look in the mirror and realise you have a serious problem with your police forces.
Here's a clue, your police forces suck, they do a terrible job, they have a wild west complex and have racism so deepluy ingrained in their system that it's a miracle people aren't rioting against them. That shit wouldn't fly anywhere else in the world.
It doesn't really matter what kind of defense training an officer has if the potential gunman/bomber/whatever decides to turn and kill other people. All this talk about keeping distance and defensive techniques does nothing to help innocent bystanders. The threat isn't just towards the officer, but potentially everyone in the area.
The officers could have gambled and not shot the man, and he wouldn't have died, or he could have killed people. Alternatively, if the man WAS armed and had the intention to kill, the officers would be the unsung heroes that saved innocent people right now. There's no way to know which is the case when it's happening with these circumstances. All they can do is trust in the most basic form of common sense (self preservation) and hope the person complies. These things happen, as well as random innocent people getting killed.
There's never an easy answer.