Witnesses yell 'he can't hear you' as cop shoots deaf man

[Acidz]

Why shoot to kill in such a situation? Couldn't he have shot him in the knee or something?

[Antiganon]

First off, it's not the majority. You have to be hella messed up to actually think the MAJORITY of the police force are nothing but cruel people. Secondly, they don't get "convictions" because they are being judged by individuals that actually understand the job and understand the law and not internet raging kids.

Listen to what the police tells you and you won't get fucking shot.

Hard to listen to police when YOU ARE DEAF.

[TwistedSkull]

No I'm sure your police officers are perfect in comparison to the rest of the world...

They are not perfect but i would have a higher chance of survival encountering police from my country.

- - - Updated - - -

Well your country must not have lowered qualifications to attract more women and minority officers to meet some sort of diversity quota.

How many months does it take to become a Officer in America?

[Themius]

It's the gun and frontier culture. In other civilized countries, even bandits were thinking twice before shooting the police; but in USA, deadly violence against the law enforcement is a norm of life.

- - - Updated - - -

Because you cannot aim for anything with a handgun. You will be lucky to hit the torso with the several tries. The handgun is too light, the barrel too short, the caliber too big.

Oh cut that bullshit. It is an idiotic thing to say it is a way of life when so so so so so few cops die from actually being shot or hunted by someone. More cops die by heart attacks and getting themselves into accidents with reckless driving.

[Tackhisis]

so so so few cops die from actually being shot or hunted by someone.

So they should allow to be wounded as there are chances they won't die or become unsuitable for the service?

[Themius]

So they should allow to be wounded as there are chances they won't die or become unsuitable for the service?

Which fucking one is it?

What type of shitty straw man is this? Citing that very few cops actually face harm doesn't suddenly mean that they should be allowed to be wounded lol, what a stupid thing to say.

The point is that you're trumping up the whole "police are constantly under attack! the public is totally against them!" when in fact police really do not face that.

[Antiganon]

So they should allow to be wounded as there are chances they won't die or become unsuitable for the service?

Uh, yeah.

Don't want to risk personal injury or death on a daily basis? Maybe don't become a cop, where your job will be dealing with potentially violent criminals on a daily basis.

[Scathbais]

US police only method to neutralize a target is with lethal means?

Dosnt matter much if only 1 of the cops used a tazer if the other fucker used a gun, even if u had to use ur gun, dude was wielding a metal pipe, why not just shoot him in the leg?

Do you actually believe the garbage you spout or is it written only out of ignorance? Thankfully ignorance can be cured with a little knowledge. Unfortunately there is no cure for stupid however. Here are some data that hopefully help you take a more rational approach to police shootings.

These are 2016 statistics:
US Population: 326 million
Number of police officers: 765,000 (officers with arrest powers), 1.1 million in total
Number of 911 calls: 240 million
Number of arrests: 10.8 million
Arrests for violent crimes: 505,000
People fatally shot by police: 962

So despite all the police bashing and hyperbole, you would have to be be ignorant, willfully blind or illiterate to reach the conclusion that you did in your post. Given you wrote the post, we can eliminate illiterate.




and for good measure: police killed in the line of duty: 135

[Deleted]

Hard to listen to police when YOU ARE DEAF.

Oh no an exception. Now everything has changed.

[Gimlix]

Seriously, america has some serious gun problems and police problems. Fuck. If this happened in EU the guy would had been in jail for not doing his job properly. Which is keeping things safe.

[Chaosbubba]

Not when they are going to murder a police officer, no, they deserve to be shot to death equally.
Mental illness does not give you an excuse to murder people or run at a cop with a weapon.

Holy shit, people like you need to be put down. You are obscenely stupid. Nowhere does it say he was trying to murder the cops, nowhere does it say he was running at the cops. You make these assumptions to back up your absolutely asinine claim. There are 1000000 different ways to stop someone other than shooting them and killing them.

[Logwyn]

It's more then likely that they both fired at the same time not that he was razed first then shot while on the ground.

Then should have a procedure of taze then gun.

[Tijuana]

The middle is the "tradeoffs" solution. If you think there are no solutions, ok, that's fine. I think there are. But one side and/or the other is going to have to budge/give. Neither side is willing to, so we are stuck.

While 92% of gun owners want universal background checks; That seems like its one issue that the left and right could work on.

There are FACTUALLY no solutions. This is not an opinion. There is no way to change something, without it changing something else, in government. If you want to feed the poor, you can't do that without money. Taking money is a negative. You can't just, with the stroke of a pen, create solutions with no consequences. There is ALWAYS a trade off, in everything governments do.

Why would the right negotiate with the left on gun control? The left is getting their fucking asses handed to them on the issue. Literally 100% of the ideas put forth by the Democrat party, in regards to guns, are completely ignorant and nonsensical. Why negotiate with crazy? Why negotiate with stupid? And to what gain? How many lives do you think will be saved by banning "assault weapons" (factually not a real thing)? The left has ZERO credibility when they try and grab guns, and they seek to leave behind 95% of the murder guns (hand guns). Your opening position is so laughable, nobody even listens to the rest.

[Silver Forte]

or better yet, GET RID OF FUCKING FIREARMS and only have them used by specially trained units that need to be authorised by a senior officer, this never happens in the UK, and is why so many people never want to go to the US, it's not the sort of thing that instils confidence in outsiders when you hear that the people who are meant to protect and serve are the ones killing innocents all because they are poorly trained and can't think for 5 seconds in front of their face.

- - - Updated - - -



fixed it for ya.

also, not heeding the call of those around warning that he couldn't communicate in a standard fashion was unprofessional and downright negligent, he should be suspended and charged with manslaughter at the very least.

Can't get rid of firearms because criminals are going to obtain them regardless of whether or not they're legal. Then we'd have unarmed cops getting shot by armed criminals.

[Tijuana]

So here is the thing... all of the above is your opinion. There are solutions, but the right (your side) probably won't like them. And neither will someone the left who want stricter gun control laws or an outright ban.

If there is a will, there is a way. As for numbers, I already told you, I do not know, because there is no clear research, because your side(the right), and the NRA does not want the research to be done.

So, if the right is ok with seeing more deaths due to their unwillingness to compromise their "everyone gets a gun! you get a gun! you get a gun!" position, that is on them.

But the left will eventually win the presidency, and the Congress, and will do something more extream than what could have been.

But all of this will just create further divisions because instead of working together we are just now playing team politics, with the nuclear option in place the government will ping-pong between two extremes, and eventually, destabalize and implode. Death by self-inflicted wounds...

Or, we can actually become reasonable, look at the data and find solutions to problems without getting emotions involved.

It's not opinion that all "solutions" have a cost and/or impact, it's a FACT. Taking my money and giving it to the poor has consequences to me, regardless of how noble the gesture is. Every dime spent by government, is FACTUALLY a consequence to the person who gave the dime. Every advantage the government gives to one group, is factually a disadvantage to another group. This is not a difficult concept to understand, but it pokes a hole in the Liberal dream of a Utopia with no consequences. Therefore, you obviously will never even consider this is possible. SAD!

Also, you could not be more ignorant of US law, if you think congress and a president can outlaw guns. Give. Me. A. Break. Go back to school, dude. You might pass this time, if you pay attention.

[Tijuana]

I did not say there are no costs or impacts, I said that at some point someone will have to give.

Because we are supposed to be grown-ups and understand that we can't always get our way. So you create a Cost-Benefit Analysis... what are you willing to give, sacrifice or lose, to get some other thing, benefit, or solution.

If your answer is "I am not willing to give/budge on anything." That is your choice. But it's not the grown-up one.

So you agree with me, but you just don't understand enough to know that you agree with me. Got it.

Everything is a trade off. There is no magic law that cures all with no cost. Only in the minds of Liberals, is this a thing.

[shimerra]

Everything is a trade off. There is no magic law that cures all with no cost. Only in the minds of Liberals, is this a thing.

Don't you remember yoda? Only conservative deals in absolutes.

But please continue arguing against your caricature of liberals. No hypocrisy there!

I did not disagree with you on that. I am disagreeing with you when you say there are no solutions. There are, you just don't like them.

Shhhh quiet stupid liberal. Obey and serve your conservative overlords like tiajuana the true arbiters of logic, reason, and defenders of liberty! Only their enlightened straw mans and constant goal post shifting when proven wrong can show us the way.

[Tijuana]

I did not disagree with you on that. I am disagreeing with you when you say there are no solutions. There are, you just don't like them.

No, you are wrong. Name me ONE legislative solution that has no cost or negative, to any issue you can think of. Just one.

[Tijuana]

Why do you keep saying this? I never said that all solution have a non-impact or cost. Let me repeat. No solutions have a non-impact or cost. The question you need to answer, is the cost worth the benefit?

We cannot answer that currently because there is no clear research to figure that out... because the right and the NRA have blocked all attempts to do the research.

I will continue refuting you, as long as you keep saying it. You literally just said this: "I am disagreeing with you when you say there are no solutions. There are, you just don't like them."

You are wrong. There are no solutions, there are only trade offs. There is no magic law you can pass, that doesn't have an adverse effect somewhere else. This isn't opinion. This is fact. Even outlawing murder, has the negative impact that I can't murder now. EVERYTHING has a trade off, or some sort of cost. EVERYTHING.

But, I'm done arguing with you over this extremely simple concept, that my cat probably has down pat by now.

[Tijuana]

If the tradeoff has a positive benefit or solves something you are trying to improve like gun deaths, that tradeoff is the solution to gun deaths.

You are arguing semantics, and being purposefully pedantic. You hate liberals, great. But sound like a teenager who has found someone to rebel agast that are not your parents.

I don't think you are capable of understanding my concept, because I have tried many times, and keep failing. Yes, it's a semantics argument. But, it also has a point. You will NEVER understand the underlying point, because you can't accept the semantic argument.

You taking the moral high ground, is typical for most Liberals, but it's just makes me laugh. I have presented a very simple concept, that you are unable to comprehend. The problem is not the concept, its your comprehension.

I regret ever replying to you, as it's just so FUCKING TEDIOUS. My god...