Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
13
... LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruor View Post
    There is constant crying on these forums and from liberals about police shooting fleeing suspects. Well, now you see why they do it. This guy fled when the cops showed up, they went after him (without showering him in a hail of gunfire the instant he turned to run as they should have) he ran into some bushes to hide, so they got dogs. He got a good firing position, shot the dog, shot the dog handler, and shot 3 additional cops before being shot himself. So, there you go. That is why cops need to shoot fleeing suspects. Moral of the story: People who run are guilty and should be shot. If you aren't guilty, don't run. If you are guilty, and want to run, better hope you are quick and good at dodging bullets. Here is the story: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/16...-carolina.html A non Fox News link for the liberals: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/n...469512453.html
    First, labeling anyone who disagrees with you as "liberal" does not help you. It gets most people to automatically shut off and not listen to anything else you say because a topic like this has nothing to do with political affiliation. Second, this argument has a lot of holes. You are trying to make the point that because something went bad due to officers not automatically killing someone who had previously committed a crime, they are justified and killing anyone due to a potentially crime they may commit in the future.

    Lets run with that logic in a different scenario. Lets say a person commits armed robbery. The police show up and that individual surrenders and does not put up a fight. Now lets say this individual gets sentenced to 8 years in prison for this (I'm just using an arbitrary number). A few years after this person gets out of prison, they commit the same crime again, but this time, the person who had committed the crime does not want to go back to jail, so he puts up a fight and fatally shoots an officer.

    Because of how that scenario played out, is it then justified for officers to shoot and kill anyone who commits armed robbery (even if they surrender and do not put up a fight) because there is the potential that this person can kill an officer in the future? The police have the right to shoot someone if their or someone else life is in immediate danger. They are not free to kill someone if they believe that person could potentially put their life in danger in the future (whether that be in the next few seconds or the next few years).

    There have also been times where officers have been shot and killed without warning after pulling someone over for a traffic violation. Does that then mean officers have the right to kill anyone who they pull over for a traffic violation because there is the potential that they already have their gun in there hand and are ready to kill the officer as soon as he walks up to their window? Again, no. The police are not free and clear to kill people because of the possibility that something bad may happen.

    And again, this has nothing to do with being "liberal." I personally would suggest to argue your points with someone without assuming what their beliefs already are and if they are a part of some specific group of people. It does nothing but stifle debate and discussion.

  2. #42
    The Insane Kathandira's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ziltoidia 9
    Posts
    17,557
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    I agree. And if the cop does, they should be prosecuted. Criminals and those defending them ( not saying you are ) should understand if they are armed, it puts a lot different spin on the situation. They are by default, a deadly threat then.
    Completely agreed.

    Quote Originally Posted by h4rr0d View Post
    Ok, so petty theft (though some bikes can easily cost more than used car) is fine according to you, but where would you draw the line? Carjacking? Breaking and entering? Assault? Armed robbery? Rape? Murder?

    Thoughts like this are the seeds for courts setting burglars free, because 'they were hungry and cold, and everyone has right to food and shelter' as witnessed in Italy.

    Honestly, if anyone infringes (ownership) rights of someone else, their life is forgone and society will more likely than not be better off without them.
    See above.
    RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18

    Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.

  3. #43
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    23,187
    Quote Originally Posted by h4rr0d View Post
    Ok, so petty theft (though some bikes can easily cost more than used car) is fine according to you, but where would you draw the line? Carjacking? Breaking and entering? Assault? Armed robbery? Rape? Murder?

    Thoughts like this are the seeds for courts setting burglars free, because 'they were hungry and cold, and everyone has right to food and shelter' as witnessed in Italy.

    Honestly, if anyone infringes (ownership) rights of someone else, their life is forgone and society will more likely than not be better off without them.
    Na. No matter how disgusting we think a crime is, there has to be boundaries for when cops ( and even civilians defending themselves ) before deadly force can be justified.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Rorcanna View Post
    The OP couldn't be more pathetically hostile even if he tried.

    A a person firmly rooted on the Right side, not Alt-right where tyranny and fascism is held in high regard, of the political spectrum I am not rabidly pro the concept of police shooting suspects, with lethal ammo, on principle if they run.
    whats ridiculous is just how NOT black and white the subjects are.

    like there is a HUGE difference between using lethal force on someone commiting a violent crime, with a gun who is running so they can continue their crime or whatever, and just...shooting people who run from the cops.

    And there is a huge difference between this police state mentality and like.... like...can you imagine if the money from all that anti terrorist military stuff the police these days have went into research and manufacturing of more protection for police and non lethal weapons.

    obviously not EVERY piece of tech is viable but i was watching documentaries on various sonic and electrical and just non penatrative (bean bag gun) weapons.

    but it doesnt even seem to be an option. But it doesnt even seem to be a consideration. Like even if a non lethal gun can still accidentally kill if it hits you in the neck or from close range that would still be better.

    but no we cant even talk about WHAT could be possible because so many people literally think people should be killed for Running or stealing or being rude.
    Romance doesnt detract from a story. Its a Genre, like horror or comedy or adventure. The game was ruined when we got Horror in drustvar or nazmir. It wasnt ruined when we had funny quests. So if you think a little man on man love ruins the game, then yes you are either a homophobe or just a spoil sport that goes "ewww kissing is yucky" like a baby. Furthermore, if a character has never expressed interest in any gender, then its not proof they are straight. straight people are not the default

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    Na. No matter how disgusting we think a crime is, there has to be boundaries for when cops ( and even civilians defending themselves ) before deadly force can be justified.
    I agree this is an instance where good judgement fall into place. I think people aren't thinking when confronted it is a flight or fight response and fleeing seems natural. Every cop should have a taser or some other form of non lethal means to handle a suspect, it is more like a human response than an admission of guilt.

  6. #46
    Titan Daemos daemonium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Land of moose and goose.
    Posts
    14,949
    Or mabye America should be a reasonable country where John dick and Harry can’t get a gun. Pretty much all of American police problems are because any yahoo can get a gun.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by MeHMeH View Post
    I'd say that is a perfect example as to why not everyone and their grandma shouldn't have a gun.
    FTFY

    If people don't have guns then cops have no reason to be in fear for their life while someone is running and use that as an excuse to shoot them.
    Last edited by Buildapanda; 2018-01-16 at 02:48 PM.
    Mistweaver Monk |
    "Those who lead through fear only stay in power while those they govern lack courage." ~ Lorewalker Cho

  8. #48
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    23,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    I agree this is an instance where good judgement fall into place. I think people aren't thinking when confronted it is a flight or fight response and fleeing seems natural. Every cop should have a taser or some other form of non lethal means to handle a suspect, it is more like a human response than an admission of guilt.
    Have to be very careful using those, esp if the person they are using it on is armed. Cops put their lives at risks all the time and that is what they get paid to do. However, they should have the right to use a judgement call when confronting a armed criminal. Because tasers do not always work and when it is a matter of seconds counting, you could lose your life.

    However, we should certainly continue to do more research on finding and improving non lethal methods.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Daemos daemonium View Post
    Or mabye America should be a reasonable country where John dick and Harry can’t get a gun. Pretty much all of American police problems are because any yahoo can get a gun.
    Gun Control thread is that way-------->.

  9. #49
    Brewmaster slackjawsix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Tell me! where am i!
    Posts
    1,368
    Inb4 angry neckbeards mad that non-obese people still have the ability to run at age 30
    i live by one motto! "lolwut?"

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemos daemonium View Post
    Or mabye America should be a reasonable country where John dick and Harry can’t get a gun. Pretty much all of American police problems are because any yahoo can get a gun.
    I agree. The US should take a hard stance on guns and ban them outright. Make it illegal to carry more than 1-2 bullets at anytime. We could even declare a war on guns and have a national campaign against guns. Maybe we can get Melania to do TV commercials, telling the viewers to "just say no to guns". And then we could set up a special task force and name it something like the Gun Enforcement Agency.

    Yes, I believe that would solve the problem

  11. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruor View Post
    There is constant crying on these forums and from liberals about police shooting fleeing suspects. Well, now you see why they do it. This guy fled when the cops showed up, they went after him (without showering him in a hail of gunfire the instant he turned to run as they should have) he ran into some bushes to hide, so they got dogs. He got a good firing position, shot the dog, shot the dog handler, and shot 3 additional cops before being shot himself. So, there you go. That is why cops need to shoot fleeing suspects. Moral of the story: People who run are guilty and should be shot. If you aren't guilty, don't run. If you are guilty, and want to run, better hope you are quick and good at dodging bullets. Here is the story: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/16...-carolina.html A non Fox News link for the liberals: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/n...469512453.html
    Like someone pointed out before. The seventh amandment disagree.

  12. #52
    Too many people to quote, just a mass reply:

    1) This is the USA, we will not get rid of guns. It is our right to own guns so we can shoot home invaders or someone stealing our vehicle or protect our basic rights... like owning guns.

    2) Yes teenagers shoplifting and running should be brutalized. DON'T STEAL.

    3) Yes, "stuff" is worth more then a criminals life. If I see some guy bash in my vehicles window to steal my laptop I should have every right to kill him on the spot, with any means I have, be it shooting or bashing his skull in with a tire iron.

    4) Criminals are a detriment to society. Once you steal gum or a car, your are a thief and should be put down. Its really, really easy: Don't steal, don't vandalize, don't rape, don't mug people, and you will be fine and live life without being beaten up or killed by police. Why is this a hard concept?
    Last edited by Thwart; 2018-01-16 at 03:55 PM. Reason: Infracted: trolling

  13. #53
    Sad about the dog, shame they didnt kill the guy right there, waste of tax money keeping him alive.

  14. #54
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    23,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruor View Post
    Too many people to quote, just a mass reply:

    1) This is the USA, we will not get rid of guns. It is our right to own guns so we can shoot home invaders or someone stealing our vehicle or protect our basic rights... like owning guns.

    2) Yes teenagers shoplifting and running should be brutalized. DON'T STEAL.

    3) Yes, "stuff" is worth more then a criminals life. If I see some guy bash in my vehicles window to steal my laptop I should have every right to kill him on the spot, with any means I have, be it shooting or bashing his skull in with a tire iron.

    4) Criminals are a detriment to society. Once you steal gum or a car, your are a thief and should be put down. Its really, really easy: Don't steal, don't vandalize, don't rape, don't mug people, and you will be fine and live life without being beaten up or killed by police. Why is this a hard concept?
    And if you do, you would be guilty of a crime far worse then the one breaking into your car to steal a laptop.

  15. #55
    You are guilty of being a brain washed sheep, can we shoot you instead? Makes much more sense.

  16. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruor View Post
    Too many people to quote, just a mass reply:

    1) This is the USA, we will not get rid of guns. It is our right to own guns so we can shoot home invaders or someone stealing our vehicle or protect our basic rights... like owning guns.

    2) Yes teenagers shoplifting and running should be brutalized. DON'T STEAL.

    3) Yes, "stuff" is worth more then a criminals life. If I see some guy bash in my vehicles window to steal my laptop I should have every right to kill him on the spot, with any means I have, be it shooting or bashing his skull in with a tire iron.

    4) Criminals are a detriment to society. Once you steal gum or a car, your are a thief and should be put down. Its really, really easy: Don't steal, don't vandalize, don't rape, don't mug people, and you will be fine and live life without being beaten up or killed by police. Why is this a hard concept?
    Well in my opinion you are an evil person who kills over material items and imo mentally unstable for that reason and shoulnd't under the current guidelines have permission to own a gun because of mental incompetency.
    Mistweaver Monk |
    "Those who lead through fear only stay in power while those they govern lack courage." ~ Lorewalker Cho

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    And if you do, you would be guilty of a crime far worse then the one breaking into your car to steal a laptop.
    That is where the thinking is wrong. Killing an innocent person is bad, killing a criminal should be viewed as a good thing... we may just end up with less criminals.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Cruor View Post
    Too many people to quote, just a mass reply:

    1) This is the USA, we will not get rid of guns. It is our right to own guns so we can shoot home invaders or someone stealing our vehicle or protect our basic rights... like owning guns.

    2) Yes teenagers shoplifting and running should be brutalized. DON'T STEAL.

    3) Yes, "stuff" is worth more then a criminals life. If I see some guy bash in my vehicles window to steal my laptop I should have every right to kill him on the spot, with any means I have, be it shooting or bashing his skull in with a tire iron.

    4) Criminals are a detriment to society. Once you steal gum or a car, your are a thief and should be put down. Its really, really easy: Don't steal, don't vandalize, don't rape, don't mug people, and you will be fine and live life without being beaten up or killed by police. Why is this a hard concept?
    Feel free to move to a country where rules like these still apply. Civilisation got rid of these hundreds of years ago.

  19. #59
    We live in 2018. There are plenty of ways to immobilize someone without having to shoot live ammunition. You can stop someone from running without having to kill this person. Even if for some reason you need to shoot live ammo. Is it so hard to aim for the legs instead of the chest or head area ?

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Rorcanna View Post
    The OP couldn't be more pathetically hostile even if he tried.

    A a person firmly rooted on the Right side, not Alt-right where tyranny and fascism is held in high regard, of the political spectrum I am not rabidly pro the concept of police shooting suspects, with lethal ammo, on principle if they run.
    I agree, what stops the police from using pacification devices?

    Not everyone who runs from the police is a criminal, or means to escape the law to avoid punishment. If anything it could just be bad parenting, a mental issue, or an idiot who thinks it is a good idea. Even if it was a hardened criminal pacification compliance alternatives should be used, and only when life and death scenario arises should deadly force be used.

    I mean police shooting isn't as rampant as it could be, given the amount of men and women who protect the streets, but it should be extremely rare. When I was a kid, the world had more, or less the same problems, but police shootings were so rare people thought "Wow, that guy must have been a real bad dude!" if he was shot and killed in LA.

    Lethal ballistics should be left for lethal situations, not questioning, speeding tickets, or what ever lame reason "He's black and he ran" bullshit.

    Has anyone been shot with salt rock? I haven't, and I don't even know if its a thing, but it kept my generation from trespassing on certain properties growing up. That is what the police need, a safe, but effective way of telling people, don't be a fucking idiot.
    Disarm now correctly removes the targets’ arms.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •