(03-23-2017 09:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:13 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 05:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 05:16 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Yea, that does seem rather excessive. Why couldn't they just taze him instead? I'm hearing now he had his hands up.

For some on here the problem was evidently the fact that the police are armed at all.

Seems they are in favor of more officers dying, like the unarmed police officer killed in this case, than perps dying.

Name one poster, with a link, who said they had a problem with any officers in England being armed or were in favor of more officers dying.

Go.......................

There's two posters in this very thread, you know the one where an unarmed cop was killed, who talked about disarming law enforcement here. The only person bringing England into this part of the conversation is you.

No...link them please. Thanks.

You don't need a link moron, they are in this very thread. Fit and Hambone called for disarming law enforcement officers here just like they are in England so they evidently can be targets just like the brave officer in London was.

(03-23-2017 09:55 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:13 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 05:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  For some on here the problem was evidently the fact that the police are armed at all.

Seems they are in favor of more officers dying, like the unarmed police officer killed in this case, than perps dying.

Name one poster, with a link, who said they had a problem with any officers in England being armed or were in favor of more officers dying.

Go.......................

There's two posters in this very thread, you know the one where an unarmed cop was killed, who talked about disarming law enforcement here. The only person bringing England into this part of the conversation is you.

No...link them please. Thanks.

You don't need a link moron, they are in this very thread. Fit and Hambone called for disarming law enforcement officers here just like they are in England so they evidently can be targets just like the brave officer in London was.

You see...that's why you need to link their actual words when you make a claim like this. I went back and read the whole thread. I did not see anything from Hambone calling for our law enforcement to be disarmed and I only saw Fitbud say that perhaps we need more officers with batons on the street.

Neither of those is calling for our officers to be disarmed like they are in England.

So without posting the words, you lose the argument and are therefore wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly say so. Honesty is the best policy!

Okay...I went back and re-read Fit's and Hambones post and I can see where you are coming from. But I'd like to hear more from them to be certain as they seem to be calling for the police to still have heavy weaponry, but just to have it in the trunk for when it's truly needed...and not on them in every circumstance. They also seem to be calling for more specialized forces.

But again, I don't see anything calling for a total removal of all guns. But I could be wrong.

Fit?
Hambone?

(03-23-2017 10:00 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:55 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:32 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 09:13 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Name one poster, with a link, who said they had a problem with any officers in England being armed or were in favor of more officers dying.

Go.......................

There's two posters in this very thread, you know the one where an unarmed cop was killed, who talked about disarming law enforcement here. The only person bringing England into this part of the conversation is you.

No...link them please. Thanks.

You don't need a link moron, they are in this very thread. Fit and Hambone called for disarming law enforcement officers here just like they are in England so they evidently can be targets just like the brave officer in London was.

You see...that's why you need to link their actual words when you make a claim like this. I went back and read the whole thread. I did not see anything from Hambone calling for our law enforcement to be disarmed and I only saw Fitbud say that perhaps we need more officers with batons on the street.

Neither of those is calling for our officers to be disarmed like they are in England.

So without posting the words, you lose the argument and are therefore wrong.

If I'm wrong, I'll gladly say so. Honesty is the best policy!

I dont know who is more of a bullshitter, you or Oblunder.

An American from Utah is one of the ones killed

(03-23-2017 12:28 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 06:29 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  


When I first looked at the picture my first thoughts were. This girl is cold hearted to just look away from a man laying on the ground most likely dying.

Then I looked at her texting someone and the placement of her hand. And I thought she was texting someone to let them know she was safe. The placement of the hand makes it looks like she is trying to block her face from being seen from the person taking the picture or those around her.

Then I looked at her face a little closer and I read it as one of two things...

sadness or fear

Most likely she has a feeling of what was taken place and I think all f us would go to that place. But as a woman with her head cover and the color of her skin I'm going to assume she's Muslim. If so that could very easily be fear on her face.

As I said we all would assume what was going on was a terrorist attack. So If I was in her shoes I could easily see me feeling a little afraid and not stopping where a person is laying and a group of others around him crying and showing concern.

Of course I didn't think of all of this on the first look or even the second...

so A lot is going on in that picture. Even more so than the girl that I just focus 5 minutes on because she stood out among all. Even the more so than the man laying on the ground dying.

I saw it and thought the picture taker was an ahole.

Maybe the women just walked into the frame as the photo was taken?

(03-23-2017 10:14 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 12:28 AM)shere khan Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 06:29 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  


When I first looked at the picture my first thoughts were. This girl is cold hearted to just look away from a man laying on the ground most likely dying.

Then I looked at her texting someone and the placement of her hand. And I thought she was texting someone to let them know she was safe. The placement of the hand makes it looks like she is trying to block her face from being seen from the person taking the picture or those around her.

Then I looked at her face a little closer and I read it as one of two things...

sadness or fear

Most likely she has a feeling of what was taken place and I think all f us would go to that place. But as a woman with her head cover and the color of her skin I'm going to assume she's Muslim. If so that could very easily be fear on her face.

As I said we all would assume what was going on was a terrorist attack. So If I was in her shoes I could easily see me feeling a little afraid and not stopping where a person is laying and a group of others around him crying and showing concern.

Of course I didn't think of all of this on the first look or even the second...

so A lot is going on in that picture. Even more so than the girl that I just focus 5 minutes on because she stood out among all. Even the more so than the man laying on the ground dying.

I saw it and thought the picture taker was an ahole.

Maybe the women just walked into the frame as the photo was taken?

I meant for taking a pic at all. Morbid

(03-22-2017 02:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  We didn't blame bush for everything.

lol at this

(03-22-2017 03:12 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 02:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I don't know what it would look like, but I can see a lot of value in 'beat cops' only having limited weaponry (tazers or rubber bullets) at hand and heavier weapons in the trunk or something.

It's a lot like how poorly we use marines and similar... We want to train them to be attack dogs, but then we want them to babysit children as well.

More smaller, more specialized forces. Might not be practical, but I think it's a better solution.

Good luck finding anyone to sign up for that BS. There's much faster ways to commit suicide than going into a gunfight armed with tazers or rubber bullets. I haven't done one in a while but when I was doing traffic stops the cars I stopped didn't give any external indication that the driver inside was armed with a gun or not, nor did the residence at the domestic dispute.

(03-23-2017 10:06 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Okay...I went back and re-read Fit's and Hambones post and I can see where you are coming from. But I'd like to hear more from them to be certain as they seem to be calling for the police to still have heavy weaponry, but just to have it in the trunk for when it's truly needed...and not on them in every circumstance. They also seem to be calling for more specialized forces.

But again, I don't see anything calling for a total removal of all guns. But I could be wrong.

Fit?
Hambone?

Responding to both of these.

As I suggested, I don't know exactly what this would look like, but how often does it happen that a cop approaches a typical traffic situation with his gun in the holster... the suspect pulls a gun and shoots, and the officer is able to pull his gun and stop the suspect? I'm guessing the number is close to zero. At best (assuming the perp misses) the cop gets a few wild/random shots off at the fleeing suspect. I also suspect the perp is more likely to shoot an armed cop, and more likely to simply drive off vs an unarmed one. Why add capital murder if you don't have to/your own life isn't at risk?

My suggestion is that 'beat cops', meaning cops who are directing traffic or walking streets or highway patrol catching speeders might actually benefit (through less nervousness on the part of those detained) from a lower level of firepower... so long as they have ready access to a higher level should they need it.

If they feel (for any reason) that 'this' suspect requires going in with guns drawn, then by all means, take the gun and leave the cannoli.... but if you're going to the window with your gun holstered anyway... you're not going to 'quickdraw' the guy with the gun in his hand.

For the domestic, rubber bullets or tazers would be just as effective in the overwhelming number of situations.... but if there is a history there or something, go in heavy.

My MAJOR contention is that only a very select few people (far fewer than we need as cops or marines who aren't taking other opportunities) have the ability to be both the babysitter and the pit bull... Rather than try and find 10,000 such people (which really means you have perhaps 5,000 of those, and another 2500 who are pit bulls by nature and another 2500 who are babysitters by nature)...

Specialized forces, not jacks of all trades.

maybe it DOESN'T work, Kap... but there are all sorts of unarmed security guards in this country and many unarmed police in Europe doing what you say nobody here will do.

(03-23-2017 12:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As I suggested, I don't know exactly what this would look like, but how often does it happen that a cop approaches a typical traffic situation with his gun in the holster... the suspect pulls a gun and shoots, and the officer is able to pull his gun and stop the suspect? I'm guessing the number is close to zero. At best (assuming the perp misses) the cop gets a few wild/random shots off at the fleeing suspect. I also suspect the perp is more likely to shoot an armed cop, and more likely to simply drive off vs an unarmed one. Why add capital murder if you don't have to/your own life isn't at risk?

You would be wildly wrong.

Quote:My suggestion is that 'beat cops', meaning cops who are directing traffic or walking streets or highway patrol catching speeders might actually benefit (through less nervousness on the part of those detained) from a lower level of firepower... so long as they have ready access to a higher level should they need it.

If they feel (for any reason) that 'this' suspect requires going in with guns drawn, then by all means, take the gun and leave the cannoli.... but if you're going to the window with your gun holstered anyway... you're not going to 'quickdraw' the guy with the gun in his hand.

For the domestic, rubber bullets or tazers would be just as effective in the overwhelming number of situations.... but if there is a history there or something, go in heavy.

London Police Constable Keith Palmer was armed only with less than lethal weapons and doing a job that I guess you would consider a "beat cop" and he's dead.

As for going unarmed on traffic stops and domestics, you are aware that those are the two situations that are most likely to end up in shootouts right? And that in those cases the law enforcement officer due to far better training wins most of those shootouts right?

Quote:My MAJOR contention is that only a very select few people (far fewer than we need as cops or marines who aren't taking other opportunities) have the ability to be both the babysitter and the pit bull... Rather than try and find 10,000 such people (which really means you have perhaps 5,000 of those, and another 2500 who are pit bulls by nature and another 2500 who are babysitters by nature)...

Specialized forces, not jacks of all trades.

maybe it DOESN'T work, Kap... but there are all sorts of unarmed security guards in this country and many unarmed police in Europe doing what you say nobody here will do.

Like I said in my original reply.....I've never seen an external notification on a vehicle or residence that said "armed maniac here" so up until you can devise a way that we can get that kind of notification then your idea is quite frankly one of the absolute dumbest things I have ever heard on here, and by God that says a lot. I can understand it coming from an avowed hater of law enforcement troll like Fit but I used to hold you in higher esteem. Perhaps I need to rejudge that.

(03-23-2017 12:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 02:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  We didn't blame bush for everything.

lol at this

Laugh all you want...doesn't make it true. I only blamed Bush for stuff he was responsible for. Unless you show me otherwise with links, I stand by my statements. Sorry.

(03-24-2017 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 12:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 02:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  We didn't blame bush for everything.

lol at this

Laugh all you want...doesn't make it true. I only blamed Bush for stuff he was responsible for. Unless you show me otherwise with links, I stand by my statements. Sorry.

But if you claim Bush was responsible for everything, how does that limit you? Not referring to you specifically, but some of your fellow travelers on the left would definitely fall into that category.

(03-24-2017 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 12:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 02:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  We didn't blame bush for everything.

lol at this

Laugh all you want...doesn't make it true. I only blamed Bush for stuff he was responsible for. Unless you show me otherwise with links, I stand by my statements. Sorry.

But if you claim Bush was responsible for everything, how does that limit you? Not referring to you specifically, but some of your fellow travelers on the left would definitely fall into that category.

Clearly talking about the things that happened while Obama was in office that were attributable to Bush. i.e. the crappy economy.

(03-24-2017 01:03 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 12:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:33 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 12:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 02:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  We didn't blame bush for everything.

lol at this

Laugh all you want...doesn't make it true. I only blamed Bush for stuff he was responsible for. Unless you show me otherwise with links, I stand by my statements. Sorry.

But if you claim Bush was responsible for everything, how does that limit you? Not referring to you specifically, but some of your fellow travelers on the left would definitely fall into that category.

Clearly talking about the things that happened while Obama was in office that were attributable to Bush. i.e. the crappy economy.

Bush inherited a crappy economy from Clinton (one that was in recession) and got it turned around. Obama inherited an economy that had been crappy, but was already turning around. And in 8 years he did nothing to improve it.

(03-23-2017 03:17 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 12:05 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As I suggested, I don't know exactly what this would look like, but how often does it happen that a cop approaches a typical traffic situation with his gun in the holster... the suspect pulls a gun and shoots, and the officer is able to pull his gun and stop the suspect? I'm guessing the number is close to zero. At best (assuming the perp misses) the cop gets a few wild/random shots off at the fleeing suspect. I also suspect the perp is more likely to shoot an armed cop, and more likely to simply drive off vs an unarmed one. Why add capital murder if you don't have to/your own life isn't at risk?

You would be wildly wrong.

Quote:My suggestion is that 'beat cops', meaning cops who are directing traffic or walking streets or highway patrol catching speeders might actually benefit (through less nervousness on the part of those detained) from a lower level of firepower... so long as they have ready access to a higher level should they need it.

If they feel (for any reason) that 'this' suspect requires going in with guns drawn, then by all means, take the gun and leave the cannoli.... but if you're going to the window with your gun holstered anyway... you're not going to 'quickdraw' the guy with the gun in his hand.

For the domestic, rubber bullets or tazers would be just as effective in the overwhelming number of situations.... but if there is a history there or something, go in heavy.

London Police Constable Keith Palmer was armed only with less than lethal weapons and doing a job that I guess you would consider a "beat cop" and he's dead.

As for going unarmed on traffic stops and domestics, you are aware that those are the two situations that are most likely to end up in shootouts right? And that in those cases the law enforcement officer due to far better training wins most of those shootouts right?

Quote:My MAJOR contention is that only a very select few people (far fewer than we need as cops or marines who aren't taking other opportunities) have the ability to be both the babysitter and the pit bull... Rather than try and find 10,000 such people (which really means you have perhaps 5,000 of those, and another 2500 who are pit bulls by nature and another 2500 who are babysitters by nature)...

Specialized forces, not jacks of all trades.

maybe it DOESN'T work, Kap... but there are all sorts of unarmed security guards in this country and many unarmed police in Europe doing what you say nobody here will do.

Like I said in my original reply.....I've never seen an external notification on a vehicle or residence that said "armed maniac here" so up until you can devise a way that we can get that kind of notification then your idea is quite frankly one of the absolute dumbest things I have ever heard on here, and by God that says a lot. I can understand it coming from an avowed hater of law enforcement troll like Fit but I used to hold you in higher esteem. Perhaps I need to rejudge that.

Kap is right. Domestic disturbances are the #1 call that gets policemen killed. Traffic stops are also very dangerous.

And the police generally do win shootouts. In the LA riots, the count of dead was something like 40-0 in favor of the police.