0
bigbearfng

Charlotte NC protests

Recommended Posts

skycop


Sky, if someone is doing something that neither increases nor decreases the threat to police officers, in this case arms to sides with gun in hand, is there a reason to kill him?
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DJL


Sky, if someone is doing something that neither increases nor decreases the threat to police officers, in this case arms to sides with gun in hand, is there a reason to kill him?

I have a feeling that the answer from their side is that the more some one doesn't listen, the threat increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DJL


Sky, if someone is doing something that neither increases nor decreases the threat to police officers, in this case arms to sides with gun in hand, is there a reason to kill him?


I'm not a cop and will never be one. However I would be inclined to think that if that person does not drop the weapon when told to, in fairly quick order, and I was in a position where I would be vulnerable if he decided to quickly aim and get a shot off at me I would be likely to shoot him if he so much as twitched. And at a moment like that, it would be easy to make an error.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

And since as I've noted, the criminal element of San Francisco is just as effective at killing people with knives, I'm going to remain concerned about why killings occur and how to stop them,



As noted before, this is made up bullshit.

Murders are trending down significantly compared to 2015.

Stop making up shit to support your argument.



http://sfist.com/2016/10/03/violent_weekend_for_san_francisco_f.php

Stop pretending you have a fucking clue about a city you don't live in. This weekend blew away your projection, and your notion of "trending down significantly" was farcical to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

called out for citing hearsay as fact



That's not what you did. You stated it must be made up/lie/ bullshit. I didn't present it as fact, I clearly indicated where the information came from.

So we went from you claiming it was bullshit to now correctly stating it was hearsay. Took you a while.



until/if you can actually support it, it's bullshit and hearsay. Which is why hearsay is rejected in general.

I looked for evidence...given how much discussion this subject has warranted this year, it shouldn't be that hard to find.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

Quote

Again, our rate is 25% lower than the global average and 35% lower than gunfree Japan.



Japan has a long standing cultural affinity with suicide which is very well documented. Comparing your suicide rate to Japan is therefor disingenuous, assuming you were aware of it.



So you want to focus on the second clause in the sentence and pretend the first one doesn't matter?

But...if you want to play that way...America has a long standing cultural affinity with violence and crime which is very well documented. Comparing our murder rate to others is therefore disingenuous, and blaming the problem on the instruments used is naive and misguided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>Are they avoidable? (suicides)

Yes. Suicide rates are lower in states with lower gun ownership rates. (Harvard ICRC.) Good example by Dr. Matthew Miller (Harvard School of Public Health) - "If even one in 10 of the approximately 22,000 persons who attempted suicide with firearms in 2010 (the 19,932 who died and the approximately 2,000 who survived) substituted drugs or cutting, there would have been approximately 1,900 fewer suicide deaths." 24 separate studies have shown that having an accessible gun in your home increases the chance of a suicide in that home.



It also increases the chance of having a gun for sporting or defensive purposes. Let's not get correlation and causation mixed up. And let's not ignore that waiting periods have costs as well.

It is true that gun based suicides are more successful than others, esp pills and cries for attention cutting. But people can and do try more than once. And there are other methods - in the bay area the noted ones are jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge and stepping in front of Caltrain.

Quote


Before the effort, suicide rates were 89 out of 100,000 (remember, this was already an at-risk population.) After the effort, the rate was zero. One of the doctors involved said that based on what patients told him, the reason for this was that "suicide is often impulsive and that imposing even a short delay can allow the impulse to pass."



sorry - given that half of suicides in America do not involve guns, I'm having a hard time believing that simply making sure at risk people didn't have guns in the house reduced the risk 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Stop pretending you have a fucking clue about a city you don't live in.



Do numbers change depending on the city you live in? You have said some stupid stuff, but that one takes the cake.

Quote

your notion of "trending down significantly" was farcical to start with.



How was it farcical? Was simply a calculation based on total number of murders to date divided by number of days to date multiplied by total number of days in the year. Compared that number to total number of murders last year. It shows a decrease overall.

(Never mind that of the 4 murders you just linked to, 3 were gun shots. Which doesn't support your assertion that knife murders are taking the place of gun murders in San Francisco)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skycop

The answer is deadly force is absolutely warranted, I posted this earlier in this thread, people just chose to ignore it.

http://www.policeone.com/police-products/body-cameras/articles/227108006-Video-Ariz-police-released-footage-of-fatal-OIS/



That might be an answer but it wasn't the answer to the question asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The answer is yes, it's really pretty simple.
Watch the video, the officers hesitated, and two got shot, and they already had the advantage.
If you give someone orders to drop a gun, and they don't, you have to make a choice, in tenths of seconds.
Once you've made up your mind, the guy even flinches, then you use deadly force, to prevent what happened in the video.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The question was:

Quote

if someone is doing something that neither increases nor decreases the threat to police officers, in this case arms to sides with gun in hand, is there a reason to kill him?



You say the answer is yes. But then you add:

Quote

Once you've made up your mind, the guy even flinches, then you use deadly force,



Which would mean the answer to the question asked is really no.

I agree with your second statement. If he is holding a gun and then starts to raise the gun or flinches with the gun deadly force is warranted. However, if he holds the gun and doesn't flinch/raise etc, then IMHO deadly force isn't warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If he is holding a gun and then starts to raise the gun or flinches with the gun deadly force is warranted. However, if he holds the gun and doesn't flinch/raise etc, then IMHO deadly force isn't warranted.



And who will judge the meaning of "flinch"?
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And who will judge the meaning of "flinch"?



It's really easy too, the guy who has the possibility of getting shot. The cops are merely reacting to what a person may or may not do.

It's happened to me, it wasn't a gun, it was a baseball bat.
Guy runs out of a house he just destroyed with the bat during a mental breakdown. He runs toward me with the bat over his head, I draw and repeatedly tell him to drop it. He keeps coming, this is directly across the street from an elementary school which is in session. It's on an alley street and very close to the school. I actually had to step toward the threat to lessen the angle to avoid a ricochet and have a better backstop, in case I had to fire.
The guy kept coming, I told him to drop it one more time. At this point I made my mind up, dropped my head to get a better sight picture, and waited to fire. If the guys heel would have raised. or he would have leaned closer to me, I would have shot him in the chest. Luckily he dropped the bat right then, about 6 feet from me, and laid down.
When I asked him why he dropped the bat he said "I saw the look on your face, and your head drop down, I knew then I was about to get shot".

A raised baseball bat at 6 feet is a commensurate threat to someone holding a hand gun within 25 yds. At some point the officer had to make the decision. In my case, from the time the guy came running at me, until the time he dropped was about 10 seconds.

The officers in Charlotte gave numerous verbal commands to drop the gun, he didn't, he got shot.

The video I linked shows what can happen if an officer waits too long.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The officers in Charlotte gave numerous verbal commands to drop the gun, he didn't, he got shot.

The video I linked shows what can happen if an officer waits too long.



So in your mind it is a justified shooting because of what could happen? Shouldn't it be based on what is happening?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
THE GUY IS HOLDING A FIREARM IN HIS HAND, THAT IS WHAT'S HAPPENING.

Watch the video I linked, two cops were shot, the situation was very similar. At some point the officer has to make a decision, these things are happening in tenths of seconds.
After numerous commands to drop the weapon, and one doesn't, the outcome is not good.

I've shown actual examples, and yet I still get the sky is red argument.
If you think the sky is red, I'm not going to change your minds with facts.

This conversation has gotten to a ridiculous point.

Have a nice day!

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You keep giving examples of when shootings are justified based on actions taken by the perpetrator. I agree with your opinion on those.

But that wasn't the question. The question was if a shooting is justified if a perpetrator is doing nothing but holding a firearm and not responding to police.

Scenario:

Guy is holding a gun. Police tells guy to drop gun. Guy doesn't move. Police tells him to drop the gun. Guy doesn't move. Police tells him to drop the gun. Guy doesn't move. Police shoots guy.

How does the risk change from beginning to end? The risk of him suddenly moving exists throughout the whole scenario.

Shooting him immediately is presumably not justifiable? So what is then the reasoning that makes the shooting justifiable at the end of the scenario? Only the fact that he is not responding? Or do you think that without movement there is no justification for the shooting?

I am not getting why this question is so upsetting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>How does the risk change from beginning to end?

I'd say that initially the guy might not know police are there, or if they see him, or if he's really cornered. (Keep in mind that armed people are often on drugs, drunk, furious, focused on something else etc.) Thus at that point the odds that he will drop the gun when told to do so are still relatively high; that ends the situation without any shooting, which is good for everyone involved. The odds of him deciding to shoot the cop are medium. Thus there is a good chance for a favorable outcome, comparing the two possibilities.

After police tell him to drop the gun three times - and he hasn't - then the odds are that he will NOT drop the gun if they say it a fourth time. Thus at that point the odds that he will drop the gun when told to do so are very low. The odds of him deciding to shoot the cop are medium. Thus there is very little chance for a good outcome, comparing the two possibilities.

To me, that's the difference. Initially the situation might have been resolved without shooting, even though there is risk to the cop. Afterwards there is little chance of that happening, and the (similar) risk to the cop is no longer justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


I am not getting why this question is so upsetting?



I think the reason its "upsetting" cause your being shown a video where the LEO DIDN'T just shoot the guy when he had a gun. They gave him warnings...someone earlier said if he 'flinches" then you shoot. I'm damn sure these guys were as ready to go as anyone could be and TWO still got shot.

You question "How does risk change" the answer is that after many attempts to get the guy to drop the weapon and he doesn't he's HAD his chance....why keep giving him the chance to kill you?

Besides if cops ALWAYS shoot someone with a gun...who wasn't balsting away....can you believe the way people would react?

Hence this thread.
Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I'd say that initially the guy might not know police are there, or if they see him, or if he's really cornered. (Keep in mind that armed people are often on drugs, drunk, furious, focused on something else etc.) Thus at that point the odds that he will drop the gun when told to do so are still relatively high; that ends the situation without any shooting, which is good for everyone involved. The odds of him deciding to shoot the cop are medium. Thus there is a good chance for a favorable outcome, comparing the two possibilities.

After police tell him to drop the gun three times - and he hasn't - then the odds are that he will NOT drop the gun if they say it a fourth time. Thus at that point the odds that he will drop the gun when told to do so are very low. The odds of him deciding to shoot the cop are medium. Thus there is very little chance for a good outcome, comparing the two possibilities.

To me, that's the difference. Initially the situation might have been resolved without shooting, even though there is risk to the cop. Afterwards there is little chance of that happening, and the (similar) risk to the cop is no longer justified.



That is a reasonable explanation, thanks. Don't fully agree, but understand the reasoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker


Quote

your notion of "trending down significantly" was farcical to start with.



How was it farcical? Was simply a calculation based on total number of murders to date divided by number of days to date multiplied by total number of days in the year. Compared that number to total number of murders last year. It shows a decrease overall.



Showed, in fact. Since we're at 40 or 41 (someone just died after several months), with 3 months to go, simple math would indicate an increase now. Non simplistic math would be less clear, since murders are more common in warmer times of the year. And there's a pretty big difference between an absolute decrease and "trending down significantly."

Quote


(Never mind that of the 4 murders you just linked to, 3 were gun shots. Which doesn't support your assertion that knife murders are taking the place of gun murders in San Francisco)



Ah, but that wasn't the assertion, buddy.

The hypothesis, well supported by the long list of events, is that if criminals cannot obtain guns, that they are still more than capable of committing homicide with alternatives. The balance of power over unarmed citizens is still too great, and the risk of being caught remains very low (our catch rate is around 20%).

You're welcome to try to write off double digit knife murders in a city of 800k as insignificant. It would be as comical as the rest of the claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker



I am not getting why this question is so upsetting?



I'm sure he's fatigued by the constant goal post moving. Now that the evidence indicates a proper shooting after a week of rioting and claims of execution, you would like to debate a unicorn hypothetical that is free of those pesky details, but also never occurs. Well, I think it happened in the movie FX2, where the good guy superglues a gun to the hand of a bad guy so he can't drop it when the police tell him to.

meanwhile, it's sad how little attention and followup is being made to the gun by the bigger names in the press, leaving it difficult to feel 100% certain to its truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0