Homeland Security to press ahead with Real ID

[M14 Shooter]

Police carry guns because our law enforcement has always been severe and blood thirst.

New to them (and everyone else).

Police are taught to shoot at center mass? News to me.

Not to them.

If a police officer kills, and it can be proven that it was not the only alternative...

According to you, there is -always- an alternative.
So, why the equivocation here? Why shouldn't ALL police officers that kill someone be charged with murder?

 

[doniston]

New to them (and everyone else).


Not to them.


According to you, there is -always- an alternative.
So, why the equivocation here? Why shouldn't ALL police officers that kill someoe be charged with murder?

In short then, your opinion is the only one which counts. The question has been answered several times, but you justwon't accept it.

 

[Taomon]

I think the hysteria stirred up ABOUT Bush throughout his Presidency has been a shameful farce.

This is where we disagree. Bush is a bad president, possibly the worst. He had a short period of time where the entire world was behind us (directly after 9/11). He could have changed the political landscape for the next 25 years. He could have brought peace and friendship to a majority of the world.

Instead he squandered that political boon with back-room deals, military farce, and hubris. He has completely divided our country, ruined our economy, allowed al Qaeda to scatter to all corners of the globe, made us less safe, bogged us down in the Iraq quagmire, stymied science, and I can go on.

What hysteria are you talking about? Do you not see Bush for what he truly is? He is a sleazy businessman.

 

[Taomon]

In short then, your opinion is the only one which counts. The question has been answered several times, but you justwon't accept it.

Exactly!

 

[Gunny]

This is where we disagree. Bush is a bad president, possibly the worst. He had a short period of time where the entire world was behind us (directly after 9/11). He could have changed the political landscape for the next 25 years. He could have brought peace and friendship to a majority of the world.

Instead he squandered that political boon with back-room deals, military farce, and hubris. He has completely divided our country, ruined our economy, allowed al Qaeda to scatter to all corners of the globe, made us less safe, bogged us down in the Iraq quagmire, stymied science, and I can go on.

What hysteria are you talking about? Do you not see Bush for what he truly is? He is a sleazy businessman.

Bush is nether a bad President nor even close the worst. The fact that you liberals have this major hate-on for him does not make it so.

Our country was divided long before he took office, and "the world" has resented us for decades, also since long before he took office.

Our economy was fine and the current recession has been brought on by poor lending habits by financial institutions.

Unless you are saying the President of the US is responsible for the entire world, he could not possibly be responsible for making it more or less safe. Radical Islamic terrorism ALSO existed long before he did, as did Norht Korea and Iran.

Your every accusation is hysteria.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Exactly!

According to you, there is -always- an alternative.
So, why the equivocation here? Why shouldn't ALL police officers that kill someone be charged with murder?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Bush is nether a bad President nor even close the worst. The fact that you liberals have this major hate-on for him does not make it so.

Our country was divided long before he took office, and "the world" has resented us for decades, also since long before he took office.

Our economy was fine and the current recession has been brought on by poor lending habits by financial institutions.

Unless you are saying the President of the US is responsible for the entire world, he could not possibly be responsible for making it more or less safe. Radical Islamic terrorism ALSO existed long before he did, as did Norht Korea and Iran.

Your every accusation is hysteria.

Exactly!

 

[Taomon]

Bush is nether a bad President nor even close the worst. The fact that you liberals have this major hate-on for him does not make it so.

Our country was divided long before he took office, and "the world" has resented us for decades, also since long before he took office.

Our economy was fine and the current recession has been brought on by poor lending habits by financial institutions.

Unless you are saying the President of the US is responsible for the entire world, he could not possibly be responsible for making it more or less safe. Radical Islamic terrorism ALSO existed long before he did, as did Norht Korea and Iran.

Your every accusation is hysteria.

Wrong again Gunny, our country was divided prior to 9/11 but there was unity because of it...Bush's policies and hyperbole have divided us worse than before. That goes for the world. If not for our knee-jerk reactions and our militant refusal to honor the Geneva conventions the world is less safe and Americans are reviled worse than pre-9/11.

Our economy was not fine before the housing bubble burst. If you were fortunate enough to get money from the military, bio-tech, or investment fields it was not so bad the past couple of years...but there are many who do not have that luxury Gunny.

Terrorism existed before Bush even considered a career in politics, but he has definitely created all of the future Osama bin Ladens. You do realize that our actions after 9/11 up to today have been empirical right? You do realize that we are the bad guys now right?

 

[Taomon]

According to you, there is -always- an alternative.
So, why the equivocation here? Why shouldn't ALL police officers that kill someone be charged with murder?

Do you want them all to be charged with murder or do you want to leave a loophole open for that one in million chance that it was unavoidable? You are either very dumb and cannot think for yourself or this is a lame attempt at trying to corner me.

Face it, you lost this argument.

 

[Zoomie1980]

Your questions are nonsenical--- However----:

1 There is such a thing as wounding someone rather than killing them.
2 Because there are too many people out there who look at law enfordement as a kill or be killed situation.
3 Of course not. But there certainly are some.

1) That's moronic. Every professional military man or law enforcement officials is taught one basic axiom when firing at another person. You shoot to KILL, period. There is no other way.

2) In suppression of violent crime, that is EXACTLY what it is. Fortunately technology is finally providing law enforcement with non-lethal means of disabling a violent offender. But of course the looney left is opposed to those, too.

3) There always will be a few....

 

[Taomon]

1) That's moronic. Every professional military man or law enforcement officials is taught one basic axiom when firing at another person. You shoot to KILL, period. There is no other way.

2) In suppression of violent crime, that is EXACTLY what it is. Fortunately technology is finally providing law enforcement with non-lethal means of disabling a violent offender. But of course the looney left is opposed to those, too.

3) There always will be a few....

I have two uncles and three friends who are cops. They were not taught to shoot to kill. They were taught to disarm or maim if possible and kill as an absolute last result.

 

[Zoomie1980]

I have two uncles and three friends who are cops. They were not taught to shoot to kill. They were taught to disarm or maim if possible and kill as an absolute last result.

Then they were taught by an idiot. Once you pull your weapon and fire it, you fire it to KILL, period.

Clueless left-wing loons as yourself don't ever see the light until yourself or a loved one becomes a victim of one of these sub-human punks.

I own many guns, all legally, I know how to use them, and yes, if I ever need to, God willing I never have to, but if so, I will shoot to kill, as I have done so before.

 

[Taomon]

Then they were taught by an idiot. Once you pull your weapon and fire it, you fire it to KILL, period.

Clueless left-wing loons as yourself don't ever see the light until yourself or a loved one becomes a victim of one of these sub-human punks.

I own many guns, all legally, I know how to use them, and yes, if I ever need to, God willing I never have to, but if so, I will shoot to kill, as I have done so before.

My uncles were not taught by idiots. Police men do not fire their weapons everytime they pull them out. Likewise, they do not always shoot to kill if there is an alternative to that.

What, do you live in Texas?

 

[Alucard]

My uncles were not taught by idiots. Police men do not fire their weapons everytime they pull them out. Likewise, they do not always shoot to kill if there is an alternative to that.

What, do you live in Texas?

You are way off base here Taomon... I have never been instructed or heard of training that included wounding to disarm... You shoot to kill or you do not shoot...

 

[Zoomie1980]

My uncles were not taught by idiots. Police men do not fire their weapons everytime they pull them out. Likewise, they do not always shoot to kill if there is an alternative to that.

What, do you live in Texas?

your uncles were indeed taught by idiots. Or else you got your story from them wrong.

When you shoot at another human being, you shoot to kill or you do not shoot. That is an axiom of the the human universe, plain and simple.

If you think otherwise, you have no clue.

Basically I classify you in that vast bucket of left wing mush brained crap....

 

[Taomon]

You are way off base here Taomon... I have never been instructed or heard of training that included wounding to disarm... You shoot to kill or you do not shoot...

Oh I se. Then I change my argument to yes, all policemen who shoot a perp and kill them, should be charged with murder.

 

[Taomon]

your uncles were indeed taught by idiots. Or else you got your story from them wrong.

When you shoot at another human being, you shoot to kill or you do not shoot. That is an axiom of the the human universe, plain and simple.

If you think otherwise, you have no clue.

Basically I classify you in that vast bucket of left wing mush brained crap....

And I classify you as a Nazi pig.

 

[Gunny]

your uncles were indeed taught by idiots. Or else you got your story from them wrong.

When you shoot at another human being, you shoot to kill or you do not shoot. That is an axiom of the the human universe, plain and simple.

If you think otherwise, you have no clue.

Basically I classify you in that vast bucket of left wing mush brained crap....

I have heard on more than one occasion that police officers are in fact taught to shoot to wound if the situation permits. This of course goes against military training and or the common theory of never take your gun out unless you intend to shoot, and never shoot unless you shoot to kill.

I don't agree with Taomon's beliefs insofar as self-defense is concerned, and I in fact would not draw a weapon if I did not intend to kill. I'm merely stating that what he states he was told by relatives is not unheard of in the law enforcement community, nor does one have to be trained by idiots if they are trained in accordance with prevailing doctrine.

 

[jillian]

My uncles were not taught by idiots. Police men do not fire their weapons everytime they pull them out. Likewise, they do not always shoot to kill if there is an alternative to that.

What, do you live in Texas?

Maybe not... but they have to be PREPARED to use their weapon every time they draw it. One doesn't pull a weapon one isn't going to use or one winds up dead. As for shooting to wound. That doesn't comport with anything I've ever heard. It's my understanding that they're taught to aim at the largest spacial area, which is the torso, because their chance of hitting and disabling the other person is better. Plus, if you shoot to wound and the other person has a gun, they can still use it.

I don't live in Texas and I think you're incorrect.

 

[jillian]

And I classify you as a Nazi pig.

Really? Has he espoused Aryan supremacy? Encouraged or supported obliteration of Jews?

Didn't think so. Now don't you feel silly?