LGBT student commits suicide by cop, students riot

[bgrouse]

I'm thinkin cops don't wake up in the morning wanting to kill some knife waving nut case, it would suck to be a cop in this hate filled victim fest created by the left wing.

It sucks because the police departments don't do enough to get rid of the 1% of trigger happy cowboys that make the rest look bad.

In this case, the area was secured of any bystanders, they had the suspect contained and while he had a knife, the blade was not extended.

This was an excessive use of force.

This video shows he was coming at them at the time he was shot:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

"Contained" in this case means he is still unobstructed from coming right at them like he did. A rough estimate places him about 10 feet away (could be more or less). A quick review of Surviving Edged Weapons indicates that delivering 2 rounds against an attacker (who has an edged weapon) with the cop's firearm drawn, ready, and pointed requires at least 10 feet, so it looks like the cops were about right. The distance is much longer against a suspect with a gun.

Looks to me like the imbecile had a death wish and likely wasn't following directions. It also seems like the cops are under a policy of shoot to kill.

What policy are you talking about? I've never heard of a "shoot to kill" policy. I'd say the cops acted reasonably in this situation based on the evidence presented.

I hear JoeBlow whining about bad training, deescalation, guns, and homos, but I see very little regarding what the cops should have done. The guy was coming at them and appeared to be at around the point where any closer would mean the cops wouldn't even have enough time to react. So what's JoeBlow's suggestion?

Okay, I could be wrong but he did drop like a sack of potatoes, it looked like kill shots to me, right or wrong procedure...

Well, a conventional handgun IS a deadly weapon, which is why he died after being shot. Not sure what this has to do with a "shoot to kill" policy. Do such policies turn conventional handguns into water pistols?

 

[Lumpy 1]

It sucks because the police departments don't do enough to get rid of the 1% of trigger happy cowboys that make the rest look bad.

In this case, the area was secured of any bystanders, they had the suspect contained and while he had a knife, the blade was not extended.

This was an excessive use of force.

This video shows he was coming at them at the time he was shot:

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

"Contained" in this case means he is still unobstructed from coming right at them like he did. A rough estimate places him about 10 feet away (could be more or less). A quick review of Surviving Edged Weapons indicates that delivering 2 rounds against an attacker (who has an edged weapon) with the cop's firearm drawn, ready, and pointed requires at least 10 feet, so it looks like the cops were about right. The distance is much longer against a suspect with a gun.

Looks to me like the imbecile had a death wish and likely wasn't following directions. It also seems like the cops are under a policy of shoot to kill.

What policy are you talking about? I've never heard of a "shoot to kill" policy. I'd say the cops acted reasonably in this situation based on the evidence presented.

I hear JoeBlow whining about bad training, deescalation, guns, and homos, but I see very little regarding what the cops should have done. The guy was coming at them and appeared to be at around the point where any closer would mean the cops wouldn't even have enough time to react. So what's JoeBlow's suggestion?

Okay, I could be wrong but he did drop like a sack of potatoes, it looked like kill shots to me, right or wrong procedure...

Well, a conventional handgun IS a deadly weapon, which is why he died after being shot. Not sure what this has to do with a "shoot to kill" policy. Do such policies turn conventional handguns into water pistols?

Well, now you got me gun shy and waiting for the investigation to complete. Reading over the last couple pages of the thread your conclusions seem reasonable enough.

 

[Dale Smith]

We've tried suppressing and banning guns, with little benefit. Maybe we should try banning negroes?

Well,no, we haven't really tried.

Every other industrialized nation has, though.

Guess what, they don't have anywhere near our crime rates.

Only "da gubermint" should have guns, right, Joe Cocksucker? It worked out really great for the Jews in Germany. The last movie I saw where only "da gubermint" had guns was Schindler's List.

 

[JoeB131]

So you punish before someone does something?

We both know you don't have the guts to come by. Why are you afraid to be a man, NL?

Again, I'll leave that to the professionals.

 

[JoeB131]

Only "da gubermint" should have guns, right, Joe Cocksucker? It worked out really great for the Jews in Germany. The last movie I saw where only "da gubermint" had guns was Schindler's List.

Well, that's why you don't get your history from movies. The Nazis actually RELAXED the gun control laws imposed by the Weimar Republic because Nazis were shooting people in the street. After the War, the Allies confiscated all the privately held guns in Germany, and Germany was better off for it.

 

[Conservative65]

So you punish before someone does something?

We both know you don't have the guts to come by. Why are you afraid to be a man, NL?

Again, I'll leave that to the professionals.

I noticed you support punishing people before they have done something wrong.

Again, saying something should happen then refusing to do it yourself makes you a coward. But you've proven that by refusing on other things.

 

[JoeB131]

I noticed you support punishing people before they have done something wrong.

No, I don't think that denying people a gun is a punishment.

It's good policy.

Good policy carried out by government.

Now go take your snuff fantasies to a shrink before you actually hurt someone...

 

[Conservative65]

I noticed you support punishing people before they have done something wrong.

No, I don't think that denying people a gun is a punishment.

It's good policy.

Good policy carried out by government.

Now go take your snuff fantasies to a shrink before you actually hurt someone...

Take your cowardice to a shrink and maybe one can help you no longer be a fucking pussy.

Why aren't you man enough to do what you say should be done?

 

[JoeB131]

Take your cowardice to a shrink and maybe one can help you no longer be a fucking pussy.

Why aren't you man enough to do what you say should be done?

because you're a crazy person who fantasizes about shooting people?

 

[bgrouse]

I noticed you support punishing people before they have done something wrong.

No, I don't think that denying people a gun is a punishment.

It's good policy.

Good policy carried out by government.

Now go take your snuff fantasies to a shrink before you actually hurt someone...

So when are you going to post your figures/sources about countries with gun bans (presumably this means stricter gun laws, since guns are more or less banned in parts of the US) having so much less crime than the US?

 

[Conservative65]

Take your cowardice to a shrink and maybe one can help you no longer be a fucking pussy.

Why aren't you man enough to do what you say should be done?

because you're a crazy person who fantasizes about shooting people?

Never said such a thing. That's your excuse for being a pussy.

 

[JoeB131]

So when are you going to post your figures/sources about countries with gun bans (presumably this means stricter gun laws, since guns are more or less banned in parts of the US) having so much less crime than the US?

I've done this dozens of times on this board... I'm simply not going to waste time educating the uneducated.

 

[JoeB131]

Never said such a thing. That's your excuse for being a pussy.

Okay, if that's what you want to claim, Possum Catcher.

 

[bgrouse]

So when are you going to post your figures/sources about countries with gun bans (presumably this means stricter gun laws, since guns are more or less banned in parts of the US) having so much less crime than the US?

I've done this dozens of times on this board... I'm simply not going to waste time educating the uneducated.

So go ahead and link to at least one dozen of these times.

I suspect you're full of shit.

 

[JoeB131]

So go ahead and link to at least one dozen of these times.

Why? Somehow, you aren't going to say, "Holy Shit, Japan banned guns and they only had 11 gun murders last year!"

Instead, you are going to say something utterly retarded like, "They ain't got no negoes in Japan!"

 

[bgrouse]

So go ahead and link to at least one dozen of these times.

Why? Somehow, you aren't going to say, "Holy Shit, Japan banned guns and they only had 11 gun murders last year!"

Instead, you are going to say something utterly retarded like, "They ain't got no negoes in Japan!"

Pay attention, moron:

You made this claim in reference to banning guns:

Well,no, we haven't really tried.

Every other industrialized nation has, though.

Guess what, they don't have anywhere near our crime rates.

Japan is not "every other industrialized nation." It's just one country.

Furthermore, there are others in Europe you could have picked that have cultures closer to the USA (and yes, more negroes than Japan!), but you decided to go with one that has a rather small amount of negroes. Why could that be? If you're trying to argue that guns and NOT negroes cause crime, you would have picked a country with lots of negroes and strict gun laws. It's obvious to everyone here why you picked what you picked.

 

[Conservative65]

Never said such a thing. That's your excuse for being a pussy.

Okay, if that's what you want to claim, Possum Catcher.

Not a claim, boy. The truth. Learn the difference.

 

[JoeB131]

Furthermore, there are others in Europe you could have picked that have cultures closer to the USA (and yes, more negroes than Japan!), but you decided to go with one that has a rather small amount of negroes. Why could that be? If you're trying to argue that guns and NOT negroes cause crime, you would have picked a country with lots of negroes and strict gun laws. It's obvious to everyone here why you picked what you picked.

Okay, you can also go with the United Kingdom, which has lots of scary negroes.

They had a whopping 23 gun homicides compared to 10,945 in the US.

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control
Guns in the United Kingdom — Firearms, gun law and gun control

France had 138 in 2013

Guns in France — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Germany (which has more loose gun laws) had 57

Guns in Germany — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Italy had 219, even with their Mafia problems.

Guns in Italy — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Canada had 156

Guns in Canada — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Sorry, man, easy access to guns is the problem.

 

[WinterBorn]

I'm thinkin cops don't wake up in the morning wanting to kill some knife waving nut case, it would suck to be a cop in this hate filled victim fest created by the left wing.

It sucks because the police departments don't do enough to get rid of the 1% of trigger happy cowboys that make the rest look bad.

In this case, the area was secured of any bystanders, they had the suspect contained and while he had a knife, the blade was not extended.

This was an excessive use of force.

He was also reported to have a gun. The cops cannot ignore that. If he had had a gun, how many deaths would you find acceptable?

 

[JoeB131]

He was also reported to have a gun. The cops cannot ignore that. If he had had a gun, how many deaths would you find acceptable?

But he didn't have a gun.

Nobody saw a gun.

He was contained.