Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
there it is again--YOU are perfect--inhuman--god...you would act the exact correct way--just like a movieGo for it...you should’ve lead with that instead, you don’t need my permission. Can you actually conceive the amount of times we tell our soldiers return fire only, when there’s an attack very clearly being formed against them...we asked our soldiers to go out and do the impossible, and they did, even though it was borderline insane to do so. And you really think a “when in doubt shoot,”excuse is permissible for those who are charged to protect and serve, when they are not in a literal war zone, not in one of the most dangerous countries on earth, and when their job is statistically safer than that of a garbage man?do you want me to link how many times people have pulled guns on cops--like during traffic stops, or if the cop is just talking, etc?
I’m not even saying police should return fire only. Hell no, I want them to come home safe. All I’m saying is they should not assume and act on assumptions of threat. Prepare for threat yes, put themselves in advantagous positions absolutely, but identify threat (like we as citizens HAVE TO DO) before they take lethal self defensive measures...And police have been through hell in this country. For a long time now. And our instinct is to give them a pass because “shit, I couldn’t do that, they’re hero’s.” We are taking away what actually makes them hero’s. “We find these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.” That’s no longer true, we have tipped the scales in their favor. Their life IS more important than yours. There is actually something called the Law Enforcement Bill of Rights out there. That’s right, look it up, they got their own positive rights that aren’t afforded to you or I. The deck is stacked in their favor in more ways than the lax standards of self defense we afford them. And this isn’t all the officers fault, he’s just working with the loose leash that we as society gave him. It is time to reign in that leash where it belongs.
this is how humans are....this is how humans interact
Texas police officer slain during traffic stop; manhunt underway
Man charged with killing Missouri officer arrested
Arnold officer shot by man in custody; suspect dead
etc etc
Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police.
https://nypost.com/2017/09/26/all-that-kneeling-ignores-the-real-cause-of-soaring-black-homicides/
We asked our soldiers MUCH MORE, IN A SITUATION 1000 times worse in a daily basis...yet you’re saying we can’t ask our police to meet halfway?
again--police are doing their best NOT to shoot
there are 30 MILLION calls for police assistance per year [ not counting traffic stops ]---900 shooting deaths--most are justified
the numbers prove there is NOT a huge, chronic problem of police shooting for no reason
Well then I guess we should be thankin masta’ for letting us breath another day. Yea “police don’t shoot all the time,” does NOT excuse this.
FYI, our military have killed innocent civilians who were not a threat.....it was/is a war zoneStrawman McGee, that’s not what I’m saying, I’ve made that very clear. If our soldiers in an actual war zone, in one of the most dangerous countries on the planet, can excercise better judgment than these guys can...why the hell are we holding our law enforcement to lower standards than not only the our troops, but the average LAW ABIDING CITIZEN?he hasn't shut down his humanity--he is being realisticYou’ve shut down part of your humanity if you watch that video and deep down don’t think there is something wrong with that.He deserved what got...Why trust a clown? The idiot could not follow simple instructions.
Cops are not mind readers...
Being too scared to follow instructions exactly is now an offence deserving instant death?
This is what the Milgram experiment has opened our eyes too, we are far too eager to go along with authority figures. 75% of us will shock somebody to death, begging us to stop, because a guy in lab coat tells us it’s safe and to continue.
Just because this guy is a cop, doesn’t mean I should be okay with him shooting a blubbering kid scared shitless on his hands and knees. The cop put himself in a bad situation, with a kid scared shitless, that’s on him, not the kid. There were about a dozen ways to handle this without using lethal force, while allowing the officer to protect himself at all times. This is manslaughter. We throw truck drivers in prison even when they didn’t do anything wrong by our standards, because they are professionals. We sue the pants off doctors when preform risky surgeries, and even when they did nothing wrong. But yet we give our own police a pass, when a soldier or marine would’ve gotten court marshaled had this been an enemy combatant. I’m sorry there is no excuse for this. 100% avoidable.
this isn't a movie/tv show where Steve McGarrett shoots the suspect's shooting finger
cops are not psychologists/psychiatrists/doctors....it takes less than seconds for a thug to pull a pistol and shoot--yes or no?
WHY IS IT “IMPOSSIBLE” TO NOT MEET HALFWAY BETWEEN WHAT WE ASKED OUR SOLDIERS TO DO IN A GODDAMN WARZONE, AND WHAT WE ALLOW OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GET AWAY WITH CURRENTLY...WHY ARE WE OK WITH GIVING BETTER TREATMENT TO ENEMY COMBATANTS THAN OUR OWN CITIZENS?
Roughly one thousand Somalis were killed by American forces over the twenty hours
I couldn't get an accurate read on how many of those Somalis were civilians, so I called my colleague, Mark Bowden, who wrote the book. He said that eighty percent of the Somali deaths were of civilian.
If this was you or I as a civilian using a firearm for self defense, and had 100% control of the situation, and fired just because he reached...we’d be locked away.
Regarding this point above, I would say it depends on the situation. If the guy had just broken into my property, reasonable self defense dictates the homeowner could take him out without a word said. It wouldn't matter if he reached or not.
The police are civilians too, but they have a duty to respond to the idiot pointing the firearm out the window. You just can't make a sudden movement that looks like you could be in the process of producing a weapon while in front of a cop. They can't wait to see a gun before reacting because by then its too late. I'd feel the same way if you're an intruder in my home.
Tell your kids what my father told me. If a LEO stops you, be respectful, make no sudden movements, keep you hands in plain sight and if you need to retrieve something (like a license from a glove compartment), ask first if it's okay. Simple things any reasonable person can do and you'll be fine.
WW2 was what we call total war, started by the nazis, when they would do what was called terror bombing, when they didn’t really go after military targets, but civilians as well. Total war was more than just beating the other military, it was about breaking the will of an entire nation, through terror bombing and bombardments. The allies practiced it as well, since their hand was partially forced in the matter. We firebombed German and japanese cities. Even during military strikes, against military targets the brits lost patience (understandable since the nazis were slinging rockets at London from across the pond), and would have the bombers fly high and at night to protect them. While it helped protect them, it greatly lowered the accuracy of their bombs (there were no smart bombs back then), and would kill civilians too. The US on the other hand would fly low during the day, to try to preserve casualties and make sure they took out German factories. These acts, like total war, and terror bombing are now consider war crimes, and are about the furthest thing away from what our military practices today.FYI, our military have killed innocent civilians who were not a threat.....it was/is a war zoneStrawman McGee, that’s not what I’m saying, I’ve made that very clear. If our soldiers in an actual war zone, in one of the most dangerous countries on the planet, can excercise better judgment than these guys can...why the hell are we holding our law enforcement to lower standards than not only the our troops, but the average LAW ABIDING CITIZEN?he hasn't shut down his humanity--he is being realisticYou’ve shut down part of your humanity if you watch that video and deep down don’t think there is something wrong with that.He deserved what got...Being too scared to follow instructions exactly is now an offence deserving instant death?
This is what the Milgram experiment has opened our eyes too, we are far too eager to go along with authority figures. 75% of us will shock somebody to death, begging us to stop, because a guy in lab coat tells us it’s safe and to continue.
Just because this guy is a cop, doesn’t mean I should be okay with him shooting a blubbering kid scared shitless on his hands and knees. The cop put himself in a bad situation, with a kid scared shitless, that’s on him, not the kid. There were about a dozen ways to handle this without using lethal force, while allowing the officer to protect himself at all times. This is manslaughter. We throw truck drivers in prison even when they didn’t do anything wrong by our standards, because they are professionals. We sue the pants off doctors when preform risky surgeries, and even when they did nothing wrong. But yet we give our own police a pass, when a soldier or marine would’ve gotten court marshaled had this been an enemy combatant. I’m sorry there is no excuse for this. 100% avoidable.
this isn't a movie/tv show where Steve McGarrett shoots the suspect's shooting finger
cops are not psychologists/psychiatrists/doctors....it takes less than seconds for a thug to pull a pistol and shoot--yes or no?
WHY IS IT “IMPOSSIBLE” TO NOT MEET HALFWAY BETWEEN WHAT WE ASKED OUR SOLDIERS TO DO IN A GODDAMN WARZONE, AND WHAT WE ALLOW OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GET AWAY WITH CURRENTLY...WHY ARE WE OK WITH GIVING BETTER TREATMENT TO ENEMY COMBATANTS THAN OUR OWN CITIZENS?
in Somalia, they were getting fired on from many angles/all over the city.....the soldiers just fired up some areas and civilians were there
in WW2 if they got fired on from a town, they would blast a lot of the buildings--which had innocent civilians in them
Roughly one thousand Somalis were killed by American forces over the twenty hoursI couldn't get an accurate read on how many of those Somalis were civilians, so I called my colleague, Mark Bowden, who wrote the book. He said that eighty percent of the Somali deaths were of civilian.
800 civilians killed by American military in twenty hours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
have you ever read anything on war??!!?? I was in for 8 years and have been reading about war/etc for over 30 years
Does "Black Hawk Down" Portray an American War Crime?
WTF are you talking about military vs police for?? as you can see in the above facts, numbers and quotes--your analogy is beyond ridiculous
There was no reason for this person to die fuck that cop. You saw the vidio this guy was no threat. If that was my son he had shot like that I would end that peice of shit. Regardless of the uniform he wears.And you know that the officer lied? Have you ever seen demonstration of reaction times and how long a person has to react to a threat? If it were me I would be sure not to fall on the side of waiting too long and getting shot. Obey the law, obey the cops, no matter how much you hate them, and you will be OK. Run away, act suspicious and move in ways that seem a threat and things might not turn out well for you.Force Science News #178: Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” in armed-suspect encounters & more
CONCLUSIONS. “Police officers have a legal right to use force, including lethal force, when it is reasonable to do so,” the researchers state. “An officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape….
“There is a perception amongst some community members that officers are too quick to shoot those who only appear to pose a threat…. There are people who seem to believe that the ‘reasonable’ officer should wait until a suspect with a gun begins to use the gun against the officer before the officer utilizes lethal force. [But] would waiting be reasonable in situations where the suspect has his weapon in hand but not aimed?”
That’s the critical question Blair’s study addresses. “As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.
The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing.
The researchers believe that certain training implications are clear from their findings. First, they support having officers participate in scenarios similar to those they used to convey “a better understanding of the dynamics involved” in armed confrontations and to “help correct inaccurate beliefs about shooting ability.” Also they believe training should “teach officers how to mitigate the dangers posed by armed suspects” through such means as distance and cover.
They hope that their findings “will help officers, and those who judge the actions of officers, to make more informed decisions about the reasonableness of officers’ actions” in deadly encounters.
A full report on the study has been accepted for publication later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. Publication can be tracked at: http://pqx.sagepub.com.
Not true they have no right to KILL and indoctrination has taught the public they have that right. They are here to SERVE and PROTECT they work for us.
THey can lie and say they felt threatened c'mon you think these cops don't use that line to get out of killing ppl. it happens constantly.
I give you the proof right FREAKIN there!!!!..and you say --''I don't believe it''If this was you or I as a civilian using a firearm for self defense, and had 100% control of the situation, and fired just because he reached...we’d be locked away.
Regarding this point above, I would say it depends on the situation. If the guy had just broken into my property, reasonable self defense dictates the homeowner could take him out without a word said. It wouldn't matter if he reached or not.
The police are civilians too, but they have a duty to respond to the idiot pointing the firearm out the window. You just can't make a sudden movement that looks like you could be in the process of producing a weapon while in front of a cop. They can't wait to see a gun before reacting because by then its too late. I'd feel the same way if you're an intruder in my home.
Tell your kids what my father told me. If a LEO stops you, be respectful, make no sudden movements, keep you hands in plain sight and if you need to retrieve something (like a license from a glove compartment), ask first if it's okay. Simple things any reasonable person can do and you'll be fine.WW2 was what we call total war, started by the nazis, when they would do what was called terror bombing, when they didn’t really go after military targets, but civilians as well. Total war was more than just beating the other military, it was about breaking the will of an entire nation, through terror bombing and bombardments. The allies practiced it as well, since their hand was partially forced in the matter. We firebombed German and japanese cities. Even during military strikes, against military targets the brits lost patience (understandable since the nazis were slinging rockets at London from across the pond), and would have the bombers fly high and at night to protect them. While it helped protect them, it greatly lowered the accuracy of their bombs (there were no smart bombs back then), and would kill civilians too. The US on the other hand would fly low during the day, to try to preserve casualties and make sure they took out German factories. These acts, like total war, and terror bombing are now consider war crimes, and are about the furthest thing away from what our military practices today.FYI, our military have killed innocent civilians who were not a threat.....it was/is a war zoneStrawman McGee, that’s not what I’m saying, I’ve made that very clear. If our soldiers in an actual war zone, in one of the most dangerous countries on the planet, can excercise better judgment than these guys can...why the hell are we holding our law enforcement to lower standards than not only the our troops, but the average LAW ABIDING CITIZEN?he hasn't shut down his humanity--he is being realisticYou’ve shut down part of your humanity if you watch that video and deep down don’t think there is something wrong with that.He deserved what got...
This is what the Milgram experiment has opened our eyes too, we are far too eager to go along with authority figures. 75% of us will shock somebody to death, begging us to stop, because a guy in lab coat tells us it’s safe and to continue.
Just because this guy is a cop, doesn’t mean I should be okay with him shooting a blubbering kid scared shitless on his hands and knees. The cop put himself in a bad situation, with a kid scared shitless, that’s on him, not the kid. There were about a dozen ways to handle this without using lethal force, while allowing the officer to protect himself at all times. This is manslaughter. We throw truck drivers in prison even when they didn’t do anything wrong by our standards, because they are professionals. We sue the pants off doctors when preform risky surgeries, and even when they did nothing wrong. But yet we give our own police a pass, when a soldier or marine would’ve gotten court marshaled had this been an enemy combatant. I’m sorry there is no excuse for this. 100% avoidable.
this isn't a movie/tv show where Steve McGarrett shoots the suspect's shooting finger
cops are not psychologists/psychiatrists/doctors....it takes less than seconds for a thug to pull a pistol and shoot--yes or no?
WHY IS IT “IMPOSSIBLE” TO NOT MEET HALFWAY BETWEEN WHAT WE ASKED OUR SOLDIERS TO DO IN A GODDAMN WARZONE, AND WHAT WE ALLOW OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GET AWAY WITH CURRENTLY...WHY ARE WE OK WITH GIVING BETTER TREATMENT TO ENEMY COMBATANTS THAN OUR OWN CITIZENS?
in Somalia, they were getting fired on from many angles/all over the city.....the soldiers just fired up some areas and civilians were there
in WW2 if they got fired on from a town, they would blast a lot of the buildings--which had innocent civilians in them
Roughly one thousand Somalis were killed by American forces over the twenty hoursI couldn't get an accurate read on how many of those Somalis were civilians, so I called my colleague, Mark Bowden, who wrote the book. He said that eighty percent of the Somali deaths were of civilian.
800 civilians killed by American military in twenty hours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
have you ever read anything on war??!!?? I was in for 8 years and have been reading about war/etc for over 30 years
Does "Black Hawk Down" Portray an American War Crime?
WTF are you talking about military vs police for?? as you can see in the above facts, numbers and quotes--your analogy is beyond ridiculous
And do you honestly think in Somalia that our military (the US military) were that bad of shots that they actually killed 800 civilians, va only 200 Somali militants? YOUR CRAZY IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT. This was Somalia, you see someone die, you go and loot their body, wether you’re a regular Somali joe, or Somali militant...and in Somalia, guns are pretty essential to life, making them very valuable...so if the standard is, these Somali bodies don’t have guns on them, therefore they are civilians, is prettt damn silly. On top of that, YOUR ARTICLE IS QUESTIONING WHETHER IR NOT THIS WAS A WAR CRIME...not helping your point. It is also not how we currently have fought the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How Our Overly Restrictive Rules of Engagement Keep Us from Winning Wars
We’ve asked our military personnel in a war zone to do the impossible...but yet we think it’s ok for police to use lethal force on assumptions? We give better treatment to enemy combatants than we do our own citizens? There’s something wrong here
I give you the proof right FREAKIN there!!!!..and you say --''I don't believe it''If this was you or I as a civilian using a firearm for self defense, and had 100% control of the situation, and fired just because he reached...we’d be locked away.
Regarding this point above, I would say it depends on the situation. If the guy had just broken into my property, reasonable self defense dictates the homeowner could take him out without a word said. It wouldn't matter if he reached or not.
The police are civilians too, but they have a duty to respond to the idiot pointing the firearm out the window. You just can't make a sudden movement that looks like you could be in the process of producing a weapon while in front of a cop. They can't wait to see a gun before reacting because by then its too late. I'd feel the same way if you're an intruder in my home.
Tell your kids what my father told me. If a LEO stops you, be respectful, make no sudden movements, keep you hands in plain sight and if you need to retrieve something (like a license from a glove compartment), ask first if it's okay. Simple things any reasonable person can do and you'll be fine.WW2 was what we call total war, started by the nazis, when they would do what was called terror bombing, when they didn’t really go after military targets, but civilians as well. Total war was more than just beating the other military, it was about breaking the will of an entire nation, through terror bombing and bombardments. The allies practiced it as well, since their hand was partially forced in the matter. We firebombed German and japanese cities. Even during military strikes, against military targets the brits lost patience (understandable since the nazis were slinging rockets at London from across the pond), and would have the bombers fly high and at night to protect them. While it helped protect them, it greatly lowered the accuracy of their bombs (there were no smart bombs back then), and would kill civilians too. The US on the other hand would fly low during the day, to try to preserve casualties and make sure they took out German factories. These acts, like total war, and terror bombing are now consider war crimes, and are about the furthest thing away from what our military practices today.FYI, our military have killed innocent civilians who were not a threat.....it was/is a war zoneStrawman McGee, that’s not what I’m saying, I’ve made that very clear. If our soldiers in an actual war zone, in one of the most dangerous countries on the planet, can excercise better judgment than these guys can...why the hell are we holding our law enforcement to lower standards than not only the our troops, but the average LAW ABIDING CITIZEN?he hasn't shut down his humanity--he is being realisticYou’ve shut down part of your humanity if you watch that video and deep down don’t think there is something wrong with that.
This is what the Milgram experiment has opened our eyes too, we are far too eager to go along with authority figures. 75% of us will shock somebody to death, begging us to stop, because a guy in lab coat tells us it’s safe and to continue.
Just because this guy is a cop, doesn’t mean I should be okay with him shooting a blubbering kid scared shitless on his hands and knees. The cop put himself in a bad situation, with a kid scared shitless, that’s on him, not the kid. There were about a dozen ways to handle this without using lethal force, while allowing the officer to protect himself at all times. This is manslaughter. We throw truck drivers in prison even when they didn’t do anything wrong by our standards, because they are professionals. We sue the pants off doctors when preform risky surgeries, and even when they did nothing wrong. But yet we give our own police a pass, when a soldier or marine would’ve gotten court marshaled had this been an enemy combatant. I’m sorry there is no excuse for this. 100% avoidable.
this isn't a movie/tv show where Steve McGarrett shoots the suspect's shooting finger
cops are not psychologists/psychiatrists/doctors....it takes less than seconds for a thug to pull a pistol and shoot--yes or no?
WHY IS IT “IMPOSSIBLE” TO NOT MEET HALFWAY BETWEEN WHAT WE ASKED OUR SOLDIERS TO DO IN A GODDAMN WARZONE, AND WHAT WE ALLOW OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GET AWAY WITH CURRENTLY...WHY ARE WE OK WITH GIVING BETTER TREATMENT TO ENEMY COMBATANTS THAN OUR OWN CITIZENS?
in Somalia, they were getting fired on from many angles/all over the city.....the soldiers just fired up some areas and civilians were there
in WW2 if they got fired on from a town, they would blast a lot of the buildings--which had innocent civilians in them
Roughly one thousand Somalis were killed by American forces over the twenty hoursI couldn't get an accurate read on how many of those Somalis were civilians, so I called my colleague, Mark Bowden, who wrote the book. He said that eighty percent of the Somali deaths were of civilian.
800 civilians killed by American military in twenty hours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
have you ever read anything on war??!!?? I was in for 8 years and have been reading about war/etc for over 30 years
Does "Black Hawk Down" Portray an American War Crime?
WTF are you talking about military vs police for?? as you can see in the above facts, numbers and quotes--your analogy is beyond ridiculous
And do you honestly think in Somalia that our military (the US military) were that bad of shots that they actually killed 800 civilians, va only 200 Somali militants? YOUR CRAZY IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT. This was Somalia, you see someone die, you go and loot their body, wether you’re a regular Somali joe, or Somali militant...and in Somalia, guns are pretty essential to life, making them very valuable...so if the standard is, these Somali bodies don’t have guns on them, therefore they are civilians, is prettt damn silly. On top of that, YOUR ARTICLE IS QUESTIONING WHETHER IR NOT THIS WAS A WAR CRIME...not helping your point. It is also not how we currently have fought the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How Our Overly Restrictive Rules of Engagement Keep Us from Winning Wars
We’ve asked our military personnel in a war zone to do the impossible...but yet we think it’s ok for police to use lethal force on assumptions? We give better treatment to enemy combatants than we do our own citizens? There’s something wrong here
Bowden is the expert on the battle --not YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you have ZERO knowledge on combat/war/etc--I knew it !!!!!!!!!
they were in the battle for their lives--they didn't care where the rounds were going--they wanted to live
if civilians are in the combat area/near combatants---they will be fired on!!!!!!!!!!
the proof is right THERE!! I gave it to you---
read the book then
it is useless to discuss with you if you don't believe the EXPERTS..the ones who actually research it in great detail
you are a dumbass.....you get the ignore button
I have proved you don't know crap about combat/etc
bad shots?? this shows you truly are a DUMBASS when it comes to combat knowledge
this proves your posts are nothing but crap--no factual knowledge
Because he wanted to kill someone that day, just to watch him die. Yes, I truly think it is that simple.It made no sense to me why suspect was ordered to move. With suspect motionless on floor, hands in plain sight, a partner on the scene, why not just cuff him then pat him down checking for weapon? Seems to me police officer not knowing if suspect's state of mind was impaired due to alcohol or drugs invited danger upon all involved.
In this case the suspect was visibly inebriated. Depending on to what his blood/alcohol level was he probably could not walk a straight line if told to do so. He shouldn't have been expected to follow numerous complex orders in rapid succession like cross your legs...put your arms up...lay face down on the floor ...put your arms up...who told you to uncross your legs...Or, they could think, comply and live.What happens when potential arrestees start to percieve all cops as threats and just start blasting when they arrive. The dissemination of this film could cause future suspects to think..."what have I got to lose.?" I might as well defend myself because following instructions to the best of my ability and making one little mistake could be fatal."Cops have a license to kill. They can kill anyone, anywhere, and get away with it.Force Science News #178: Important new reaction-time study addresses what’s “reasonable” in armed-suspect encounters & more
CONCLUSIONS. “Police officers have a legal right to use force, including lethal force, when it is reasonable to do so,” the researchers state. “An officer may shoot when there is an imminent risk of harm to self or others, or to stop someone who poses a danger to others if allowed to escape….
“There is a perception amongst some community members that officers are too quick to shoot those who only appear to pose a threat…. There are people who seem to believe that the ‘reasonable’ officer should wait until a suspect with a gun begins to use the gun against the officer before the officer utilizes lethal force. [But] would waiting be reasonable in situations where the suspect has his weapon in hand but not aimed?”
That’s the critical question Blair’s study addresses. “As our findings show, most officers can’t fire faster than a suspect with a weapon in hand, even if it is not aimed at the officer,” his team writes. Consequently, “we think that an officer who decided to shoot [in the kinds of situations tested] meets the legal definition of reasonableness,” given the “close range of the encounter, the lack of available cover, the failure of the suspect to comply with multiple warnings, and the data” collected.
The researchers stress, however, that they “do not believe that the findings support” automatically shooting “everyone with a gun” or “everyone with a gun who does not comply.” Armed encounters vary in their details, and “the individual officer must consider the totality of circumstances” in choosing a fitting response, including whether issuing commands is feasible or desirable before firing.
The researchers believe that certain training implications are clear from their findings. First, they support having officers participate in scenarios similar to those they used to convey “a better understanding of the dynamics involved” in armed confrontations and to “help correct inaccurate beliefs about shooting ability.” Also they believe training should “teach officers how to mitigate the dangers posed by armed suspects” through such means as distance and cover.
They hope that their findings “will help officers, and those who judge the actions of officers, to make more informed decisions about the reasonableness of officers’ actions” in deadly encounters.
A full report on the study has been accepted for publication later this year in the peer-reviewed journal Police Quarterly. Publication can be tracked at: http://pqx.sagepub.com.
Absolutely unreasonable. Why? An armed citizen shooting someone like that would be murder.
Brailsford WANTED to kill someone that day.
That is totally not true, one was just sentenced to 20 years in jail, how long do you think he will last?
In situations where there is perception of danger, whether you see it in a video or not, the police have the right and obligation to protect themselves and waiting to see a gun may be way too late.
We need to outlaw alcohol then...because every time a person drinks he/she is more likely to be confronted by a cop. And the influence of alcohol slows down responses and causes people not to think clearly or rationally. Cops like the one in this op wouldIf this was you or I as a civilian using a firearm for self defense, and had 100% control of the situation, and fired just because he reached...we’d be locked away.
Regarding this point above, I would say it depends on the situation. If the guy had just broken into my property, reasonable self defense dictates the homeowner could take him out without a word said. It wouldn't matter if he reached or not.
The police are civilians too, but they have a duty to respond to the idiot pointing the firearm out the window. You just can't make a sudden movement that looks like you could be in the process of producing a weapon while in front of a cop. They can't wait to see a gun before reacting because by then its too late. I'd feel the same way if you're an intruder in my home.
Tell your kids what my father told me. If a LEO stops you, be respectful, make no sudden movements, keep you hands in plain sight and if you need to retrieve something (like a license from a glove compartment), ask first if it's okay. Simple things any reasonable person can do and you'll be fine.
We need to outlaw alcohol then...because every time a person drinks he/she is more likely to be confronted by a cop. And the influence of alcohol slows down responses and causes people not to think clearly or rationally. Cops like the one in this op wouldIf this was you or I as a civilian using a firearm for self defense, and had 100% control of the situation, and fired just because he reached...we’d be locked away.
Regarding this point above, I would say it depends on the situation. If the guy had just broken into my property, reasonable self defense dictates the homeowner could take him out without a word said. It wouldn't matter if he reached or not.
The police are civilians too, but they have a duty to respond to the idiot pointing the firearm out the window. You just can't make a sudden movement that looks like you could be in the process of producing a weapon while in front of a cop. They can't wait to see a gun before reacting because by then its too late. I'd feel the same way if you're an intruder in my home.
Tell your kids what my father told me. If a LEO stops you, be respectful, make no sudden movements, keep you hands in plain sight and if you need to retrieve something (like a license from a glove compartment), ask first if it's okay. Simple things any reasonable person can do and you'll be fine.
kill anyone who couldn't follow orders because they'd been drinking.
The video clearly shows the moron disobeying the cop’s instructions. He moved his hand out of sight. His demeanor cannot be considered, the cop had the right to shoot him.
MESA -- Police in Mesa, Arizona released disturbing body camera video on Thursday hours after a former officer was acquitted of a murder charge in the fatal shooting of an unarmed man.
The verdict cleared Philip Brailsford, 27, of criminal liability in the 2016 death of Daniel Shaver, of Granbury, Texas. He was also found not guilty of reckless manslaughter, reports CBS Phoenix affiliate KPHO-TV.
The shooting occurred at a hotel in the Phoenix suburb where officers responded to a report of someone pointing a gun out of a window. The video, obtained by KPHO, shows Brailsford pointing a gun at Shaver as Shaver lies on the ground, holds his hands in the air, cries and begs the officer not to shoot.
[WARNING: Graphic content] Body-cam video shows Mesa police shooting
Mesa Police shooting: Daniel Shaver seen crawling, begging in disturbing video
No gun was seen in hand when GANG MEMBER PIG COP Scores Another MURDER TROPHY
for the murdering Anti-American PIG COP COWARD Murder Association! Over 700 plus people
were murdered this year by sick cowardly scumbag pig cops.
BTW:
Shaver, who was intoxicated and could be heard sobbing, begging officers, "Please don't shoot," made a single hand motion, towards his waist, possibly to adjust his pants. Brailsford yelled at Shaver that if Shaver did anything whatsoever that deviated from his instructions he would shoot him and he probably wouldn’t survive. Shaver’s arm then moved again as he wobbled while crawling forward, at which point Brailsford can be heard yelling "Don't-" before immediately opening fire with his AR-15 rifle, striking Shaver 5 times and killing him almost instantly. Shaver was unarmed.
The video clearly shows the moron disobeying the cop’s instructions. He moved his hand out of sight. His demeanor cannot be considered, the cop had the right to shoot him.
He got off, if that's what you mean. It was still cold blooded murder.
He will not be missed...I give you the proof right FREAKIN there!!!!..and you say --''I don't believe it''If this was you or I as a civilian using a firearm for self defense, and had 100% control of the situation, and fired just because he reached...we’d be locked away.
Regarding this point above, I would say it depends on the situation. If the guy had just broken into my property, reasonable self defense dictates the homeowner could take him out without a word said. It wouldn't matter if he reached or not.
The police are civilians too, but they have a duty to respond to the idiot pointing the firearm out the window. You just can't make a sudden movement that looks like you could be in the process of producing a weapon while in front of a cop. They can't wait to see a gun before reacting because by then its too late. I'd feel the same way if you're an intruder in my home.
Tell your kids what my father told me. If a LEO stops you, be respectful, make no sudden movements, keep you hands in plain sight and if you need to retrieve something (like a license from a glove compartment), ask first if it's okay. Simple things any reasonable person can do and you'll be fine.WW2 was what we call total war, started by the nazis, when they would do what was called terror bombing, when they didn’t really go after military targets, but civilians as well. Total war was more than just beating the other military, it was about breaking the will of an entire nation, through terror bombing and bombardments. The allies practiced it as well, since their hand was partially forced in the matter. We firebombed German and japanese cities. Even during military strikes, against military targets the brits lost patience (understandable since the nazis were slinging rockets at London from across the pond), and would have the bombers fly high and at night to protect them. While it helped protect them, it greatly lowered the accuracy of their bombs (there were no smart bombs back then), and would kill civilians too. The US on the other hand would fly low during the day, to try to preserve casualties and make sure they took out German factories. These acts, like total war, and terror bombing are now consider war crimes, and are about the furthest thing away from what our military practices today.FYI, our military have killed innocent civilians who were not a threat.....it was/is a war zoneStrawman McGee, that’s not what I’m saying, I’ve made that very clear. If our soldiers in an actual war zone, in one of the most dangerous countries on the planet, can excercise better judgment than these guys can...why the hell are we holding our law enforcement to lower standards than not only the our troops, but the average LAW ABIDING CITIZEN?he hasn't shut down his humanity--he is being realistic
this isn't a movie/tv show where Steve McGarrett shoots the suspect's shooting finger
cops are not psychologists/psychiatrists/doctors....it takes less than seconds for a thug to pull a pistol and shoot--yes or no?
WHY IS IT “IMPOSSIBLE” TO NOT MEET HALFWAY BETWEEN WHAT WE ASKED OUR SOLDIERS TO DO IN A GODDAMN WARZONE, AND WHAT WE ALLOW OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GET AWAY WITH CURRENTLY...WHY ARE WE OK WITH GIVING BETTER TREATMENT TO ENEMY COMBATANTS THAN OUR OWN CITIZENS?
in Somalia, they were getting fired on from many angles/all over the city.....the soldiers just fired up some areas and civilians were there
in WW2 if they got fired on from a town, they would blast a lot of the buildings--which had innocent civilians in them
Roughly one thousand Somalis were killed by American forces over the twenty hoursI couldn't get an accurate read on how many of those Somalis were civilians, so I called my colleague, Mark Bowden, who wrote the book. He said that eighty percent of the Somali deaths were of civilian.
800 civilians killed by American military in twenty hours!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
have you ever read anything on war??!!?? I was in for 8 years and have been reading about war/etc for over 30 years
Does "Black Hawk Down" Portray an American War Crime?
WTF are you talking about military vs police for?? as you can see in the above facts, numbers and quotes--your analogy is beyond ridiculous
And do you honestly think in Somalia that our military (the US military) were that bad of shots that they actually killed 800 civilians, va only 200 Somali militants? YOUR CRAZY IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT. This was Somalia, you see someone die, you go and loot their body, wether you’re a regular Somali joe, or Somali militant...and in Somalia, guns are pretty essential to life, making them very valuable...so if the standard is, these Somali bodies don’t have guns on them, therefore they are civilians, is prettt damn silly. On top of that, YOUR ARTICLE IS QUESTIONING WHETHER IR NOT THIS WAS A WAR CRIME...not helping your point. It is also not how we currently have fought the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
How Our Overly Restrictive Rules of Engagement Keep Us from Winning Wars
We’ve asked our military personnel in a war zone to do the impossible...but yet we think it’s ok for police to use lethal force on assumptions? We give better treatment to enemy combatants than we do our own citizens? There’s something wrong here
Bowden is the expert on the battle --not YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you have ZERO knowledge on combat/war/etc--I knew it !!!!!!!!!
they were in the battle for their lives--they didn't care where the rounds were going--they wanted to live
if civilians are in the combat area/near combatants---they will be fired on!!!!!!!!!!
the proof is right THERE!! I gave it to you---
read the book then
it is useless to discuss with you if you don't believe the EXPERTS..the ones who actually research it in great detail
you are a dumbass.....you get the ignore button
I have proved you don't know crap about combat/etc
bad shots?? this shows you truly are a DUMBASS when it comes to combat knowledge
this proves your posts are nothing but crap--no factual knowledge
The cop had plenty opportunity to handcuff him and end the situation long before he killed the man. Looked like he was just enjoying torturing the poor guy who was obviously under great duress. It was murder.
if you threaten the police/are a threat while you are drunk you can be justifiably shotWe need to outlaw alcohol then...because every time a person drinks he/she is more likely to be confronted by a cop. And the influence of alcohol slows down responses and causes people not to think clearly or rationally. Cops like the one in this op wouldIf this was you or I as a civilian using a firearm for self defense, and had 100% control of the situation, and fired just because he reached...we’d be locked away.
Regarding this point above, I would say it depends on the situation. If the guy had just broken into my property, reasonable self defense dictates the homeowner could take him out without a word said. It wouldn't matter if he reached or not.
The police are civilians too, but they have a duty to respond to the idiot pointing the firearm out the window. You just can't make a sudden movement that looks like you could be in the process of producing a weapon while in front of a cop. They can't wait to see a gun before reacting because by then its too late. I'd feel the same way if you're an intruder in my home.
Tell your kids what my father told me. If a LEO stops you, be respectful, make no sudden movements, keep you hands in plain sight and if you need to retrieve something (like a license from a glove compartment), ask first if it's okay. Simple things any reasonable person can do and you'll be fine.
kill anyone who couldn't follow orders because they'd been drinking.
The pig was never under any threat. It's a clear case of murder. He should be executed immediately.
