When The Cop Becomes The Killer.

[editec]

Sounds like a tragic accident to me.

Can't imagine any cop wanted to shoot a sleeping 7 year old.

I mean I'm not most cops most ardent admirerer, but I can't believe that they wanted this event to occur,

 

[Dr Gregg]

Title of the OP should be:
"When a USMB poster posts another disingenuous thread title"

 

[Shorebreak]

The crime here is a police policy that allows/enables our "peace" officers to dress up in their hit squad gear and then rock 'n roll into an inhabited residence when there was no immediate and apparent threat to the lives of innocent people inside the residence.

These third world police tactics should never be allowed in a "so-called" civilized nation unless not using them will likely end up in the death of an innocent.

I feel sorry for the officer who killed the girl - almost as bad as I feel for her family. Because his training and orders placed him in this situation. A humane policy would enable police to wait until other lives are not at risk when making the arrest.

This falls on the shoulders of police leadership and the judge who signed such a dangerous warrant.

 

[Nonelitist]

The crime here is a police policy that allows/enables our "peace" officers to dress up in their hit squad gear and then rock 'n roll into an inhabited residence when there was no immediate and apparent threat to the lives of innocent people inside the residence.

These third world police tactics should never be allowed in a "so-called" civilized nation unless not using them will likely end up in the death of an innocent.

I feel sorry for the officer who killed the girl - almost as bad as I feel for her family. Because his training and orders placed him in this situation. A humane policy would enable police to wait until other lives are not at risk when making the arrest.

This falls on the shoulders of police leadership and the judge who signed such a dangerous warrant.

You are a massive idiot. You want the police to take their time apprehending a murderer?

How about you have a murderer break your door down and have the police take their time saving your ungrateful ass?!!

Tragic accidents are going to happen from time to time. Most sane people want police breaking down the doors of people hiding murderers.

Statistics show that the longer it takes to for police to apprehend a murderer, the less likely it is to convict them. Your solution to the crime problem is for the police to take their time?

Wow.

 

[Jos]

Police who carried out a raid on a family home that left a 7-year-old girl dead over the weekend were accompanied by a camera crew for a reality television show, and an attorney says video of the siege contradicts the police account of what happened.(snip) Fieger said the video shows an officer lobbing the grenade and then shooting into the home from the porch.

"There is no question about what happened because it's in the videotape," Fieger said. "It's not an accident. It's not a mistake. There was no altercation."

"Aiyana Jones was shot from outside on the porch. The videotape shows clearly the officer throwing through the window a stun grenade-type explosive and then within milliseconds of throwing that, firing a shot from outside the home,"

washingtonpost.com
The department declined to say whether it was being paid by the television show

 

[Shorebreak]

The crime here is a police policy that allows/enables our "peace" officers to dress up in their hit squad gear and then rock 'n roll into an inhabited residence when there was no immediate and apparent threat to the lives of innocent people inside the residence.

These third world police tactics should never be allowed in a "so-called" civilized nation unless not using them will likely end up in the death of an innocent.

I feel sorry for the officer who killed the girl - almost as bad as I feel for her family. Because his training and orders placed him in this situation. A humane policy would enable police to wait until other lives are not at risk when making the arrest.

This falls on the shoulders of police leadership and the judge who signed such a dangerous warrant.

You are a massive idiot. You want the police to take their time apprehending a murderer?

How about you have a murderer break your door down and have the police take their time saving your ungrateful ass?!!

Tragic accidents are going to happen from time to time. Most sane people want police breaking down the doors of people hiding murderers.

Statistics show that the longer it takes to for police to apprehend a murderer, the less likely it is to convict them. Your solution to the crime problem is for the police to take their time?

Wow.

Today I'm going to introduce you to a new topic. It's called "Reading Comprehension". Here is a link that is designed to help under-educated people like yourself to understand and assimilate information when you are reading:

7. How to Improve Reading Comprehension

As part of todays lesson, I'll use my post that you responded to as an instructional tool. With the understanding that poor vocabulary is the single largest contributor to comprehension errors, I will expand upon the meaning of my sentences so that you will understand where your comprehension failures occured.

Let's begin with the first scenario that you provided in response to my post. You said the following:

How about you have a murderer break your door down and have the police take their time saving your ungrateful ass?!!

Now lets have a look at what I said in my post. Please pay specific attention to the text that is displayed in bold underline:

The crime here is a police policy that allows/enables our "peace" officers to dress up in their hit squad gear and then rock 'n roll into an inhabited residence when there was no immediate and apparent threat to the lives of innocent people inside the residence.

and

These third world police tactics should never be allowed in a "so-called" civilized nation unless not using them will likely end up in the death of an innocent.

In this set of examples, the educated person who is trained in reading comprehension will quickly recognize that the subject of my message includes a very specific disclaimer that an immediate or apparent threat to innocent lives (such as a murdering breaking down my door, as you stated in your post) would justify this kind of police activity. In case you missed it, here it is again:

when there was no immediate and apparent threat to the lives of innocent people inside the residence.

As you continue reading my post, you will also see that I repeated the same point, rephrasing it to reinforce it's meaning and the intent of my message. You stated that a murderer busting down my door should justify this kind of police activity, although I stated the following in my post:

unless not using them will likely end up in the death of an innocent.

My own reading comprehension capabilities tell me that you were clearly stating that a murderer breaking into a property poses a life or death situation for the inhabitants of the household. We're in full agreement there. But in your choice to use this example in order to attempt the deconstruction of my post, you have demonstrated clearly and completely that you do not have the tools or willingness to understand what I truly stated using relatively basic language.

In addition to a reasonable vocabulary, the ability to recognize and interpret a statement also requires that the reader have a certain level of life experience that is appropriate to the subject, that the reader have the ability to facilitate and understand rational logic patterns, and that the reader have the ability to understand context as expressed in the written material.

Since I clearly stated that aggressive tactics are acceptable under the circumstances that you provided, and you decided to insult me over it, I suggest that you take the time to learn how to read and how to respond effectively so that in the future, you don't come across looking like a complete assfuck like you did today.

 

[Nonelitist]

If it is found that the officer acted negligently, then there should obviously be action against him and anyone covering it up.

 

[Gunny]

From what I read, a murder suspect was in the house. In the process of apprehending the suspect, a gun was fired and hit the 7 year old. She was sleeping so I would guess it was an accidental discharge.

Horrible horrible situation. Maybe the person that fired the shot should not be a cop if he can't control his weapon, but this is hardly anything more than an accident, from what I have read.

The left will want to hang the police officer. After all, accidents don't happen to leftwingnuts. Well, unless it suits their demagoguery.

 

[jillian]

So you think every time the cop kills some one its accidental.

Not every time. It does appear in this particular case it was accidental or negligent. But it doesn't seem to rise to a criminal level... not that it will be of much comfort to the family of the child.

 

[Nonelitist]

The crime here is a police policy that allows/enables our "peace" officers to dress up in their hit squad gear and then rock 'n roll into an inhabited residence when there was no immediate and apparent threat to the lives of innocent people inside the residence.

These third world police tactics should never be allowed in a "so-called" civilized nation unless not using them will likely end up in the death of an innocent.

I feel sorry for the officer who killed the girl - almost as bad as I feel for her family. Because his training and orders placed him in this situation. A humane policy would enable police to wait until other lives are not at risk when making the arrest.

This falls on the shoulders of police leadership and the judge who signed such a dangerous warrant.

You are a massive idiot. You want the police to take their time apprehending a murderer?

How about you have a murderer break your door down and have the police take their time saving your ungrateful ass?!!

Tragic accidents are going to happen from time to time. Most sane people want police breaking down the doors of people hiding murderers.

Statistics show that the longer it takes to for police to apprehend a murderer, the less likely it is to convict them. Your solution to the crime problem is for the police to take their time?

Wow.

Today I'm going to introduce you to a new topic. It's called "Reading Comprehension". Here is a link that is designed to help under-educated people like yourself to understand and assimilate information when you are reading:

7. How to Improve Reading Comprehension

As part of todays lesson, I'll use my post that you responded to as an instructional tool. With the understanding that poor vocabulary is the single largest contributor to comprehension errors, I will expand upon the meaning of my sentences so that you will understand where your comprehension failures occured.

Let's begin with the first scenario that you provided in response to my post. You said the following:

Now lets have a look at what I said in my post. Please pay specific attention to the text that is displayed in bold underline:

and

In this set of examples, the educated person who is trained in reading comprehension will quickly recognize that the subject of my message includes a very specific disclaimer that an immediate or apparent threat to innocent lives (such as a murdering breaking down my door, as you stated in your post) would justify this kind of police activity. In case you missed it, here it is again:

when there was no immediate and apparent threat to the lives of innocent people inside the residence.

As you continue reading my post, you will also see that I repeated the same point, rephrasing it to reinforce it's meaning and the intent of my message. You stated that a murderer busting down my door should justify this kind of police activity, although I stated the following in my post:

unless not using them will likely end up in the death of an innocent.

My own reading comprehension capabilities tell me that you were clearly stating that a murderer breaking into a property poses a life or death situation for the inhabitants of the household. We're in full agreement there. But in your choice to use this example in order to attempt the deconstruction of my post, you have demonstrated clearly and completely that you do not have the tools or willingness to understand what I truly stated using relatively basic language.

In addition to a reasonable vocabulary, the ability to recognize and interpret a statement also requires that the reader have a certain level of life experience that is appropriate to the subject, that the reader have the ability to facilitate and understand rational logic patterns, and that the reader have the ability to understand context as expressed in the written material.

Since I clearly stated that aggressive tactics are acceptable under the circumstances that you provided, and you decided to insult me over it, I suggest that you take the time to learn how to read and how to respond effectively so that in the future, you don't come across looking like a complete assfuck like you did today.

You make a good point. I misrepresented what you said.

However, you dont' think cops should go into a house to get a murderer.

For that reason, I am glad that you are someone with a worthless opinion and not someone that is allowed to make any kind of policy.

I will happily admit my mistake. Your problem is that you don't think not pursuing a murderer is a mistake.

 

[Shorebreak]

You make a good point. I misrepresented what you said.

However, you dont' think cops should go into a house to get a murderer.

For that reason, I am glad that you are someone with a worthless opinion and not someone that is allowed to make any kind of policy.

I will happily admit my mistake. Your problem is that you don't think not pursuing a murderer is a mistake.

Dude - you did it again!

I said that the person SHOULD be arrested - when other lives aren't threatened!
FYI, I have a huge affinity for LEO's - but I get bent out of shape when aggressive policies get innocent people hurt - and when they violate rights (that's a different discussion).

I'm not anti-law enforcement. Or pro-criminal. Just use common sense and humane activities to enforce the law.

 

[Nonelitist]

You make a good point. I misrepresented what you said.

However, you dont' think cops should go into a house to get a murderer.

For that reason, I am glad that you are someone with a worthless opinion and not someone that is allowed to make any kind of policy.

I will happily admit my mistake. Your problem is that you don't think not pursuing a murderer is a mistake.

Dude - you did it again!

I said that the person SHOULD be arrested - when other lives aren't threatened!
FYI, I have a huge affinity for LEO's - but I get bent out of shape when aggressive policies get innocent people hurt - and when they violate rights (that's a different discussion).

I'm not anti-law enforcement. Or pro-criminal. Just use common sense and humane activities to enforce the law.

I disagree. If you know where the murderer is, you get them no matter where that is.

 

[Jos]

I disagree. If you know where the murderer is, you get them no matter where that is.

In the apartment above

 

[Nonelitist]

I disagree. If you know where the murderer is, you get them no matter where that is.

In the apartment above

?