A question for liberals: How many times should the police have to say “Drop the gun!” before it’s OK for them to shoot an armed suspect?

[Rigby5]

Clearly example why we need to get rid of or greatly change the police.
The police most certainly should not have killed him, and he was essentially no danger at all.
It clearly was a BB-gun, and was not threatening in any way.
Not did they have to aim at the chest.
They could have fired warning shots, aimed for a leg, or a variety of other less than lethal choices.
It is not like he was running at them.
They could even have retreated.
A normal average person would not have deliberately killed him.
And the multiple chest shots was deliberate murder.

Right, just like on tv, shoot the BB gun out of his hand. More libber Monday morning quarterbacking about things which, as usual, you have no idea about.

Wrong.
The police had lots of options, like fire a warning shot, shoot once instead of 4 times, not to aim at the chest, retreating, etc.
We all know all anyone needs to know about what is lethal and what is not.
Your claim police are some sort of experts we can't second guess, is ridiculous.
There is nothing remotely complicated about the fact they unloaded on this one person needlessly.
Any child can see that.

Any child knows that they have no idea how the police are trained, too bad liberal wackos don't understand that. You uber elitists are only legends in your own brainless skulls, nowhere else. that's why nobody pays attention to you.

We do not need to know how police ARE trained, but we all clearly do know how they SHOULD be trained.
And we all heard multiple shots, when clearly one would have been more than sufficient.

 

[Rigby5]

The more accurate question to ask right wing retards is, "How many unarmed black people do you want the police to kill?" Because people aren't always holding guns on police when police shoot people. But police will write that in their report or make that claim to cover themselves.

Here are 8 white people who pointed guns at police officers — and didn’t get killed – Raw Story

Most people are intelligent enough (which leaves you out) to realize that if a criminal attacks a cop or someone else that they likely need to be shot whether they have a gun or not. It's not about whose the biggest or strongest----

Yes we get it, blacks on average have higher levels of testerone (both male and female) and are on average also taller, heavier, and stronger and faster at running than other races---so they get shot when they attack so they get shot whether armed or not armed in the interest of everyone WHO ISN'T criminals safety.

Wrong.
Police have no more right or authority to shoot a suspect than the suspect has to shoot the police.
The police also are armed and a deadly threat that everyone has the equal right to protect themselves from.

And in this case, there was no attack by the suspect.
Nor was it necessary to unload so many shots into his chest.
A warning shot might easily have been sufficient.
And one shot at such close range obviously would have been sufficient for defense.

 

[Lesh]

I know someone that can go from pointing a gun down to the ground to taking out a moving skeet in 2 seconds.

Bullshit...we're talking about a well trained professional LEO who has HIS gun drawn, finger on the trigger ,safety off, aimed center mass, and oh yea...he's wearing a bullet proof vest. At first twitch he has every right to squeeze that trigger and not before.

If he can't get a shot off before the guy he's aiming at can raise his arm and shoot...he's got the wrong job.

Boredom is not a reason to take a life.

 

[Slade3200]

This video from Phoenix shows police shooting and killing an armed suspect named Ekom Udofia.

Prior to shooting him, the police repeatedly shout “Drop the gun” over and over and over and over and over.

The suspect refuses to drop the gun.

Then the police shoot and kill him.

So, this is my question for liberals: How many times should the police have to say “Drop the gun!” before it’s OK for them to shoot an armed suspect?

Here’s the video. Skip to 2:28

They can say it all they want. If they are going to shoot somebody it should only be because that person was using the gun or aggressively threatening the lives of the officers or other citizens. Not listening to a police officer is not enough to warrant a death sentence

That is where you are wrong---see intelligent law abidding people ASSUME that they will get shot if they attack cop and don't obey police officers LAWFUL orders-----

This is necessary in order to keep law and order otherwise law breaks down and criminals just ignore cops creating more crime and more victims. So ergo criminal blood is worth less than Innocent blood. Sorry this the way that it has to be to live in a civilized society and not some 3rd world shithole.

Uhh no, we can’t expect to be arrested for not listening to cops not shot and killed. Cops only have the authority to kill if there is an immediate threat and aggression. Just because somebody is breaking the law doesn’t automatically mean they are fair game to execute

 

[Anathema]

The more accurate question to ask right wing retards is, "How many unarmed black people do you want the police to kill?" Because people aren't always holding guns on police when police shoot people. But police will write that in their report or make that claim to cover themselves.

I’ll give you a direct answer... If they’re criminals or refusing to obey police orders... ALL OF THEM SHOULD BE SHOT.

The same goes for Whites, Hispanics, Asians, etc...

 

[Turtlesoup]

The more accurate question to ask right wing retards is, "How many unarmed black people do you want the police to kill?" Because people aren't always holding guns on police when police shoot people. But police will write that in their report or make that claim to cover themselves.

Here are 8 white people who pointed guns at police officers — and didn’t get killed – Raw Story

Most people are intelligent enough (which leaves you out) to realize that if a criminal attacks a cop or someone else that they likely need to be shot whether they have a gun or not. It's not about whose the biggest or strongest----

Yes we get it, blacks on average have higher levels of testerone (both male and female) and are on average also taller, heavier, and stronger and faster at running than other races---so they get shot when they attack so they get shot whether armed or not armed in the interest of everyone WHO ISN'T criminals safety.

Wrong.
Police have no more right or authority to shoot a suspect than the suspect has to shoot the police.
The police also are armed and a deadly threat that everyone has the equal right to protect themselves from.

And in this case, there was no attack by the suspect.
Nor was it necessary to unload so many shots into his chest.
A warning shot might easily have been sufficient.
And one shot at such close range obviously would have been sufficient for defense.

No...we pay cops to carry weapons and go after the bad guys who are ignoring the law
They have the right and the authority to shoot (how the fuck do you not understand this)? Criminals and civilians do not share the same rights babycakes. You need to stop thinking that they do.

And again ---cops are RIGHTFULLY trained to shoot and keep shooting till a suspect is completely down and out--preferably dead as wounded people can still attack. Why do criminals and their supporters have trouble with this concept. If a cop shoots you--be prepared because they are likely to keep firing hence why you should drop your gun before the come on scene. Most people worth a damn take this a NO DUH comment, but for some like you--they just can't grasp this simple concept.

Cops are in charge--they hold a lot power and are armed---you don't pick fights with them. You instead show them respect and take any arguments you have with them to a judge---

 

[Lesh]

What a load of crap. Because a cop is allowed to carry a gun does not mean he has the right to execute anyone who looks at him crosseyed.

We ARE a nation of laws

 

[NoNukes]

This video from Phoenix shows police shooting and killing an armed suspect named Ekom Udofia.

Prior to shooting him, the police repeatedly shout “Drop the gun” over and over and over and over and over.

The suspect refuses to drop the gun.

Then the police shoot and kill him.

So, this is my question for liberals: How many times should the police have to say “Drop the gun!” before it’s OK for them to shoot an armed suspect?

Here’s the video. Skip to 2:28

Once. If you are holding a gun on a policeman you should get shot.

 

[Turtlesoup]

What a load of crap. Because a cop is allowed to carry a gun does not mean he has the right to execute anyone who looks at him crosseyed.

We ARE a nation of laws

I didn't say they had the right to execute people---they have the right to shoot people who are attack them or others-----and used and should still be, if you refuse to be arrested , you should expect to get shot.

Again, you are having trouble with a very simple concept. WE THE PEOPLE entrust police with more rights than everyone else.......certainly more rights than you goofy ignorant criminals and supporters.

 

[WEATHER53]

It’s not police that lack training but rather black males who 75% of the time had no father to train them

 

[Sunsettommy]

Clearly example why we need to get rid of or greatly change the police.
The police most certainly should not have killed him, and he was essentially no danger at all.
It clearly was a BB-gun, and was not threatening in any way.
Not did they have to aim at the chest.
They could have fired warning shots, aimed for a leg, or a variety of other less than lethal choices.
It is not like he was running at them.
They could even have retreated.
A normal average person would not have deliberately killed him.
And the multiple chest shots was deliberate murder.

Right, just like on tv, shoot the BB gun out of his hand. More libber Monday morning quarterbacking about things which, as usual, you have no idea about.

Wrong.
The police had lots of options, like fire a warning shot, shoot once instead of 4 times, not to aim at the chest, retreating, etc.
We all know all anyone needs to know about what is lethal and what is not.
Your claim police are some sort of experts we can't second guess, is ridiculous.
There is nothing remotely complicated about the fact they unloaded on this one person needlessly.
Any child can see that.

Really? you never thought the possibility that a "warning" shot might cause the man to immediately shoot the policeman?

 

[jbrownson0831]

Clearly example why we need to get rid of or greatly change the police.
The police most certainly should not have killed him, and he was essentially no danger at all.
It clearly was a BB-gun, and was not threatening in any way.
Not did they have to aim at the chest.
They could have fired warning shots, aimed for a leg, or a variety of other less than lethal choices.
It is not like he was running at them.
They could even have retreated.
A normal average person would not have deliberately killed him.
And the multiple chest shots was deliberate murder.

Right, just like on tv, shoot the BB gun out of his hand. More libber Monday morning quarterbacking about things which, as usual, you have no idea about.

Wrong.
The police had lots of options, like fire a warning shot, shoot once instead of 4 times, not to aim at the chest, retreating, etc.
We all know all anyone needs to know about what is lethal and what is not.
Your claim police are some sort of experts we can't second guess, is ridiculous.
There is nothing remotely complicated about the fact they unloaded on this one person needlessly.
Any child can see that.

Really? you never thought the possibility that a "warning" shot might cause the man to immediately shoot the policeman?

But, but on tv they just wing the perp.....or go up and take the gun out of his hand....or Chuck Norris kicks it out....so do that...

 

[WEATHER53]

Clearly example why we need to get rid of or greatly change the police.
The police most certainly should not have killed him, and he was essentially no danger at all.
It clearly was a BB-gun, and was not threatening in any way.
Not did they have to aim at the chest.
They could have fired warning shots, aimed for a leg, or a variety of other less than lethal choices.
It is not like he was running at them.
They could even have retreated.
A normal average person would not have deliberately killed him.
And the multiple chest shots was deliberate murder.

Right, just like on tv, shoot the BB gun out of his hand. More libber Monday morning quarterbacking about things which, as usual, you have no idea about.

Wrong.
The police had lots of options, like fire a warning shot, shoot once instead of 4 times, not to aim at the chest, retreating, etc.
We all know all anyone needs to know about what is lethal and what is not.
Your claim police are some sort of experts we can't second guess, is ridiculous.
There is nothing remotely complicated about the fact they unloaded on this one person needlessly.
Any child can see that.

Really? you never thought the possibility that a "warning" shot might cause the man to immediately shoot the policeman?

But, but on tv they just wing the perp.....or go up and take the gun out of his hand....or Chuck Norris kicks it out....so do that...

Liberals espousing TV policy because it makes them feel good

 

[Soupnazi630]

Clearly example why we need to get rid of or greatly change the police.
The police most certainly should not have killed him, and he was essentially no danger at all.
It clearly was a BB-gun, and was not threatening in any way.
Not did they have to aim at the chest.
They could have fired warning shots, aimed for a leg, or a variety of other less than lethal choices.
It is not like he was running at them.
They could even have retreated.
A normal average person would not have deliberately killed him.
And the multiple chest shots was deliberate murder.

Right, just like on tv, shoot the BB gun out of his hand. More libber Monday morning quarterbacking about things which, as usual, you have no idea about.

Wrong.
The police had lots of options, like fire a warning shot, shoot once instead of 4 times, not to aim at the chest, retreating, etc.
We all know all anyone needs to know about what is lethal and what is not.
Your claim police are some sort of experts we can't second guess, is ridiculous.
There is nothing remotely complicated about the fact they unloaded on this one person needlessly.
Any child can see that.

It was not needless.

They cannot retreat nor can they fire warning shots

You ALWAYS win at the chest and you shoot until the target is down.

You do. It see reality you see a delusion.

 

[Soupnazi630]

He POINTED the gun at the police several times, the video even highlighted one specifically.

When? Before he was shot?

Communists have this sick belief - the duty to die.

If a black man points a gun at a cop - or any victim for that matter - democrats demand that the cop has a duty to die. That defending their life is forbidden.

The Communists may or may not punish the black man for killing the cop or other victim, but under no circumstance may the police defend their life - they are required to die or they will be treated as criminals.

That is a lie.
No one suggested that police have to not defend themselves.
But legally the police have the exact same requirement to retreat if possible that all people do.
In fact there were dozens of options that were all preferable to unloading on the guy with shots aimed at the chest.

Wrong.

The police do NOT have any requirement to retreat in fact the have the duty not to retreat as it is their job to stop threats to others

they exercised the only viable option. You always aim for the chest until the target is down

 

[WTH_Progs?]

PROGS have the right answers if you would just listen to them.

1. Drug up society, make it legal, it will be especially effective on the black community.

2. Make legal guns illegal.

3. Police serve ice cream when in danger.

4. Lessen punishment for crimes. In fact do away with crime.

5. Sponsor riots, improve bad behavior.

6. Make martyrs of thugs and thugs of police.

7. Don't hold PROGS accountable, especially on top.

8. Shut down small business, it will improve crime.

9. 24/7 misinformation, fuck with people's heads, social media too.

10. Spread victim roles, people need excuses for stuff.

11. Do away with oaths, tradition, nationalism and one language.

Until we do all these things we'll never solve the issue of cops killing our finest of citizens.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The more accurate question to ask right wing retards is, "How many unarmed black people do you want the police to kill?" Because people aren't always holding guns on police when police shoot people. But police will write that in their report or make that claim to cover themselves.

Here are 8 white people who pointed guns at police officers — and didn’t get killed – Raw Story

Most people are intelligent enough (which leaves you out) to realize that if a criminal attacks a cop or someone else that they likely need to be shot whether they have a gun or not. It's not about whose the biggest or strongest----

Yes we get it, blacks on average have higher levels of testerone (both male and female) and are on average also taller, heavier, and stronger and faster at running than other races---so they get shot when they attack so they get shot whether armed or not armed in the interest of everyone WHO ISN'T criminals safety.

Wrong.
Police have no more right or authority to shoot a suspect than the suspect has to shoot the police.
The police also are armed and a deadly threat that everyone has the equal right to protect themselves from.

And in this case, there was no attack by the suspect.
Nor was it necessary to unload so many shots into his chest.
A warning shot might easily have been sufficient.
And one shot at such close range obviously would have been sufficient for defense.

Wrong

There was in fact an immediate and deadly threat from the suspect

they fired center mass exactly as they should have been

Warning shots are never allows as one never knows where it will land and who it might kill and of course it may cause the suspect to fire

one never fires one shot you shoot until the target is down

 

[Soupnazi630]

Clearly example why we need to get rid of or greatly change the police.
The police most certainly should not have killed him, and he was essentially no danger at all.
It clearly was a BB-gun, and was not threatening in any way.
Not did they have to aim at the chest.
They could have fired warning shots, aimed for a leg, or a variety of other less than lethal choices.
It is not like he was running at them.
They could even have retreated.
A normal average person would not have deliberately killed him.
And the multiple chest shots was deliberate murder.

Right, just like on tv, shoot the BB gun out of his hand. More libber Monday morning quarterbacking about things which, as usual, you have no idea about.

Wrong.
The police had lots of options, like fire a warning shot, shoot once instead of 4 times, not to aim at the chest, retreating, etc.
We all know all anyone needs to know about what is lethal and what is not.
Your claim police are some sort of experts we can't second guess, is ridiculous.
There is nothing remotely complicated about the fact they unloaded on this one person needlessly.
Any child can see that.

Any child knows that they have no idea how the police are trained, too bad liberal wackos don't understand that. You uber elitists are only legends in your own brainless skulls, nowhere else. that's why nobody pays attention to you.

We do not need to know how police ARE trained, but we all clearly do know how they SHOULD be trained.
And we all heard multiple shots, when clearly one would have been more than sufficient.

Wrong multiple shots are what is necessary until the target is down

 

[Crepitus]

This video from Phoenix shows police shooting and killing an armed suspect named Ekom Udofia.

Prior to shooting him, the police repeatedly shout “Drop the gun” over and over and over and over and over.

The suspect refuses to drop the gun.

Then the police shoot and kill him.

So, this is my question for liberals: How many times should the police have to say “Drop the gun!” before it’s OK for them to shoot an armed suspect?

Here’s the video. Skip to 2:28

Shouldn't they make sure he has a gun first?

 

[Uncensored2008]

That is a lie.
No one suggested that police have to not defend themselves.
But legally the police have the exact same requirement to retreat if possible that all people do.
In fact there were dozens of options that were all preferable to unloading on the guy with shots aimed at the chest.

No, that is the absolute truth.

We persecute Kyle Rittenhouse for defending his life against convicted child molester Joseph Rosenbaum, criminal thug Kim Foxx persecuted the McCloskey family for daring to defend their own lives. Over and over we see the violent filth of the left protect murders and rapists while savagely attacking those who dare stand up to them.

The democrat vermin seek to disarm the peasants, saying "the police will protect you," while criminalizing the police even protecting themselves.

And no, police do not have a "requirement to retreat," quite the opposite. Police are sworn to uphold the law and defend the public. When deputy Scot Pederson did as you demand and retreated during the Parkland shooting he was fired and convicted of dereliction of duty.

So stop lying.