Like the man said, no matter how many lib insurrectionists ICE is forced to shoot, it wont be enough

[JohnDB]

 

[Zavulon]

Nope, I’ve never done that. Can we get back to the subject please?

The subject is, that in the USA, especially where is free bearing of small firearms, cops never can be sure that the suspect has no gun. It makes them pretty cautious about it, and quite often they follow the strategy "shoot first". And when you have situation of civil disturbance at the edge of civil war, with non-cooperative local forces, this strategy might become the safest.

 

[Zavulon]

What kind of word salad nonsense is that?

You said he pulled his gun out. He didn’t.

He attacked the law enforcement unit. He had a gun with him. So, it likely was an "armed attack" (depends on definitions and judgements). He didn't surrender before he got himslef shot. So, it was still ongoing attack. Under the armed attack law enforcement officer have right to use lethal weapons. May be, the actions of ICE officers were not really smart in this exact situation, but it seems to me, they were clearly legal. Same is correct for the victim. Bearing weapon was legal (while attack was not), but stupid.

 

[XponentialChaos]

He attacked the law enforcement unit. He had a gun with him. So, it likely was an "armed attack" (depends on definitions and judgements). He didn't surrender before he got himslef shot. So, it was still ongoing attack. Under the armed attack law enforcement officer have right to use lethal weapons. May be, the actions of ICE officers were not really smart in this exact situation, but it seems to me, they were clearly legal. Same is correct for the victim. Bearing weapon was legal (while attack was not), but stupid.

More word salad.

You said he pulled his gun out. That’s a lie.

 

[Slade3200]

The subject is, that in the USA, especially where is free bearing of small firearms, cops never can be sure that the suspect has no gun. It makes them pretty cautious about it, and quite often they follow the strategy "shoot first". And when you have situation of civil disturbance at the edge of civil war, with non-cooperative local forces, this strategy might become the safest.

Wrong you don’t shoot first. You access the threat. There are protocols. Shooting an unarmed man after needlessly beating him is criminal and all those cops should be locked up

 

[Slade3200]

Blocking the road blowing whistles in close proximity to them. Was removed from the road. Came back and did the same thing.

Not according to the video. He wasn’t blocking a thing, and he had every right to be there recording and saying whatever he wanted

 

[OODA_Loop]

Not according to the video. He wasn’t blocking a thing, and he had every right to be there recording and saying whatever he wanted

He literally waved traffic by him in the video.

 

[Zavulon]

Wrong you don’t shoot first. You access the threat. There are protocols. Shooting an unarmed man after needlessly beating him is criminal and all those cops should be locked up

I don't know exact protocols for ICE agents, but generally speaking, they were under attack by an armed person (and they got the right to shoot him from the very beginning of the attack), and this attack was still ongoing, for attacker didn't formally surrender. So, generally saying, it seems legal (but stupid and/or unprofessional) for me. If this situation happened in Iraq or Afghanistan, the attacker would be killed much earlier. If someone commit suicidal attack (and any attack on cops should be seen as potentially suicidal), who can be sure that he doesn't have belt bomb or something?

 

[Slade3200]

I don't know exact protocols for ICE agents, but generally speaking, they were under attack by an armed person (and they got the right to shoot him from the very beginning of the attack), and this attack was still ongoing, for attacker didn't formally surrender. So, generally saying, it seems legal (but stupid and/or unprofessional) for me. If this situation happened in Iraq or Afghanistan, the attacker would be killed much earlier. If someone commit suicidal attack (and any attack on cops should be seen as potentially suicidal), who can be sure that he doesn't have belt bomb or something?

Watch the video again. They were not under attack. Not even close. They were the aggressors. They shoved a lady to the ground and the dude tried to help her and then they jumped him. Beat him, pepper sprayed him, then killed him.

This was their doing and a criminal abuse of power that took a life.

We are even seeing the Trump admin back tracking from their deplorable lies and are bracing for the reality to set in. Why people like you carry water for shit like this is a mind blow

 

[Zavulon]

Watch the video again. They were not under attack. Not even close. They were the aggressors. They shoved a lady to the ground and the dude tried to help her and then they jumped him. Beat him, pepper sprayed him, then killed him.

There is no such thing of being "aggressor" for law enforcement units. They tryed to do their job, and an armed domestic terrorist tryed to obstacle their legal law enforcement actions.

 

[Churchill]

Its either shoot them or expand the loony bins to accommodate and treat their mental illness

And the left refuses to do either one

The Sun? most Brits won't even wipe their ass with that Murdoch bilge, but you needs some kind of source for your cult so that's as good as any populist rag I guess.

 

[dblack]

It won't be enough for what? MAGA bloodlust? Revenge? Sick thrills?

 

[Bitterhook]

If you;re going to carry a gun, that's how you carry it.

Otherwise, it isn't a firearm, it's a pretty short club in a crunch situation.

 

[Mac-7]

The Sun? most Brits won't even wipe their ass with that Murdoch bilge, but you needs some kind of source for your cult so that's as good as any populist rag I guess.

You may hate the Sun for reporting facts that embarrass you and your mates on the left

But it is what it is

 

[Mac-7]

Otherwise, it isn't a firearm, it's a pretty short club in a crunch situation.

Not really

It depends on the design of the weapon

If is a Glock, or a Ruger featuring a transfer bar trigger mechanism it can ne safely carried with a round in the chamber

But designs like the Browning 1911 are risky to carry like that

People do, but accidental discharge is possible

 

[Bitterhook]

Not really

It depends on the design of the weapon

If is a Glock, or a Ruger featuring a transfer bar trigger mechanism it can ne safely carried with a round in the chamber

But designs like the Browning 1911 are risky to carry like that

People do, but accidental discharge is possible

Yes, and I own a Ruger P-95 that is very safe to carry with a round in the chamber.
I mean **** it, it has a combat safety and is double action for a reason.

However, as I mentioned, if I don't have a round in the chamber, on short notice it is not a firearm and just a short club I could beat someone with.

At no point did I suggest people should buy firearms that are prone to accidental discharge.

 

[Mac-7]

Yes, and I own a Ruger P-95 that is very safe to carry with a round in the chamber.
I mean **** it, it has a combat safety and is double action for a reason.

However, as I mentioned, if I don't have a round in the chamber, on short notice it is not a firearm and just a short club I could beat someone with.

At no point did I suggest people should buy firearms that are prone to accidental discharge.

I dont know about the P-95

If it has a round in the chamber it must have the transfer bar to be safe

 

[Mac-7]

Bitterhook

I looked it up and the P-95 has the transfer bar trigger

 

[Bitterhook]

Bitterhook

I looked it up and the P-95 has the transfer bar trigger

It had one before you looked it up, and I knew what I was talking about when I made the first comment
It's all good though, and you're cool.

That's one of the reasons I usually don't visit firearms sites. because folks (especially guys) will mess with you about every damn thing like they are Jerry Miculek or something.



Edit:
I always say that firearms are serious tools that require some knowledge and caution as well as good craftsmanship, and like a chainsaw, they can be a ************ if you don't know what you are doing.

 

[Slade3200]

There is no such thing of being "aggressor" for law enforcement units. They tryed to do their job, and an armed domestic terrorist tryed to obstacle their legal law enforcement actions.

Of course there is. If a cop charges somebody for no good reason and starts beating the shit out of them then they are in the wrong. They don’t have license to assault and kill people with good reason.

Nothing about that situation showed a guy doing anything to justify a beat down or a murder. Even the Trump admin is walking back the domestic terrorist claim and realizing that there was fault. Yet you’re still here puppeting that. Sad