Posted on 10/26/2013 1:04:01 AM PDT by moonshinner_09
I have never heard of a mass murder where the gunman shot 30-40 people in 30 seconds, apart from Hollywood movies. Have you?
I’m ex-military, and I couldn’t come close. My SIL is ex-USMC infantry, and he’s never seen anyone come close to doing that in combat.
Your examples are a bit flawed. Jerry Miculek once fired 6 shots from a revolver, reloaded and fired 6 more shots in under 3 seconds. That is hardly a realistic example of what an average person can do with a 6 shot revolver...
That is not true anymore and hasn't been for decades.
Oh yeah, I forgot about that SCOTUS case. There are other conditions that attach, generally that the cops believe the fleeing person will commit a crime.
You should take a break from FR. Seriesly.... You win the dumbest post of the day.
Some bad apples are spoiling the bushel. And there are awful horror stories out there beyond the pet shooters. Some need to satisfy their desire to shoot at the range; unless they are liberals and anxious to shoot citizens.
The cop will walk.
So can Peewee Herman.
Good luck with that debating tactic.
I live in the freak state.
I have to carry stuff I’m not supposed to carry.
Pity I can’t carry the friggin’ snake everywhere.
;D
This is where I don’t understand the “no warning shot” rule or “don’t shoot to wound” rule. Two warning shots at this kids feet and he would have been wetting his pants while dropping everything in his hands.
Given the lack of video, it seems likely the cop will walk....
“A Dallas police officer involved in the shooting of a mentally ill man, that was caught on camera, has been fired. Surveillance video shows Cardan Spencer was 20 feet away from paranoid schizophrenic Bobby Bennet when he shot him in the stomach. The police officer and his partner had maintained their story: that they were forced to shoot after the man threatened their safety by lunging at the pair with a knife. Officer Spencer has now been fired pending a criminal investigation after a neighbor released surveillance video capturing the incident that showed nothing documented in the police report actually happened.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3083897/posts
If you are dealing with cops, having video to show what REALLY happened is critical. Pity, because it didn’t used to be that way.
Really? What were we supposed to glean from statement: "I wasn't there, didn't see the video, but here is what happens when cops hesitate shooting 14 year olds: 2 dead cops." and then linking the story/video?
The post of yours I responded to was past dumb. It was irrelevant to this thread.
Overreaction. And overkill. ??
Sad day .. As a kid, carrying a real gun around was no big deal, usually it was daisy bb gun or a 22 rifle..
We didn’t have deputies running around on defcon3 wearing body armor as they patrolled.. Then.
Not sure why some think the orange identifier all toy guns are supposed to have really saves that many lives either. One local buddy of his said this kid’s tip had broken off recently when it hit the ground.
Unfortunately, these days, in the land of drive-bys, no one is safe, even in their own neighborhoods.
A sad reality..
Shoot first, ask questions later.
I really do think that our laws in California contribute to confrontational police behavior which can lead to the death of innocent on the grounds of presumed danger to the police. Most people don’t realize a lot of our law here makes an automatic presumption of guilt (they call it a “rebuttable presumption”) which serves mostly to empower police action by creating an imminent “probable cause”.
This is an end run around the presumption of “innocent until proven guilty”, not mention an abolition of concern over criminal intent and due process (you’re a now criminal until proven innocent in a court of law). Here the result is the death of an innocent because they “might be guilty of dangerous intent” a presumption empowered by the authority of law. After all, you can go to court after being arrested to prove your innocence...if you can just follow the shouted commands of the man with gun the pointed at you, follow them precisely as he expects from his training. Oh, you didn’t go to the training class on how to follow police orders? Too bad.
Exoneration means little to person who’s been exsanguinated because of rebuttable presumption...
I am trying to envision someone pointing what appears to be a gun at me or a loved one. How long would I give the person to shoot before I took action?
Does that also apply to chickenfinger in your kid’s cafeteria???
***
Not based upon any chickenfingers I have ever seen.
I don't think that is the law at all. Isn't it, "Officers are justified in the use of deadly force when they REASONABLY believe lives are at stake"? "Sincerity" isn't the criteria.
This boy was killed for keeping and bearing toy arms. Obviously the boy could have had no intention of harming anyone. Had such a boy been carrying a real rifle, and had he carried out the same actions, which we know represented no intention of harming anyone, the cops would then claim justification, despite the boys behavior being the same.
Only when we have de-criminalized the keeping and bearing of arms will the state-sponsored massacre stop.
Actually a lot of police in California do this implicitly. That's because the law allows them to presume a dangerous criminal intent by anyone who has a gun and doesn't follow police orders precisely as police training teaches the officer to expect. But you would expect that from a police state where the police are empowered by law to presume all sorts of awful things about you without needing more proof than the existence of a law. Gee, it is written in stone.
The exactly predictable consequence is the death of an innocent empowered by an exaggerated concern for police safety at the expense of public safety in the name of public safety. How ironic.
“So in your little anti-police world, would your preferred outcome have been that the kid was a gang member with a real AK-47, and he turned around and killed both of the cops? Would you prefer it if they held their fire until the bullets started flying at them? “
Apparently the police preferred to shoot the kid in the back and have people like you defend them for doing so.
Of course, it might be different if the targets are shooting back. And seeking cover. Turnabout is fair play, except in victim disarmament zones...
For what it's worth...
FMCDH(BITS)
The point is that chickenfinger with his hand in his pocket can appear as if he has a gun — but he doesn’t.
Are you going to shoot him because it “appears to be a gun”???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.