Six Bullets ... and their lasting effect on the integrity of a police force

[Still Standing]

Because you haven't been around as long as others, I'll provide you an honest answer. I started out my military career as a security specialist. I later spent three years teaching others to be security specialists. I was required to not only learn, but to inculcate into my very core the concepts of intent, opportunity, and capability--the three requirements for the use of deadly force. If any one of the three is missing, deadly force is not authorized. I trained over 1,000 security specialists in those concepts, including the use of Firearms Training Simulators where I and those trainees had to justify every shoot/no-shoot situation by identifying whether all three criteria were present or not. The training took us to the point of being able to recognize the requirements and make a judgment call in the blink of an eye.

At the point that I changed careers, they had instituted a new "use of force ladder" identifying six rungs to escalate through before using deadly force. We military types received that guidance from federal (FBI) types who were training those concepts all over the U.S. Think about that: we went from making snap judgments based on three criteria to making snap judgments involving six criteria.

So yeah, I believe I have the background necessary to identify that your question wasn't honest. And that background aside, look at ypur own verbiage: you want to ask an "honest" question, then keep the emotionally-charged language and innuendo out of it and be honest.

Don, thank you. Your answer was much more in-depth, official, clear and intelligent than my own. I appreciate your understanding of the matter and willingness to corroborate.

 

[Zaac]

Because you haven't been around as long as others, I'll provide you an honest answer. I started out my military career as a security specialist. I later spent three years teaching others to be security specialists. I was required to not only learn, but to inculcate into my very core the concepts of intent, opportunity, and capability--the three requirements for the use of deadly force. If any one of the three is missing, deadly force is not authorized. I trained over 1,000 security specialists in those concepts, including the use of Firearms Training Simulators where I and those trainees had to justify every shoot/no-shoot situation by identifying whether all three criteria were present or not. The training took us to the point of being able to recognize the requirements and make a judgment call in the blink of an eye.

At the point that I changed careers, they had instituted a new "use of force ladder" identifying six rungs to escalate through before using deadly force. We military types received that guidance from federal (FBI) types who were training those concepts all over the U.S. Think about that: we went from making snap judgments based on three criteria to making snap judgments involving six criteria.

So yeah, I believe I have the background necessary to identify that your question wasn't honest.

What you have is the background to have answered the question that I asked but chose not to because it suits your personality more to snidely comment on anything I say.

And that background aside, look at ypur own verbiage: you want to ask an "honest" question, then keep the emotionally-charged language and innuendo out of it and be honest.

Emotionally charged. Right. That would be believable if you said the same thing about other comments. But like I said, it was an honest question for someone I thought might have some better insight in lieu of the situation and what seems to be a growing trend.

But your snideness is once again well noted.

 

[Don]

What you have is the background to have answered the question that I asked but chose not to because it suits your personality more to snidely comment on anything I say.



Emotionally charged. Right. That would be believable if you said the same thing about other comments. But like I said, it was an honest question for someone I thought might have some better insight in lieu of the situation and what seems to be a growing trend.

But your snideness is once again well noted.

If you don't like the tone, don't use it yourself.

 

[just-want-peace]

If you don't like the tone, don't use it yourself.

L I K E !!:laugh:

 

[Zaac]

If you don't like the tone, don't use it yourself.

And what tone would that be? The one where I typed a question on the screen and YOU decided it was histrionic?

The problem you have is with YOU and feeling like you have to "get" me.

But that's why you're back on IGNORE.:wavey:

 

[Rippon]

Zaac, you enjoy your role as THE definitive contrarian. You revel in your role as a Devil's Advocate. But it is getting to be more and more difficult to believe it is anything but that. You disregard common sense so often and to such an extreme degree --it must be that you get some perverse thrill from it all. Shed that persona and reveal your true self once and for all.

 

[righteousdude2]

I hope you break through the walls...

Zaac, you enjoy your role as THE definitive contrarian. You revel in your role as a Devil's Advocate. But it is getting to be more and more difficult to believe it is anyting but that. You disregard common sense so often and to such an extreme degree --it must be that you get some perverse thrill from it all. Shed that persona and reveal your true self once and for all.

And get him to be a friend and not the consistent FOE?

 

[Zaac]

Zaac, you enjoy your role as THE definitive contrarian. You revel in your role as a Devil's Advocate.

And there you go looking for an angle too. If I enjoy the role of definitive contrarian, then the lot of you enjoy the role of feeling as though because you pact agree, that anyone who disagrees with what you say can't possibly be right.

But it is getting to be more and more difficult to believe it is anyting but that.

What it is looking like is that you and others are so used to having your way be the GOSPEL, that it upsets your applecart anytime anyone says anything contrary to what you think has to be the truth because that's the way yall feel. :laugh:

You disregard common sense so often and to such an extreme degree --it must be that you get some perverse thrill from it all.

Oddly enough, what is acceptable "common sense" on here seems to be tied to the politics of the clique.

So don't wonder about why I could care less about what the prevailing view of common sense is on this board.

Shed that persona and reveal your true self once and for all.

Sounds like somebody doesn't like it when people have viewpoints that don't go along with his own. Yet a lot of you complain about Obama thinking he's a tyrant or king.

 

[Zaac]

And get him to be a friend and not the consistent FOE?

What are yall now? The Borg?

Must assimilate!!! :laugh:

Yalls condition of being a friend seems to hinge upon folks agreeing with your POV. It might make you wonderful political allies, but it makes you look like awful Christians.

 

[Don]

And what tone would that be? The one where I typed a question on the screen and YOU decided it was histrionic?

The one where you said:

Do police forces now encourage officers to shoot to kill no matter what?

You obviously knew the answer to that question was no; the fact that you couched it in "no matter what" is the histrionics portion; and the fact that you defended your wording indicates you prefer the emotionally charged language rather than being honest about it.

The problem you have is with YOU and feeling like you have to "get" me.

But that's why you're back on IGNORE.:wavey:

Apparently it's okay when you're judging the brethren; but how dare they judge you back....

 

[Rolfe]

If you don't like the tone, don't use it yourself.

:laugh::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

….. and the fact that you defended your wording indicates you prefer the emotionally charged language rather than being honest about it.


Apparently it's okay when you're judging the brethren; but how dare they judge you back....

Excellent, Don.

 

[Zaac]

The one where you said:

You obviously knew the answer to that question was no; the fact that you couched it in "no matter what" is the histrionics portion; and the fact that you defended your wording indicates you prefer the emotionally charged language rather than being honest about it.

Decided to venture out on a limb and see if this would be your next reply and sure enough...

And my question was are officers generally trained to shoot to kill unarmed suspects? It was asked in lieu of a continuing pattern.

Why would I know that answer to be no given what I and others keep seeing in the news? Are you implying now that police forces ARE training officers to shoot with an outcome other than to kill?

If so, why do so many more folks get killed by the police in the United States than say in England?

Apparently it's okay when you're judging the brethren; but how dare they judge you back....

I don't have a problem being judged. Y'all do it to me all the time. Y'all just get all up in arms when I do it.

 

[just-want-peace]

Excellent, Don.

I have a suggestion; if everyone put zaac on ignore, nobody would respond to him!
What say?????:tongue3::tongue3::tongue3:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

He already is.

 

[Rippon]

There are so many threads on this Ferguson subject --for lack of a better handle. But I want to know something, so I will bring it up here.

1)Every day in America blacks kill blacks.
2)Every day in America blacks kill whites.
3)Every day in America whites kill whites.

And all of those cases are murders. In these crimes no police are involved. Yet in the case of Officer Wilson shooting to death Brown, some folks automatically call it a murder. Because the principals are of different races Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and other race hustlers get involved with a snap of the fingers. Then, Holder and others come on board.

Meanwhile numbers 1,2, and 3 are off the radar as far as they and Obama are concerned. The issue of race is made paramount and common sense is nowhere to be found in segments of our society.

If a black policeman kills a black suspect, or if a black officer kills a white suspect --no big deal for the race-baiters. How very selective!

 

[Rippon]

Yes, I realize that there must be cases where whites kill blacks. But I suspect it is statistically insignificant. I may be wrong. Please correct me if so.

And I understand that I left Hispanics and other races out of the equation. But I just wanted to address the black/white thing.

 

[Zaac]

Yes, I realize that there must be cases where whites kill blacks. But I suspect it is statistically insignificant. I may be wrong. Please correct me if so.

And I understand that I left Hispanics and other races out of the equation. But I just wanted to address the black/white thing.

Why would anyone killing anyone be statistically insignificant?

What you seemed to have left out is that all of these cases that keep blowing up in the news keep dealing with UNARMED people getting killed.

 

[Don]

Decided to venture out on a limb and see if this would be your next reply and sure enough...

And my question was are officers generally trained to shoot to kill unarmed suspects? It was asked in lieu of a continuing pattern.

See? Dishonesty. Your question was "no matter what."

Why would I know that answer to be no given what I and others keep seeing in the news? Are you implying now that police forces ARE training officers to shoot with an outcome other than to kill?

Zaac, I've given you full marks in the past for being smarter than several of the posters that you usually banter with. Don't ruin it with foolish twistings.

If so, why do so many more folks get killed by the police in the United States than say in England?

Different culture.

I don't have a problem being judged. Y'all do it to me all the time. Y'all just get all up in arms when I do it.

Then when I point out the fallacies of your arguments, don't resort to "putting you on ignore." It just makes it look like I'm right and you're running away.

 

[righteousdude2]

Apparently it's okay when you're judging the brethren; but how dare they judge you back....

And that would make this guy a troll! He doesn't engage in debating, he just pronounces ongoing judgement of the good people on this board! What makes me scratch my head is why the mods allow him to continue to question the relationship that we all claim to have with Jesus, and he says is in question.

Sure that is not coming out an saying a person isn't a believer, but the mods surely must be able to read between the lines! Most importantly he provokes everyone on this board. And that alone is a breaking of rules, on a consistant basis. Yet, there he is, trolling onward, and cutting everyones legs of credibility out from underneath them where they stand!