Doubting Thomas
Active Member
Did you even get off your soap box long enough to actually read his post and thoughtfully consider what he wrote?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Six Bullets ... and their lasting effect on the integrity of a police force
- Thread starter righteousdude2
- Start date
Did you even get off your soap box long enough to actually read his post and thoughtfully consider what he wrote?
Best to ignore; nothing more that the wind whistling through a drafty door!!!!!
A lot of hot air that is irritating, but basically impotent.
Head down, low-velocity 9mm bullet, it's entirely plausible.
You are correct on the residue.
Typically police have other tools to stop someone such as Tazers. However, in small towns this tends to vary. When I was a cop in the Marine Corps if someone was running at me and I was alone I would have gotten in the car and called for back up.
It is difficult to explain shooting someone running at you when there is no visible wepaon. It is not difficult explaining shooting someone who has tackled an officer in the front seat of the car and is trying to get to their weapon. I would have shot them in a New York second. Such a shooting in that case is justifiable under use of force. Firing off six shots all by itself looks problematic but the fact that four of them went into the arm really tells a different story.
If the officer shot him while Mike was running at him it would be virtualy impossible to get four shots in the arm with a semi auto hand gun.
It is difficult to explain shooting someone running at you when there is no visible wepaon. It is not difficult explaining shooting someone who has tackled an officer in the front seat of the car and is trying to get to their weapon. I would have shot them in a New York second. Such a shooting in that case is justifiable under use of force. Firing off six shots all by itself looks problematic but the fact that four of them went into the arm really tells a different story.
If the officer shot him while Mike was running at him it would be virtualy impossible to get four shots in the arm with a semi auto hand gun.
Who said that was the first shot?
Six shots were reported. If the first one, or two, or even five, were to the body, it's entirely possible that the suspect was bending over or jerking from being previously hit, and that shot (which would have been aimed center mass) hit through the head and exited an eye instead.
Make sense?
Waiting to hear on that one.
Funny. You didn't quite call him a baby killer, did you?
It was NOT an honest question. If it were, then you would already know the answer, and wouldn't be invoking histrionics.
Zaac
Well-Known Member
And how are YOU gonna tell me if MY question was honest or not? It wasn't to you since you didn't raise your hand as having had any law enforcement background.
I asked the question because I wanted to hear from someone with the experience as to whether or not that's what they do. If that comes across as histrionics to you, I'm not losing any sleep over it.
The question is valid and it still stands if he wants to answer it.
Don is correct. The question was meant to incite. And it wasn't even worded to hide it at all.
Still Standing
New Member
1. An aggressive, fit young man who stands over six feet tall and weighs over 200 lbs is not unarmed, whither he has a tool in his hands or not. Men have been killing each other with their bare hands for 6000 years.
2. Said fit young man heading at high speed for a location known to have a firearm (on the officer) is now regarded and treated as already armed. Only a fool allows this suspect to get to the weapon and immediately escalate the situation exponentially.
3. "Unarmed" is only defined in such a narrow manner by those who have hidden their whole life behind the very lawmen they are so quick to judge, and who are more than willing to allow others to carry the responsibility and burden for their own personal safety and for that of their family.
4. Non-leathal forms of response are great in their limited instances of usage, but they are limited. I have used pepper (oc) spray on occasion, and it worked in that instance. But it will not work for everything, at just any distance or with just any suspect.
2. Said fit young man heading at high speed for a location known to have a firearm (on the officer) is now regarded and treated as already armed. Only a fool allows this suspect to get to the weapon and immediately escalate the situation exponentially.
3. "Unarmed" is only defined in such a narrow manner by those who have hidden their whole life behind the very lawmen they are so quick to judge, and who are more than willing to allow others to carry the responsibility and burden for their own personal safety and for that of their family.
4. Non-leathal forms of response are great in their limited instances of usage, but they are limited. I have used pepper (oc) spray on occasion, and it worked in that instance. But it will not work for everything, at just any distance or with just any suspect.
Many police agencies are no longer carying any of the sprays. Not all officers have qualified with the Tazer. Fo many officers it is only physical restraint or their side arm. Especially in small towns.
you can all disagree with me, and call me what you will, but, in my opinion, the rioters could care less about the dead man.
they rioted because it was a chance and an excuse to loot.
they rioted because it was a chance and an excuse to loot.
Agreed
And I think they'd like an "Arab spring" like event to take place. Think back to occupy LA?
And I think they'd like an "Arab spring" like event to take place. Think back to occupy LA?
Still Standing
New Member
You'll get no disagreement from me. I've never lived in a city like that, but 2 years in the bush of Papua New Guinea in missions showed me how little excuse it takes for a group of sinners to mob up and do what is already in their heart when there is no law physically stopping them and no Christ in their heart to change them.
It is not right, because ...
We have in our mist an official troll. A person who will turn everything and anything we say against us, to provoke anger and a heated response. I'd say don't reply to him, but, it is hard to not do when he twists your words and leaves you to blow in the cyber winds!
Just take what he says with less than a full grain of salt!
We have in our mist an official troll. A person who will turn everything and anything we say against us, to provoke anger and a heated response. I'd say don't reply to him, but, it is hard to not do when he twists your words and leaves you to blow in the cyber winds!
Just take what he says with less than a full grain of salt!
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.
You are exactly right. :thumbsup: Such is always the case. It's a bent toward lawlessness and a chance to get away with it.
I've made the same point several times.
Striking Similarities: Coincidence or an Organized Plan?
Removed by author. Posted in wrong forum....sorry!
Removed by author. Posted in wrong forum....sorry!
Last edited by a moderator: