Police shooting people

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 26-03-2008 2:34am

passive wrote: »

I wish the grammar sheriff were around...

I wish the grammar sheriff WAS around

Dragan · 26-03-2008 2:39am

Okay

3 simple rules when getting arrest by cops anywhere.

1) Do not have a gun
2) If you failed on the first one do NOT point the gun at the cops.
3) If, for some reason, you arm is raises and low and behold there is a gun on the end of it then don't give them any reason to think you will fire it***

***Disclaimer : At this point it's too late, but you don't need to know that ****ing up both 1 and 2 leads to three being impossible.

Suicide By Cop Vs Darwinism

Edit : As already said cops are trained to aim at center mass. The assumption is that if they need to fire, they need to put you down. This is what they are trained to do. Simple.

Manic Moran · 26-03-2008 2:39am

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

I wish the grammar sheriff WAS around

Actually, I don't think he's wrong. "Was" is definitely past tense, but 'were' in this case is more of a passive present.

[ETA: After hunting around, apparently it's called the 'subjunctive', and is a contrary to an 'indicative.' Well, I did not know that. I am now more edumacated than I was.]

NTM

Sangre · 26-03-2008 2:49am

I'd have quite strict gun control views but if you're confronted by the police and you've a firearm in your hand then you've forfeited your right to safety. The same goes for entering another person's house with a weapon.

In that kind of situation the safety of the gun holder is way down the list of a long list of priorities.

Ross_Mahon · 26-03-2008 2:56am

If they brought in a self defense thing like America,It would be crazy!

Imagine scumbags with guns...:eek:

"Have ye got a smoke bud?" *BANG* lol

Fremen · 26-03-2008 3:20am

I don't know much about the situation, but it sounds like the guy was asking to die. Any sane person should know that pointing a gun at a cop in the US is an instant death sentence.

I'd have to add that I'm incredibly glad that cops don't carry guns in Ireland. If that means a few idiot scumbags get away temporarily, so be it. I'm happy to be as far away from a killing machine as I can get, thanks very much.

Overheal · 26-03-2008 4:27am

Even as a kid its a little disconcerting to see a cop's sidearm like that. They make a point of showing it off. It sends the right message to criminals but to society, no.

and yes Coyote thanks for noobing me.

Ross, to a lesser extent in happens. My friend used to work the door of a club in Limerick (I wont say which) and as this couple was getting into a cab some guy pulls a knife out on him.
So the boyfriend pulls out his gun, laughs at the knifer and says "this is the 90's mate." gets his cab and leaves the knifer there still shaken.

entropi · 26-03-2008 9:17am

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Becasue the the police force of any country are not tought to shoot to maim or wound. Its a shoot to kill or defend policy.

This is the real world after all not Hollywood. The police and army do not practice drawing smiley faces with bullets on walls all day.

The police forces usually ARE actually trained to disarm first, then maim, then kill, as with most military forces. So your point totally negates police and army training whereby you are trained to, in order 1. if necessary, shoot to disarm, 2. shoot to maim, and 3. shoot to kill does it ? You FAIL !!!

The fact is that most of the U.S. is awash with gun crime and criminals are not afraid to shoot at cops, which leads to some of them sometimes getting itchy trigger fingers and instead of remembering their training, they blow the poor bastard away with a handgun/shotgun/rifle. Now thats not what they should be doing but that's life i guess, and if they decided to give more detectives firearms in this country to shoot those who deserve it (those who took/intend to take a life etc) then so be it.

Having a gun in your hand is quite an idiotic thing to do, but when the fact is you could end up dead without even using it, whats the point in bringing it in the first place...they just don't always think ahead do they.

Handsome Bob · 26-03-2008 10:35am

danger mouse wrote: »

OK I'm just back from the USA. this has been bugging me abit. OK was watching the news. They where reporting about this young lad that got shot by the cops during the week. now i cant see what the problem with this was. the little f**ker had a gun pointed at the cops and got blown away (fair enough i say) but the result of this was the three cops got taken off the job and there is a huge out cry about this.. IMO he got what he deserved and this kind of no nonsense approach should be brought in over here as far as I'm concerned. it reminded me of the two toe rags that where trying to rob that post office in lusk and got put down by the cops for their troubles. what do people think? should we be more on the ball and have more cases where these little knackers get the bullet first ask questions later. better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6 as a resent movie put it so well.

I just love After Hours. Always full of reasoned, and clever posts.

The problem with the Lusk situation is that our police intelligence knew that the robbery was going down. They could have stopped it before it happened and needlessly put people in the PO through the trauma of it all.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 26-03-2008 10:52am

Manic Moran wrote: »

Actually, I don't think he's wrong. "Was" is definitely past tense, but 'were' in this case is more of a passive present.

[ETA: After hunting around, apparently it's called the 'subjunctive', and is a contrary to an 'indicative.' Well, I did not know that. I am now more edumacated than I was.]

NTM

Nope, he's wrong. Both are past tense, was is singular. If there were more than one, he's have been fine.

Subjunctive? New to me too!

Dr_Teeth · 26-03-2008 11:04am

Death Sentence wrote: »

The police forces usually ARE actually trained to disarm first, then maim, then kill, as with most military forces. So your point totally negates police and army training whereby you are trained to, in order 1. if necessary, shoot to disarm, 2. shoot to maim, and 3. shoot to kill does it ? You FAIL !!!

You're talking nonsense there I'm afraid. No-one, in any service, anywhere, is trained to "shoot to disarm" or "shoot to maim". If you're shooting at someone it's because they need to be incapacitated instantly. Officers are trained to shoot at the chest (biggest target) until the criminal is on the ground.

Manic Moran · 26-03-2008 12:28pm

Nope, he's wrong. Both are past tense, was is singular. If there were more than one, he's have been fine.

Subjunctive? New to me too!

Then go look it up, like I did. The obvious analogy is the phrase "If I were you, but I am not, I would do this". This is present tense, contrary to the indicative. (Indicative is when something is the case, and subjunctive is when something is not the case)

The police forces usually ARE actually trained to disarm first, then maim, then kill, as with most military forces. So your point totally negates police and army training whereby you are trained to, in order 1. if necessary, shoot to disarm, 2. shoot to maim, and 3. shoot to kill does it ? You FAIL !!!

Trained to disarm, then maim, then kill? Yeah, right. Find me a common constable with that training. As the Germans say, "Quatsch."

NTM

ojewriej · 26-03-2008 1:02pm

LZ5by5 wrote: »

The problem with the Lusk situation is that our police intelligence knew that the robbery was going down. They could have stopped it before it happened and needlessly put people in the PO through the trauma of it all.

You seem to forget that the robbers put people in PO through the trauma, not the guards.

Spitfire666 · 26-03-2008 3:44pm

Dr_Teeth wrote: »

You're talking nonsense there I'm afraid. No-one, in any service, anywhere, is trained to "shoot to disarm" or "shoot to maim". If you're shooting at someone it's because they need to be incapacitated instantly. Officers are trained to shoot at the chest (biggest target) until the criminal is on the ground.

+1

Beelzebub · 26-03-2008 5:25pm

danger mouse wrote: »

OK I'm just back from the USA. this has been bugging me abit. OK was watching the news. They where reporting about this young lad that got shot by the cops during the week. now i cant see what the problem with this was. the little f**ker had a gun pointed at the cops and got blown away (fair enough i say) but the result of this was the three cops got taken off the job and there is a huge out cry about this.. IMO he got what he deserved and this kind of no nonsense approach should be brought in over here as far as I'm concerned. it reminded me of the two toe rags that where trying to rob that post office in lusk and got put down by the cops for their troubles. what do people think? should we be more on the ball and have more cases where these little knackers get the bullet first ask questions later. better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6 as a resent movie put it so well.

Link please.

coyote6 · 26-03-2008 6:29pm

Death Sentence wrote: »

The police forces usually ARE actually trained to disarm first, then maim, then kill, as with most military forces. So your point totally negates police and army training whereby you are trained to, in order 1. if necessary, shoot to disarm, 2. shoot to maim, and 3. shoot to kill does it ? You FAIL !!! QUOTE]

Which police department trains like this? What military trains this way? This is baloney. If you're referring to the Force Continuum you've misinterpreted it. Police forces are never trained to disarm first. They are trained to stop the threat and protect innocent life and their own life.

Next you'll be wondering if we can bend our shots or dodge them like in the Matrix. Silliness really.

Kintarō Hattori · 26-03-2008 6:44pm

Overheal wrote: »

Was the gunner killed?

Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill. Generally speaking you do not shoot. Theres dozens of non-lethal shots an officer can take in that situation, starting with the legs. Knees are alas, a no-no as it results in permanent injury. If you must kill the suspect, so be it, but you'd want to be awfully sure. 3 cops versus 1 crook? Thats questionable.

The greatest shot ever taken by the law was by a US ranger; the gunmen was threatening to take his own life etc etc etc. As the police talked him down the ranger sniped the gun right out of his hand and it shattered into a dozen pieces right on camera. The suspect was never injured.

Caught on camera eh? That must be on youtube, do you have a linky?

Handsome Bob · 26-03-2008 7:50pm

ojewriej wrote: »

You seem to forget that the robbers put people in PO through the trauma, not the guards.

I haven't forgotten anything. The trauma of it all is what I said. Trauma that the robbers caused. The needless trauma of seeing people being shot dead. A trauma that could have been prevented before it even happened, but apparently the thiefs had to be caught doing the deed to throw their asses in the slammer, instead they ended up dead.:rolleyes: Only in Ireland.

Overheal · 26-03-2008 7:58pm

eo980 wrote: »

Caught on camera eh? That must be on youtube, do you have a linky?

Ask and you shall receive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlZccz4UWIA

English version (non-youtube): http://www.killsometime.com/video/video.asp?ID=953

edit: yea i've clearly fudged up one or two details from recall: 1) they were police-trained snipers 2) reportedly the gun only broke into 3 pieces

passive · 26-03-2008 8:07pm

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Nope, he's wrong. Both are past tense, was is singular. If there were more than one, he's have been fine.

Subjunctive? New to me too!

To quote a grammatically challenged Jedi master; "And that... is why you fail."

Manic Moran wrote: »

Then go look it up, like I did. The obvious analogy is the phrase "If I were you, but I am not, I would do this". This is present tense, contrary to the indicative. (Indicative is when something is the case, and subjunctive is when something is not the case)

NTM

Thank you Manic, and glad you learned from this too. I looked it up beforehand too as, while I instinctively went for "were," I wasn't sure if it was exactly correct, and it would have been a pretty ironic post in which to screw up my word-making.

Em... But on topic... Shooting is bad! Stay in school! Don't do drugs! Kill a rapper! erm... Go go gadget bulletproof vest?

Kintarō Hattori · 26-03-2008 8:22pm

Overheal wrote: »

Ask and you shall receive

Wow, what an amazing shot. Thanks Overheal!

internelligent · 26-03-2008 8:23pm

coyote6 wrote: »

Fantastically put Meath Stevie. You know what a pistol is REALLY for?....Fighitng your way to your rifle!:)

Love it!:D

Overheal · 26-03-2008 9:01pm

eo980 wrote: »

Wow, what an amazing shot. Thanks Overheal!

aww what the hell? no thanks button in AH? You suck Terry*!

*not really

no problemo eo980

mawk · 26-03-2008 11:21pm

Overheal wrote: »

Was the gunner killed?

Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill. Generally speaking you do not shoot. Theres dozens of non-lethal shots an officer can take in that situation, starting with the legs. Knees are alas, a no-no as it results in permanent injury. If you must kill the suspect, so be it, but you'd want to be awfully sure. 3 cops versus 1 crook? Thats questionable.

The greatest shot ever taken by the law was by a US ranger; the gunmen was threatening to take his own life etc etc etc. As the police talked him down the ranger sniped the gun right out of his hand and it shattered into a dozen pieces right on camera. The suspect was never injured.

bull**** was he never unjured! about 13 cops kicked the head off him the moment he is disarmed, all in the name of safety..

edit- should have actually watched the video. There was anoither similar one i was thinking of. but pretty much the same thing happened here

Police shooting people

Comments