# Man points gun at Cop's head, cop shoots/kills man ... In Missouri



## Melensdad

Oh, the man was a young black male.

The police officer was white.

Going to have to wonder how many more riots there will be?

Antonio Martin shooting: surveillance footage shows victim raising a gun ? live updates | US news | The Guardian

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fatal-cop-shooting-teen-berkeley-missouri-sparks-clashes-n274181

What's the world coming to when an innocent teen can't point a loaded gun at a cop's head without being shot?

But seriously folks... How to deal with cops in 5 easy steps.

1) Don't point loaded gun at cop's head.

If you failed number 1, I won't list the other 4.

The usual group is turning this into another "White cop shoots black teen" story.  They're saying "It's hard to see what was in his hand..." etc etc...


----------



## EastTexFrank

Another stupid hoodlum with a long list of arrests bites the dust.  What's not to like.


----------



## Kane

Here we go again. And once again Al Sharpton will swoop in and the blacks will want to have a "discussion" about racism within the judicial system. They'll want to have a "discussion" about inherently racist cops. They'll protest, riot, loot and want to have a "discussion" about blacks being killed in America by the police because of racism.

WTF? Why don't they wise up and want to have a discussion about black being killed because of lawlessness?

Don't have to teach your black sons to fear the cops because of racism. Instead, just tell your black sons to obey the law.


----------



## JEV

More cleansing of the gene pool. Anywhere in this country if you're dumb enough to point a gun at a police officer, you're gonna end up in the morgue...end of "conversation." One less punk in da hood. Maybe others will learn from him, but I doubt it. And "Nero" plays golf in Hawaii as Rome burns.


----------



## mla2ofus

JEV said:


> And "Nero" plays golf in Hawaii as Rome burns.



   I'm starting to wonder if this is part of his "fundamental transformation of America" by letting this escalate to anarchy and then he will have the perfect excuse to declare martial law.
                                    Mike


----------



## mak2

There is a big difference in an armed and unarmed person.  One of the points that can become controversial when shooting someone is if he is unarmed.  Why are we trying to pretend it is the same?


----------



## Melensdad

If I was black I would be upset with the black civil rights 'leaders' at hanging their hats on the outcome of grand jury investigations where 2 black criminals were considered to be 'victims' and I don't know why some people are trying to martyr criminals.  

Me, if I was black, I would rather look up to Dr Martin Luther King, or up to Economist Thomas Sowell as leaders that should be emulated and respected, not a couple of street thugs.





mak2 said:


> There is a big difference in an armed and unarmed person.  One of the points that can become controversial when shooting someone is if he is unarmed.  Why are we trying to pretend it is the same?



I disagree.

And so does the legal system.

According to the law, if you assault a police officer then the officer is justified in pulling his gun and shooting you.  It is not difficult to understand that point.  

Further, in the Ferguson case the criminal who assaulted the officer was a 300 pound young man, larger and taller than the officer and he was, apparently charging back at the officer.  It is reasonable to assume that the officer was in fear of being attacked a second time and possibly having his gun taken away and used against him, as almost happened during the first assault inside the car.  

But even if 'unarmed' a person can be very dangerous.  Police officers patrol in all sorts of neighborhoods and situations.  They have no idea if a person is a martial arts expert, who even if 'unarmed' is never actually unarmed.  And police officers don't know if the person they encounter is on drugs which makes them unreasonable/irrational.  

Just because a person may not have a gun does not mean that the person is safe to approach.


----------



## mak2

I would really like a link to that law.  I believe it is more like police are obligated to use the least force necessary.  I am not arguing there is never a time shooting someone who is not armed is justified, but killing unarmed people should be rare, so don't try to twist what I am saying.  Shooting a  Michael Tyson or some huge NFL lineman looking guy road raging at you is far different than shooting an obese guy about ones own height or a 12 year old with an air gun.   I am aware an unarmed person can be dangerous but if you follow your martial arts expert meme to its logical conclusion the police can shoot anyone that makes them nervous.  Wouldn't that be great?  





Melensdad said:


> If I was black I would be upset with the black civil rights 'leaders' at hanging their hats on the outcome of grand jury investigations where 2 black criminals were considered to be 'victims' and I don't know why some people are trying to martyr criminals.
> 
> Me, if I was black, I would rather look up to Dr Martin Luther King, or up to Economist Thomas Sowell as leaders that should be emulated and respected, not a couple of street thugs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> And so does the legal system.
> 
> *According to the law, if you assault a police officer then the officer is justified in pulling his gun and shooting you. * It is not difficult to understand that point.
> 
> Further, in the Ferguson case the criminal who assaulted the officer was a 300 pound young man, larger and taller than the officer and he was, apparently charging back at the officer.  It is reasonable to assume that the officer was in fear of being attacked a second time and possibly having his gun taken away and used against him, as almost happened during the first assault inside the car.
> 
> But even if 'unarmed' a person can be very dangerous.  Police officers patrol in all sorts of neighborhoods and situations.  They have no idea if a person is a martial arts expert, who even if 'unarmed' is never actually unarmed.  And police officers don't know if the person they encounter is on drugs which makes them unreasonable/irrational.
> 
> Just because a person may not have a gun does not mean that the person is safe to approach.


----------



## tiredretired

If it is indeed as they are reporting it to be.  An armed male pointed a loaded pistol at a police officer's head then if this is not 100% justified, what is.

Drudge supplied a link to a story that went on to say the serial # on the pistol was filed off. Oops, a violation of federal law.  A felony.  

It will be interesting to see how the various groups that have agendas play this one out.


----------



## jimbo

mak2 said:


> I would really like a link to that law. I believe it is more like police are obligated to use the least force necessary. I am not arguing there is never a time shooting someone who is not armed is justified, but killing unarmed people should be rare, so don't try to twist what I am saying. Shooting a Michael Tyson or some huge NFL lineman looking guy road raging at you is far different than shooting an obese guy about ones own height or a 12 year old with an air gun. I am aware an unarmed person can be dangerous but if you follow your martial arts expert meme to its logical conclusion the police can shoot anyone that makes them nervous. Wouldn't that be great?




 Mak, you make some valid points, but I feel that if you want to be successful in making your point, it would be wise to pick your battles, and Zimmerman and Wilson aren't it.  Maybe Garner is a little more valid.

 There are several that trouble me.  The Walmart incident, the kid in Cleveland, the opening up in California on the vanload of women whose only crime was driving a white SUV.  Yet what all these have in common is no or only minor protests.  Why?  All are a better argument than the ones that seem to generate protests.


----------



## road squawker

Melensdad said:


> ...According to the law, if you assault a police officer then the officer is justified in pulling his gun and shooting you...



correct



mak2 said:


> I would really like a link to that law.  I believe it is more like police are obligated to use the least force necessary...



you believe incorrectly, there is no such law.

actually, if someone assaults me, I can legally use ANY force I feel is required to defend myself and/or my property.

by LAW, I am NOT obligated to retreat.


----------



## JEV

mak2 said:


> I believe it is more like police are obligated to use the least force necessary.



That would only apply in the land of pussies who don't wish to offend anyone, and who think that by being kind to a criminal will somehow change their behavior. Kind of a kum by ya hippie love-in moment with an ass hole who has no respect for anyone, including himself. That shit just don't work when a punk is hell bent on killing your ass just because you're a different color or just because he can, as in the case of the not-so-gentle giant (who, for the record, had high levels of THC in his blood.



> *CNSNews.com*) – Michael Brown had THC,  a behavior-altering substance found in marijuana, in his system when he  was killed on August 9th by Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren  Wilson, according to a toxicology report performed at a St. Louis University lab. The toxicology screen, which was done on Aug. 10th, found “12  nanograms/ML of Delta-9-THC”, the primary psychoactive ingredient in  pot, in Brown’s bloodstream at the time of his death.
> This amount of Delta-9-THC in Brown's blood was more than twice  the amount that in Washington State--where marijuana is legal--would  allow someone to be arrested for driving under the influence.


 Source & more info.

So, should the office have played kissy face nice-nice with this drugged out punk who was half again his size? You're in the medical field. Ever see how combative & irrational drugged-up or drunk patients can be when they come in the ER? Same shit, different location. Drugged-up punk with an attitude who's used to nobody pushing back as he bullies his way through life. SURPRISE! He finally found someone who fought back, and helped cleanse the gene pool in the process.

Liberals....sheesh....


----------



## SShepherd

In 1989, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down one of the landmark decisions regarding an officer’s use of force. The case was _Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386)_. This decision created a national standard that is still in place today. In its decision, the SCOTUS made it clear that an officer’s use of force on a free citizen is to be evaluated as a seizure of the person under the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, the SCOTUS said in its holding:
 All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.
 What is important to the reader for this article is the phrase “objective reasonableness.” How did the SCOTUS come to this term? Perhaps a quick review of the Fourth Amendment can shed some light. The Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government and its agents. Therefore it would logically follow that officers must act reasonably when seizing people.
_Graham_ set forth several evaluation guidelines and factors to be taken into consideration when evaluating an officer’s use of force. These evaluation guidelines include one overarching direction to anybody who chooses to opine about an officer’s force response:
 The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
 Once the person that chooses to render his/her opinion understands this overarching direction, they also need to be aware of these guidelines while making their determination of the reasonableness of the officer’s force response:
*1.)* Judged through the perspective of a reasonable officer 
*a.* Officer with same or similar training and experience 
*b.* Facing similar circumstances 
*c. *Act the same way or use similar judgment 
*2.)* Based on the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time the force was applied 
*a. *No matter how compelling the evidence is to be found later 
*b.* No hindsight evaluation 
*3.)* Based on the facts known to the officer without regard to the underlying intent or motivation 
*4.)* Based on the knowledge the officer acted properly under established law at the time​ In order for an officer’s use of force to be deemed “objectively reasonable,” his/her force response (“what” and “how”) must be reasonably balanced with the governmental interests at stake (“why”). The officer’s force response level (quantum) can be measured by evaluating:
*1.)* “what” force option was used, and 
*2.)* “how” it was used. ​ Another way of viewing this would be to ask the question, “What was the reasonable expectation of injury?” 
 In Graham, the SCOTUS gave law enforcement several factors to examine when evaluating the “why” of an officer’s force option including, but not limited to:
*1.)* the severity of crime at issue, 
*2.)* the threat of the suspect, and 
*3.)* the level of resistance offered by the suspect. 
​ “Objectively reasonable” is the true — and most accurate — legal standard when both teaching use of force, and/or evaluating an officer’s past use of force. Using any other standard is avoidably dangerous because it is a false legal standard and can be easily misinterpreted or misrepresented — either knowingly or not.


----------



## SShepherd

all that being said, you point a gun at a cop or anyone you better expect a similarly violent response .
 Brown tried to grab the cops gun, that showed he had intent and that's a felony and at that point is a public safety issue and he must be arrested.
 Garner was not in a "chokehold", or he wouldn't have been able to speak. Do I agree with the tax enforcement ? No but that was the job the mayor sent them to do, it stopped being about a tax when he decided to commit a felony and fight. Garner 
 had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny and at the time of his death was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation. He's been in the system, he knew that fighting would be pretty pointless but made the choice anyway.
  Also, Garner did not die at the scene, a common misconception among those discussing the case on social media. Instead he “suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later

 Facts aren't important any more, just "feelings".
 I'd bet that even if Brown and Garner had went to a jury trial and been found not guilty , which from the findings of the grand jury would have been the outcome, there still would be the same rioting. Justice isn't what wanted by the people pushing the race issue it's revenge.


----------



## Danang Sailor

mak2 said:


> There is a big difference in an armed and unarmed person.  One of the points that can become controversial when shooting someone is if he is unarmed.  Why are we trying to pretend it is the same?



Mak, there is indeed a difference but how big it might be is entirely situational.  The legal concept that can apply to make
*unarmed* totally _irrelevant_ is called "Disparity of Force".  The following is from Andrew Branca, noted lawyer and
authority on the use of force:

*Disparity of Force*

 What the law actually looks at is not whether the attacker possessed a  classical weapon, but whether the attacker presented the defender with a  disparity of force, such that the defender faced a reasonably perceived  imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm unless the defender  himself resorted to deadly force.  Again, for a defender facing a gun or  knife, the disparity of force is obvious.  This disparity of force also  arises, however, in many other circumstances.
*Disparity of Numbers*

 One very common situation that gives rise  to a disparity of force is where the defender is facing a disparity of  numbers.  A defender faced with a single attacker of similar size and  fighting ability might be legally obliged to defend himself only with  non-deadly force in the absence of the attacker possessing a classical  weapon.  Where the attackers are numerous, however, that disparity of  numbers creates an obvious disparity of force–no man can be expected to  defend himself against the simultaneous attack of numerous foes without  resort to a weapon to balance the scales.
*Disparity of Fighting Ability*

 Another very common situation that gives  rise to a disparity of force is where the attacker possesses an  exceptional fighting skill, at least relative to the defender.  A  defender of no particular fighting skill (most of us) cannot be expected  to defend themselves against a highly trained martial artists or even a  street fighter, without resort to a weapon to balance the scales.
*Disparity of Size/Strength*

 A third very common situation that gives  rise to a disparity of force is where the attacker is substantially  larger and more powerful than the attacker.  A 120 pound woman cannot be  expected to defend herself against a 200 pound rapist without resort to  a weapon to balance the scales.  Similarly, a 200 pound man cannot be  expected to defend himself against a 300 pound man without similar  recourse to a weapon.  It is worth noting in this context that under  Olympic wrestling rules a weight difference of as little as 18 pounds is  considered so profoundly unfair that wrestlers are segregated into  separate weight classes, and a 100 pound weight difference spans fully  five Olympic wrestling weight classes.
*Disparity of Physical Fitness*

 Finally, it is important to recognize  that a disparity of force may not be present at the start of a fight,  but can come into existence over the course of the fight itself.   Imagine two men of equal size and fighting ability, such that there was  no disparity of force between them.  During the fight, one man’s arm is  broken.
 Obviously, a disparity of force now  exists that wasn’t previously present, and under such circumstances the  seriously injured man might well be legally entitled to resort to a  deadly weapon even if he would not have been so entitled prior to the  injury.

This should shed a little light on Disparity of Force.  Now, lets look at "deadly force":

*Deadly Force: Force Likely to Cause Death or Grave Bodily Harm*


 It should also be noted that when the legal system uses the  phrase “deadly force,” it is not merely referring to force than can  literally cause death.  Of course, force likely to cause death  qualifies, naturally.  But the law’s view of “deadly force” is broader  than the phrase might suggest.  In fact, “deadly force” includes BOTH  force likely to cause death, as well as force likely to cause “grave  bodily harm.”


 We all understand “death,” but what could possibly be meant by “grave  bodily harm.”? Typically, grave bodily harm means something along the  following lines:  the temporary loss of an important bodily  function/organ, the permanent loss of even a minor bodily  function/organ, maiming, rape, or debilitation to the point of  defenselessness.


 Note, also, that under the law of self-defense, NONE of these must  ACTUALLY be experienced by the victim before the victim can lawfully  respond.  Rather, there must be an _imminent threat_ of one of  these occurring, as perceived by a reasonable and prudent person, in the  same or similar circumstances, possessing the same or similar  capabilities as the defender, having the same or similar knowledge as  the defender, and experiencing the same or similar mental stress as  would a defender being threatened with such harm.

Mr, Branca has provided several excellent examples of how these concepts play out in real life situations,  I hope all this
clears up these legal terms and makes it easier for people to understand why simply being without a visible weapon -
"unarmed" in the vernacular of the mass media - does not mean that person is automatically immune from deadly force.


----------



## mak2

jimbo said:


> Mak, you make some valid points, but I feel that if you want to be successful in making your point, it would be wise to pick your battles, and Zimmerman and Wilson aren't it.  Maybe Garner is a little more valid.
> 
> There are several that trouble me.  The Walmart incident, the kid in Cleveland, the opening up in California on the vanload of women whose only crime was driving a white SUV.  Yet what all these have in common is no or only minor protests.  *Why?  All are a better argument than the ones that seem to generate protests*.



We can discuss any case.  A reasonable person standard should always apply to use of deadly force.  The attempt to get away from this standard is a step too far, if you really care about us keeping our gun rights.


----------



## mak2

JEV said:


> That would only apply in the land of pussies who don't wish to offend anyone, and who think that by being kind to a criminal will somehow change their behavior. Kind of a kum by ya hippie love-in moment with an ass hole who has no respect for anyone, including himself. That shit just don't work when a punk is hell bent on killing your ass just because you're a different color or just because he can, as in the case of the not-so-gentle giant (who, for the record, had high levels of THC in his blood.
> 
> Source & more info.
> 
> So, should the office have played kissy face nice-nice with this drugged out punk who was half again his size? You're in the medical field. Ever see how combative & irrational drugged-up or drunk patients can be when they come in the ER? Same shit, different location. Drugged-up punk with an attitude who's used to nobody pushing back as he bullies his way through life. SURPRISE! He finally found someone who fought back, and helped cleanse the gene pool in the process.
> 
> Liberals....sheesh....


----------



## mak2

I believe we are saying exactly the same thing.  





mak2 said:


> I would really like a link to that law.  I believe it is more like police are obligated to use the least force necessary.  *I am not arguing there is never a time shooting someone who is not armed is justified*, but killing unarmed people should be rare, so don't try to twist what I am saying.  Shooting a  Michael Tyson or some huge NFL lineman looking guy road raging at you is far different than shooting an obese guy about ones own height or a 12 year old with an air gun.   I am aware an unarmed person can be dangerous but if you follow your martial arts expert meme to its logical conclusion the police can shoot anyone that makes them nervous.  Wouldn't that be great?





Danang Sailor said:


> Mak, there is indeed a difference but how big it might be *is entirely situational*.  The legal concept that can apply to make
> *unarmed* totally _irrelevant_ is called "Disparity of Force".  The following is from Andrew Branca, noted lawyer and
> authority on the use of force:
> 
> *Disparity of Force*
> 
> What the law actually looks at is not whether the attacker possessed a  classical weapon, but whether the attacker presented the defender with a  disparity of force, such that the defender faced a reasonably perceived  imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm unless the defender  himself resorted to deadly force.  Again, for a defender facing a gun or  knife, the disparity of force is obvious.  This disparity of force also  arises, however, in many other circumstances.
> *Disparity of Numbers*
> 
> One very common situation that gives rise  to a disparity of force is where the defender is facing a disparity of  numbers.  A defender faced with a single attacker of similar size and  fighting ability might be legally obliged to defend himself only with  non-deadly force in the absence of the attacker possessing a classical  weapon.  Where the attackers are numerous, however, that disparity of  numbers creates an obvious disparity of force–no man can be expected to  defend himself against the simultaneous attack of numerous foes without  resort to a weapon to balance the scales.
> *Disparity of Fighting Ability*
> 
> Another very common situation that gives  rise to a disparity of force is where the attacker possesses an  exceptional fighting skill, at least relative to the defender.  A  defender of no particular fighting skill (most of us) cannot be expected  to defend themselves against a highly trained martial artists or even a  street fighter, without resort to a weapon to balance the scales.
> *Disparity of Size/Strength*
> 
> A third very common situation that gives  rise to a disparity of force is where the attacker is substantially  larger and more powerful than the attacker.  A 120 pound woman cannot be  expected to defend herself against a 200 pound rapist without resort to  a weapon to balance the scales.  Similarly, a 200 pound man cannot be  expected to defend himself against a 300 pound man without similar  recourse to a weapon.  It is worth noting in this context that under  Olympic wrestling rules a weight difference of as little as 18 pounds is  considered so profoundly unfair that wrestlers are segregated into  separate weight classes, and a 100 pound weight difference spans fully  five Olympic wrestling weight classes.
> *Disparity of Physical Fitness*
> 
> Finally, it is important to recognize  that a disparity of force may not be present at the start of a fight,  but can come into existence over the course of the fight itself.   Imagine two men of equal size and fighting ability, such that there was  no disparity of force between them.  During the fight, one man’s arm is  broken.
> Obviously, a disparity of force now  exists that wasn’t previously present, and under such circumstances the  seriously injured man might well be legally entitled to resort to a  deadly weapon even if he would not have been so entitled prior to the  injury.
> 
> This should shed a little light on Disparity of Force.  Now, lets look at "deadly force":
> 
> *Deadly Force: Force Likely to Cause Death or Grave Bodily Harm*
> 
> 
> It should also be noted that when the legal system uses the  phrase “deadly force,” it is not merely referring to force than can  literally cause death.  Of course, force likely to cause death  qualifies, naturally.  But the law’s view of “deadly force” is broader  than the phrase might suggest.  In fact, “deadly force” includes BOTH  force likely to cause death, as well as force likely to cause “grave  bodily harm.”
> 
> 
> We all understand “death,” but what could possibly be meant by “grave  bodily harm.”? Typically, grave bodily harm means something along the  following lines:  the temporary loss of an important bodily  function/organ, the permanent loss of even a minor bodily  function/organ, maiming, rape, or debilitation to the point of  defenselessness.
> 
> 
> Note, also, that under the law of self-defense, NONE of these must  ACTUALLY be experienced by the victim before the victim can lawfully  respond.  Rather, there must be an _imminent threat_ of one of  these occurring, as perceived by a reasonable and prudent person, in the  same or similar circumstances, possessing the same or similar  capabilities as the defender, having the same or similar knowledge as  the defender, and experiencing the same or similar mental stress as  would a defender being threatened with such harm.
> 
> Mr, Branca has provided several excellent examples of how these concepts play out in real life situations,  I hope all this
> clears up these legal terms and makes it easier for people to understand why simply being without a visible weapon -
> "unarmed" in the vernacular of the mass media - does not mean that person is automatically immune from deadly force.


----------



## mak2

Thanks, exactly what I have and continue to say.  





SShepherd said:


> In 1989, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down one of the landmark decisions regarding an officer’s use of force. The case was _Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386)_. This decision created a national standard that is still in place today. In its decision, the SCOTUS made it clear that an officer’s use of force on a free citizen is to be evaluated as a seizure of the person under the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, the SCOTUS said in its holding:
> All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard.
> What is important to the reader for this article is the phrase “objective reasonableness.” How did the SCOTUS come to this term? Perhaps a quick review of the Fourth Amendment can shed some light. The Fourth Amendment protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government and its agents. Therefore it would logically follow that officers must act reasonably when seizing people.
> _Graham_ set forth several evaluation guidelines and factors to be taken into consideration when evaluating an officer’s use of force. These evaluation guidelines include one overarching direction to anybody who chooses to opine about an officer’s force response:
> The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving - about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.
> Once the person that chooses to render his/her opinion understands this overarching direction, they also need to be aware of these guidelines while making their determination of the reasonableness of the officer’s force response:
> *1.)* Judged through the perspective of a reasonable officer
> *a.* Officer with same or similar training and experience
> *b.* Facing similar circumstances
> *c. *Act the same way or use similar judgment
> *2.)* Based on the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time the force was applied
> *a. *No matter how compelling the evidence is to be found later
> *b.* No hindsight evaluation
> *3.)* Based on the facts known to the officer without regard to the underlying intent or motivation
> *4.)* Based on the knowledge the officer acted properly under established law at the time​ In order for an officer’s use of force to be deemed “objectively reasonable,” his/her force response (“what” and “how”) must be reasonably balanced with the governmental interests at stake (“why”). The officer’s force response level (quantum) can be measured by evaluating:
> *1.)* “what” force option was used, and
> *2.)* “how” it was used. ​ Another way of viewing this would be to ask the question, “What was the reasonable expectation of injury?”
> In Graham, the SCOTUS gave law enforcement several factors to examine when evaluating the “why” of an officer’s force option including, but not limited to:
> *1.)* the severity of crime at issue,
> *2.)* the threat of the suspect, and
> *3.)* the level of resistance offered by the suspect.
> ​ “Objectively reasonable” is the true — and most accurate — legal standard when both teaching use of force, and/or evaluating an officer’s past use of force. Using any other standard is avoidably dangerous because it is a false legal standard and can be easily misinterpreted or misrepresented — either knowingly or not.


----------



## mak2

If you point a gun at a cop you should be shot.  If possible the police should at least make an attempt to disarm a 12 year old with an air gun, but sure, shoot him too.  Facts are important, try to stick to them, rioting is never justified and I have never argued it was.  I have also never argued about race in these cases and again did not bring it up this time.  Feelings, right feelings is how the right wing keeps the right from thinking about what they are realy saying.  Before Martin any gun owner on this site had a pretty good understand of the use of deadly force.  The next day it was stupid stuff like this, "That would only apply in the land of pussies who don't wish to offend anyone"  Feelings aint just for the lefties anymore.  





SShepherd said:


> all that being said, you point a gun at a cop or anyone you better expect a similarly violent response .
> Brown tried to grab the cops gun, that showed he had intent and that's a felony and at that point is a public safety issue and he must be arrested.
> Garner was not in a "chokehold", or he wouldn't have been able to speak. Do I agree with the tax enforcement ? No but that was the job the mayor sent them to do, it stopped being about a tax when he decided to commit a felony and fight. Garner
> had history of more than 30 arrests dating back to 1980, on charges including assault and grand larceny and at the time of his death was out on bail after being charged with illegally selling cigarettes, driving without a license, marijuana possession, and false impersonation. He's been in the system, he knew that fighting would be pretty pointless but made the choice anyway.
> Also, Garner did not die at the scene, a common misconception among those discussing the case on social media. Instead he “suffered cardiac arrest in the ambulance taking him to the hospital and was pronounced dead about an hour later
> 
> Facts aren't important any more, just "feelings".
> I'd bet that even if Brown and Garner had went to a jury trial and been found not guilty , which from the findings of the grand jury would have been the outcome, there still would be the same rioting. Justice isn't what wanted by the people pushing the race issue it's revenge.


----------



## Doc

mak2 said:


> If you point a gun at a cop you should be shot.  If possible the police should at least make an attempt to disarm a 12 year old with an air gun, but sure, shoot him too.  Facts are important, try to stick to them, rioting is never justified and I have never argued it was.  I have also never argued about race in these cases and again did not bring it up this time.  Feelings, right feelings is how the right wing keeps the right from thinking about what they are realy saying. * Before Martin any gun owner on this site had a pretty good understand of the use of deadly force.  The next day it was stupid stuff like this, "That would only apply in the land of pussies who don't wish to offend anyone"  *Feelings aint just for the lefties anymore.



Seriously?  Before Martin?   
When someone (Martin) is on top of you, banging your head on concrete saying "you gonna die" is questionable to you as to whether or not it is appropriate to use your firearm?  Not sure what feelings have to do with that other than the sharp pains going through your head as it is repeatably banged on the sidewalk.


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> If you point a gun at a cop you should be shot. *If possible the police should at least make an attempt to disarm a 12 year old with an air gun,* but sure, shoot him too. Facts are important, try to stick to them, rioting is never justified and I have never argued it was. I have also never argued about race in these cases and again did not bring it up this time. Feelings, right feelings is how the right wing keeps the right from thinking about what they are realy saying. Before Martin any gun owner on this site had a pretty good understand of the use of deadly force. The next day it was stupid stuff like this, "That would only apply in the land of pussies who don't wish to offend anyone" Feelings aint just for the lefties anymore.


and you have the benefit of hindsight. You know that it wasn't a real gun and had the police known that they wouldn't have shot him either.
 Don't point a gun at police, simple as that.
http://whnt.com/2014/12/12/real-gun...ike-toys-pose-new-threats-to-law-enforcement/


----------



## SShepherd

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2014/12/06/1-fake-guns-pose-risk.html

 A study of look-alike guns by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (at http://1.usa.gov/1rWOxmg), provides an excellent discussion of why toy guns should be regarded as real until officers are absolutely certain.
 It points out that toy and nonlethal recreational guns are used in real crimes. The study found police had seized 31,650 imitation guns involved in a crime or serious incident in a four-year period.
 And 186 police departments reported 1,128 incidents in which an officer, thinking a gun was real, had issued a warning or threatened to use force. Police actually used force in 252 cases.
 Modern revolvers and pistols, themselves often made of plastic, can be difficult to distinguish from plastic toy guns. And many real handguns now sport vivid colors often marketed to women who shoot for sport or own them for self-defense.
 And just how is a police officer to know whether a criminal has applied fluorescent strips to a real firearm to make it appear to be a toy? Which officer wants to risk his or her life by assuming the object is a toy?


----------



## SShepherd

http://www.guns.com/2014/09/08/crim...-real-rifles-painted-to-look-like-toys-video/

 Police in San Leandro, California, announced they confiscated two AK-pattern rifles during a drug raid that were built with orange-tipped muzzles to make them look like toy or airsoft rifles.
 “The officer is going to be forced to shoot to protect their own life or to protect someone else, regardless if it has the plastic tip on it,” McManus said, implying his department treats all potential firearms as guns no matter how they are painted.


----------



## SShepherd

Doc said:


> Seriously? Before Martin?
> When someone (Martin) is on top of you, banging your head on concrete saying "you gonna die" is questionable to you as to whether or not it is appropriate to use your firearm? Not sure what feelings have to do with that other than the sharp pains going through your head as it is repeatably banged on the sidewalk.



"before Martin" is the standard cry of people against the stand your ground law, which in fact the stand your ground defense wasn't used to defend Zimmerman.
 No standards for use of force have changed.


----------



## Kane

mak2 said:


> If you point a gun at a cop you should be shot.  If possible the police should at least make an attempt to disarm a 12 year old with an air gun, but sure, shoot him too.  Facts are important, try to stick to them, rioting is never justified and I have never argued it was.  I have also never argued about race in these cases and again did not bring it up this time.  Feelings, right feelings is how the right wing keeps the right from thinking about what they are realy saying.  Before Martin any gun owner on this site had a pretty good understand of the use of deadly force.  The next day it was stupid stuff like this, "That would only apply in the land of pussies who don't wish to offend anyone"  Feelings aint just for the lefties anymore.



It's so easy for the left to analyze and vilify the so-called use of deadly force. Note, however, that the reaction time of the average human being is around 0.75 seconds. 

So as often as not, any LEO, when confronted with hostility, has 0.75 seconds to decide whether to appease the liberal critics ... or go home alive that night.

Just 0.75 seconds.


----------



## SShepherd

Kane said:


> It's so easy for the left to analyze and vilify the so-called use of deadly force. Note, however, that the reaction time of the average human being is around 0.75 seconds.
> 
> So as often as not, any LEO, when confronted with hostility, has 0.75 seconds to decide whether to appease the liberal critics ... or go home alive that night.
> 
> Just 0.75 seconds.



that's .75 to make a decision, add another 1.25 seconds to draw and point. That 2 seconds when the other person already has their firearm out .

 here's an interesting video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fs-TObcA6R0


----------



## squerly

The bottleneck of any discussion involving a Liberal is that Liberals absolutely refuse to accept the position that people should be held accountable for their actions.

  Example:  A homeowner awakens to find a man with a gun rummaging through the house.  The homeowner subsequently shoots and kills the intruder.  It is later found that the intruder was drunk and the gun was a toy.     A Liberal will argue that the intruder was drunk and could have mistakenly been in the wrong house.  Also, that the gun was a toy and no threat to the homeowner.  

And completely miss the fact that the intruder, through whatever combination of injudicious decisions, brought this on all by himself.


----------



## tiredretired

squerly said:


> The bottleneck of any discussion involving a Liberal is that Liberals absolutely refuse to accept the position that people should be held accountable for their actions.
> 
> Example:  A homeowner awakens to find a man with a gun rummaging through the house.  The homeowner subsequently shoots and kills the intruder.  It is later found that the intruder was drunk and the gun was a toy.     A Liberal will argue that the intruder was drunk and could have mistakenly been in the wrong house.  Also, that the gun was a toy and no threat to the homeowner.
> 
> And completely miss the fact that the intruder, through whatever combination of injudicious decisions, brought this on all by himself.



That is exactly what happened in Plattsburgh NY about 5 years ago.  A drunk went into the wrong and house and was confronted by the homeowner.  The homeowner shot him dead.  The liberal AG prosecuted and the homeowner was aquitted.  Never should have gone to court.


----------



## mak2

I have been beat up more often than I like to admit.  Never shot anyone.  Zimmerman never looked too beat up to me.  And there is no question had he stayed in his SUV that night Martin would be alive and we would never had heard of Zimmerman.  The world would be a better place.  





Doc said:


> Seriously?  Before Martin?
> When someone (Martin) is on top of you, banging your head on concrete saying "you gonna die" is questionable to you as to whether or not it is appropriate to use your firearm?  Not sure what feelings have to do with that other than the sharp pains going through your head as it is repeatably banged on the sidewalk.


----------



## mak2

You made up something to argue with, cute, but not what I said.  


SShepherd said:


> "before Martin" is the standard cry of people against the stand your ground law, which in fact the stand your ground defense wasn't used to defend Zimmerman.
> No standards for use of force have changed.


----------



## mak2

You mean like gunslingers that shoot people who are not really threats?  If you find a man in your house it is perfectly reasonable to shoot him.  Who said it wasn't?  Oh wait this is another one of them strawman things I have never said, but you can argue with it.  Cool carry on.  





squerly said:


> *The bottleneck of any discussion involving a Liberal is that Liberals absolutely refuse to accept the position that people should be held accountable for their actions.*
> Example:  A homeowner awakens to find a man with a gun rummaging through the house.  The homeowner subsequently shoots and kills the intruder.  It is later found that the intruder was drunk and the gun was a toy.     A Liberal will argue that the intruder was drunk and could have mistakenly been in the wrong house.  Also, that the gun was a toy and no threat to the homeowner.
> 
> And completely miss the fact that the intruder, through whatever combination of injudicious decisions, brought this on all by himself.


----------



## tiredretired

I think this old verse will apply to all involved in this issue:

If you go looking for trouble, you will usually find it.  This also applies to cigar thief and the can't breath dude


----------



## jpr62902

mak2 said:


> *You mean like gunslingers that shoot people who are not really threats?* If you find a man in your house it is perfectly reasonable to shoot him. Who said it wasn't? Oh wait this is another one of them strawman things I have never said, but you can argue with it. Cool carry on.



 Talk about strawman things ....


----------



## mak2

Yea, kinda my point.  Funny how you can recognize it when I do it, but...





jpr62902 said:


> Talk about strawman things ....


----------



## jpr62902

mak2 said:


> Yea, kinda my point. Funny how you can recognize it when I do it, but...


 
 Martyr much?


----------



## Doc

mak2 said:


> Zimmerman never looked too beat up to me.  And there is no question had he stayed in his SUV that night Martin would be alive and we would never had heard of Zimmerman.  The world would be a better place.



Hindsight is 20/20. We can armchair quarterback all we want but in the end it is the facts that we have to deal with.  What happened was a man's life was threatened and he defended himself.  A jury agreed.


----------



## Kane

Yep. Too bad libs have such disdain for the rule of law when it doesn't quite suit their agenda. Killing a hostile thug is murder.  A crime. Of course murdering unborn babies is perfectly fine. A choice.

Screwy libs.


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> You made up something to argue with, cute, but not what I said.



I did not quote you or address my post to you.

 it's not all about you


----------



## MrLiberty

mak2 said:


> I have been beat up more often than I like to admit.  Never shot anyone.  Zimmerman never looked too beat up to me.  And there is no question had he stayed in his SUV that night Martin would be alive and we would never had heard of Zimmerman.  The world would be a better place.




The world is a better place without the thug who tried to be a bad ass and lost.  

Everyone of these cases that have been brought to national attention has been done by a media who wants to start a race riot.  All the thugs have died yet are made to look like angels.  It says a lot about the liberal mind when they can't figure out who the bad guys are.


----------



## mak2

SShepherd said:


> I did not quote you or address my post to you.
> 
> it's not all about you



Yea, I am sure you were addressing the rest of the legions of libs on this forum.


----------



## SShepherd

mak2 said:


> Yea, I am sure you were addressing the rest of the legions of libs on this forum.



see, this is addressed to you because I'm quoting you. You were wrong about the Zimmerman case, but you have your opinion and everyones' entitled to it but it doesn't change the facts. You can pontificate on how much badassery you have and how you would just disarm someone or beat their ass but you aren't them and you weren't there. The standard isn't what you "would have done had you known". 

the other was replying to Docs' post, you just took it upon yourself to think I was talking to you.
if I have something I want to say to you it's easy to figure out.


----------



## Kane

SShepherd said:


> see, this is addressed to you because I'm quoting you. You were wrong about the Zimmerman case, but you have your opinion and everyones' entitled to it but it doesn't change the facts. You can pontificate on how much badassery you have and how you would just disarm someone or beat their ass but you aren't them and you weren't there. The standard isn't what you "would have done had you known".
> 
> the other was replying to Docs' post, you just took it upon yourself to think I was talking to you.
> if I have something I want to say to you it's easy to figure out.



It's called deflection, Shep. Deflection. Whenever a lib is troubled by the facts, they change the subject, claim they are being unfairly persecuted or invent straw men. That way, there is an escape from losing an honest debate. 

Liberalism 101. Works every time.


----------



## FrancSevin

mak2 said:


> There is a big difference in an armed and unarmed person. One of the points that can become controversial when shooting someone is if he is unarmed. Why are we trying to pretend it is the same?




Because once Micheal Brown tried to take the officers gun, and did try to shoot him with it, the situation becomes the same.

The Situation in New York City with Eric Garner is quite different. But the race baiters, and their sympathizer in the media, have insisted it is the same. Which is even worse because all is based on the lie that the police are out with malicious intent to shoot young black men.  

 Perhaps your question would be better directed at them.


----------



## DebateDrone

Melensdad said:


> Oh, the man was a young black male.
> 
> The police officer was white.
> 
> *Going to have to wonder how many more riots there will be?*
> 
> Antonio Martin shooting: surveillance footage shows victim raising a gun ? live updates | US news | The Guardian
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fatal-cop-shooting-teen-berkeley-missouri-sparks-clashes-n274181
> 
> What's the world coming to when an innocent teen can't point a loaded gun at a cop's head without being shot?
> 
> But seriously folks... How to deal with cops in 5 easy steps.
> 
> 1) Don't point loaded gun at cop's head.
> 
> If you failed number 1, I won't list the other 4.
> 
> The usual group is turning this into another "White cop shoots black teen" story.  They're saying "It's hard to see what was in his hand..." etc etc...



Do you wonder a lot at ridiculous stuff?


----------



## DebateDrone

Kane said:


> It's so easy for the left to analyze and vilify the so-called use of deadly force. Note, however, that the reaction time of the average human being is around 0.75 seconds.
> 
> So as often as not, any LEO, when confronted with hostility, has 0.75 seconds to decide whether to appease the liberal critics ... or go home alive that night.
> 
> Just 0.75 seconds.



Maybe a police officer with some brains would not have assessed the threat from only 2 yards away.

Maybe police officers with some sense would have stopped their vehicle just a tad bit more away from the individual in question...putting distance and the vehicle in between the bb gun and themselves.

I'm just saying.


----------



## leadarrows

DebateDrone said:


> Maybe a police officer with some brains would not have assessed the threat from only 2 yards away.
> 
> Maybe police officers with some sense would have stopped their vehicle just a tad bit more away from the individual in question...putting distance and the vehicle in between the bb gun and themselves.
> 
> I'm just saying.


You're second guessing.
So the thug would have charged from a few feet further away then the distance would have been the same. 
A thug got himself killed. Good riddance. I could care less.


----------



## mak2

Is a 12 year old with a toy gun a "thug?"





leadarrows said:


> You're second guessing.
> So the thug would have charged from a few feet further away then the distance would have been the same.
> A thug got himself killed. Good riddance. I could care less.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tamir-r...ad-by-cleveland-cop-looking-for-a-conviction/


----------



## Melensdad

DebateDrone said:


> Do you wonder a lot at ridiculous stuff?



First, you may want to use proper English sentence structure if you want others to understand your questions.

But to answer what I think is your question:  NO.  As it turns out there have been quite a few riots scattered around this nation, and also in Berkley, MO in relation to the event discussed in the OP of this thread.  

So I'll have to ask you a question:  Do you often post uninformed posts on forums or was your first post here just a fluke?


----------



## Melensdad

mak2 said:


> Is a 12 year old with a toy gun a "thug?"



Possibly.  

Given that most 'airsoft' pistols are designed to look like real guns, and given that they are often used in robberies in lieu of real guns, one would have to ask what the intended use of the airsoft gun was by the boy was when he was carrying that airsoft gun.

So it is very possible that it was an innocent toy used by an innocent child.  It is also very possible that the boy was a thug who may have had some illicit use of that which he possessed.


----------



## DebateDrone

leadarrows said:


> You're second guessing.
> So the thug would have charged from a few feet further away then the distance would have been the same.
> A thug got himself killed. Good riddance. I could care less.



Sure you care or you would've not yapped.

I'm "second guessing" bad policing ...No, I know the difference between bad judgement and professional policing. How 'bout you?


----------



## DebateDrone

Melensdad said:


> First, you may want to use proper English sentence structure if you want others to understand your questions.
> 
> But to answer what I think is your question:  NO.  As it turns out there have been quite a few riots scattered around this nation, and also in Berkley, MO in relation to the event discussed in the OP of this thread.
> 
> So I'll have to ask you a question:  Do you often post uninformed posts on forums or was your first post here just a fluke?



Don't worry much of my 5th grade phrasing...you'll catch on...like it or not.

If not given as a proper question, take it as rhetorical. Get it.


----------



## Melensdad

DebateDrone said:


> Don't worry much of my 5th grade phrasing...you'll catch on...like it or not.



I won't worry at all.  In fact I won't give you a second thought.

But you failed to respond to the fact that your post was totally ignorant.  In fact there were quite a few riots directly related to that Berkley incident, to which you implied my wonderment was ridiculous.  

Seems to me you are the one being ridiculous.  Or at least you are simply dead wrong.


----------



## DebateDrone

Melensdad said:


> I won't worry at all.  In fact I won't give you a second thought.
> 
> But you failed to respond to the fact that your post was totally ignorant.  *In fact there were quite a few riots directly related to that Berkley incident, to which you implied my wonderment was ridiculous.  *
> 
> Seems to me you are the one being ridiculous.  Or at least you are simply dead wrong.





I'm sorry, I didn't know you meant *every riot* in the future of *all riots*. You win. Now your wondering mind can be at ease.


----------



## Melensdad

DebateDrone said:


> I'm sorry, I didn't know you meant *every riot* in the future of *all riots*. You win. Now your wondering mind can be at ease.



Seriously?  

No, clearly you must be jesting.  I was clear.  I was referring to riots relating to the shooting of the armed man who is the subject of this thread.  Of those there have been many.  I keep an open mind until someone proves themselves to be a fool.  

As for you, you will be added to my *Ignore List* now since you clearly have nothing of substance to add.  Feel free to add me to your ignore list if you wish.  You can edit yours by going to the* User CP* tab, clicking on it, then scroll down and look at the last item under the *Settings and Options*.  Its pretty obvious what you need to do from that point.


----------



## tiredretired

DebateDrone said:


> Do you wonder a lot at ridiculous stuff?





DebateDrone said:


> Maybe a police officer with some brains would not have assessed the threat from only 2 yards away.
> 
> Maybe police officers with some sense would have stopped their vehicle just a tad bit more away from the individual in question...putting distance and the vehicle in between the bb gun and themselves.
> 
> I'm just saying.





DebateDrone said:


> Sure you care or you would've not yapped.
> 
> I'm "second guessing" bad policing ...No, I know the difference between bad judgement and professional policing. How 'bout you?





DebateDrone said:


> Don't worry much of my 5th grade phrasing...you'll catch on...like it or not.
> 
> If not given as a proper question, take it as rhetorical. Get it.





DebateDrone said:


> I'm sorry, I didn't know you meant *every riot* in the future of *all riots*. You win. Now your wondering mind can be at ease.



Well, well, well, what do we have here?  Another pissed off liberal with anger management issues and a chip on his shoulder.  What else is new, eh? I even have some of those same issues myself.  Who knows, you may get to see them, but I tend to be a little more restrained if you know what I mean. 

Welcome aboard, son.  May I be so bold as to suggest a quick visit to the introductions section and tell us a little bit about yourself, sans the attitude and the evil eye ball.  Who knows, we may have more in common then you may think.  Yes, I doubt it too, but one never knows, right?


----------



## FrancSevin

DebateDrone said:


> Maybe a police officer with some brains would not have assessed the threat from only 2 yards away.
> 
> Maybe police officers with some sense would have stopped their vehicle just a tad bit more away from the individual in question...putting distance and the vehicle in between the bb gun and themselves.
> 
> I'm just saying.




You are welcome to say anything here but consider that one can hold back and no one suspect they are a fool, or they can open their mouth and eliminate all doubt.


The police were responding to a call for shop lifting. The officer had no reason to suspect the person in the car was there with a mind set to kill anyone.

Sad and dangerous will be the day that all encounters with the police require DEFcon One suspicion. Things are testy enough with real situations out there. Right now, the police need to come to the scene from which others run away.

Climb back into your comfy arm chair there. And hope if and when you call them, they come quickly to your aid. And without hesitation.


----------



## Danang Sailor

mak2 said:


> Is a 12 year old with a toy gun a "thug?"



Much of the "credit" for this must go to the dispatcher who was told it was likely the gun was a toy, but who failed to pass
that data on to the troops sent to investigate.  Most of these pseudo-guns are so realistic that they have been successfully
used in a large number of actual holdups and robberies.  Add to that normal human reaction time and you get a situation
much the same as that in _Brown v United States_, in which Justice Holmes opined " ... detached reflection cannot be
demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife ...".  In hindsight it would have been prudent for the officer to wait
until it was established whether or not the gun was real; if the dispatcher had relayed *all* the information from the caller
that might even have happened but absent that data all the officer had to go on was a kid pointing a gun at people and
then that kid swinging the gun around to point at them.  Absent any power of precognition the officer responded in
a sadly appropriate manner to a perceived threat of death or great bodily harm to himself and his partner.

Now we're seeing situations where the real thugs are trying to give themselves a massive edge if the police respond to one of
their work-sites as a result of a 911 call or silent alarm:  these bright boys are painting the ends of their guns orange, or in
some cases gluing on small sections of orange plastic taken from the barrels of *actual* toy guns!  I wonder how the MSM
is going to react when an officer is murdered with one of these "toys", and what effect it will have on the way LEO's react
to questionable cases in the future.

With the above facts in mind, my direct answer to your direct question has to an unqualified "Maybe".  Until a foolproof
method is established so officers can tell at a glance whether the thing being pointed at them is a real gun or not, every
single case will be an on-the-fly call and any number of regrettable outcomes will result.  Personally I don't expect to
see any such foolproof method forthcoming; remember, the bright orange muzzles of these toys and replicas was
supposed to be that very method of identification, added for just that purpose, and we can see how that has turned out.


----------



## FrancSevin

mak2 said:


> Is a 12 year old with a toy gun a "thug?"
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tamir-r...ad-by-cleveland-cop-looking-for-a-conviction/




 Again, a completely different situation and different argument.  That said if you point a gun, (even a non functioning toy) at a policeman, expect a response from someone who did not join the police force to die.  Age is irrelevant.


----------



## Kane

DebateDrone said:


> Maybe a police officer with some brains would not have assessed the threat from only 2 yards away.
> 
> Maybe police officers with some sense would have stopped their vehicle just a tad bit more away from the individual in question...putting distance and the vehicle in between the bb gun and themselves.
> 
> I'm just saying.



Well, friend, next time a perp is threatening you with a gun, the police officers will have the good sense to stop their vehicle a good distance away from the individual in question ...  putting a tad bit more distance between the threat and themselves ... so they can take all the time some other lib feels necessary to assess the threat.  No sense in hurrying towards the threat for your sake.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Melensdad

Kane said:


> Well, friend, next time a perp is threatening you with a gun, the police officers will have the good sense to stop their vehicle a good distance away from the individual in question ...  putting a tad bit more distance between the threat and themselves ... so they can take all the time some other lib feels necessary to assess the threat.  No sense in hurrying towards the threat for your sake.
> 
> Just sayin'.



Maybe they could stop about a hundred yards away, pull out their trusty service revolvers and shoot the gun out of the hand of the perp


----------



## Kane

Melensdad said:


> Maybe they could stop about a hundred yards away, pull out their trusty service revolvers and shoot the gun out of the hand of the perp



Our new friend Mr. Drone is probably referring to the video we've all seen of the police cruiser pulling up to the young man waving a gun around at people in the park. What Drone doesn't mention is that the police quite possibly are pulling the cruiser between the young man and innocent civilians just off camera in the foreground, thereby shielding said civilians from an imminent threat. Because that, of course, would be the policemen's job.

But, like usual, libs look for the scenery suiting their narrative.


----------



## mak2

I know, snipers, that's what we need.  


Melensdad said:


> Maybe they could stop about a hundred yards away, pull out their trusty service revolvers and shoot the gun out of the hand of the perp


----------



## mla2ofus

Real or toy, if someone aims a gun in the direction of a LEO, they should expect some disastrous results on their part. That cop figures to go home to his family, not the morgue!!
                     Mike


----------



## Danang Sailor

TiredRetired said:


> Well, well, well, what do we have here?  Another pissed off liberal with anger management issues and a chip on his shoulder.  What else is new, eh? I even have some of those same issues myself.  Who knows, you may get to see them, but I tend to be a little more restrained if you know what I mean.
> 
> Welcome aboard, son.  May I be so bold as to suggest a quick visit to the introductions section and tell us a little bit about yourself, sans the attitude and the evil eye ball.  Who knows, we may have more in common then you may think.  Yes, I doubt it too, but one never knows, right?





FrancSevin said:


> You are welcome to say anything here but consider that one can hold back and no one suspect they are a fool, or they can open their mouth and eliminate all doubt.
> 
> 
> The police were responding to a call for shop lifting. The officer had no reason to suspect the person in the car was there with a mind set to kill anyone.
> 
> Sad and dangerous will be the day that all encounters with the police require DEFcon One suspicion. Things are testy enough with real situations out there. Right now, the police need to come to the scene from which others run away.
> 
> Climb back into your comfy arm chair there. And hope if and when you call them, they come quickly to your aid. And without hesitation.




Having read all of his (???) posts and responses, I have a single question:   Is "drone" a synonym - or pseudonym - for
"_troll_"?   If it looks like a duck ...


----------



## DebateDrone

Kane said:


> Our new friend Mr. Drone is probably referring to the video we've all seen of the police cruiser pulling up to the young man waving a gun around at people in the park. *What Drone doesn't mention is that the police quite possibly are pulling the cruiser between the young man and innocent civilians* just off camera in the foreground, thereby shielding said civilians from an imminent threat. Because that, of course, would be the policemen's job.
> 
> But, like usual, libs look for the scenery suiting their narrative.




Why would I mention your conjecture...that is your job. "What ifs" *are* second guesses.


----------



## DebateDrone

Danang Sailor said:


> Having read all of his (???) posts and responses, I have a single question:   Is "drone" a synonym - or pseudonym - for
> "_troll_"?   If it looks like a duck ...



I had a total of 3 posts...

You're a quick draw.


----------



## DebateDrone

Melensdad said:


> Seriously?
> 
> No, clearly you must be jesting.  I was clear.  I was referring to riots relating to the shooting of the armed man who is the subject of this thread.  Of those there have been many.  I keep an open mind until someone proves themselves to be a fool.
> 
> As for you, you will be added to my *Ignore List* now since you clearly have nothing of substance to add.  Feel free to add me to your ignore list if you wish.  You can edit yours by going to the* User CP* tab, clicking on it, then scroll down and look at the last item under the *Settings and Options*.  Its pretty obvious what you need to do from that point.



Awesome...I hope I will be in good company because anyone "ignored" by you will CLEARLY be a friend of mine.

Your "ignore list" CLEARLY has to be the sanest place on this forum.


----------



## Kane

DebateDrone said:


> Why would I mention your conjecture...that is your job. "What ifs" *are* second guesses.



Trouble is, Drone, in your liberal mind, the only "What If" is the one that suits your narrative ...  the narrative that cops are thoughtless, racist killers.


----------



## leadarrows

mak2 said:


> Is a 12 year old with a toy gun a "thug?"
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tamir-r...ad-by-cleveland-cop-looking-for-a-conviction/



You changing between scenarios is a waste of time with me. If you're that insincere in your discussions I have no interest in your opinions. 

This one time...I played with toy guns as a kid and I think kids these days  should be able too as well. Unfortunately and especially so in our cities,you have to be out of your mind to do so. 
I already saw that video, I keep up with what's going on, that cop shot way too soon and the whole approach was questionable imo. Why did they drive up so close? Unlike pulling up on two guys just walking in the street, these coops had been told someone had a gun. 
Every encounter between law enforcement and citizenry is unique. Using what happened in one to excuse or place blame on another is an act of stupidity and a waste of time.


----------



## mak2

I am not quite sure why you went through the first two sentences, then discussed my opinion anyway.  Why is that?  I have never attempted to discuss all police officers, just incidences in which they shoot unarmed people.  I really don't care if I am a waste of time with you, I would not be on an internet forum if I did not have some time to waste. How bout you, is this your job or something?      Your last sentence is an act of stupidity too, but I think you are probably better at it.  I have never placed blame on another police officer because of actions of another.  





leadarrows said:


> You changing between scenarios is a waste of time with me. If you're that insincere in your discussions I have no interest in your opinions.
> 
> This one time...I played with toy guns as a kid and I think kids these days  should be able too as well. Unfortunately and especially so in our cities,you have to be out of your mind to do so. I already saw that video, I keep up with what's going on, that cop shot way too soon and the whole approach was questionable imo. Why did they drive up so close? Unlike pulling up on two guys just walking in the street, these coops had been told someone had a gun.
> Every encounter between law enforcement and citizenry is unique. Using what happened in one to excuse or place blame on another is an act of stupidity and a waste of time.


----------



## MrLiberty

DebateDrone said:


> Maybe a police officer with some brains would not have assessed the threat from only 2 yards away.
> 
> Maybe police officers with some sense would have stopped their vehicle just a tad bit more away from the individual in question...putting distance and the vehicle in between the bb gun and themselves.
> 
> I'm just saying.






Yeah, and maybe the cop could have offered the perp some milk and cookies too.


----------



## Doc

Our new members name got me to thinking if the hate and blame of cops continues maybe the departments will start using drones to patrol the trouble spots.


----------



## Danang Sailor

DebateDrone said:


> I had a total of 3 posts...
> 
> You're a quick draw.




Thanks.  I shoot straight, too.


----------



## SShepherd

now do it from 10yrds


----------



## Danang Sailor

SShepherd said:


> now do it from 10yrds



Good post.  At ten yards, in that small window of time needed to recognize, assess, and react, a wrong reaction is going to mean
that someone dies.

On another note, does anyone else think it's a bit odd that the guy pictured has his finger on the trigger of the real gun, but
safely outside the trigger guard of the BB gun?


----------



## Kane

Danang Sailor said:


> Good post.  At ten yards, in that small window of time needed to recognize, assess, and react, a wrong reaction is going to mean
> that someone dies.
> 
> On another note, does anyone else think it's a bit odd that the guy pictured has his finger on the trigger of the real gun, but
> safely outside the trigger guard of the BB gun?



I could be wrong, but I see both trigger fingers safely straight out alongside the guard. Of course like you say, if I was wrong, I'd be dead.


----------



## Danang Sailor

Kane said:


> I could be wrong, but I see both trigger fingers safely straight out alongside the guard.



I did a triple take on that picture before the thing was bothering me hit.  Take a look at the *middle* finger on that left hand.


----------



## EastTexFrank

After you mentioned it I had to go back for another look.


----------

