Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

what i find the most disturbing has nothing to do with the man killed. here is what gets me: 50+ shots fired. one officer unloads 2 full clips at a whopping 31 shots...surrounding homes hit with slugs...and they hit him with TWO FRIKIN BULLETS? whatever the outcome after the case is settled...irrelevant imho.
the real issue: nypd officers couldnt hit the broad side of a barn. who taught those idiots how to shoot?

No kidding, but I can relate. Saturday I was playing Ghost Recon on PS2, and one of my soldiers shot off over 800 rounds with only 1 kill.

dude, you suck


NOOB

I suck.

BTW, is the "100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care" an organization that derived from this incident? Just curious.

Originally posted by PVS
what i find the most disturbing has nothing to do with the man killed. here is what gets me: 50+ shots fired. one officer unloads 2 full clips at a whopping 31 shots...surrounding homes hit with slugs...and they hit him with TWO FRIKIN BULLETS? whatever the outcome after the case is settled...irrelevant imho.
the real issue: nypd officers couldnt hit the broad side of a barn. who taught those idiots how to shoot?

That's really disturbing, ey. Over 50 rounds, and only 2 met their target? Pathetic. Good thing their guns were taken away porque those aren't the kind of cops you want coming to your aid if some nutjob is holding you hostage at gunpoint.

In a shoot-out they would be destroyed.

Originally posted by botankus
one of my soldiers shot off over 800 rounds with only 1 kill.

Not the kind of soldier you want watching your back.

I like how they didn't even bother to mention the victims' race in the article. "The NYPD gunned down three unarmed men? Fifty rounds? I think our readers can figure this one out themselves."

Originally posted by Gregory
I like how they didn't even bother to mention the victims' race in the article. "The NYPD gunned down three unarmed men? Fifty rounds? I think our readers can figure this one out themselves."


If they had discharged 60 rounds then I would know the race but sadly with only 50 rounds I don't know.

That is some crazy sloppy shooting.

NYPD getting drunk and shooting some more black people again. You have to give them credit it is hard to shoot 3 people when your so drunk it looks like 9.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Not the kind of soldier you want watching your back.

That soldier was me...Luckily his platoon bailed him out.

LOL 50 shots fired, only 21 hit the damn car, and 17 of those hit people.

I'm surprised there weren't more deaths just from the crossfire alone. ****ing horrible.

How do you shoot someone 11 times and not kill them!?

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman

How do you shoot someone 11 times and not kill them!?

Stag Night in NY. High on Booze and Cocaine.

The lousy shooting worries me, but not as much as the ease these cops had with applying lethal force (ok, truly lethal if these dicks knew how to handle a gun) to people that merely bumped in to their van. These cops were said to be undercover in some mission impossible 007 quest, meaning that they should be the cream of the crop in the force. And they perforate a car, it's passengers and the whole neighbourhood over a fender-bender and the possibility that one of the guys in the car mentioned 'a gun' sometime earlier (while he could as well be referring to his penis in a silly man's conversation). Idiots, they're lucky that the local policestations haven't been bombed in the meanwhile.

The bar was filled with undercover cops, you might think they had a reason for being there and considered the bumping as an attack. Whatever though this is a freaking disgrace, in Holland shooting somebody in the leg already gets you on national news and an investigation. A cop killing somebody can actually be the front page story of all news papers the next day...

Besides that though, these cops should really learn how to shoot...

It isn't much better in LA.

http://www.filecabi.net/video/goddammit30.html

Granted this guy says he has a gun with 13 rounds in it, so he whips out a flip flop and gets shot 81 times.

"The minivan came around the corner and smashed into their car. And they (the police) jumped out shooting," Wright, 28, told the newspaper for Monday editions. "No 'stop.' No 'freeze.' No nothing."

Why do I find this hard to believe? I just cant picture a minivan pulling around a corner, smashing into a car then all the cops getting out and unloading on the car.

I think this stripper is full of shit.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
It isn't much better in LA.

http://www.filecabi.net/video/goddammit30.html

Granted this guy says he has a gun with 13 rounds in it, so he whips out a flip flop and gets shot 81 times.

Damn they shot there own dog the messed up. and I think they shot killed there dog before they even kill the crazy dude.

Originally posted by dirkdirden
Damn they shot there own dog thats messed up. and I think they shot killed there dog before they even kill the crazy dude.

Well, if the police story is to be believed instead of the stripper's, it's not hard to understand their actions. Here they are, undercover, outside of a club with all sorts of illegal stuff going on in it, and suddenly someone runs down one of the officers with a car and then starts ramming the police vehical. What are you supposed to do in a situation like that? Obviously, they had to defend themselves, since to all appearance their cover was blown and they were being violently assaulted.

It's still unfortunate, of course, but it looks to me like there's some major overreaction going on in the community.

(Again, assuming you believe the police; and the stripper's story does sound pretty fishy, doesn't it?)

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
LOL 50 shots fired, only 21 hit the damn car, and 17 of those hit people.

I'm surprised there weren't more deaths just from the crossfire alone. ****ing horrible.

How do you shoot someone 11 times and not kill them!?

^co-sign

Originally posted by PVS
what i find the most disturbing has nothing to do with the man killed. here is what gets me: 50+ shots fired.

I agree 100%. What's the point in unloading your clip, reloading and going back to it....when no one is fighting back?

Another thing I don't understand is why the "stripper's" version is dismissed simply because she's a stripper.

Originally posted by PVS
what i find the most disturbing has nothing to do with the man killed. here is what gets me: 50+ shots fired. one officer unloads 2 full clips at a whopping 31 shots...surrounding homes hit with slugs...and they hit him with TWO FRIKIN BULLETS? whatever the outcome after the case is settled...irrelevant imho.
the real issue: nypd officers couldnt hit the broad side of a barn. who taught those idiots how to shoot?
yet another example of a suspect not cooperating. he had to have done something to warrant 50 shots.

Originally posted by KidRock
I think this stripper is full of shit.

Sorry to hear about your breakup with Pam. I heard she said you were insecure and now she's moving on to Kevin Federline. Hope you're okay with that.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I agree 100%. What's the point in unloading your clip, reloading and going back to it....when no one is fighting back?

Another thing I don't understand is why the "stripper's" version is dismissed simply because she's a stripper.

She worked at a strip club. No need to put "stripper" in quotation marks. And her version is not being dismissed "because she's a stripper"; it's being dismissed because it's ludacrous. "Yeh, yeh, he was just minding his own business when a vanload of cops roared up, rammmed his vehical, and then gunned him down without provication."

By contrast, the cops' version makes complete sense. "He came out of the club and rammed one of us, then started ramming our car. In retrospect, he was probably drunk or high , but at the time, we thought we were under attack, and so we defended ourselves."

So, I believe the cops. Because their statement, you know, makes perfect sense, and doesn't require us to believe that five undercover officers simultaniously decided to gun someone down without provocation.

takes the heat off Kramer for a while though

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
yet another example of a suspect not cooperating. he had to have done something to warrant 50 shots.

whats funny is how you'll probably go on to say that im irrationally and idiotically bias against the officers, yet keep in mind i pass no judgement since we really have no idea what went down. i just think their firearm skills are for shit, and i am factually correct, unless when they are compared to blind retards.

but then you come in and declare that the cops were justified, knowing jackshit about what happened. congrats

pretty ridiculous... 50 shots?

I dunnoy why there is all this talk about marksmanship. In an unplanned fight it is a miracle that ANY bullets hit. The numbers given are not remarkable- lower than 'normal', perhaps, but far from extraordinary.

Unplanned?

In that, if we believe the police officers, they were not expecting to get into a firefight. Unplanned. And of course, the targets were in a moving vehical, weren't they? Not an ideal situation for marksmenship.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I dunno why there is all this talk about marksmanship. In an unplanned fight it is a miracle that ANY bullets hit. The numbers given are not remarkable- lower than 'normal', perhaps, but far from extraordinary.

Originally posted by Gregory
In that, if we believe the police officers, they were not expecting to get into a firefight. Unplanned. And of course, the targets were in a moving vehicle, weren't they? Not an ideal situation for marksmanship.

First of all, I'm more shocked that only 20 of the 50 shots hit the van. Forget how many actually hit their human targets, that number should be alot higher. As police officers they have the responsibility to reduce the possibility of civilian casualties, not increase it. 30 stray shots flying into the street and houses and windows is just ridiculous.

On top of that, they are trained officers. I guarantee it's not the first time any of them fired a gun before.

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic

Another thing I don't understand is why the "stripper's" version is dismissed simply because she's a stripper.

*Note to any family member or friend who is a stripper*

Strippers, higher class then prostitutes, but lower then belly dancers, aren't taken too seriously because they make a living off of male arousal and sensuality, and they aren't always known to be honest or reliable, maybe good looking and a nice body, but some should retire much sooner then others.

If a stripper dies, gets beat on, harassed, etc., she is going to have a "hard" time getting professional men to take her seriously, esp. the courts. Nothing like having a stripper as an alibi, better just keep receipts.

Originally posted by Gregory
In that, if we believe the police officers, they were not expecting to get into a firefight. Unplanned. And of course, the targets were in a moving vehical, weren't they? Not an ideal situation for marksmenship.

But shouldn't they being police officers always expect to get into firefight or at the very least a physical altercation? Now don't get me wrong (as I'm sure someone will), just because you expect or are prepared to counter something doesn't mean you should act on it directly or immediately. For example, I'm a teacher. I have some rude kids in some of my classes. Being a teacher I expect this. But, that does not mean that I have to act on the contingencies I've but in place to deal with negative behavior and introvertism. Maybe I took the meaning of unplanned in this situation wrong. I mean it's not like police officers and criminals orchestrate shootouts (or do they?). Maybe there's a shootout learning annex where Hollywood directors instruct officers and criminals in 'synchronized firing'. But my point is that officers need always be prepared to deal with unexpected criminal activity, and this does not mean that they need to respond with lethal force or act on their contingency training/plans (if any) until they determine whether or not the perp is a viable armed threat, which I assume is difficult to do. I'm just a man and this is just my very humble opinion.

Originally posted by PVS
whats funny is how you'll probably go on to say that im irrationally and idiotically bias against the officers, yet keep in mind i pass no judgement since we really have no idea what went down. i just think their firearm skills are for shit, and i am factually correct, unless when they are compared to blind retards.

but then you come in and declare that the cops were justified, knowing jackshit about what happened. congrats
were you there? did you see what happened? imthink not. so before you try and tell me not to justify the cops, i tell you not to immediately defend the "victim."
you make a post making me out to be the bad guy, then you pull the same behavior that you claim i did. even nicer, wingnut. _talk_to_the_hand_
cops just dont unload 50 shots lest they feel their lives are in danger. i dont know all the facts, i admit that. do you? please grace us with your infinite wisdom, o wise one. idiot

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi

cops just dont unload 50 shots lest they feel their lives are in danger.

Oh, of course. Cops NEVER shoot people prematurely. They were completely justified in shooting Amadu Diallo 41 times too, even though he was pulling out a WALLET.

Or shooting a guy on his porch 81 times for throwing a FLIP FLOP.

Or that guy who got shot and killed for holding a CELL PHONE.

You put way too much faith in cops.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
were you there? did you see what happened? imthink not. so before you try and tell me not to justify the cops, i tell you not to immediately defend the "victim."

yeah, nice try at yet more lying and strawman bashing which has become so popular at kmc. now go back and quote where i said that the guy was a victim, or that the cops were not justified. i said clearly....CLEARLY that i dont know exactly what went down so i reserve any judgement. do you even read the posts you quote, or are you just having an imaginary argument with my screenname?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
you make a post making me out to be the bad guy, then you pull the same behavior that you claim i did. even nicer, wingnut. _talk_to_the_hand_

where the hell are you getting this from? quote it or shut your lying mouth. this is pathetic behavior....lying like that.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
cops just dont unload 50 shots lest they feel their lives are in danger. i dont know all the facts, i admit that.idiot

funny, you just declared something as fact and then you go on to say you dont know. wow dude, people usually commit a hypocrisy like that a few pages apart, you managed to do it in 2 consecutive sentences

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
do you? please grace us with your infinite wisdom, o wise one. idiot

again, my quote which you posted (which you cant read apparently):

Originally posted by PVS
...yet keep in mind i pass no judgement since we really have no idea what went down.

who do you intend to fool by putting words in my mouth? why dont you try either debating properly or just remain silent, because right now you're just disrupting the topic with lies...

...hey you know what? just ignore that you're blatantly in the wrong, quote this entire post, read none of it, and parrot the same lie. yeah, that should work just fine

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Oh, of course. Cops NEVER shoot people prematurely. They were completely justified in shooting Amadu Diallo 41 times too, even though he was pulling out a WALLET.

Or shooting a guy on his porch 81 times for throwing a FLIP FLOP.

Or that guy who got shot and killed for holding a CELL PHONE.

You put way too much faith in cops.
Yet in jolly old england you'd just get a verbal warning for that.

Sounds like the KKK traded in there sheets, for a uniform and a badge.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman

On top of that, they are trained officers. I guarantee it's not the first time any of them fired a gun before.

No, they were trained at shooting ranges and such, against paper targets. So you are right. But they also were never in any situation where they have fired a weapon before, at least according to their records.

So although they may have had plenty of weapons training, this was the first actual "live fire" use of their weapons.

I'm not saying that what they did was top-notch, but I'm cutting them some slack for the sub-par shooting since it's one thing to practice and another to play.Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Oh, of course. Cops NEVER shoot people prematurely. They were completely justified in shooting Amadu Diallo 41 times too, even though he was pulling out a WALLET.

Or shooting a guy on his porch 81 times for throwing a FLIP FLOP.

Or that guy who got shot and killed for holding a CELL PHONE.

You put way too much faith in cops.

And you don't put enough.

I saw the video of the guy with flip-flop. Maybe he should have just laid his ass on the ground, got cuffed, questioned, and either released or jailed.

The guy got shot because he didn't do what he was told, and then flashed something at the cops.

Not a weapon, not with the intention of hurting the cops, but the officers can't really know that, can they? All they know is he ain't obeying instructions. Then he flashes something in his hand. BOOM. Dead.

In the case of Amadu Diallo, it's the same, but more unfortunate. He was told to lay down on the floor, and instead of obeying reached for his wallet to show some ID.

Had he done what he was told, he wouldn't have gotten shot.

I tend to agree with you on that one, the officers needed to be more cautious, but when going to arrest a suspect who may be armed, they must be edgy.

When the said suspect doesn't respond to directions and moves to grab something (shoe, phone, whatever) they are well within their rights to think that he is going for a weapon.

Apparently the jury (which consisted of mostly, if not all African-Americans) agreed as they didn't charge those cops with anything.


I'm not sure of the cell phone incident to which you refer, because I have seen one video like that on Wildest Police Videos or something, but it might not be the one that you're refering to.


Same deal in the video that I saw, in that one, the guy wouldn't go down and get cuffed, tried to run, and turned around and pointed a black cell phone at the officers. At night time.

Surprise, he got shot! (Dee-duh-Dee!)


This is stupid. I'm not gonna weigh in on the NYPD case at hand until all facts are out, but as a rule you shouldn't be giving the cops shit for shooting people who don't comply with directions and then flash something in their hands.

It's not as though the cops are just pulling people over and shooting them, or as though they break into houses and cap people in the head who are watching TV.

These are arrests.

We all know the drill.

License and Registration if you're in a car. If he wants to pull you out and cuff and search you and run your name to check for warrants, then shut the f*ck up and let him (or her as it sometimes is) do it.

If you're walking or at home and are pulled over/arrested, then let them pat you down, run your name, check for gang tattoo's etc... and go on with your day.

Maybe it's just because I have a criminal record and have been arrested a good 5 or 6 times, and been pulled over more than I would care to count, often just walking down the street but I know these simple rules.

If I don't comply with the questioning, then I can be cuffed and have my record searched.

If I resist physically, then I'll be restrained.

If I resist restrainment with force or with a weapon, if I'm endandering the lives of civilians or officers, or.....ignore directions and flash an object at them.....

I have myself to blame for getting shot.Originally posted by heru
Sounds like the KKK traded in there sheets, for a uniform and a badge.

F*ck off.

Originally posted by botankus
Sorry to hear about your breakup with Pam. I heard she said you were insecure and now she's moving on to Kevin Federline. Hope you're okay with that.

It's ok, I will live. I heard you and your boyfriend broke up, maybe you and pam can fight over Kevin Federline now.

lolz boyfriend. dat means yer'a homasexul! hyuk hyuk

Originally posted by PVS
lolz boyfriend. dat means yer'a homasexul! hyuk hyuk

Good job PVS!!

http://www.theolanders.net/johnr/724you_win_the_prize.jpg

What most don't understand is cops are trained to unload thier guns. They don't want to get caught in midfire needing to reload, so they empty a clip when they decide to shoot ussualy. This results in wasted bullets, (which costs us the taxpayer) and alot of unnsecrey overkill. But a hesitant cop is a dead cop.

Personaly I'd train the cops to be better shots, not dimwitted stromtrooper who "make sure they're dead" by putting several rounds through them. That's just needlessly wasting!

i agree that more emphasis (far far more in the case of the nypd) should be placed on firearms training. it just seems from incidents like this that the strategy is to face whatever direction the criminal is at and fire...so like if he's west of you, fire west.

i know that nobody aims so well as in the movies, but ffs i never fired a handgun in my life and i bet that after an entire clip i'd be able to pull off at least one headshot

*edit* this server sucks ass

Originally posted by PVS
yeah, nice try at yet more lying and strawman bashing which has become so popular at kmc. now go back and quote where i said that the guy was a victim, or that the cops were not justified. i said clearly....CLEARLY that i dont know exactly what went down so i reserve any judgement. do you even read the posts you quote, or are you just having an imaginary argument with my screenname?



where the hell are you getting this from? quote it or shut your lying mouth. this is pathetic behavior....lying like that.



funny, you just declared something as fact and then you go on to say you dont know. wow dude, people usually commit a hypocrisy like that a few pages apart, you managed to do it in 2 consecutive sentences



again, my quote which you posted (which you cant read apparently):



who do you intend to fool by putting words in my mouth? why dont you try either debating properly or just remain silent, because right now you're just disrupting the topic with lies...

...hey you know what? just ignore that you're blatantly in the wrong, quote this entire post, read none of it, and parrot the same lie. yeah, that should work just fine

nice try. you come off like you are certain that the cops are guilty ,that there is no way around it. how can you be sure of that?

and when i step in and offer my opinion, you immediately shoot my idea down and come off like some kind of civil rights activist.

its like Ush said, in an unplanned gunfight, adrenaline flowing, its easier said than done for even the best marksman to hit the target every time.its called rapid fire for a reason, because there is little time to aim. they were fighting for their lives obviously, so to panic and just point and squeeze the trigger is understandable. even soldiers panic and spray rounds all over the place.

for you to claim the cops were so wrong is your right, so stay with it. but dont come down on me when i defend them.

btw, i did read the post. you claimed that i knew jackshit about what happened. by saying that, you are claiming to know exactly what happened.
the truth is that neither of us knows jackshit about what happened. all i know is that copos are not gonna unload on some guy lest their lives are in danger.
nice job with the insults, though, calling me a liar and telling me to shut my mouth. how was the third grade today?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
btw, i did read the post. you claimed that i knew jackshit about what happened. by saying that, you are claiming to know exactly what happened.
the truth is that neither of us knows jackshit about what happened. all i know is that copos are not gonna unload on some guy lest their lives are in danger.
nice job with the insults, though, calling me a liar and telling me to shut my mouth. how was the third grade today?

Originally posted by PVS
whats funny is how you'll probably go on to say that im irrationally and idiotically bias against the officers, yet keep in mind i pass no judgement since we really have no idea what went down. i just think their firearm skills are for shit, and i am factually correct, unless when they are compared to blind retards.

but then you come in and declare that the cops were justified, knowing jackshit about what happened. congrats

He called it before you even did it. You're so PREDICTABLE.

And illiterate too. Lemme point something out for you, and I'm defending PVS because you're ****ing ridiculous.

Look right here : yet keep in mind i pass no judgement since we really have no idea what went down.

You also ignored my post, which kinda refute your whole "they don't fire until their lives are in danger" thing.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Oh, of course. Cops NEVER shoot people prematurely. They were completely justified in shooting Amadu Diallo 41 times too, even though he was pulling out a WALLET.

Or shooting a guy on his porch 81 times for throwing a FLIP FLOP.

Or that guy who got shot and killed for holding a CELL PHONE.

You put way too much faith in cops.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
He called it before you even did it. You're so PREDICTABLE.

And illiterate too. Lemme point something out for you, and I'm defending PVS because you're ****ing ridiculous.

Look right here : yet keep in mind i pass no judgement since we really have no idea what went down.

You also ignored my post, which kinda refute your whole "they don't fire until their lives are in danger" thing.
did you SEE him pull out a wallet? were you THERE to witness this? NO.....so step down off of your pedestal, because you know as much as i do about what ACTUALLY happened, and that is nothing.
sure, his post about me "accusing him of being being irrational" is valid, and i might have said some harsh things, but i can guarantee you that even if evidence comes to light that the cops WERE in fact fighting for theit lives, that the "victim" WAS indeed a threat, you guys will still not change your tune. you will both stick with your ridiculous theory that cps are all trigger happy madmen that abuse their power.
defend PVS all you want, i could care less. there is nothing to defend, really, unless he cant defend himself, which i know for a fact that he is more than capable of doing.
if he and i have words, and we say some messed up stuff to each other, themn i truly regret that. right here and now, here is my formal apology if i offended him: PVS, IF I OFFENDED YOU IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, THEN I AM SORRY. I DIDNT MEAN TO. PEOPLE MISREAD POSTS HERE ALL THE TIME (even though i dont think i did) AND SOMETIMES THINGS ARE SAID IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT THAT ARENT REALLY MEANT. AGAINM IF I OFFENDED YOU, MY BAD.
sandman, what i dont get is where you come off, stepping in, insulting me, calling me fu***ng ridiculous, when you arent even part of the argument PVS and myself unfortunately go into. you should let he and i settle it. you have no right to step in and try to be mediator. i guess you are one of those people who like to step in to an argument and make it worse.....ie: drama queen.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
but i can guarantee you that even if evidence comes to light that the cops WERE in fact fighting for theit lives, that the "victim" WAS indeed a threat, you guys will still not change your tune. you will both stick with your ridiculous theory that cps are all trigger happy madmen that abuse their power.

And how are you going to guarantee this? Do you know me? At all? No, not really.

I'm actually of the mind that if the cop is absolutely sure his life is in danger(I.E. he SEES a KNIFE or a GUN) then he can shoot all the **** he wants. Not if he sees a wallet, not if he sees a flip flop, not even if the suspect is reaching into his pocket.

Only after a weapon is pulled is the cop allowed to shoot a guy 30, 40, 50 times.



Drama queen? If that were true I'd be following everyone around and starting shit wouldn't I? No, this is the first time I even talked to you. Your incompetence was smacking me in my face.

How do you read this: yet keep in mind i pass no judgement since we really have no idea what went down. and then say this: you are claiming to know exactly what happened. It makes no sense. None. At all. No person who reads over a third grade level would make this mistake, and then ontop of that try to make PVS look like the idiot.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
And how are you going to guarantee this? Do you know me? At all? No, not really.

I'm actually of the mind that if the cop is absolutely sure his life is in danger(I.E. he SEES a KNIFE or a GUN) then he can shoot all the **** he wants. Not if he sees a wallet, not if he sees a flip flop, not even if the suspect is reaching into his pocket.

Only after a weapon is pulled is the cop allowed to shoot a guy 30, 40, 50 times.



Drama queen? If that were true I'd be following everyone around and starting shit wouldn't I? No, this is the first time I even talked to you. Your incompetence was smacking me in my face.

How do you read this: yet keep in mind i pass no judgement since we really have no idea what went down. and then say this: you are claiming to know exactly what happened. It makes no sense. None. At all. No person who reads over a third grade level would make this mistake, and then ontop of that try to make PVS look like the idiot.
i never tried to make anyone look like an idiot. if i came off that way, then i already apologized to him for it. he can accept it or not, hold a grudge or not. its up to him.
now you are caling me incompetent. nice. so i am guessing that you have never misread a post, that every reply you have made here is perfect. must be nice to be infallible.
let me ask you this. lets say you and another member are going at it here, for whatever reason. its a stupid argument that should have never occured. then, in the heat of the moment, he or she insukts you, then you insult him back. things escalate. are you gonna try and resolve the situation yourself, or are you gonna wait and hope a knight in shining armor comes to your rescue? i dont know PVS that well, but i have seen him debate intelligently here and defend his opinions and posts more than once. he is a big boy who does not need you as a wingman. i certainly do not rely on others to save me when in an argument. (and i might add, it only happens here in the GDF, where you guys take things way too seriously).....

i can just feel a "if you dont like the GDF then GTFO" post coming on.

ps: you are right, i dont even know you, and now i have no desire to. have a nice day.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i never tried to make anyone look like an idiot. if i came off that way, then i already apologized to him for it. he can accept it or not, hold a grudge or not. its up to him.
now you are caling me incompetent. nice. so i am guessing that you have never misread a post, that every reply you have made here is perfect. must be nice to be infallible.
let me ask you this. lets say you and another member are going at it here, for whatever reason. its a stupid argument that should have never occured. then, in the heat of the moment, he or she insukts you, then you insult him back. things escalate. are you gonna try and resolve the situation yourself, or are you gonna wait and hope a knight in shining armor comes to your rescue? i dont know PVS that well, but i have seen him debate intelligently here and defend his opinions and posts more than once. he is a big boy who does not need you as a wingman. i certainly do not rely on others to save me when in an argument. (and i might add, it only happens here in the GDF, where you guys take things way too seriously).....

You said I was infallible, not me. I'll take it.

Someone stepping into the conversation has happened to me before, and if I'm right, it's annoying as ****, and if I'm in the wrong, then I admit it, feel like a tool for a few minutes, and move on.

It took me stepping in to make you realize that you misread PVS' post. You would not have believed a word he said and you only would have kept arguing with him. It happens all the time. I'm not trying to piss you off, it was just ridiculous that you refused to see his point when it was glaringly obvious.

It happens way too often in here. "I said this." "No. stfu I'm right." "No." "yes" 'nuh-uh' 'yuh-huh' 'blablablaa rarara yada yada....'

It's annoying. I'm glad it's done.



You're going to be waiting a while if you're expecting one of those from me.



If I cared, I'd have spoken to you once in the nigh 3 years I've posted here.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
You said I was infallible, not me. I'll take it.

Someone stepping into the conversation has happened to me before, and if I'm right, it's annoying as ****, and if I'm in the wrong, then I admit it, feel like a tool for a few minutes, and move on.

It took me stepping in to make you realize that you misread PVS' post. You would not have believed a word he said and you only would have kept arguing with him. It happens all the time. I'm not trying to piss you off, it was just ridiculous that you refused to see his point when it was glaringly obvious.

It happens way too often in here. "I said this." "No. stfu I'm right." "No." "yes" 'nuh-uh' 'yuh-huh' 'blablablaa rarara yada yada....'

It's annoying. I'm glad it's done.



You're going to be waiting a while if you're expecting one of those from me.



If I cared, I'd have spoken to you once in the nigh 3 years I've posted here.
i'll bet you'll take it.
as far as "you pointing out my misreading his post", i am at work now. its kinda easy to get sidetracked and forget stuff. every once in a while i will misread a post and realize that it was while i am at work. if i was at home, with nothing to do, then i obviuosly would make less mistakes.
you just spoke to me. you went out of your way to speak to me. so you seem to care a little.
what i dont get is why people here get so pissed off when there is even the slightest misunderstanding. even when someone posts a rebuttal or accepts blame, it goes on and on and on and on and on. and people like you are usually in the thick of it.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi

what i dont get is why people here get so pissed off when there is even the slightest misunderstanding. even when someone posts a rebuttal or accepts blame, it goes on and on and on and on and on. and people like you are usually in the thick of it.

Nah, you admitted you misread it, so I'm done. It's cool.

coolio.
you know, this thread reminds me of something i heard about years ago. a highway patrolman sees a motorist drinking and driving. he pulls them over, and, before he can exit his squad car, the driver gets out and advances on the patrolman. one thing led to another, and the patrolman ended up unloading his clip in the motorist, killing him. well the cop was white and the motorist was black. all the witnesses were black. there was a broken beer bottle in the motorists hand, and the witnesses said that the bottle broke when the victim fell, after the cop shot him. when they reviewed the dashcamera in the squad car, it showed the cop, weapon drawn, giving the suspect several verbal warnings to get on the ground. the suspect then smashed the bottle on the pavement, picked up the neck end, and wielded it as a weapon. the cop still gave him several chances to surrended, even dodging several drunken swipes. finally, in the end, the suspect had to be put down.

this shows how much we can trust witnesses. unless we are there to witness it ourselves, we dont really know what happened. in the NY city incident, for all we know, the guy could have had a beanie baby in his pocket.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i'll bet you'll take it.
as far as "you pointing out my misreading his post", i am at work now. its kinda easy to get sidetracked and forget stuff. every once in a while i will misread a post and realize that it was while i am at work. if i was at home, with nothing to do, then i obviuosly would make less mistakes.
you just spoke to me. you went out of your way to speak to me. so you seem to care a little.
what i dont get is why people here get so pissed off when there is even the slightest misunderstanding. even when someone posts a rebuttal or accepts blame, it goes on and on and on and on and on. and people like you are usually in the thick of it.

what annoys the shit out of me is NOT when someone misreads. what annoys the shit out of me is when i point out that they misread it and they refuse to acknowledge it or even backtrack to see for themselves...and then to annoy me more, when after 2 acts of ignoring that i pointed it out, i have to do the ridiculous act of quoting my own post, and they STILL go on to ignore it.

then you go on like i should just accept it and screw me. yeah, a bigger man would simply say "whoops" or "my bad" or "sorry" but i guess you're the only one here with a job, so its ok.

whatever, i dont care. just the next time someone tells you you've misread, maybe you should have a shred of respect enough to check and see. if not, dont expect a shred of respect in return

A broken bottle is more understandable than a wallet. Or flip flop. Which was actually on video.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
A broken bottle is more understandable than a wallet. Or flip flop. Which was actually on video.

imagine reading this sentence not knowing the context of it. could very well give someone a permanent migrane and profuse bleeding from the ears and eyes.

Originally posted by PVS
what annoys the shit out of me is NOT when someone misreads. what annoys the shit out of me is when i point out that they misread it and they refuse to acknowledge it or even backtrack to see for themselves...and then to annoy me more, when after 2 acts of ignoring that i pointed it out, i have to do the ridiculous act of quoting my own post, and they STILL go on to ignore it.

then you go on like i should just accept it and screw me. yeah, a bigger man would simply say "whoops" or "my bad" or "sorry" but i guess you're the only one here with a job, so its ok.

whatever, i dont care. just the next time someone tells you you've misread, maybe you should have a shred of respect enough to check and see. if not, dont expect a shred of respect in return
dude, i wrote a vivid apology to you. did you miss it? if you read it and chose not to accept it, let me know. i need to know where this is going.

Originally posted by PVS
imagine reading this sentence not knowing the context of it. could very well give someone a permanent migrane and profuse bleeding from the ears and eyes.
imagine being the bigger guy and saying you are sorry, write a public apology for the misunderstanding, then have the apology thrown back at you. what does that say about the recepient of the apology? not much, in my opinion.

Frankly, I douibt you would pull that off, PVS> I know it might sound silly, but yes, even the van would be a difficult target in a sudden, unplanned situation where you think (mistakenly or otherwise) that your life is at risk. It's all adrenaline and instinct and VERY few people are good shots in that kind of situation; only the people who have received enormous amounts of training (Secret Service agents in the US, or the Armed Response Unit in the UK, and even then they prefer to open fire after taking a lot of time to get a good firing position and aiming done).

Fact of the matter is, nearly all bullets fired from handguns miss. They only don't at pointblank range

For all the mistakes made in identification and reaction in this incident, there really isn't anything too extraordinary about the accuracy.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
did you SEE him pull out a wallet? were you THERE to witness this? NO.....so step down off of your pedestal, because you know as much as i do about what ACTUALLY happened, and that is nothing.
sure, his post about me "accusing him of being being irrational" is valid, and i might have said some harsh things, but i can guarantee you that even if evidence comes to light that the cops WERE in fact fighting for theit lives, that the "victim" WAS indeed a threat, you guys will still not change your tune. you will both stick with your ridiculous theory that cps are all trigger happy madmen that abuse their power.
defend PVS all you want, i could care less. there is nothing to defend, really, unless he cant defend himself, which i know for a fact that he is more than capable of doing.
if he and i have words, and we say some messed up stuff to each other, themn i truly regret that. right here and now, here is my formal apology if i offended him: PVS, IF I OFFENDED YOU IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, THEN I AM SORRY. I DIDNT MEAN TO. PEOPLE MISREAD POSTS HERE ALL THE TIME (even though i dont think i did) AND SOMETIMES THINGS ARE SAID IN THE HEAT OF THE MOMENT THAT ARENT REALLY MEANT. AGAINM IF I OFFENDED YOU, MY BAD.
sandman, what i dont get is where you come off, stepping in, insulting me, calling me fu***ng ridiculous, when you arent even part of the argument PVS and myself unfortunately go into. you should let he and i settle it. you have no right to step in and try to be mediator. i guess you are one of those people who like to step in to an argument and make it worse.....ie: drama queen.

i missed this burried in the infinite flame war between you two. my bad.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Frankly, I douibt you would pull that off, PVS> I know it might sound silly, but yes, even the van would be a difficult target in a sudden, unplanned situation where you think (mistakenly or otherwise) that your life is at risk. It's all adrenaline and instinct and VERY few people are good shots in that kind of situation; only the people who have received enormous amounts of training (Secret Service agents in the US, or the Armed Response Unit in the UK, and even then they prefer to open fire after taking a lot of time to get a good firing position and aiming done).

Fact of the matter is, nearly all bullets fired from handguns miss. They only don't at pointblank range

For all the mistakes made in identification and reaction in this incident, there really isn't anything too extraordinary about the accuracy.

i agree. not that im putting the nypd down, im sure many choose to sharpen their skill outside the curriculum of the academy...however shouldnt an officer of the law, authorised to use deadly force with a firearm, be properly trained to use it? just because something is the norm doesnt make it right. innocent people could have been hurt or killed. its just my thinking that if someone's job is to protect the people using a firearm, and their lack of marksmanship makes them almost as dangerous to the surrounding people as the criminal posing a threat to them, doesnt it just **** the situation up more? exponentially even since their presence in most cases initiates the gun fight?

maybe i expect too much, but maybe the general public expects to little. but i guess to train then at that level would entail more funding to the academies, and we all know that money is more important than public safety. besides, id rather rest assured that a cop is trained extensively to handle a deadly weapon in a chaotic situation, rather than know that they can run through a vigorous obsticle course ala olympic training...just in case the u.s. track and field team goes missing.

I noticed that you posted this again, in response to some flame war, or something.

Well I'd responded to it the first time, yet nobody seemed to catch it as the page turned on the next post after mine.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
Oh, of course. Cops NEVER shoot people prematurely. They were completely justified in shooting Amadu Diallo 41 times too, even though he was pulling out a WALLET.

Or shooting a guy on his porch 81 times for throwing a FLIP FLOP.

Or that guy who got shot and killed for holding a CELL PHONE.

You put way too much faith in cops.


And you don't put enough.

I saw the video of the guy with flip-flop. Maybe he should have just laid his ass on the ground, got cuffed, questioned, and either released or jailed.

The guy got shot because he didn't do what he was told, and then flashed something at the cops.

Not a weapon, not with the intention of hurting the cops, but the officers can't really know that, can they? All they know is he ain't obeying instructions. Then he flashes something in his hand. BOOM. Dead.

In the case of Amadu Diallo, it's the same, but more unfortunate. He was told to lay down on the floor, and instead of obeying reached for his wallet to show some ID.

Had he done what he was told, he wouldn't have gotten shot.

I tend to agree with you on that one, the officers needed to be more cautious, but when going to arrest a suspect who may be armed, they must be edgy.

When the said suspect doesn't respond to directions and moves to grab something (shoe, phone, whatever) they are well within their rights to think that he is going for a weapon.

Apparently the jury (which consisted of mostly, if not all African-Americans) agreed as they didn't charge those cops with anything.


I'm not sure of the cell phone incident to which you refer, because I have seen one video like that on Wildest Police Videos or something, but it might not be the one that you're refering to.


Same deal in the video that I saw, in that one, the guy wouldn't go down and get cuffed, tried to run, and turned around and pointed a black cell phone at the officers. At night time.

Surprise, he got shot! (Dee-duh-Dee!)


This is stupid. I'm not gonna weigh in on the NYPD case at hand until all facts are out, but as a rule you shouldn't be giving the cops shit for shooting people who don't comply with directions and then flash something in their hands.

It's not as though the cops are just pulling people over and shooting them, or as though they break into houses and cap people in the head who are watching TV.

These are arrests.

We all know the drill.

License and Registration if you're in a car. If he wants to pull you out and cuff and search you and run your name to check for warrants, then shut the f*ck up and let him (or her as it sometimes is) do it.

If you're walking or at home and are pulled over/arrested, then let them pat you down, run your name, check for gang tattoo's etc... and go on with your day.

Maybe it's just because I have a criminal record and have been arrested a good 5 or 6 times, and been pulled over more than I would care to count, often just walking down the street but I know these simple rules.

If I don't comply with the questioning, then I can be cuffed and have my record searched.

If I resist physically, then I'll be restrained.

If I resist restrainment with force or with a weapon, if I'm endandering the lives of civilians or officers, or.....ignore directions and flash an object at them.....

I have myself to blame for getting shot.

Originally posted by PVS
i missed this burried in the infinite flame war between you two. my bad.
its cool. no bad blood, right?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I noticed that you posted this again, in response to some flame war, or something.

Well I'd responded to it the first time, yet nobody seemed to catch it as the page turned on the next post after mine.




And you don't put enough.

I saw the video of the guy with flip-flop. Maybe he should have just laid his ass on the ground, got cuffed, questioned, and either released or jailed.

The guy got shot because he didn't do what he was told, and then flashed something at the cops.

Not a weapon, not with the intention of hurting the cops, but the officers can't really know that, can they? All they know is he ain't obeying instructions. Then he flashes something in his hand. BOOM. Dead.

In the case of Amadu Diallo, it's the same, but more unfortunate. He was told to lay down on the floor, and instead of obeying reached for his wallet to show some ID.

Had he done what he was told, he wouldn't have gotten shot.

I tend to agree with you on that one, the officers needed to be more cautious, but when going to arrest a suspect who may be armed, they must be edgy.

When the said suspect doesn't respond to directions and moves to grab something (shoe, phone, whatever) they are well within their rights to think that he is going for a weapon.

Apparently the jury (which consisted of mostly, if not all African-Americans) agreed as they didn't charge those cops with anything.


I'm not sure of the cell phone incident to which you refer, because I have seen one video like that on Wildest Police Videos or something, but it might not be the one that you're refering to.


Same deal in the video that I saw, in that one, the guy wouldn't go down and get cuffed, tried to run, and turned around and pointed a black cell phone at the officers. At night time.

Surprise, he got shot! (Dee-duh-Dee!)


This is stupid. I'm not gonna weigh in on the NYPD case at hand until all facts are out, but as a rule you shouldn't be giving the cops shit for shooting people who don't comply with directions and then flash something in their hands.

It's not as though the cops are just pulling people over and shooting them, or as though they break into houses and cap people in the head who are watching TV.

These are arrests.

We all know the drill.

License and Registration if you're in a car. If he wants to pull you out and cuff and search you and run your name to check for warrants, then shut the f*ck up and let him (or her as it sometimes is) do it.

If you're walking or at home and are pulled over/arrested, then let them pat you down, run your name, check for gang tattoo's etc... and go on with your day.

Maybe it's just because I have a criminal record and have been arrested a good 5 or 6 times, and been pulled over more than I would care to count, often just walking down the street but I know these simple rules.

If I don't comply with the questioning, then I can be cuffed and have my record searched.

If I resist physically, then I'll be restrained.

If I resist restrainment with force or with a weapon, if I'm endandering the lives of civilians or officers, or.....ignore directions and flash an object at them.....

I have myself to blame for getting shot.
EXCELLENT POST. when cops pull someone over, they have no idea whats waiting for them in the suspect vehicle.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
I noticed that you posted this again, in response to some flame war, or something.

Well I'd responded to it the first time, yet nobody seemed to catch it as the page turned on the next post after mine.

No, I caught it. Just didn't see a reason to respond. You're making excuses for them.

An officer chooses to be an officer, definitely knowing the risk to his life. It's his duty as an officer to make sure the life he takes is not an innocent life, nor wasted, even if it means risking his own life.

An officer has the right to draw his gun whenever he wants. However, he doesn't have the right to fire it until his life is in danger. Not if he thinks his life might be in danger.

When the weapon is drawn, then he can fire until his bullets run out, I don't care.

To shoot someone reaching for his ID is absurd. To shoot someone for being a reckless drunk is absurd. To shoot someone for throwing a flipflop is absurd. To shoot someone reaching for his cellphone is absurd.

Those officers firing 50 shots and only having 20 hit their target put the entire neighborhood in danger. That's unacceptable for an officer.

panic and adrenaline=bad marksmanship.

that equation is incomplete

inadequate training/conditioning+panic and adrenaline=bad...well really no marksmanship

Now that I think about it, it kind of seems like a moment from a movie. Specifically the Lethal Weapon series, where Mel Gibson is always shooting and blowing up shit and causing millions of dollars in public damage.

I can imagine the officers in the Chief's office, "What the hell were you guys thinking!? You caused $10,000 in damages and shot three unarmed men!"

*cue saxaphone*

im gettin too old for this shit

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
You're making excuses for them.



And you're giving them shit for no reason.


Originally posted by Mr. Sandman


An officer chooses to be an officer, definitely knowing the risk to his life. It's his duty as an officer to make sure the life he takes is not an innocent life, nor wasted, even if it means risking his own life.



Yup, he does choose it. He chooses to protect your ass from the sicko's out there.


He's not taking an "innocent" life if the person isn't responding to directions, is yelling and acting combative, or pulls out a wallet, or flip-flop, or cell phone when they are supposed to be laying down and shutting the f*ck up.

Maybe you'd like for me to post the story of the local Rocklin, CA CHP officer who had his head blown off by a 21 year old on meth when he walked up to the door for a traffic stop.

The police all know of it, as many from around the state and even the counrty came here for his funeral.

That's what they are thinking about when the come into contact with people.

Cops don't know what a person has on them or what they will do, when they are stopped/questioned/being arrested.

Nor is it their "responsibility" to "wait and see" if somebody kills them.

A person who doesn't follow directions, and pulls out/points something at a cop is asking to get killed.

Were they an "innocent life" killed?

Nope. Just a stupid one.

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman

To shoot someone reaching for his ID is absurd. To shoot someone for being a reckless drunk is absurd. To shoot someone for throwing a flipflop is absurd. To shoot someone reaching for his cellphone is absurd.



To not listen to directions, to not submit to questioning or arrest, and to then reach for an ID, flip-flop, or cell phone is pretty f*cking absurd.


It's why we're told as kids not to play with toy guns that look real, or to have a bb gun under our shorts, or paint a gun black or silver.

A cop doesn't know if what we have is a real gun, not unless he comes right up to us, stands still and looks at it for a second.

I for one, don't expect our boys in blue to have to do that shit when they deal with gang members, drug dealers, and murdering psychos who all would rather kill them than go to prison.


As I posted before, we all know the drill:


License and Registration if you're in a car. If he wants to pull you out and cuff and search you and run your name to check for warrants, then shut the f*ck up and let him (or her as it sometimes is) do it.

If you're walking or at home and are pulled over/arrested, then let them pat you down, run your name, check for gang tattoo's etc... and go on with your day.


If I don't comply with the questioning, then I can be cuffed and have my record searched.

If I resist physically, then I'll be restrained.

If I resist restrainment with force or with a weapon, if I'm endandering the lives of civilians or officers, or.....ignore directions and flash an object at them.....

I have myself to blame for getting shot.

So you're of the 'guilty until proven innocent' mindset. Nice. I'm glad you aren't in charge of anything.

You also conveniently skipped this last part of my post



When you fire prematurely and recklessly, you put innocent lives at risk.

Your regard for life is surprisingly non-chalant considering youre supposed to be a people-loving Christian. "Not innocent, but stupid". Excellent connection there Sherlock. Since when have stupid people been automatically guilty?

Want to kill of all illiterate people too? How about all of the retards? Let's just execute them all since they're obviously not innocent. They must have done something wrong, they're ****ing stupid!!

Originally posted by Mr. Sandman
So you're of the 'guilty until proven innocent' mindset. Nice. I'm glad you aren't in charge of anything.

You also conveniently skipped this last part of my post



When you fire prematurely and recklessly, you put innocent lives at risk.

Your regard for life is surprisingly non-chalant considering youre supposed to be a people-loving Christian. "Not innocent, but stupid". Excellent connection there Sherlock. Since when have stupid people been automatically guilty?

Want to kill of all illiterate people too? How about all of the retards? Let's just execute them all since they're obviously not innocent. They must have done something wrong, they're ****ing stupid!!

First of all, I agreed that this more recent case has yet to be decided and that I won't pass any judgement on it yet.


The rest of your post is an anti-christian rant, and therefore invalid.


Save for the point that you think I believe "people are guilty until proven innocent."


I never said that.

I'm saying that when people don't follow police instructions in being questioned or searched, and yes also when being arrested, they are foolish.

They are far more foolish to not follow instructions and to point or flash something at an officer.


It's not his job to take time to inspect every person holding an ID, cell phone, flip-flop, bb gun, water gun, or whatever, with the very real possiblity that doing so will get him shot before he can determine what the person has.


It IS the job of the citizen to comply with the officer's requests and not impede his investigation.

It is further his own dumb-ass fault if he doesn't follow directions with a loaded gun pointed at him, and instead points something at the officer.

Do you honestly expect a police officer, acting for your safety and his own, to take that time with a suspect who doesn't follow directions and points something at him?


Wait don't answer that.

You'd make a piss-poor cop, one that wouldn't be counted on by his partners, and probably a dead one too.

No, it wasn't an anti-christian rant, idiot. read it again. there was ONE anti-christian sentence.



yea, yea you did say that.

It's a police officer's job to put is ass on the line, and they should expect even to be fired upon. It is neither the job nor an expectation of a civilian to be shot if he is not holding a weapon.

Yes, I expect the officer to wait one second and see exactly what the hell that person is pulling out of their pocket to open fire. If he pulls out an ID card, the officer just killed an innocent civilian. If he pulls out a knife, awesome, the cop just killed a criminal.

it's his DUTY to put his ass on the line, even to protect ONE person from being killed irresponsibly.

Don't worry about what kind of cop I'd make. it has nothing to do with the discussion, and personally, I don't feel like putting my life on the line for ****s like you.

There needs to be a school for civilian "jobs" so if ever in question and a poiceman makes a mistake but I didn't do my "job" and get shot at least they can stand over my corpse and snicker "what an idiot he didn't do his job right but at least my aim was good."

Originally posted by PVS
that equation is incomplete

inadequate training/conditioning+panic and adrenaline=bad...well really no marksmanship
its hard for you or i to say this. you never know how you are gonna react when under fire until it happens, despite any training you have.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
No, they were trained at shooting ranges and such, against paper targets. So you are right. But they also were never in any situation where they have fired a weapon before, at least according to their records.

So although they may have had plenty of weapons training, this was the first actual "live fire" use of their weapons.

I'm not saying that what they did was top-notch, but I'm cutting them some slack for the sub-par shooting since it's one thing to practice and another to play.

And you don't put enough.

I saw the video of the guy with flip-flop. Maybe he should have just laid his ass on the ground, got cuffed, questioned, and either released or jailed.

The guy got shot because he didn't do what he was told, and then flashed something at the cops.

Not a weapon, not with the intention of hurting the cops, but the officers can't really know that, can they? All they know is he ain't obeying instructions. Then he flashes something in his hand. BOOM. Dead.

In the case of Amadu Diallo, it's the same, but more unfortunate. He was told to lay down on the floor, and instead of obeying reached for his wallet to show some ID.

Had he done what he was told, he wouldn't have gotten shot.

I tend to agree with you on that one, the officers needed to be more cautious, but when going to arrest a suspect who may be armed, they must be edgy.

When the said suspect doesn't respond to directions and moves to grab something (shoe, phone, whatever) they are well within their rights to think that he is going for a weapon.

Apparently the jury (which consisted of mostly, if not all African-Americans) agreed as they didn't charge those cops with anything.


I'm not sure of the cell phone incident to which you refer, because I have seen one video like that on Wildest Police Videos or something, but it might not be the one that you're refering to.


Same deal in the video that I saw, in that one, the guy wouldn't go down and get cuffed, tried to run, and turned around and pointed a black cell phone at the officers. At night time.

Surprise, he got shot! (Dee-duh-Dee!)


This is stupid. I'm not gonna weigh in on the NYPD case at hand until all facts are out, but as a rule you shouldn't be giving the cops shit for shooting people who don't comply with directions and then flash something in their hands.

It's not as though the cops are just pulling people over and shooting them, or as though they break into houses and cap people in the head who are watching TV.

These are arrests.

We all know the drill.

License and Registration if you're in a car. If he wants to pull you out and cuff and search you and run your name to check for warrants, then shut the f*ck up and let him (or her as it sometimes is) do it.

If you're walking or at home and are pulled over/arrested, then let them pat you down, run your name, check for gang tattoo's etc... and go on with your day.

Maybe it's just because I have a criminal record and have been arrested a good 5 or 6 times, and been pulled over more than I would care to count, often just walking down the street but I know these simple rules.

If I don't comply with the questioning, then I can be cuffed and have my record searched.

If I resist physically, then I'll be restrained.

If I resist restrainment with force or with a weapon, if I'm endandering the lives of civilians or officers, or.....ignore directions and flash an object at them.....

I have myself to blame for getting shot.



Why so angry Mr. Grand Wizard? The victim said, to the cop with smoking gun. 2guns

no anger there, its just a well thought out post. and a mighty good one too.

heres another video of recent "violent police behavior". see anything violent here? not me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEAu0N3GaV8

they intentionally charged their horses through a human chain, injuring 4 janitors protesting including an 80+ year old man.

also:



http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/19/15325/954

something suspiciously wrong here?

Originally posted by PVS
something suspiciously wrong here?
Yes--the number "888,888."

What a peculiar number to choose for bail. Do you perhaps think they had a monkey or an infant pressing the keys when writing up the forms, or did their thought processes go along the lines of:

"Okay. Eight is an awesome number. We should set the bail at something with 'eight' in it."

"How about $800?"

"No, too cheap, and not awesome enough."

"$888?"

"Still lacking in the punishment/awesome department."

"...DUDE! $888,888,888,888!"

"The public might get suspicious about the bail being that high. Let's try half of those eights--it'll still be expensive enough for us to laugh at their families and have the awesome of eight."

"****in' A. This job rocks."

Originally posted by PVS
they intentionally charged their horses through a human chain, injuring 4 janitors protesting including an 80+ year old man.

also:



http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/11/19/15325/954

something suspiciously wrong here?
they didnt CHARGE into them, they just rode up and kind of nudged them aside, forcing them back. its not like they were trampled. i witnessed part of this, and the cops were extremely professional, never resorting to LAPD tactics. they simply showed up and took charge of the situation. i mean, the protesters were blocking traffic. so they are disgruntled, ok, so go on strike, but why make others suffer because they crossed the border illegally?
if these illegals want more money, they should get a frigging green card.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
they didnt CHARGE into them, they just rode up and kind of nudged them aside, forcing them back. its not like they were trampled. i witnessed part of this, and the cops were extremely professional, never resorting to LAPD tactics. they simply showed up and took charge of the situation. i mean, the protesters were blocking traffic. so they are disgruntled, ok, so go on strike, but why make others suffer because they crossed the border illegally?
if these illegals want more money, they should get a frigging green card.

all i know is the cops are clearly using their horses recklessly. may as well drive their cars through it. also, you did not witnes part of this. maybe you saw them protesting since they were at it for a week, maybe you saw it all from a distance, but dont exhagerate. or else ill send you to law school.

also, maybe they were blocking traffic, however in that video and in photos they were clearly on the sidewalk.

and please leave the xenophobic immigrant hating of this thread. whether or not they are legal immigrants is of no concequesnce to whether they should be injured (and fact stands 4 were injured by police).

i was there for part of it. i watched from afar as these IDIOTS sat in the middle of the road and refused to move. did you see when that cop was dragging someone away by their shirt? thats when they were removing them from the street.