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

Just saw on the news.

A guy got a DUI, was taunting an officer, and according to the Officer, the guy got the gun out of his holster.

He wrestled with the guy to get the gun back, and then shot him.

The Sheriff confirmed that it isn't possible for a handcuffed man to get ahold of a police officers gun from the holster, because of the holster itself.

According to reports and footage, they guy was drunk and shouting "You're a man, you're a real man" sarcastically at the officer before the officer opened fire.

This police corruption is getting out of hand.

Why couldn't he grab the weapon? Honestly why do we care? Does the world have a shortage of dumbasses?

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Why couldn't he grab the weapon? Honestly why do we care? Does the world have a shortage of dumbasses? The holster has pins that hold the gun in place, and to pull the gun out, those need to be removed.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Why couldn't he grab the weapon? Honestly why do we care? Does the world have a shortage of dumbasses?

Because these are the people in charge of keeping us safe, even when we are drunk dumbasses, and that they don't just fail, but actively harm us is a huge issue.

And you know, that whole murder thing...

Originally posted by Jmanghan
The holster has pins that hold the gun in place, and to pull the gun out, those need to be removed.
No holster is 100% fool proof.
No prisoner is 100% guaranteed to not pull off some crazy stunt; seen it first hand in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I wasnt there so i cant arbitrarily shout what you're shouting.
Not saying you're wrong. Not saying i'm right.
I am saying its really easy to armchair quarterback people in life and death situations.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Why couldn't he grab the weapon? Honestly why do we care? Does the world have a shortage of dumbasses?

I agree, people should get away with murder as long as they kill dumb*sses. Heck, let's kill even mildly annoying people for the kicks!

Originally posted by riv6672
No holster is 100% fool proof.
No prisoner is 100% guaranteed to not pull off some crazy stunt; seen it first hand in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I wasnt there so i cant arbitrarily shout what you're shouting.
Not saying you're wrong. Not saying i'm right.
I am saying its really easy to armchair quarterback people in life and death situations. He was handcuffed and already in the car, with his hands behind his back, and the officer was facing him, while standing. What's he gonna do bite it out of his holster???

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
Why couldn't he grab the weapon? Honestly why do we care? Does the world have a shortage of dumbasses? By your logic, the police should be allowed to kill anyone that act like assholes, or shoot them, at the very least.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
He was handcuffed and already in the car, with his hands behind his back, and the officer was facing him, while standing. What's he gonna do bite it out of his holster???
OmaHA! OmaHA!

Like i said, i wasnt there. You werent either. You want to side with the drunken criminal by all means do. I'll side with the law enforcement officer. Until actual evidence proves he shot someone in cold blood.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
By your logic, the police should be allowed to kill anyone that act like assholes, or shoot them, at the very least.
This'd be a sparsely populated forum...

We don't have to side with either, I think we all should be in favour of a thorough and transparent investigation when someone lost their life through the hands of another, whether a police officer or not. I'd presume we all do as well, but Henry Pym seems to have made it very clear that he does not.

Henry's post wasnt worth commenting on, so i didnt, i directed my comments to J's. I did say "until actual evidence proves". J did not. He's taken it at face value and started a thread to vent on police corruption.
He has every right to do that, of course.

Originally posted by riv6672
Henry's post wasnt worth commenting on, so i didnt, i directed my comments to J's. I did say "until actual evidence proves". J did not. He's taken it at face value and started a thread to vent on police corruption.
He has every right to do that, of course.

Well, J's post was directly caused by Henry's dismissal, but I see your point that the OP was already slanted towards definite fault on the officers part.

Somehow I find the idea of a drunk, handcuffed man posing enough of a threat to an armed officer to warrant deadly force highly unlikely....

Originally posted by Jmanghan
He was handcuffed and already in the car, with his hands behind his back, and the officer was facing him, while standing. What's he gonna do bite it out of his holster??? '


Crap.


I think we have telekinetic drunks.



More seriously, yea, this is fairly messed up.

A lot of police officers are insufficiently trained in when to use force or overreact when their authority is challenged.

Originally posted by riv6672
OmaHA! OmaHA!

Like i said, i wasnt there. You werent either. You want to side with the drunken criminal by all means do. I'll side with the law enforcement officer. Until actual evidence proves he shot someone in cold blood.


This'd be a sparsely populated forum...

It was the Sheriff who sided with the drunken criminal, not me.

His words were literally "Nope, can't happen". Oh, and the gun shot went off when the drunk guy was mid-sentence.

I'll admit, in recent years, I do have a bias against police, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't side with them if I thought they were in the right.

The guy was drunk, stupid, and handcuffed. So, honestly, no, until evidence comes up that the Officer was innocent, I'm going to assume he's guilty. The evidence that is already there is stacked HIGH against the Officer.

Originally posted by Bardock42
...but i see your point...the OP was already slanted towards definite fault on the officers part.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because these are the people in charge of keeping us safe, even when we are drunk dumbasses, and that they don't just fail, but actively harm us is a huge issue.

And you know, that whole murder thing...

Uh wait a minute now. He did not say "if the cop shot this guy for no reason why do we care?". The poster seemed to have disbelief the gun would be impossible to get. Whether or not that is the case..if it WAS somehow possible and this drunk d-bag did try to get a gun out of the cops holster then I honestly...if you try to wrestle a cop and take his gun away you're going to get shot. Not only that, you SHOULD be shot for that, period.

Am I saying that is what happened? Nope. Or if he got the gun back, had it for a decent amount of time, THEN chose to shoot that is one thing. But if the guy tried to wrestle it away somehow, got it, the cop got it back and then opened fire I have no problems. If he got the gun back, the guy taunted him, and then he shot him yeah that is messed up.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
The holster has pins that hold the gun in place, and to pull the gun out, those need to be removed.

Wait wait slow your role. I don't know much about holsters, but if it's so uneasy to get the gun out of that holster what happens if there is some incident where the cops needs to be able to react and draw his gun in a split second? Is he going to be killed because he needs to remove pins first?

Or do the holsters somehow allow the cop to remove it quickly, but other people need to remove the pins? How does this work? Since just from your description it sounds like an asinine way for a holster to work. You'd be dead if you need to get your gun out quickly.

Originally posted by Surtur
Uh wait a minute now. He did not say "if the cop shot this guy for no reason why do we care?". The poster seemed to have disbelief the gun would be impossible to get. Whether or not that is the case..if it WAS somehow possible and this drunk d-bag did try to get a gun out of the cops holster then I honestly...if you try to wrestle a cop and take his gun away you're going to get shot. Not only that, you SHOULD be shot for that, period.

Am I saying that is what happened? Nope. Or if he got the gun back, had it for a decent amount of time, THEN chose to shoot that is one thing. But if the guy tried to wrestle it away somehow, got it, the cop got it back and then opened fire I have no problems. If he got the gun back, the guy taunted him, and then he shot him yeah that is messed up.

Uh wait a minute now. He very clearly stated "Honestly why do we care? Does the world have a shortage of dumbasses?"...so yes he did say that we shouldn't care about this story cause the guy who got shot is a "dumbass".

Originally posted by Bardock42
Uh wait a minute now. He very clearly stated "Honestly why do we care? Does the world have a shortage of dumbasses?"...so yes he did say that we shouldn't care about this story cause the guy who got shot is a "dumbass".

Uh but if the guy tried to wrestle a gun away from a cop and got shot without any actual foul play then yeah the guy is a dumbass. It doesn't mean it was being said every dumbass deserves to get shot. Just any dipshit too dumb to not realize trying to wrestle a gun away from a cop is stupid.

Which I agree, IF the cop didn't just shoot in cold blood and shot a guy who was actively trying to get his gun away? Who cares? I don't, why should you? The cop did his job if that is the case. Again, not saying that is the case, but if it is? This is a non-story. Dipshit drunk plays a stupid game and gets a stupid prize. What would you feel there is left to say, if that was indeed the case?

If this is true, an officer murdering a restrained man because he couldn't handle taunts to his masculinity, we might just have the biggest (LoL!) case of micro-penis since that micro-dicked-dentist paid $50K to kill an already injured lion.

Originally posted by Robtard
If this is true, an officer murdering a restrained man because he couldn't handle taunts to his masculinity, we might just have the biggest (LoL!) case of micro-penis since that micro-dicked-dentist paid $50K to kill an already injured lion.

Originally posted by Surtur
Uh but if the guy tried to wrestle a gun away from a cop and got shot without any actual foul play then yeah the guy is a dumbass. It doesn't mean it was being said every dumbass deserves to get shot. Just any dipshit too dumb to not realize trying to wrestle a gun away from a cop is stupid.

Which I agree, IF the cop didn't just shoot in cold blood and shot a guy who was actively trying to get his gun away? Who cares? I don't, why should you? The cop did his job if that is the case. Again, not saying that is the case, but if it is? This is a non-story. Dipshit drunk plays a stupid game and gets a stupid prize. What would you feel there is left to say, if that was indeed the case?

Look, I'm the one that's saying we should look at the evidence and make a decision, the guy you are supporting (Henry Pym) is the one saying "why do we care" because he feels the guy was a dumbass. Maybe take it up with him.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because these are the people in charge of keeping us safe, even when we are drunk dumbasses, and that they don't just fail, but actively harm us is a huge issue.

And you know, that whole murder thing... Originally posted by Jmanghan
By your logic, the police should be allowed to kill anyone that act like assholes, or shoot them, at the very least. Originally posted by Bentley
I agree, people should get away with murder as long as they kill dumb*sses. Heck, let's kill even mildly annoying people for the kicks! lol, it was a joke, calm down or you will melt you special snowflakes

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
lol, it was a joke, calm down or you will melt you special snowflakes

Hahaha, but also, coincidentally you actually believe it...

Originally posted by Jmanghan
The holster has pins that hold the gun in place, and to pull the gun out, those need to be removed.

Then how is the COP supposed to get it out if it is needed in a hurry?


Oh wait.....I forgot. Democrats.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Then how is the COP supposed to get it out if it is needed in a hurry?


Oh wait.....I forgot. Democrats. Democrats made the holster?

Originally posted by Mindset
Democrats made the holster?

Just the pins.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahaha, but also, coincidentally you actually believe it... believe what? Stupidity should be a capital offense? No too broad a term

If you fight a cop and get shot, stupid people will cry about it online? Well, the thread is proof. As Riv said, its easy to judge people when you have never lived that life.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
lol, it was a joke, calm down or you will melt you special snowflakes You didn't exactly say it jokingly, there are ways to show sarcasm through typing, you know.

Second of all, it wasn't funny.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Then how is the COP supposed to get it out if it is needed in a hurry?


Oh wait.....I forgot. Democrats. Well, during the interview with the Sheriff, he was showing the pins and such of the holster, and literally said its "impossible".

He might be wrong.

Originally posted by Henry_Pym
lol, it was a joke, calm down or you will melt you special snowflakes

So yours was a joke?

My what?Originally posted by Jmanghan
You didn't exactly say it jokingly, there are ways to show sarcasm through typing, you know.

Second of all, it wasn't funny. thank you arbitor of humor.

Originally posted by Stigma
He might be wrong. Because you know, believe the trusted police officer over the trusted Sheriff.

So anyways does anyone care to explain how, if the gun is so hard to get out of the holster, a cop can get one out if he needs to use his gun quickly?

I guess it's just one of those things the movies don't get right. Or the tv cop shows. Nobody is ever pulling pins out of something before getting their gun, they just whip those suckers out quickly as if it would be valuable for a police officer to be able to take out his gun at a moments notice.

Silly fairy tales.

Originally posted by Surtur
So anyways does anyone care to explain how, if the gun is so hard to get out of the holster, a cop can get one out if he needs to use his gun quickly?

I guess it's just one of those things the movies don't get right. Or the tv cop shows. Nobody is ever pulling pins out of something before getting their gun, they just whip those suckers out quickly as if it would be valuable for a police officer to be able to take out his gun at a moments notice.

Silly fairy tales. Thats the reason WHY the pins are there in the first place, so other people can't wrestle the guns out of the holster on a moments notice.

A holster secures the gun, as well as being a gun holder.

Its less "pins" and more like flaps of leather.

If you are taking tv shows and movies as your sources, then you'd be sadly mistaken.

I thought i was done with this subject but, J, i have to ask, do you have ANY experience with firearms/holsters?
Because it seems you arbitrarily found someone guilty because someone ELSE said something is "impossible".
That sheriff might be a fan of that type holster. Simple as that. Someone else can just as easily claim that holster couldnt keep a 3 year old from the gun inside.
Not wanting to bust your chops all Pym style, man, but i cant see you as the type to go off of that little.

Originally posted by riv6672
I thought i was done with this subject but, J, i have to ask, do you have ANY experience with firearms/holsters?
Because it seems you arbitrarily found someone guilty because someone ELSE said something is "impossible".
That sheriff might be a fan of that type holster. Simple as that. Someone else can just as easily claim that holster couldnt keep a 3 year old from the gun inside.
Not wanting to bust your chops all Pym style, man, but i cant see you as the type to go off of that little. I guess we will have to wait and see what the evidence suggests. But the main point he is making is that police holsters do have some sort of safety features that are supposed to make it difficult for them to be harder to remove during a struggle. Like leather straps and other devices. A quick google search found that this is a correct statement.

Oh its correct. But removal? Not impossible.
Using that statement as the basis to come here and say "hey look at what this cop did he's awful"?
Not cool.

Originally posted by riv6672
Oh its correct. But removal? Not impossible.
Using that statement as the basis to come here and say "hey look at what this cop did he's awful"?
Not cool. It does add a weird angle to the story if the person was already cuffed and in the back seat. It would seem hard for the person to actually get the gun in those circumstances. It definitely makes it a case worth investigating. It also shows another reason why officers should wear body cams. It would clear this entire mess up quickly.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Thats the reason WHY the pins are there in the first place, so other people can't wrestle the guns out of the holster on a moments notice.

A holster secures the gun, as well as being a gun holder.

Its less "pins" and more like flaps of leather.

If you are taking tv shows and movies as your sources, then you'd be sadly mistaken.

I'm just saying don't you think what you are saying makes no sense? I'm not saying it isn't true, but it just seems silly. Even if, as others have said, it's not impossible to remove..but not necessarily easy to remove it still makes no sense to me. A police officer needs to be able to get his weapon out at a moments notice if he needs it.

So that just seems like a huge flaw that could potentially cause a lot of situations where a cop is killed as a result because he can't pull his gun fast enough.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'm just saying don't you think what you are saying makes no sense? I'm not saying it isn't true, but it just seems silly. Even if, as others have said, it's not impossible to remove..but not necessarily easy to remove it still makes no sense to me. A police officer needs to be able to get his weapon out at a moments notice if he needs it. From articles I have read they make it harder to take out to protect the police officer so it won't easily come out in a struggle. They've also tried to make holsters that rely on a natural drawing motion to allow the gun to come free so that only the officer should be able to comfortably remove the weapon to bridge the gap between safety and ease of removal. It ultimately depends on the manufacture and security level of the holster but it is a thing.

But it makes sense to try and make it harder for the firearm to come out in a struggle to help prevent officers from being shot by their own weapon.

Okay so it protects him from accidentally shooting himself, but opens him up to being shot from someone else because he can't pull out his gun quick enough.

Originally posted by Surtur
Okay so it protects him from accidentally shooting himself, but opens him up to being shot from someone else because he can't pull out his gun quick enough. It's not just about shooting himself. It helps keep the suspect from being able to easily remove the gun and shoot the officer with it. The article I saw said their were 48 incidents of this happening.

They also try to make it easier for the officer to remove the gun naturally but make it harder for anyone else to do.

But let's also be honest the number of times an officer is going to be faced with a Western Quickdraw gunfight is going to be minimal. It is much more likely they will already have the gun out if they think they are in a dangerous environment. Or they will be in a situation where that extra millisecond of time delay won't matter. I mean if someone already has their gun drawn on you before you have a chance to draw your gun you're in a bad situation to begin with.

Even still they are trying to get a holster that performs well in all scenarios by allowing quick release only for the officer using the holster but difficult for anyone else to do so.

It just seems like something that could potentially cause the cops death, even if it is rare for there to be instances where you need to draw your gun instantly.

Especially the cops who work in areas with heavy gang activity.

Originally posted by Surtur
It just seems like something that could potentially cause the cops death, even if it is rare for there to be instances where you need to draw your gun instantly.

Especially the cops who work in areas with heavy gang activity. I don't know what else to tell. I think I've given about all the pertinent facts on the subject of police gun holster safety I could find.

No I understand what you are saying, but I think you can see there is still a potential flaw right that could, in a rare situation, get a cop killed.

Originally posted by Surtur
No I understand what you are saying, but I think you can see there is still a potential flaw right that could, in a rare situation, get a cop killed. Potentially like I've seen they are working on the balance and if the situation you describe is so rare it saves more lives by making it harder for a struggling suspect to remove the gun then I think that is a good trade off.

Originally posted by Newjak
It does add a weird angle to the story if the person was already cuffed and in the back seat. It would seem hard for the person to actually get the gun in those circumstances. It definitely makes it a case worth investigating. It also shows another reason why officers should wear body cams. It would clear this entire mess up quickly.
Agreed.
Investigste then assign guilt.

Also it would depend on how they are cuffed. If their hands are behind their back then if the guy got the gun out of the holster he is some kind of magician.

Originally posted by Surtur
Also it would depend on how they are cuffed. If their hands are behind their back then if the guy got the gun out of the holster he is some kind of magician. They were behind his back.

So now why is Dr. Stephen Strange deciding to drunkenly attack cops?

Originally posted by Surtur
So now why is Dr. Stephen Strange deciding to drunkenly attack cops? He didn't attack anyone, he was pulled over for a DUI and walked to the car. Started mouthing off, next thing you know, there's an abrupt gunshot and the other officer's seem very surprised.

Whats more convincing that the Officer did it is that the guy didn't change the tone of his voice and was shot mid-sentence, in the middle of pronouncing a word, his voice never raised, or get louder, and there was no sounds of a struggle, or groaning, or nothing.

If I'm wrong, you all can call me out on it, hell, I'll even ask Ush to close the thread, but as of now, I'm 99.9% sure police corruption is the cause.

Okay I was joking at that point...yeah if he's cuffed behind his back the whole "took my gun out of my holster" thing sounds fishy, whether you need pins or not to keep it in. I could maybe see if your hands are in front of you..but behind?

This is just another d-bag cop too stupid to come up with a more convincing excuse. Some men can't handle being taunted, put a gun in that hand and things get messy.

I notice my post wasnt addressed. Tells me what i needed to know.
I'm out.

Originally posted by riv6672
I notice my post wasnt addressed. Tells me what i needed to know.
I'm out. Dude, I agree with you, investigate, but you also had a slight bias yourself, believing the the "trusted police officer" was in the clear, when we have every reason to believe he shot the guy.

Who knows, maybe it was a complete accident, and we're both wrong.

Honestly though, in recent times, the police aren't trustworthy of SHIT, I wouldn't trust today's officers as far as I can throw them, and I don't think I'm the only one, considering the huge overabundance of police brutality threads and news reports.

More and more people in the us are automatically slanted against the cops. Tell me why almost all of the "racist" cop shootings are ultimately proven in favor of the cops, and why do people still keep this slant? I'm very wary of many police but this automatic assumption is bs