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

FYI, swatting is an internet prank/crime where someone finds your address either through your IP (usually through an online video game) or because your name and location is known. Then they call 911 anonymously and report a fake emergency e.g. that someone at that address is being held at a gun point or someone is going to commit suicide and a SWAT team would be dispatched to the address.

Someone finally died because of this shit.

It's only a video game, FFS.

That cop pulled the trigger too soon.

It's hard to see clearly what that guy was doing since he was so far away but it looked to me like he had his hands up, lowered them, and then pulled them up in front of himself pointing them forward. I can't tell if he was holding something or not. I can't even tell if that's what actually happened. Just what I made out.

EDIT: Just watched some of the press conference video and looks like that's exactly what happened. This is f*cked up

We need Video Game Console Control.

Thankfully, the ****er that made the call has been arrested. Swatting in general has been a problem for awhile now, but the fact it led to its first death here is still unacceptable.

Yeah, but the fat ass hat lives in L.A and he only got a midwesterner killed. So Not even a slap on the wrist. Probably not even Community Service.

Oh wait....He isn't an Illegal. He is white....OK...he MIGHT get some community service.

MIGHT!

Originally posted by juggerman
It's hard to see clearly what that guy was doing since he was so far away but it looked to me like he had his hands up, lowered them, and then pulled them up in front of himself pointing them forward. I can't tell if he was holding something or not. I can't even tell if that's what actually happened. Just what I made out.

EDIT: Just watched some of the press conference video and looks like that's exactly what happened. This is f*cked up

Yes, and it raises questions.

Like why would someone do that in front if a policeman.

Everyone knows when you're told to show hands, you show hands.

Originally posted by cdtm
Yes, and it raises questions.

Like why would someone do that in front if a policeman.

Everyone knows when you're told to show hands, you show hands.


Oh just go with the Racist Cops Answer.

Cop should be fired and punished with jail time, and the guy who called it in should be sentenced to life in prison.

Originally posted by BackFire
Cop should be fired and punished with jail time, and the guy who called it in should be sentenced to life in prison.

Maybe.

As tragic as this is, it really depends on the details.. I mean, a cop who's told he's going in on an armed civilian, is forced to take that at face value.

Because he's the one that gets shot, if it's not a prank. (And he'd have no way of knowing it's a prank..)

That said, if he's at fault somehow, then yeah, something needs to be done.

Originally posted by BackFire
Cop should be fired and punished with jail time, and the guy who called it in should be sentenced to life in prison.

Guy who did it is in LA Califunny. That stand don't even hadn out manslaughter when people get killed anymore....well under the right circumstances...

Originally posted by cdtm
Maybe.

As tragic as this is, it really depends on the details.. I mean, a cop who's told he's going in on an armed civilian, is forced to take that at face value.

Because he's the one that gets shot, if it's not a prank. (And he'd have no way of knowing it's a prank..)

That said, if he's at fault somehow, then yeah, something needs to be done.

Unless the man opened the door holding a gun then the cop shooting him is unacceptable. All accounts are that the man did not have a gun and was shot immediately upon opening the front door of his own house.

So if those accounts are true then the officer is grossly incompetent (a running theme in today's police force, it seems) and needs to not be a police officer anymore and should face time for said incompetence.

Do we know what the swat pranker told the cops was going on in the house?

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Do we know what the swat pranker told the cops was going on in the house?


Yes:


oezQwMJ-j9s




"I killed him...I already poured gasoline all over the house. I may light it."

Originally posted by BackFire
Unless the man opened the door holding a gun then the cop shooting him is unacceptable. All accounts are that the man did not have a gun and was shot immediately upon opening the front door of his own house.

So if those accounts are true then the officer is grossly incompetent (a running theme in today's police force, it seems) and needs to not be a police officer anymore and should face time for said incompetence.

So don't fire unless fired upon?

I honestly have no idea how this should have been handled, but in cases where police are dealing with an armed suspect, I assume the officer's right to defend his own life the same as anyone. Shoot before they shoot you.

Well that POS CalifukJob needs to get sent to PoundHimInhTheAss Prison.

Originally posted by cdtm
So don't fire unless fired upon?

I honestly have no idea how this should have been handled, but in cases where police are dealing with an armed suspect, I assume the officer's right to defend his own life the same as anyone. Shoot before they shoot you.
How would the cop know it's not one of the hostages opening the door, for example?

EDIT: Jeez, the guy looks like a ****ing alien.

Originally posted by cdtm
So don't fire unless fired upon?

I honestly have no idea how this should have been handled, but in cases where police are dealing with an armed suspect, I assume the officer's right to defend his own life the same as anyone. Shoot before they shoot you.

No, don't fire unless you see a gun/weapon and the guy with a gun/weapon actually does something threatening. If a person can't handle that then they should not be a cop.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, don't fire unless you see a gun/weapon and the guy with a gun/weapon actually does something threatening. If a person can't handle that then they should not be a cop.

This is a real problem in our parapolicing enviroment.

Kinda wraps back to the officer with the AR-15 that had etched things to show how tough he is with the gun when he killed the guy that was face down on the ground.

The Police were set up here

Originally posted by snowdragon
This is a real problem in our parapolicing enviroment.

Kinda wraps back to the officer with the AR-15 that had etched things to show how tough he is with the gun when he killed the guy that was face down on the ground.

Yeah. It is always easy to Backseat Quarterback the types of situations that Cops get into.

This is just like the kid that was shot murdered in the hotel hallway in Arizona.

Originally posted by BackFire
No, don't fire unless you see a gun/weapon and the guy with a gun/weapon actually does something threatening. If a person can't handle that then they should not be a cop.

Reaching for a weapon is threatening.

That and Cops are ONLY Human and don't have Super Senses.
And this is Wichita they are talking about. The town isn't called "Little Detroit" for nothing. Parts of that town are pure war zones. I don't blame the cop for being nervous.

Originally posted by cdtm
Reaching for a weapon is threatening.

Bingo. Though I think the piece of dog shit who called this in needs to be jailed for life.

Originally posted by cdtm
So don't fire unless fired upon?

I honestly have no idea how this should have been handled, but in cases where police are dealing with an armed suspect, I assume the officer's right to defend his own life the same as anyone. Shoot before they shoot you.
You're correct.
While not a policeman, i faced the same situation multiple times in the Army.

Been reading on this here and there, and ppl are just straight up calling for the officer's head, proclaiming police brutality, calling psycho...
...the best way to not have had this happen was to not have instigated it in the first place.

And thats pretty much all i've got to say about this.

Cheers

Originally posted by BackFire
and the guy who called it in should be sentenced to life in prison.
Disagree. Punishment needs to be based on actions, not luck.

The guy who called in did not kill the man. And his actions, while likely justification for jail time on their own would not be granted with life in prison.

There's no justification for punishing someone who did not kill like you would punish a killer.

Cops are payed to get into those sorts of situations. That's their job. If they can't handle their job, they shouldn't be cops.

Unless you see a weapon, you shouldn't shoot.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Disagree. Punishment needs to be based on actions, not luck.

The guy who called in did not kill the man. And his actions, while likely justification for jail time on their own would not be granted with life in prison.

There's no justification for punishing someone who did not kill like you would punish a killer.

Bullshit. What did he think would happen by telling the cops this man was HOLDING PEOPLE HOSTAGE?

You have to have your head under a god damn rock to live in this country and not think calling the cops and telling them some dude has shot one person and is holding others hostage might end in tragedy.

And I just disagree with your overall logic. For instance, I am all for punishing someone who lies about being raped with the same punishment you'd give a rapist. And this person had no qualms about getting someone else in legal trouble for something they didn't do. Nah, f*ck that, and I'm not saying give him equal punishment. Killers should be summarily executed the moment guilt is 100% certain. This guy just needs plenty of jail time.

That's pretty phucked, the dude that pranked the cops should be charged with murder, or at the very least manslaughter.

Another thing to take from this is, if you're streaming in front of strangers, take your privacy very seriously, always use a Vpn and never tell anyone where you're at.

Originally posted by Surtur
Bullshit. What did he think would happen by telling the cops this man was HOLDING PEOPLE HOSTAGE?

Something other than his death. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the man dying was his intention.
Originally posted by Surtur
You have to have your head under a god damn rock to live in this country and not think calling the cops and telling them some dude has shot one person and is holding others hostage might end in tragedy.

That isn't relevant to what I'm arguing.
Originally posted by Surtur
And I just disagree with your overall logic. For instance, I am all for punishing someone who lies about being raped with the same punishment you'd give a rapist.
Nope. Lying about rape isn't as bad as actually raping someone imo.

Which should get him in legal trouble, not life in prison,

1. Guilt is never 100% certain

2. "Plenty of jail time", which I'm fine with, is different than life in prison which is the maximum punishment several states handout. The cop also shouldn't be safe from blame. He acted as if someone was a threat without first confirming they were a threat. The cop was the one who killed a man without any evidence of the hoaxer's claim.

There's no justification for the officer not being punished in some way.

Available Data Going In

Hostage Situation

Suspect has killed one hostage

Suspect has doused the property with gasoline

Suspect is unstable and does not want to communicate further

The Police Officer arriving at the scene is jumping feet first into the unknown here.

The Officer asks the Suspect to raise his hands

The Suspect makes a move

I think we can all agree the suspect is not raising his hands up here.

The Suspect has not spoken

Had the suspect spoken the officer will have known: The voice on the line. Wait a minute. Sir. Can you say that again? Sir I think there has been a misunderstanding.

Thats the way it would have gone

But the suspect was non communicative and made a move

The officer has got to be thinking

-Is he reaching for flint, a match, a lighter

Available Data = The property has been covered in gasoline

Just 1 spark. Drop a coin. Drop a set of car keys. Drop a comb. Drop a ball of steel wool on a hard stone / concrete surface and you're looking at a situation where the whole neighbourhood is on fire.

According to Leftist Mentality it is always better when the Cops Die.

Originally posted by cdtm
Reaching for a weapon is threatening. He didn't have a weapon, you gigantic ****ing retard.

"But maybe he did have one"

I would imagine that "not being blind" is a pre-requisite for being a police officer. An officer should be able to tell if someone is drawing a weapon or not.

You need to take a moment to assess your retarded position here. You are literally asserting that it is justified for police to murder citizens as long as they "feel" threatened. If that's the position you actually hold then I hope that one day you or someone you love gets pulled over by police and shot immediately.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
He didn't have a weapon, you gigantic ****ing retard.

"But maybe he did have one"

I would imagine that "not being blind" is a pre-requisite for being a police officer. An officer should be able to tell if someone is drawing a weapon or not.

You need to take a moment to assess your retarded position here. You are literally asserting that it is justified for police to murder citizens as long as they "feel" threatened. If that's the position you actually hold then I hope that one day you or someone you love gets pulled over by police and shot immediately.


Leftist Mentality. Prefers Dead Cops.

He didn't reach for a weapon because there wasn't any and no one was going to die dumbo.

I'm fairly sure that if a death occurs during the commission of a crime, you can be charged with that death; and swatting is illegal.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
He didn't reach for a weapon because there wasn't any and no one was going to die dumbo.

Sounds like You should become a Cop, Kreskin.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Something other than his death. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the man dying was his intention.

He's the most naive person on the planet?



Nope, it can destroy and/or f*ck up the victims life just as badly.



No, it should get him life in prison.



Incorrect.



Both should be punished severely.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
He didn't reach for a weapon because there wasn't any and no one was going to die dumbo.

This is true.

This is also something no one on the scene knew at the time. Afatk, they were responding to a murder.

Why didn't the police make sure?


Why don't people make sure there's really a fire, before trampling each other running for their lives?

Originally posted by cdtm
Why didn't the police make sure?


Why don't people make sure there's really a fire, before trampling each other running for their lives?

I will hazard a guess: they knew if they hesitated and it was real and someone died people would also be blaming them, saying "why did they wait so long?!". We both know this.

This doesn't mean the officer wasn't wrong here though. But they are expected to be many things. Psychologists, negotiators, masters of non-lethal takedowns, mind readers, etc.

Originally posted by riv6672
You're correct.
While not a policeman, i faced the same situation multiple times in the Army.

Been reading on this here and there, and ppl are just straight up calling for the officer's head, proclaiming police brutality, calling psycho...
...the best way to not have had this happen was to not have instigated it in the first place.

And thats pretty much all i've got to say about this.

Cheers

American citizens are not enemy combatants. Police officers are supposed to serve and protect them, not treat them like enemy soldiers.

No. They don't. That is a Lie.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
American citizens are not enemy combatants. Police officers are supposed to serve and protect them, not treat them like enemy soldiers.

...that is.. totally not what his point.

If someone thinks a police officer has a duty to inhibit his own sense of self preservation, so that they can make absolutely certain they're being drawn on, then police are held to an unrealistic standard.

There's a reason people are told to show hands. So that there's absolutely no doubt, at all, and no mistakes to be made.

Originally posted by shiv

The Suspect has not spoken

Had the suspect spoken the officer will have known: The voice on the line. Wait a minute. Sir. Can you say that again? Sir I think there has been a misunderstanding.

Thats the way it would have gone





-Is he reaching for flint, a match, a lighter

Available Data = The property has been covered in gasoline

Just 1 spark. Drop a coin. Drop a set of car keys. Drop a comb. Drop a ball of steel wool on a hard stone / concrete surface and you're looking at a situation where the whole neighbourhood is on fire.

The misunderstanding is you thinking the SWAT officer took the initial phone call from the prankster & then assuming whoever opened the door MUST be the killer...

Do you realise calls to 911 actually go to a call centre & then they dispatch officers out?

And distinguishing a recorded voice to someone's real voice, especially someone you don't know or have never met is not the most accurate way to identify someone?

LOL what world do you live in when coins, keys, combs & steel wool is considered the arsonists' choice of starting a fire?

The amount of times I've dropped coins & keys on my concrete floor, my neighbourhood doesn't realise how lucky it is to be still standing!

What do you think all that communications equipment in police vehicles is for

Do you really think people sound exactly the same in person as they do over a police radio? or that 911 plays the call for the responding officers?

In my time on this rock I've had to make 5 calls (to call in an Emergency)

1 report: some one knocked out next to an ATM at 1am

waited till the paramedics got there and I spoke to them

1 report: gave the police a heads up, this one was not a call to an emergency number

1 report: the line to the emergency desk was terminated = Detectives who arrived at the scene? Yes. They heard it.

I report: B&E not an emergency Dispatch sent details of the report for an officer to stop by sometime and write a report

1 report: Dispatch asked me to keep the line open so everyone on their end and everyone on the way - could hear the situation as it developed.


Btw next time you're wearing wool slacks, pajamas, pants or chinos reach for a comb, put it in your pocket, walk around for a few minutes, take a seat, check out your social media, forget you have it there - then take it out

You'll observe the same phenomenon as when you pull of a sweater (Disclaimer: not all sweaters do this - But most people who wear clothes will have some experience of this)

people have been starting fires for centuries with steel and stone

Originally posted by Tzeentch
He didn't have a weapon, you gigantic ****ing retard.

"But maybe he did have one"

I would imagine that "not being blind" is a pre-requisite for being a police officer. An officer should be able to tell if someone is drawing a weapon or not.

You need to take a moment to assess your retarded position here. You are literally asserting that it is justified for police to murder citizens as long as they "feel" threatened. If that's the position you actually hold then I hope that one day you or someone you love gets pulled over by police and shot immediately.

People like you make me sick. Go jump into an unknown, life threatening situation where your safety, and the safety of many others is at stake, and see how calm and collected you are.

Originally posted by shiv
Available Data Going In

Hostage Situation

Suspect has killed one hostage

Suspect has doused the property with gasoline

Suspect is unstable and does not want to communicate further

The Police Officer arriving at the scene is jumping feet first into the unknown here.

The Officer asks the Suspect to raise his hands

The Suspect makes a move

I think we can all agree the suspect is not raising his hands up here.

The Suspect has not spoken

Had the suspect spoken the officer will have known: The voice on the line. Wait a minute. Sir. Can you say that again? Sir I think there has been a misunderstanding.

Thats the way it would have gone

But the suspect was non communicative and made a move

The officer has got to be thinking

-Is he reaching for flint, a match, a lighter

Available Data = The property has been covered in gasoline

Just 1 spark. Drop a coin. Drop a set of car keys. Drop a comb. Drop a ball of steel wool on a hard stone / concrete surface and you're looking at a situation where the whole neighbourhood is on fire.

Originally posted by shiv
Just 1 spark. Drop a coin.

Nope.



Nope



Nope



Nope.

Drop a Detonator?

Originally posted by cdtm
This is true.

This is also something no one on the scene knew at the time. Afatk, they were responding to a murder.

Why didn't the police make sure?


Why don't people make sure there's really a fire, before trampling each other running for their lives?
The people running from a fire have not agreed to risk their lives for the protection of others.

Running from the fire will not kill anyone.

This is a false equivalency.

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
People like you make me sick. Go jump into an unknown, life threatening situation where your safety, and the safety of many others is at stake, and see how calm and collected you are.
A police officer's job is to be calm and collected while risking his life. It is not Tzeentch's job.

Originally posted by cdtm
...that is.. totally not what his point.

If someone thinks a police officer has a duty to inhibit his own sense of self preservation, so that they can make absolutely certain they're being drawn on, then police are held to an unrealistic standard.

There's a reason people are told to show hands. So that there's absolutely no doubt, at all, and no mistakes to be made.

Yet, it does not negate my point. There is a world of difference between how a police officer is supposed to respond to a civilian whose duty it is for him to protect, and how a soldier is supposed to respond to an enemy combatant whose duty it is for him to kill. Police officers absolutely have a responsibility to the public to respond with lethal force as a last resort, not as a first option. Note the emphasis on respond, meaning that they should return lethal force with lethal force, not use it preemptively. If they cannot do that, they are not cut out for police work.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yet, it does not negate my point. There is a world of difference between how a police officer is supposed to respond to a civilian whose duty it is for him to protect, and how a soldier is supposed to respond to an enemy combatant whose duty it is for him to kill. Police officers absolutely have a responsibility to the public to respond with lethal force as a last resort, not as a first option. Note the emphasis on respond, meaning that they should return lethal force with lethal force, not use it preemptively. If they cannot do that, they are not cut out for police work.

So you feel they shouldn't fire, unless fired upon.


Friend, if Greedo wasn't such a bad shot, Han never would have had the chance to fire second.

Leftists Love Dead Cops.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
A police officer's job is to be calm and collected while risking his life. It is not Tzeentch's job.

You do know a police officer is a human with human instincts of self preservation right?

I like how some of you claims such shit. Go and receive a policeman training, then be put on in a life or death situation, and see how you react.

Originally posted by cdtm
So you feel they shouldn't fire, unless fired upon.


Friend, if Greedo wasn't such a bad shot, Han never would have had the chance to fire second.

Well, it is a good thing real life is not ****ing Star Wars.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
A police officer's job is to be calm and collected while risking his life. It is not Tzeentch's job.

What a silly thing to say. Cops aren't soldiers, they aren't trained that way. Yes, ideally a cop should be calm and collected. But when shit is going down and you think someone is armed and has hostages it is not easy to be all calm and cool. Even the best cop can panic.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Running from the fire will not kill anyone.

People have gotten trampled to death. I think that was the point

Edit: Wrong Forum

Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, ideally a cop should be calm and collected.
No, not "ideally". A cop is supposed to be calm and collected, otherwise he has no business being a cop.

Cops are given special powers over other people on the basis they won't be reckless with that power. If the cop makes a mistake and that mistake costs someone their life, he needs to be held accountable.

Tzeentch doesn't need to be held to the same satndard, because he has not been given the same privileges and power or the responsibility being a cop warrants.

Originally posted by juggerman
People have gotten trampled to death. I think that was the point
Uh yeah, you're not supposed to "trample people to death." In fact, we're taught from grade school that in the case of a fire, you exit the building in an orderly fashion rather than panic. So I'm not sure where's he's trying to go with this analogy.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Uh yeah, you're not supposed to "trample people to death." In fact, we're taught from grade school that in the case of a fire, you exit the building in an orderly fashion rather than panic. So I'm not sure where's he's trying to go with this analogy.

I'm not sure either. Maybe that anyone can panic and cause damage?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Well, it is a good thing real life is not ****ing Star Wars.

Yeah, cause Star Wars has become a PC SJW Shit Show.

Anybody who is given legal authority to kill must be held to a firm set of standards. Because the only difference between murder and execution is legal authority, and allowing public officers carte blanche immunity is what eventually leads to authoritarian regimes.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Anybody who is given legal authority to kill must be held to a firm set of standards. Because the only difference between murder and execution is legal authority, and allowing public officers carte blanche immunity is what eventually leads to authoritarian regimes.

Hence why I think that police body cameras and a clear standard for the context in which they must be presented as evidence is a great way to resolve both sides of the issue (police abuse and false accusations of police abuse).

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
No, not "ideally". A cop is supposed to be calm and collected, otherwise he has no business being a cop.

Cops are given special powers over other people on the basis they won't be reckless with that power. If the cop makes a mistake and that mistake costs someone their life, he needs to be held accountable.

Tzeentch doesn't need to be held to the same satndard, because he has not been given the same privileges and power or the responsibility being a cop warrants.

And he will be held accountable, drawing your weapon and killing a civilian is never taken lightly. But he's not the sole party responsible, the peice of shit who called in the prank is equally, (more, IMO) guilty, and should be treated as such. But The statement "don't be blind" is one of the most insulting, over simplifications of a potential life or death scenario I've ever read in my life.

Originally posted by cdtm
Reaching for a weapon is threatening.

He had no weapon, right? So by default he couldn't have reached for a weapon that he didn't have.

Hence why I say wait until you actually see a weapon.

Originally posted by Surtur
What a silly thing to say. Cops aren't soldiers, they aren't trained that way. Yes, ideally a cop should be calm and collected. But when shit is going down and you think someone is armed and has hostages it is not easy to be all calm and cool. Even the best cop can panic.

This is the problem. They should be trained this way, especially a SWAT officer. Police training needs to be increased substantially.

Originally posted by BackFire
He had no weapon, right? So by default he couldn't have reached for a weapon that he didn't have.

Hence why I say wait until you actually see a weapon.

If you think someone might be reaching for a gun you're supposed to wait until it's actually in sight? Really?

Yes. Hence why they need better training.

I mean that's just horribly unrealistic imho. Not that just shooting anyone you remotely suspect of being dangerous is a good idea, but if you have your weapon drawn and I'm reaching for mine it's entirely plausible that I could quickdraw and shoot before you shoot back if you're hesitating and waiting for 100% visual confirmation.

Well if you have some other kind of confirmation besides visual confirmation then that's fine. But there needs to be some kind of confirmation happening. Someone reaching for their waistband to pull up their pajama bottoms isn't that.

Originally posted by BackFire
Well if you have some other kind of confirmation besides visual confirmation then that's fine. But there needs to be some kind of confirmation happening. Someone reaching for their waistband to pull up their pajama bottoms isn't that.

But if they wait and it turns out the person isn't reaching to pull up their PJ's...aren't they kinda like...in danger of getting shot?

damn

Originally posted by Surtur
But if they wait and it turns out the person isn't reaching to pull up their PJ's...aren't they kinda like...in danger of getting shot?

Only if they have slow reflexes and are bad at their chosen profession.

Which again, goes back to training them better. I believe cops should have much more intense and lengthy training, while also paying those who pass said training much more than we currently do.

Originally posted by BackFire
Only if they have slow reflexes and are bad at their chosen profession.

Which again, goes back to training them better. I believe cops should have much more intense and lengthy training, while also paying those who pass said training much more than we currently do.

So you think they *should* be trained as soldiers?

Not necessarily soldiers, but they should be trained to the point that they are comfortable in various circumstances that they may inevitably find themselves in. Such as an unarmed person moving a little bit.

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
But he's not the sole party responsible.
Nice straw man there buddy.

Originally posted by Surtur
So you think they *should* be trained as soldiers?
Deflectionary strawman is deflectionary.

Originally posted by Surtur
What a silly thing to say. Cops aren't soldiers, they aren't trained that way. Yes, ideally a cop should be calm and collected. But when shit is going down and you think someone is armed and has hostages it is not easy to be all calm and cool. Even the best cop can panic.

Then why does it seem that cops in America have a bad track record of mis-reading the situation & appear to be trigger happy?

This isn't just a one off incident. We're constantly seeing in the head lines of American police shooting & killing innocent people before accessing the situation properly.

Just the other week, 5 American officers shot dead a woman who was wanted for car jacking & was suspected of having a fire arm.

She was fired upon & killed by 5 officers whilst standing in front of a house that she had just broken into & was leaving.

One of the bullets that was fired by the police penetrated the wall & killed a child inside the house.

My point being:
*Do you really need 5 officers firing at once at one person?
*Did all 5 officers panic at once?
*Or were they just trigger happy?
*Didn't any of their training or even common sense kick in to question if there was occupants in the house before firing directly at the house with the woman standing in front of it?

Then you have that other officer who shot dead the woman in her pyjamas, firing whilst still in the driver seat of his vehicle & shooting across his partner in the passenger seat...

Then the officer is legally allowed to refuse to be interviewed?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Nice straw man there buddy.

So you've completely bnissed the point then.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Then why does it seem that cops in America have a bad track record of mis-reading the situation & appear to be trigger happy?

This isn't just a one off incident. We're constantly seeing in the head lines of American police shooting & killing innocent people before accessing the situation properly.

Just the other week, 5 American officers shot dead a woman who was wanted for car jacking & was suspected of having a fire arm.

She was fired upon & killed by 5 officers whilst standing in front of a house that she had just broken into & was leaving.

One of the bullets that was fired by the police penetrated the wall & killed a child inside the house.

My point being:
*Do you really need 5 officers firing at once at one person?
*Did all 5 officers panic at once?
*Or were they just trigger happy?
*Didn't any of their training or even common sense kick in to question if there was occupants in the house before firing directly at the house with the woman standing in front of it?

Then you have that other officer who shot dead the woman in her pyjamas, firing whilst still in the driver seat of his vehicle & shooting across his partner in the passenger seat...

Then the officer is legally allowed to refuse to be interviewed?


Because "Bad Cop Stories" are preferred by the Extreme left Wing Media in the US?

Oh what that is a FACT...not a question.

Originally posted by Khazra Reborn
So you've completely bnissed the point then.
I got your point. It's just that nobody on this thread has said anything in disagreement with your point and hence I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with anyone about.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Because "Bad Cop Stories" are preferred by the Extreme left Wing Media in the US?

Oh what that is a FACT...not a question.

Pretty much. Even experts who testify a police officer wasn't justifed readily admit the media is pushing an unusual amount of stories where a white cop shoots a black man or unarmed minority, or some such.

It's not hard to find all sorts of tragedies, if that's what you want to report on.

Not hard to find stories showing mans better side. IF you want to report on them.

Originally posted by cdtm
Pretty much. Even experts who testify a police officer wasn't justifed readily admit the media is pushing an unusual amount of stories where a white cop shoots a black man or unarmed minority, or some such.

It's not hard to find all sorts of tragedies, if that's what you want to report on.

Not hard to find stories showing mans better side. IF you want to report on them.

Excuse the pun, but that sounds pretty much like a cop-out.

You don't see media pushing these kinds of tragedy stories from other parts of the Western world where officers of the law are also placed in life-threatening situations.

Hell, British officers are placed in these same situations & they handle it un-armed. Yet you don't hear of an unusually high number of British officers getting killed in the line of duty. Nor do you hear of unfair, unjust deaths either.

And as far as Australian police go, they're armed but don't have that trigger happy mentality that seems to exist in America.

Yeah you can point out America has the right to bear arms therefore the threat is higher compared to other countries. But instead of finding a solution to gun control, escalating the situation seems to be the only path that American politicians & American police are willing to take.