Scorched wrote

002 wrote Bottom line, for the most part white people get it. You do stupid shit (I.E. cover up something in your jacket and keep walking when the cop tells you to stop), you are subject to a bullet in the back. It seems as if our black (I'm not saying African-American because you're one or the other, not both) people haven't figured that out yet.

Lmfao so if a cop tells me to stop walking. I deserve to get shot? How much sense does that make? If that really is protocol within police training nowadays. No wonder the homicidal rates coming from police officers have risen in the past year. Honestly, if not complying with a police officer translates to 16 shots in the back? Who do you call when you can't even trust the police to help you nowadays.

If you want to be an idiot and not listen to the guy with the gun, yes.

They can't just shoot for shit just taze them every officer has one ow mb only white ppl get tazed

Yin wrote

002 wrote

Yin wrote

002 wrote

Yin wrote

002 wrote Bottom line, for the most part white people get it. You do stupid shit (I.E. cover up something in your jacket and keep walking when the cop tells you to stop), you are subject to a bullet in the back. It seems as if our black (I'm not saying African-American because you're one or the other, not both) people haven't figured that out yet.

"If you keep walking when a cop tells you to stop, you are subject to a bullet in the back." Nope. Not at all. In the training of today's cops, that may be the case. That training should be changed. The training is the whole issue. Running from cops doesn't mean the person should be shot. None of us should be ok with living in that type of police state.

If I seen someone with something clearly hidden and they are running from me, I would shoot them too. I'd taze them if in range, but remember that those tazers don't go that far. Is the safety and well being of me, my family, and my neighbors more important than the guy's life who is running with something hidden? You bet your ass.

Do the job and chase them. There is a reason that cops have to pass physical exams. Guns should only be a last resort. They should chase until there is an immediate danger. Could there be some cases where there are others injured or killed due to that, sure. What you are saying though is that you would rather have a certain death over a potential death. I can't be ok with that.

You say this like a fatal shot is the only shot. A shot to the leg would do just fine. Yes there is a major vein there, but unless you hit the heart or brain, there is a good chance the victim will survive.

I have never heard of an officer that is trained to shoot for the leg. "Center mass" is all I hear about. If they did go for the leg more often, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now. I hear that leg shots aren't possible though since there is a higher chance of missing and hitting someone else. This is why guns need to not be used until there is an immediate threat.

Generally speaking, center mass won't kill you. It will hurt you really bad, but if they get to you in time you won't die. If they shot at the legs, they are aiming down so if they miss, the likelihood of hitting someone else is decreased.

002 wrote

Yin wrote

002 wrote

Yin wrote

002 wrote

Yin wrote

002 wrote Bottom line, for the most part white people get it. You do stupid shit (I.E. cover up something in your jacket and keep walking when the cop tells you to stop), you are subject to a bullet in the back. It seems as if our black (I'm not saying African-American because you're one or the other, not both) people haven't figured that out yet.

"If you keep walking when a cop tells you to stop, you are subject to a bullet in the back." Nope. Not at all. In the training of today's cops, that may be the case. That training should be changed. The training is the whole issue. Running from cops doesn't mean the person should be shot. None of us should be ok with living in that type of police state.

If I seen someone with something clearly hidden and they are running from me, I would shoot them too. I'd taze them if in range, but remember that those tazers don't go that far. Is the safety and well being of me, my family, and my neighbors more important than the guy's life who is running with something hidden? You bet your ass.

Do the job and chase them. There is a reason that cops have to pass physical exams. Guns should only be a last resort. They should chase until there is an immediate danger. Could there be some cases where there are others injured or killed due to that, sure. What you are saying though is that you would rather have a certain death over a potential death. I can't be ok with that.

You say this like a fatal shot is the only shot. A shot to the leg would do just fine. Yes there is a major vein there, but unless you hit the heart or brain, there is a good chance the victim will survive.

I have never heard of an officer that is trained to shoot for the leg. "Center mass" is all I hear about. If they did go for the leg more often, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation right now. I hear that leg shots aren't possible though since there is a higher chance of missing and hitting someone else. This is why guns need to not be used until there is an immediate threat.

Generally speaking, center mass won't kill you. It will hurt you really bad, but if they get to you in time you won't die. If they shot at the legs, they are aiming down so if they miss, the likelihood of hitting someone else is decreased.

Maybe not, but I have seen many videos of cops emptying magazines. Kind of like that one story in Chicago of the guy being shot twice and then had 14 more rounds put in him after he was down. They hid the video for a year. It's not even about if the person could survive the body shot. It is the fact that when you shoot for the body, you are basically saying you don't mind the person dying. They may not immediately hit someone else, but there is the chance of ricochet to take into account.

I think it's a joke really, trying to make white officers look like the bad people. There are nice policemen out there black or white.

AR15 wrote

Nocebo wrote

Vase wrote

Yin wrote

002 wrote Bottom line, for the most part white people get it. You do stupid shit (I.E. cover up something in your jacket and keep walking when the cop tells you to stop), you are subject to a bullet in the back. It seems as if our black (I'm not saying African-American because you're one or the other, not both) people haven't figured that out yet.

"If you keep walking when a cop tells you to stop, you are subject to a bullet in the back." Nope. Not at all. In the training of today's cops, that may be the case. That training should be changed. The training is the whole issue. Running from cops doesn't mean the person should be shot. None of us should be ok with living in that type of police state.

Well it kinda depends on the Crime so if they murdered 20 people they shouldn't be shot?

No. Police officers have to be fit for a reason, they can run after them.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

---

---

Anyways, no. In the case stated above, if the police told you to stand down and drop your weapon after you had killed or hurt other people or even gave them the idea that you might, they are well within legal rights to end your life to save others.

Police in every state work on what is deemed better for the whole. Ending one life to save 2 lives is a cost made effective. Unless any of you that are disagreeing with police and their choices are police or have police in the family, you wouldn't understand.

---

However, I am not saying that police should get away with a crime if they acted justly and did something wrong. But, just because an officer of any color kills anyone of another color while acting in his job and within legal bounds, go for it.

My bad, I was under the impression that police officers in the US, like in the UK, have to pass physical fitness tests and if they don't meet a certain standard of fitness they are dismissed.
Perhaps that's why your police force kills so many people, they'd rather kill someone than run after them.

Anyways, no. In the case stated above, if the police told you to stand down and drop your weapon after you had killed or hurt other people or even gave them the idea that you might, they are well within legal rights to end your life to save others.

Since when does what is legal determine what is morally correct?
Well let's talk about what would give them the idea that you might hurt people.
Aiming their gun at someone? Sure, shoot them.
Shooting their gun at someone? Sure, shoot them.
Running away with their gun pointed at nobody? Sure, shoot them. Wait... no. Don't shoot them, run after them.

Police in every state work on what is deemed better for the whole. Ending one life to save 2 lives is a cost made effective. Unless any of you that are disagreeing with police and their choices are police or have police in the family, you wouldn't understand.

'is a cost made effective?' What does that even mean?
Utilitarianism is a moral position which has been demolished over and over again by philosophers.
If your police force is working based off that model then you should be afraid of all of them.
Not to mention that you are making the police officer the moral superiority in every situation, the police should work based on codes of conduct, not what their own opinions and prejudices tell them to do.
And you just invented a new version of the no true scotsman. 'If you're not a police officer or don't know police officers, you just don't understand!'

I am not saying that police should get away with a crime if they acted justly and did something wrong.

You literally just said: I am not saying that police should get away with doing the wrong thing if they did the right thing.

Acting justly is doing the right thing, not committing a crime and getting away with it.

Now, let's talk about the part that I enlarged and made red.

Your saying that because the officers in the picture, provided by AR15; are bigger men, that they wouldn't be able to pass a physical fitness exam, or don't meet a certain standard of fitness, so they shouldn't be police officer?

You're not even in the same country as all of this going on. Who are you to say that American police officers are 'too big' or 'not fit enough' to be a police officer? Isn't this up to the department that hires them to manage?

Not you, me, them, their wive's second cousin's best friend. Your practically saying that because they're big, they don't deserve to be a police officer.

Well, not every police officer looks like this;


or this;


Nobody is perfect, and not everybody has a 'perfect body'. This should never affect what their profession is, unless they want it to affect it.

TayIor wrote

Click to View Content

Nocebo wrote

AR15 wrote

Nocebo wrote

Vase wrote

Yin wrote

002 wrote Bottom line, for the most part white people get it. You do stupid shit (I.E. cover up something in your jacket and keep walking when the cop tells you to stop), you are subject to a bullet in the back. It seems as if our black (I'm not saying African-American because you're one or the other, not both) people haven't figured that out yet.

"If you keep walking when a cop tells you to stop, you are subject to a bullet in the back." Nope. Not at all. In the training of today's cops, that may be the case. That training should be changed. The training is the whole issue. Running from cops doesn't mean the person should be shot. None of us should be ok with living in that type of police state.

Well it kinda depends on the Crime so if they murdered 20 people they shouldn't be shot?

No. Police officers have to be fit for a reason, they can run after them.

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

---

---

Anyways, no. In the case stated above, if the police told you to stand down and drop your weapon after you had killed or hurt other people or even gave them the idea that you might, they are well within legal rights to end your life to save others.

Police in every state work on what is deemed better for the whole. Ending one life to save 2 lives is a cost made effective. Unless any of you that are disagreeing with police and their choices are police or have police in the family, you wouldn't understand.

---

However, I am not saying that police should get away with a crime if they acted justly and did something wrong. But, just because an officer of any color kills anyone of another color while acting in his job and within legal bounds, go for it.

My bad, I was under the impression that police officers in the US, like in the UK, have to pass physical fitness tests and if they don't meet a certain standard of fitness they are dismissed.
Perhaps that's why your police force kills so many people, they'd rather kill someone than run after them.

Anyways, no. In the case stated above, if the police told you to stand down and drop your weapon after you had killed or hurt other people or even gave them the idea that you might, they are well within legal rights to end your life to save others.

Since when does what is legal determine what is morally correct?
Well let's talk about what would give them the idea that you might hurt people.
Aiming their gun at someone? Sure, shoot them.
Shooting their gun at someone? Sure, shoot them.
Running away with their gun pointed at nobody? Sure, shoot them. Wait... no. Don't shoot them, run after them.

Police in every state work on what is deemed better for the whole. Ending one life to save 2 lives is a cost made effective. Unless any of you that are disagreeing with police and their choices are police or have police in the family, you wouldn't understand.

'is a cost made effective?' What does that even mean?
Utilitarianism is a moral position which has been demolished over and over again by philosophers.
If your police force is working based off that model then you should be afraid of all of them.
Not to mention that you are making the police officer the moral superiority in every situation, the police should work based on codes of conduct, not what their own opinions and prejudices tell them to do.
And you just invented a new version of the no true scotsman. 'If you're not a police officer or don't know police officers, you just don't understand!'

I am not saying that police should get away with a crime if they acted justly and did something wrong.

You literally just said: I am not saying that police should get away with doing the wrong thing if they did the right thing.

Acting justly is doing the right thing, not committing a crime and getting away with it.

Now, let's talk about the part that I enlarged and made red.

Your saying that because the officers in the picture, provided by AR15; are bigger men, that they wouldn't be able to pass a physical fitness exam, or don't meet a certain standard of fitness, so they shouldn't be police officer?

You're not even in the same country as all of this going on. Who are you to say that American police officers are 'too big' or 'not fit enough' to be a police officer? Isn't this up to the department that hires them to manage?

Not you, me, them, their wive's second cousin's best friend. Your practically saying that because they're big, they don't deserve to be a police officer.

Well, not every police officer looks like this;

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

or this;

Click to View Content

[ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Nobody is perfect, and not everybody has a 'perfect body'. This should never affect what their profession is, unless they want it to affect it.

It was his point that they were too big, or not fit, I just tackled it in a different way.
I agree with you and you're disagreeing with him, so thanks.

"Nobody should be shot for disobeying the law and sparking anarchism"...

You're not charged with anything but if an officer arrests you, YOU'RE UNDER F-CKING ARREST.

People fail to realize how the law works... Get educated or get the punishment you deserve.