[QUOTE=Lankist;35845064]I'm not saying fuck the police, I'm questioning police procedure. That's sort of important in a free, non-authoritarian society. I don't see why there's such a stigma around questioning police.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure the police are all reading your posts right here in this thread, and are taking your statements and claims heavily into account as we speak.
areolop, I'm sorry Lankist had to shit on the thread :\. Hope he doesn't bother you too much.
[QUOTE=BigOwl;35845081]I'm sure the police are all reading your posts right here in this thread, and are taking your statements and claims heavily into account as we speak.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=BigOwl;35810604]Right, because the US has no reason to do this other than to wave their dicks around.[/QUOTE]
And I'm sure the US and Russian leaders are taking into account your take on that news article.
See how this works?
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845075]A person hits the ground by doing a somersault forward?
Because typically when someone is shot forward and starts to fall, they fall in a backward direction. They do not typically flip forward at such an angle that a direct shot to the back is possible. A graze is certainly possible, but not a direct shot.[/QUOTE]
Lankist, please stop. You're nitpicking and creating an arguement while argueing other people for the sake of argueing.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845094]And I'm sure the US and Russian leaders are taking into account your take on that news article.
See how this works?[/QUOTE]
I'm addressing the posts of another user in that post. You're wasting your time addressing the police who aren't reading anything you say. Quit shit posting.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845064]I'm not saying fuck the police, I'm questioning police procedure. That's sort of important in a free, non-authoritarian society. I don't see why there's such a stigma around questioning police.[/QUOTE]
See how it works?
That's funny because I count two posts from other users actually "arguing" anything (both from Thlis) and twelve posts saying "oh no lankist is arguing." Stop getting your goddamn knickers in a twist and there won't be a problem.
EDIT:
Thirteen.
That's because if you haven't noticed, people think you start arguments for the sake of being a self righteous twat. Way to earn that rep.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845075]A person hits the ground by doing a somersault forward?
Because typically when someone is shot forward and starts to fall, they fall in a backward direction. They do not typically flip forward at such an angle that a direct shot to the back is possible. A graze is certainly possible, but not a direct shot.[/QUOTE]
Do the following,
Stand in an open area
lunge forward direction
mid lunge imagine getting shot in the stomach
the result is tumbling forward with your back exposed.
[QUOTE=Thlis;35845144]Do the following,
Stand in an open area
lunge forward direction
mid lunge imagine getting shot in the stomach
the result is tumbling forward with your back exposed.[/QUOTE]
That's a sound explanation.
Now how's about that evidence of this sort of thing actually happening?
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845158]Now how's about that evidence of this sort of thing actually happening?[/QUOTE]
He just gave you the instructions on how to find this evidence that you're demanding, and you're still just giving everyone a hard time. You came in this thread with what intention, Lankist? To make us bow down and say "Oh lankist your rightness is oh so overwhelming, we can hardly bear to stand in the presence of your awe inspiring shining intelligence."?
You'd think after arguing so much in every fucking thread you post in, you'd start to notice a pattern that you're wasting your time, and everyone would like you to kindly fuck off with the nit picking narcissism.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845158]That's a sound explanation.
Now how's about that evidence of this sort of thing actually happening?[/QUOTE]
Ok, just stand in an open area and let me shoot you.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845158]That's a sound explanation.
Now how's about that evidence of this sort of thing actually happening?[/QUOTE]
What, so all of your statements are 100% sound just because you say it is while this explanation isn't?
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35845183]Ok, just stand in an open area and let me shoot you.[/QUOTE]
If this is something that has happened in officer-involved shootings, it will be public record.
If it is common, it should not be difficult to find.
At the moment, the suit's argument is conjecture. The guy in the video was addressing a "myth," to which I seriously doubt this sort of explanation suits every single instance of an officer shooting someone in the back when the shooting is put under any real scrutiny.
[editline]6th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Thlis;35845185]What, so all of your statements are 100% sound just because you say it is while this explanation isn't?[/QUOTE]
I'm questioning the veracity of the statement, not implying it is wrong.
Lankist, you're seriously wasting your time. Whether you're right or not, nobody cares. If you have a problem with the police, tell the police. Not us.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845190]
At the moment, the suit's argument is conjecture.
[/QUOTE]
I don't say this often but know your place.
you have absolutely nothing to add, neither you nor anyone in the thread actually knows any details about the case and yet you try to act like you are superior to the expert describing the case to you.
[QUOTE=Thlis;35845214]I don't say this often but know your place.
you have absolutely nothing to add, neither you nor anyone in the thread actually knows any details about the case and yet you try to act like you are superior to the expert describing the case to you.[/QUOTE]
He must've just beaten L.A. Noire :v:
[QUOTE=Thlis;35845214]I don't say this often but know your place.
you have absolutely nothing to add, neither you nor anyone in the thread actually knows any details about the case and yet you try to act like you are superior to the expert describing the case to you.[/QUOTE]
He's not talking about one specific case, he's talking about every instance of "officer shoots man in back" that makes its way throughout the media.
On one hand, the lady in the beginning says police are human and fallible. On the other, this guy implies that cops never shoot fleeing suspects.
He gives this scenario and he cites no specific instances of it ever actually happening. It is an unnecessarily complex assumption.
It's funny because the "guy in the suit" is the founder and executive director of the Forensic Science Institute.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845227]He's not talking about one specific case, he's talking about every instance of "officer shoots man in back" that makes its way throughout the media.
On one hand, the lady in the beginning says police are human and fallible. On the other, this guy implies that cops never shoot fleeing suspects.
He gives this scenario and he cites no specific instances of it ever actually happening.[/QUOTE]
You're right Lankist, he must be fucking lying for no reason whatsoever.
ve·rac·i·ty/vəˈrasətē/
Noun:
Conformity to facts; accuracy: "the veracity of the story".
I am not saying he is lying, nor am I saying he is wrong. I am saying his assertion is unfounded, and in the state presented it does [I]not[/I] explain every instance of an officer suspected of shooting a fleeing suspect.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845250]ve·rac·i·ty/vəˈrasətē/
Noun:
Conformity to facts; accuracy: "the veracity of the story".
I am not saying he is lying, nor am I saying he is wrong. I am saying his assertion is unfounded.[/QUOTE]
Congratulations. You've achieved ultimate rightness. Level up.
Apparently the forensics specialist has no experience whatsoever. Roll an intelligence check.
Also
ve·rac·i·ty (v-rs-t)
n. pl. ve·rac·i·ties
1. Adherence to the truth; truthfulness
You're questioning his Truth fullness, so you must think he is...what's that? Lying! The opposite of Truth is what? Lying!
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845250]ve·rac·i·ty/vəˈrasətē/
Noun:
Conformity to facts; accuracy: "the veracity of the story".
I am not saying he is lying, nor am I saying he is wrong. I am saying his assertion is unfounded, and in the state presented it does [I]not[/I] explain every instance of an officer suspected of shooting a fleeing suspect.[/QUOTE]
when did it ever say the suspect was fleeing? his point was that case was the suspect was going [I]towards[/I] the officer. it sounds like you've really got an axe to grind.
[url]http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/30911474/detail.html[/url]
Forensics specialists need to do more than this to excuse fatal shootings of unarmed, non-threatening, fleeing suspects as in the case above.
[editline]6th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35845289]when did it ever say the suspect was fleeing? his point was that case was the suspect was going [I]towards[/I] the officer. it sounds like you've really got an axe to grind.[/QUOTE]
Officer-involved shootings in which the suspect is shot in the back imply the suspect was fleeing. Firing upon fleeing suspect is a [I]big[/I] no-no in law enforcement, not simply due to the fact that lethal force is not justified under the pretense of defense but also because every shot that misses its target could potentially injure or kill a bystander.
Any time an officer is suspected of firing upon a fleeing suspect, they are put under a great deal of scrutiny. For good reason.
That 'myth' was addressing the idea of police shooting fleeing suspects, inadequately.
yeah not picking sides here but you guys are being retardedly dismissive to Lankist.
If you post a video trying to convey some message on a public forum expect people to disagree with it otherwise what's the fucking point of having a reply feature
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845291][url]http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/30911474/detail.html[/url]
Forensics specialists need to do more than this to excuse fatal shootings of unarmed, non-threatening, fleeing suspects as in the case above.
[editline]6th May 2012[/editline]
Officer-involved shootings in which the suspect is shot in the back imply the suspect was fleeing. Firing upon fleeing suspect is a [I]big[/I] no-no in law enforcement, not simply due to the fact that lethal force is not justified under the pretense of defense but also because every shot that misses its target could potentially injure or kill a bystander.
Any time an officer is suspected of firing upon a fleeing suspect, they are put under a great deal of scrutiny. For good reason.[/QUOTE]
where is your evidence that getting shot in the back always implies fleeing?
not gonna believe you until you provide it.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;35845327]yeah not picking sides here but you guys are being retardedly dismissive to Lankist.[/QUOTE]
If you knew Lankist, you'd understand why.
[QUOTE=BigOwl;35845335]If you knew Lankist, you'd understand why.[/QUOTE]
I've been on Facepunch longer than you think
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845291][url]http://www.thebostonchannel.com/r/30911474/detail.html[/url]
Forensics specialists need to do more than this to excuse fatal shootings of unarmed, non-threatening, fleeing suspects as in the case above.
[editline]6th May 2012[/editline]
Officer-involved shootings in which the suspect is shot in the back imply the suspect was fleeing. Firing upon fleeing suspect is a [I]big[/I] no-no in law enforcement, not simply due to the fact that lethal force is not justified under the pretense of defense but also because every shot that misses its target could potentially injure or kill a bystander.
Any time an officer is suspected of firing upon a fleeing suspect, they are put under a great deal of scrutiny. For good reason.
That 'myth' was addressing the idea of police shooting fleeing suspects, inadequately.[/QUOTE]
Is it not possible that every instance that a suspect was shot in the back had the man fleeing? What if the suspect was on a drug and decided it would be a good idea to attack someone to his side or behind him, and the officer just so happened to have hit is back when he pulled the trigger.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;35845344]I've been on Facepunch longer than you think[/QUOTE]
Ok
[img]http://madgearsolid.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/PhelpsFace2.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Hidole555;35845330]where is your evidence that getting shot in the back implies fleeing?
not gonna believe you until you provide it.[/QUOTE]
Because being shot in the back means the suspect, in almost all cases, must have been facing [I]away[/I] from the officer. This is generally considered a non-threatening posture, and does not constitute lethal force (using a firearm.)
As for fleeing suspects, Tennessee v. Garner set the precedence that police may not open fire on a fleeing suspect unless they believe they are a danger to the police or bystanders. i.e. you can shoot a fleeing maniac firing a machine gun. You may not shoot a fleeing robber or mugger. Additionally, if the officer DOES use his discretion to those ends and opens fire, it is expected that the evidence and corroborating witnesses will mirror his discretion.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35845015]If you are swinging, say, a knife at a person, by the time you enter the swinging-motion demonstrated by Captain Suit in this video, you will be beyond the officer's line of fire and directly up against him. Unless the officer managed to shoot the man in the back point-blank while simultaneously dodging the weapon, the assailant would have needed to enter the demonstrated posture at some distance from the officer other than point-blank. The posture that man demonstrated was an attacking posture, and an assailant would not be in an attacking posture until he is within attacking distance (which, in this case, is point-blank, and beyond typical shooting-distance).
Let's say you're pointing a gun at me, and I'm bum-rushing you. Do you expect me to throw a punch when I'm ten feet away, or when I'm right up in your face? Additionally, if I [I]am[/I] right up in your grill, how are you going to shoot me by that point, let alone shoot me in the [I]back[/I] while still avoiding whatever weapon I'm swinging at you.
And you said physics. This isn't physics, this is forensics. What physics have I gotten wrong?[/QUOTE]
just an observation, you speak as if these things are definite rather than considering the variables that can come into play in such situations as mentioned in the video, there is no applied science for that kind of thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
