[QUOTE=RichyZ;35869446]if you jab it in hard enough, which a 15 year old could very well do, but it wouldn't cause any serious injuries[/QUOTE]
Most it would cause is a bruise.
Apparently enough to kill an autistic kid according to OP.
I wish I could express the complete and utter sadness through text. Going through page after page of these incidents. Seeing him justify each and every one without so much as a second glance.
That's the kind of officer this kid is shaping up to be. And people wonder why I don't trust police. They talk about making the world a better place, but when you show them all the ways it's been made worse all they can do is come up with excuse after god damn excuse.
[editline]7th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=areolop;35869454]So, would it be far to say that the officer acted on instinct and protected himself?[/QUOTE]
You do not act with instinct. You act with reason. Instinct is for criminals and killers. Intelligence is for police.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35869467]Most it would cause is a bruise.[/QUOTE]
I especially don't know any kids strong enough to break skin with a butter knife.
It'd be uncomfortable but I wouldn't say it'd kill you.
[QUOTE=areolop;35869454]So, would it be far to say that the officer acted on instinct and protected himself?[/QUOTE]
Dude, it's a 15 year old autistic kid. What the fuck is he gonna do?
I'm not even an officer and I wouldn't do that shit.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;35867997]"Electrocute" implies death by means of electric shock. Tasers have almost never electrocuted anyone - they've disabled pacemakers in some instances which causes death, but if you do not have a pre-existing condition, it is extremely unlikely that you will die if you are shot with a Taser.
Like I've said again and again, the amount of gunshot deaths offset by Taser use far outweighs the deaths caused (directly or indirectly) by Tasers. They are simply the safest less-lethal option. OC spray is sometimes ineffective (you can develop a tolerance to it, or if you are extremely intoxicated you won't feel it) and can hit other people in the area easily. Rubber bullets can kill quite easily if you're hit in the head and often cause pretty serious injuries elsewhere, and same with beanbags. There really isn't a lot else to do, other than batons and hard touch (punching, kicking, etc.) which obviously can fuck someone up good.
My money is on federal guidelines for appropriate Taser use. The standard use of force continuum used by law enforcement is just too vague, so officers can immediately jump to Tasers.[/QUOTE]
there was this one guy that was tasered 4 times and died
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dzieka%C5%84ski_Taser_incident[/url]
so yes you can be killed by a taser even if you are reasonably healthy
Wow arelop you make me hate the police and I want to be a cop. Good job.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;35869557]I hope areolop never becomes a cop, he's a sick fuck that should never be handed a gun.[/QUOTE]
Let's just type out his ideal police officer.
An instinct-driven, self-prioritizing trigger happy person.
Do you want someone operating on instinct to uphold your laws? Someone who will save themselves before they save others? That doesn't sound like (ideal) police to me.
I dont see where what I have said has been irrational, or not true. Just because I see it as I need to protect myself from danger just as much as another person doesnt mean a thing. Lankist has views that are not aligned with mine, that is fine. we are human and have the power to reason and draw our own ideas.
I draw my ideas from where I have been trained. Big whoop. I feel that if my life is in imminent danger, I have the right to protect myself. Nothing wrong with that. I feel that officers act on instinct in situations but base it off their training, because they do. I believe that shootings happen because the officer feels that his, or another's life is in great danger of being taken.
My ideals are obviously different that the internet's.
[QUOTE=Jetblack357;35866345]Give everyone high pressure cans of OC, that shit will knock anyone down.[/QUOTE]
Extremely ineffective. OC spray regularly fails to stop determined attackers. Some people are also naturally highly resistant to its effects and it has an excellent chance of also affecting the officer.
Police are even trained to fight and operate after being sprayed by OC spray. So not only is it naturally something that can be stopped, but simple training can drastically reduce its effectiveness.
It isn't that police will go for the gun more often, it is that they will go for the predecessor to the tazer. The tonfa. Better known as the nightstick.
That is the alternative to a tazer. It isn't OC spray and it isn't a gun. It is cops beating people with sticks.
Yes, people accidentally die from tazer use occasionally. But people also easily die from getting struck in the head with a stick. The best we can do is minimize it through training and discipline.
[QUOTE=areolop;35869634]I dont see where what I have said has been irrational, or not true. Just because I see it as I need to protect myself from danger just as much as another person doesnt mean a thing. Lankist has views that are not aligned with mine, that is fine. we are human and have the power to reason and draw our own ideas.
I draw my ideas from where I have been trained. Big whoop. I feel that if my life is in imminent danger, I have the right to protect myself. Nothing wrong with that. I feel that officers act on instinct in situations, because they do. I believe that shootings happen because the officer feels that his, or another's life is in great danger of being taken.
My ideals are obviously different that the internet's.[/QUOTE]
Could you remind me again about how a 15 year old autistic kid with a butter knife is life threatening?
[QUOTE=areolop;35869634]I dont see where what I have said has been irrational, or not true. Just because I see it as I need to protect myself from danger just as much as another person doesnt mean a thing. Lankist has views that are not aligned with mine, that is fine. we are human and have the power to reason and draw our own ideas.
I draw my ideas from where I have been trained. Big whoop. I feel that if my life is in imminent danger, I have the right to protect myself. Nothing wrong with that. I feel that officers act on instinct in situations, because they do. I believe that shootings happen because the officer feels that his, or another's life is in great danger of being taken.
My ideals are obviously different that the internet's.[/QUOTE]
The point is that a lot of people killed by police were killings done in accident, things that could have been prevented if the officers were properly trained and disciplined.
[QUOTE=areolop;35869634]I dont see where what I have said has been irrational, or not true. Just because I see it as I need to protect myself from danger just as much as another person doesnt mean a thing. Lankist has views that are not aligned with mine, that is fine. we are human and have the power to reason and draw our own ideas.
I draw my ideas from where I have been trained. Big whoop. I feel that if my life is in imminent danger, I have the right to protect myself. Nothing wrong with that. I feel that officers act on instinct in situations but base it off their training, because they do. I believe that shootings happen because the officer feels that his, or another's life is in great danger of being taken.
My ideals are obviously different that the internet's.[/QUOTE]
you are supposed to put civilian lives above your own, your ideals are bad and you should not be a police officer
[QUOTE=Protocol7;35869650]The point is that a lot of people killed by police were killings done in accident, things that could have been prevented.[/QUOTE]
Which is true.
[editline]7th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=l l;35869658]you are supposed to put civilian lives above your own, your ideals are bad and you should not be a police officer[/QUOTE]
Without context, you cannot state that
[QUOTE=areolop;35869659]Without context, you cannot state that[/QUOTE]
How on God's Earth is selfishness a valuable trait for people who are sworn to uphold the law?
[QUOTE=areolop;35869634]I dont see where what I have said has been irrational, or not true. Just because I see it as I need to protect myself from danger just as much as another person doesnt mean a thing. Lankist has views that are not aligned with mine, that is fine. we are human and have the power to reason and draw our own ideas.
I draw my ideas from where I have been trained. Big whoop. I feel that if my life is in imminent danger, I have the right to protect myself. Nothing wrong with that. I feel that officers act on instinct in situations but base it off their training, because they do. I believe that shootings happen because the officer feels that his, or another's life is in great danger of being taken.
My ideals are obviously different that the internet's.[/QUOTE]
Listen. I can't do this with you anymore. It's too depressing.
I still have my doubts if you even are what you say you are, considering you show very little understanding of what that badge even implies. But I pray to a God I know has no ears by which to hear me that you will [I]think.[/I] That you won't be the career officer. That you will be the dutiful officer. You are incredibly lucky that your superiors will not see the things you have said here. I've no desire to attempt to undermine your choice. I only want you to understand where your attitude leads. Many officers have taken that path, and while they turned in their badges others turned in their lives.
I implore you, understand that you volunteer for a duty to others, not for yourself. Do not be the one to shoot a child, or a pregnant woman, or a fleeing, unarmed man. Do not be the one to bring further shame to an already tarnished institution that should be a shining beacon of society.
We need more idealists and less armed cynics.
I'm done.
[QUOTE=areolop;35869417]Police accuracy when discharging their weapon while in fight are damn near 0.[/QUOTE]
If this was true, you would not be issued firearms.
Quit talking stupid. By now I'm thoroughly convinced you have absolutely no education or firsthand experience on the subject. Quit pretending you know anything and bow out.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35869715]If this was true, you would not be issued firearms.
Quit talking stupid. By now I'm thoroughly convinced you have absolutely no education or firsthand experience on the subject. Quit pretending you know anything and bow out.[/QUOTE]
No, he is quite correct. The accuracy level of officers in a firefight is abysmal.
EDIT: Note that I mean patrol officers in the United States. SWAT officers or similar special response teams have substantially better statistics (hopefully) and I don't know, or really care, about the stats of officers in other countries in that department. (Not out of dislike, but rather because American police are significantly different than most. Bit like apples and oranges.)
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35869715]If this was true, you would not be issued firearms.
Quit talking stupid. By now I'm thoroughly convinced you have absolutely no education or firsthand experience on the subject. Quit pretending you know anything and bow out.[/QUOTE]
That was a dramatization.
[quote]According to the LAC data, when only one officer fired during an encounter, the average hit ratio was 51 percent. When an additional officer got involved in shooting, hits dropped dramatically, to 23 percent. With more than 2 officers shooting, the average hit ratio was only 9 percent - "a whopping 82 percent declination," [/quote]
Still Low.
[QUOTE=GunFox;35869736]No, he is quite correct. The accuracy level of officers in a firefight is abysmal.[/QUOTE]
The officers in those cases were not in firefights. The opened fire, in one case, on an unarmed 7-year old-girl and in the other a fleeing suspect when a stray bullet killed a 2-year-old boy.
Their accuracy should not have been an issue. They shouldn't have been firing at all.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35869702]Do not be the one to bring further shame to an already tarnished institution that should be a shining beacon of society.
[/QUOTE]Spot on, sadly I think he only wants to be a cop for the power, not for the service.
I have a title written up for him if anyone wants to buy it. :v:
[QUOTE=Lankist;35869749]The officers in those cases were not in firefights. The opened fire, in one case, on an unarmed 7-year old-girl and in the other a fleeing suspect when a stray bullet killed a 2-year-old boy.
Their accuracy should not have been an issue. They shouldn't have been firing at all.[/QUOTE]
Oh I agree, I was just pointing out that the specific statement was indeed true, when you remove the context. Sorry, should have made that more clear.
[QUOTE=GunFox;35869736]No, he is quite correct. The accuracy level of officers in a firefight is abysmal.[/QUOTE]
Hit probability has never been collected in a large enough sample set to say that. The main study most people cite is New York and LA, which proves that New York and LA cops fucking suck, nothing more.
And assuming the data we do have is valid and represents the majority of cops across the country, it does effectively mean that we should not be arming police officers, as they fit basic combat shooting definitions of "asshole more dangerous to himself and others than the target". Either way, it was a stupid thing to say in that context.
To be fair, most police engagements are in moderately close quarters where it's harder to land an accurate shot. Especially on a moving target.
Not saying tazers or the police who use them are perfect, but half the time some one screams tazer abuse they did something to deserve it.
[QUOTE=Protocol7;35869891]To be fair, most police engagements are in moderately close quarters where it's harder to land an accurate shot. Especially on a moving target.[/QUOTE]
Point is if you can't land the shot you don't fire. When a bullet misses it keeps going, and sometimes it ruins lives.
[QUOTE=l l;35869760]Spot on, sadly I think he only wants to be a cop for the power, not for the service.
I have a title written up for him if anyone wants to buy it. :v:[/QUOTE]
Label me as you want, its not for the power - Its for the community.
[QUOTE=The golden;35869952]That's not the impression I get when I go back and read your posts.[/QUOTE]
Lable me as you wish. I speak from situational context while everyone speaks from general context. I guess I just come across as that power-hungry-bitch, then so be it. But thats not what it really is. Sit down for coffee with me.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35869933]Point is if you can't land the shot you don't fire. When a bullet misses it keeps going, and sometimes it ruins lives.[/QUOTE]
I know, and I agree with you. You don't fire a shot tentatively. You shoot to kill, to stop an impending threat. But you need to be able to accurately gauge what is a threat and if you can stop the threat properly.
[editline]7th May 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=areolop;35869967]Lable me as you wish. I speak from situational context while everyone speaks from general context. I guess I just come across as that power-hungry-bitch, then so be it. But thats not what it really is. Sit down for coffee with me.[/QUOTE]
Tell me a place. I'll pay.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35869933]Point is if you can't land the shot you don't fire. When a bullet misses it keeps going, and sometimes it ruins lives.[/QUOTE]
Sir Isaac Newton is also the deadliest son of a bitch on Earth.
[QUOTE=areolop;35869936]Label me as you want, its not for the power - Its for the community.[/QUOTE]
A community which you would shoot instinctively if you felt threatened by them.
[QUOTE=Lankist;35870062]A community which you would shoot instinctively if you felt threatened by them.[/QUOTE]
Thats not even what I was saying. I am talking about looking down a barrel of a gun. (or 21-Foot rule)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.