Dumbass cops "knock"/pound on man's door without identifying themselves @ 1:30AM, man opens door wit - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Roger Waters;39609886]oh my god there's literally no winning with you is there are you really so fucking belligerent as to not be able to see any form of reasoning or bartering by a party that has contradicting views to your own? you have literally never agreed with anyone in this thread.[/QUOTE] Call me a hypocrite for not providing sources, sources providing, whiplash back to a different point Still waiting on your sources babe [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=NoobSauce;39609890]Why do the cops have immunity whenever they fuck up? When a citizen makes a mistake that's not even close to murder, they get sent to jail, locked up for an unbelievable amount of time.[/QUOTE] This wouldn't be any different if a private citizen shot someone who pointed a gun at them

I'm confused as to why they thought they shouldn't announce themselves as police, but didn't think the risk was dire enough to do a forced entry. But isn't it pretty standard for the police to announce themselves during a forced entry anyway?

Scout1, you've got nothing to win here. Why don't you quit while you are ahead?

[QUOTE=PaChIrA;39609926]Scout1, you've got nothing to win here. Why don't you quit while you are ahead?[/QUOTE] He's ahead?

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;39609918]i think it's pretty clear he doesn't want people to agree with him as if it wasn't completely obvious after taking one quick look at his excellent posts[/QUOTE] Yeah I'm sure I can never agree with anyone ever, thanks. Please tell more about myself than I can. [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=PaChIrA;39609926]Scout1, you've got nothing to win here. Why don't you quit while you are ahead?[/QUOTE] There's nothing wrong with arguing a point, and what's there to lose?

He is with Dorner now... rest now weary traveller :(

Let's keep things civilized and stop with the personal insults okay. Else I have to push some nasty buttons.

[QUOTE=scout1;39609913]Yes that's why there is a mandatory leave period and investigation following an officer involved shooting, not a "Oh boy I guess this officer is guilty lol" Innocent until proven guilty, hrm?[/QUOTE] What? You're the one who said "So everytime a police officer shoots someone without witnesses, I guess it was unjustifiable homocide because we can't trust the officer's word?" like there is no other way of getting to the truth but by testimony. [QUOTE=scout1;39609913]I don't know what the fuck you're trying to say here, look at what I posted above[/QUOTE] I'm trying to say that if those cops didn't have their guns ready he would have lowered his gun before he got shot. Things would probably escalate but not the point of killing him. [QUOTE=scout1;39609913]and we explained why this is reasonable[/QUOTE] What? Assuming that the other 7 billion people is exactly like you is reasonable? What are you talking about? [QUOTE=scout1;39609913]When you can do the latter in a second? Yes. Especially when the former is confused, dazed, surprised, and at a loss.[/QUOTE] [citation needed]

[QUOTE=scout1;39609919]Call me a hypocrite for not providing sources, sources providing, whiplash back to a different point Still waiting on your sources babe [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] [B]This wouldn't be any different if a private citizen shot someone who pointed a gun at them[/B][/QUOTE] Are you implying I'm able to just walk around at 2 AM with a gun, knocking on doors and blasting anyone who shows up with a gun?

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;39609918]I think it's pretty clear he doesn't want people to agree with him. As if it wasn't completely obvious after taking one quick look at his excellent posts. He just wants attention.[/QUOTE] Normally in a debate, you both compare your arguments and then take eachothers said fact/arguments/points into consideration to build up a solution/answer to benefit both. Instead he is willing to say anything and everything and stretch it to somehow fit his image of how hes right no matter what the topic is, especially if it invovles military/government/police he always takes their side, so dont bother.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;39609925]I'm confused as to why they thought they shouldn't announce themselves as police, but didn't think the risk was dire enough to do a forced entry. [B]But isn't it pretty standard for the police to announce themselves during a forced entry anyway?[/B][/QUOTE] I'm reminded of a thread a year or so ago where the police entered a house on a no-knock raid and shot a guy because he thought they were intruders.

t

[QUOTE=Anal Rat;39609975]How can someone (scout1) be a member for 5 years and still think they're right while being awashed with dumbs? I've yet to see a single agree for you scout1. You look like a retard, stop while you can or else no one can respect your lonely opinions.[/QUOTE] This is not a valid argument. Public opinion is not always correct.

[QUOTE=Anal Rat;39609975]How can someone (scout1) be a member for 5 years and still think they're right while being awashed with dumbs? I've yet to see a single agree for you scout1. You look like a retard, stop while you can or else no one can respect your lonely opinions.[/QUOTE] stop

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39609960]What? You're the one who said "So everytime a police officer shoots someone without witnesses, I guess it was unjustifiable homocide because we can't trust the officer's word?" like there is no other way of getting to the truth but by testimony. [/QUOTE] Yes that's hyperbole in response to the [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1247680&p=39609773&viewfull=1#post39609773]conspiracy-esque post[/url] that police involved in shootings are simply lying out their asses [QUOTE=Silly Sil;39609960] I'm trying to say that if those cops didn't have their guns ready he would have lowered his gun before he got shot. Things would probably escalate but not the point of killing him.[/QUOTE] Which is inference and not proof in any way. There's a lot of factors and it's a lot more likely the deputies weren't simply ready to TACTICAL DOOR BREACH or whatever involve pointing a gun at an opening door [QUOTE=Silly Sil;39609960] What? Assuming that the other 7 billion people is exactly like you is reasonable? What are you talking about? [/QUOTE] Why it's reasonable that he didn't drop his gun immediately [QUOTE=Silly Sil;39609960] [citation needed][/QUOTE] [url]http://www.povn.com/4n6/RctnTm.pdf[/url] Training training training

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39609973]I'm reminded of a thread a year or so ago where the police entered a house on a no-knock raid and shot a guy because he thought they were intruders.[/QUOTE] So the moral of these two stories is that cops need to make more effort to be sure people know who they are before they start shooting people.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39609961]Are you implying I'm able to just walk around at 2 AM with a gun, knocking on doors and blasting anyone who shows up with a gun?[/QUOTE] Well yes, that's called a gun permit and self-defense. If they point their weapon at you, you're clear. [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Unit-05;39609966]Normally in a debate, you both compare your arguments and then take eachothers said fact/arguments/points into consideration to build up a solution/answer to benefit both. Instead he is willing to say anything and everything and stretch it to somehow fit his image of how hes right no matter what the topic is, especially if it invovles military/government/police he always takes their side, so dont bother.[/QUOTE] I'm glad that you know me better than I know me

[QUOTE=scout1;39610001]Yes that's hyperbole in response to the [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1247680&p=39609773&viewfull=1#post39609773]conspiracy-esque post[/url] that police involved in shootings are simply lying out their asses [/QUOTE] So by implying that people with motive to lie probably shouldn't have their claims touted as facts makes me a conspiracy nut? Ok.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39609973]I'm reminded of a thread a year or so ago where the police entered a house on a no-knock raid and shot a guy because he thought they were intruders.[/QUOTE] Stand your ground laws are some shit, eh?

[QUOTE=scout1;39610006]Well yes, that's called a gun permit and self-defense. If they point their weapon at you, you're clear. [/QUOTE] Wait, so you're actually saying that if someone pounds on my door at 1:30am, without announcing who they are, and I open the door pointing a gun at them, they're in the right to shoot me in my own home? Holy shit.

[QUOTE=dogmachines;39610020]So by implying that people with motive to lie probably shouldn't have their claims touted as facts makes me a conspiracy nut? Ok.[/QUOTE] Look up the definition for conspiracy Reasoning there is a conspiracy because there possible [I]could[/I] be a conspiracy is out there though, sure [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=st_nick5;39610027]Wait, so you're actually saying that if someone pounds on my door at 1:30am, without announcing who they are, and I open the door pointing a gun at them, they're in the right to shoot me in my own home? Holy shit.[/QUOTE] Goddamn right, according to the law Don't point your gun at people you're not going to kill.

[QUOTE=st_nick5;39610027]Wait, so you're actually saying that if someone pounds on my door at 1:30am, without announcing who they are, and I open the door pointing a gun at them, they're in the right to shoot me in my own home? Holy shit.[/QUOTE] You're forgetting that they're answering the door with their own gun as well. Given that the police were nervous enough to not announce they were police, it's highly likely they also had their weapons readied.

[QUOTE=scout1;39610033] Don't point your gun at people you're not going to kill.[/QUOTE] What if he wasn't pointing his gun at me, but I say he was?

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39610050]What if he wasn't pointing his gun at me, but I say he was?[/QUOTE] Then you are a conspiracy nut for suggesting that people lie.

[QUOTE=scout1;39610033] Goddamn right, according to the law Don't point your gun at people you're not going to kill.[/QUOTE] And if it turns out that they're planning on barging past, robbing me and beating the shit out of me, possibly killing me, what the fuck do I do then? I have the right to defend myself, but you've just said that I deserve to get killed for defending myself.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;39610050]What if he wasn't pointing his gun at me, but I say he was?[/QUOTE] That'd come out in the decision to prosecute. If sufficient evidence said you, without aggression, lit him up then your ass would of course be going to trial and you'll probably get a home invasion charge in there too. Even when an officer shoots someone it's not all "Oh okay well we drop it then". As I've said before in this thread there's a mandatory leave period and investigation, because the only thing worse than a cop killer is a killer cop, eh? [editline]16th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=st_nick5;39610056]And if it turns out that they're planning on barging past, robbing me and beating the shit out of me, possibly killing me, what the fuck do I do then? I have the right to defend myself, but you've just said that I deserve to get killed for defending myself.[/QUOTE] You have a right to defend yourself. Not to aim guns at people who've given you no threat. You also have a right not to answer the door.

[QUOTE=scout1;39610001]Yes that's hyperbole in response to the [URL="http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1247680&p=39609773&viewfull=1#post39609773"]conspiracy-esque post[/URL] that police involved in shootings are simply lying out their asses[/QUOTE] Is the only testimony about this incident done by the cops who have a motive to lie? Is it unreasonable to question the testimony then? [QUOTE=scout1;39610001]Which is inference and not proof in any way. There's a lot of factors and it's a lot more likely the deputies weren't simply ready to TACTICAL DOOR BREACH or whatever involve pointing a gun at an opening door[/QUOTE] Factors like the cops thinking were in dangerous situation enough not to indicate that they are the police when pounding on the door? If you are scared enough not to indicate that you're the police, it's not unreasonable to think they had their weapons drawn. They thought a dangerous suspect is in the house. Probably one of them banged on the door while the other one was aiming a gun at it. They saw a guy with a gun, maybe pointing at them, and they've killed him. [QUOTE=scout1;39610001]Why it's reasonable that he didn't drop his gun immediately[/QUOTE] He just kept aiming a gun at police officers (something that's extremely likely to get you killed) because he was confused? Wouldn't his like, the first fucking thought be to NOT aim a gun at police officers once he realized it? And unless he's half blind that would take him a moment. LESS than unholstering your gun and shooting a man. [URL="http://www.povn.com/4n6/RctnTm.pdf"][QUOTE=scout1;39610001]http://www.povn.com/4n6/RctnTm.pdf[/URL] Training training training[/QUOTE] How's police training proof that the guy was "confused, dazed, surprised, and at a loss."?

[QUOTE=postmanX3;39609317]Yeah, frankly, someone is pounding on your door at 1:30 AM, not identifying themselves, you have every right to open the door with a weapon readied.[/QUOTE] The smart thing to do would be look at who the FUCK could possibly be pounding on my door at 1:30 AM, rather than just open it Most small town officers are dumb. They don't have the training that large departments offer, because of it, incidents like this happen. Florida cops are really dumb. From pulling people over that were clearly not speeding, then backing away nervous as shit and calling for another unit just because you hand them your CCW permit with your license, and then STILL let you keep the gun on you while they write the ticket and take their eyes off you constantly, or not walking in front of their headlights a couple times at night while they approach your car to make it look like there's more than just one of them, to doing stupid shit like jumping the gun and not ID'ing themselves as police which is a huge no no in the entire country The smaller the area, the worse the police are, Then they get better the larger the departments are, and then they start getting worse again after getting larger still. And generally the younger an officer is the more likely he's going to be jumpy

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39610138]Is the only testimony about this incident done by the cops who have a motive to lie? Is it unreasonable to question the testimony then? [/QUOTE] It's not unreasonable to question the testimony, it is unreasonable to assume the testimony is automatically questionable (if that wordplay makes sense to you) [QUOTE=Silly Sil;39610138] Factors like the cops thinking were in dangerous situation enough not to indicate that they are the police when pounding on the door? If you are scared enough not to indicate that you're the police, it's not unreasonable to think they had their weapons drawn. They thought a dangerous suspect is in the house. Probably one of them banged on the door while the other one was aiming a gun at it. They saw a guy with a gun, maybe pointing at them, and they've killed him. [/QUOTE] Escalation of force You don't go from "Gee maybe we shouldn't identify ourselves immediately" to "Be ready to shoot that guy as soon as he opens he door" Now that is procedure and you can feel free to look that one up [QUOTE=Silly Sil;39610138] He just kept aiming a gun at police officers (something that's extremely likely to get you killed) because he was confused? Wouldn't his like, the first fucking thought be to NOT aim a gun at police officers once he realized it? And unless he's half blind that would take him a moment. LESS than unholstering your gun and shooting a man. [/QUOTE] Yes, I would reason so People have done much stupider things. In the early morning. At full awareness. [QUOTE=Silly Sil;39610138] [URL="http://www.povn.com/4n6/RctnTm.pdf"] How's police training proof that the guy was "confused, dazed, surprised, and at a loss."?[/QUOTE] It's the difference between training and not training. A trained police officer can easily pull out and discharge his weapon in a short time. An untrained man does not immediately recognize the situation. Look down a few pages at analyzing and evaluating the situation.

[QUOTE=scout1;39610201]It's not unreasonable to question the testimony, it is unreasonable to assume the testimony is automatically questionable (if that wordplay makes sense to you)[/QUOTE] Actually it's not. It's very reasonable to question every testimony done by someone who has a motive to lie. Question, not assume false. [QUOTE=scout1;39610201]Escalation of force You don't go from "Gee maybe we shouldn't identify ourselves immediately" to "Be ready to shoot that guy as soon as he opens he door" Now that is procedure and you can feel free to look that one up[/QUOTE] Isn't that exactly what they did tho? If they weren't ready to shoot that guy as soon as he opens the door they wouldn't have shot him faster than he lowered his gun right? Also don't you have your weapon drawn when you suspect that a dangerous man is in the house when pounding on the door? [QUOTE=scout1;39610201]Yes, I would reason so People have done much stupider things. In the early morning. At full awareness.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=scout1;39610201]It's the difference between training and not training. A trained police officer can easily pull out and discharge his weapon in a short time. An untrained man does not immediately recognize the situation. Look down a few pages at analyzing and evaluating the situation.[/QUOTE] What was that? Oh right "inference and not proof in any way". You assume he was so fucking confused that he would keep aiming a gun at police officers while they gun him down, just because it was 1 AM and he wasn't a police officer. Nice.