[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34058008][img]http://i40.tinypic.com/f29fnp.jpg[/img][img]http://i43.tinypic.com/2ylocvl.jpg[/img]
Please, tell me how a someone could tell the difference between the two when it's being pointed at them.[/QUOTE]
I honestly wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless it had the orange nub on it
[QUOTE=JakeIsWin;34058062]who in the fuck is 15 in eighth grade?[/QUOTE]
someone dumb enough to do this.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;34058098]I honestly wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless it had the orange nub on it[/QUOTE]
The semi/auto selector switch on the slide shows it's airsoft. Actual Glocks don't have those, at least not for that model. But obviously you can't tell the difference unless you are physically looking at it from 2 feet away.
Sucks that people like this are slowly killing airsoft for everyone. I wouldn't be surprised if the things were completely outlawed in the US by 2020.
[QUOTE=Flyboi;34058022]They could have at least shot to injure, I mean three cops all shooting is way over the top... he'd have gone down with a bullet to the knee.[/QUOTE]
Bad idea, never shoot to injure. The suspect could come back and sue you for everything you own and more. When you point an object that looks like a gun at someone, expect the other person to shoot back.
To be honest, it seems like a suicide all things considered. Cops did the right thing here.
[QUOTE=EagleEye;34058191]Bad idea, never shoot to injure. The suspect could come back and sue you for everything you own and more. When you point an object that looks like a gun at someone, expect the other person to shoot back.
To be honest, it seems like a suicide all things considered. Cops did the right thing here.[/QUOTE]
i'm pretty sure the "shoot to injure" thing doesn't apply to cops, i could be wrong though
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;34057871]There are numerous cases of 'stand-off's that don't instantly turn into full blown shoot out. You want to know why? It's because cops shouldn't start shooting instantly.
And how was it self-defence? It was a fucking pellet gun.[/QUOTE]
Oh yes, because if I pointed this here pellet gun that just so happens to look like a full-size Glock at you you're not going to freak out, am I right? It's a Crosman T4 by the way. You should look at all the photos of it on Google and check out how it lacks any long range acknowledgement that it's a pellet gun.
[img]http://gunner.com.ua/published/publicdata/GUNNERCMAINMAIN/attachments/SC/products_pictures/Crosman%20T4_enl.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;34058098]I honestly wouldn't be able to tell the difference unless it had the orange nub on it[/QUOTE]Many do not have the orange safety tip on the end. Every one I've had over the last decade roughly has not had one.
I actually keep a couple of CO[sub]2[/sub] pellet guns around as security and just because I really like them. They look the part of their real counter parts so I figure that, if the need ever arose, it may just give me a chance to diffuse a situation before it even starts. And fuck, at least pellets hurt when they hit someone.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34058201]i'm pretty sure the "shoot to injure" thing doesn't apply to cops, i could be wrong though[/QUOTE]
The whole coming back and suing them thing? I have no idea. All I know is that anyone in law enforcement, or anyone who has taken a firearm defense training course knows that you never shoot to injure. You shoot to make sure the threat is no longer a threat anymore. You don't have to kill them, but you do want to shoot until they drop to the ground, and then tend to their wounds if they're still alive.
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34058008][img]http://i40.tinypic.com/f29fnp.jpg[/img][img]http://i43.tinypic.com/2ylocvl.jpg[/img]
Please, tell me how a someone could tell the difference between the two when it's being pointed at them.[/QUOTE]
Be impossible to tell the difference in the heat of the moment, from a distance. + this took place in texas, EVERYONE owns a gun, especially in brownsvill, a rural city.
It isn't that far fetched for a kid to have a gun.
[QUOTE=Bassplaya7;34057818]My god, the same people who are cursing the cops actions would be blaming them entirely if they'd acted too cautiously and the kid was actually armed[/QUOTE]
That's Facepunch for you. And usually the same ones who bash them endlessly are also expert armchair fighters. "Well if I had been there, I would have done this", "The cops shouldn't have done that, they should have done this, this, and then done this", etc.
Gets really old. Especially in cases where there's really no police brutality at all.
[QUOTE=EagleEye;34058237]The whole coming back and suing them thing? I have no idea. All I know is that anyone in law enforcement, or anyone who has taken a firearm defense training course knows that you never shoot to injure. You shoot to make sure the threat is no longer a threat anymore. You don't have to kill them, but you do want to shoot until they drop to the ground, and then tend to their wounds if they're still alive.[/QUOTE]
well yeah if you take a civilian firearms training course they just repeat that line about "only aim if youre going to destroy" over and over, but i'm pretty sure cops would be trained to make nonlethal injuries or at least attempt to, so that subjects can be subdued.
the people that are saying its police brutality/unneeded force are fucking idiots.
So, kid knows he brings a pellet gun to school. He knows it's just a pellet gun. Somebody thinks otherwise, calls the cops. Cops arrive, weapons pointing at the kid. Obviously, they order that he drop his "weapon". Kid, knowing full well this is just a misunderstanding, should drop his pellet gun (his mind should be thinking: 'oh shit obviously these guys think this is the real deal. I should probably listen to them'). He doesn't. He points it, refuses to drop it, whatever. He doesn't listen for whatever reason.
Kid gets shot because of it. Kid needs to be responsible too and he wasn't. He paid the price. Maybe it was a 'suicide by cop' ordeal. Who knows. Still, irresponsibility on the kids part entirely.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34058253]well yeah if you take a civilian firearms training course they just repeat that line about "only aim if youre going to destroy" over and over, but i'm pretty sure cops would be trained to make nonlethal injuries or at least attempt to, so that subjects can be subdued.[/QUOTE]
What is the point of that? Shoot 'em in a "nonlethal" way and just pray that they instantly drop their weapon and don't spray you with a hundred bullets? There's something called adrenaline, you know, and a person could easily have a window of opportunity between being shot and reacting to being shot where he can fire.
Police officers are trained to ONLY unholster their weapons if they intend to kill. There is no "nonlethal injury" shit.
what did this kid expect to happen?
he pointed something that's pretty much identical to a real gun at a police officer, [I]while they were telling him to drop the weapon[/I] and he didn't
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;34058321]What is the point of that? Shoot 'em in a "nonlethal" way and just pray that they instantly drop their weapon and don't spray you with a hundred bullets?
Police officers are trained to ONLY unholster their weapons if they intend to kill. There is no "nonlethal injury" shit.[/QUOTE]
ah i figured they would have been trained for trying to make nonlethal shots
also yeah i would imagine that shooting a child might turn their focus away from holding a gun, but thats beside the point
i don't blame them for killing him, i'm only saying that i thought a nonlethal shot might have been wiser, but either way you can't blame them for shooting.
When you use ballistic gel tests as an example, it becomes obvious that avoiding arteries and other important aspects of the human body becomes impossible with the penetration of rounds like 9x19mm, 10mm (.40 S&W), and .45 Auto. I fired a 1911 (.45) in one test and it almost knocked the slab of gel off the table.
Police don't shoot to kill, they shoot to neutralize the threat. Once the person is down, they cautiously approach with their guns up until they can get close enough to kick a weapon off to the side. If they shoot to kill, they'd continue firing even once the suspect is down.
This kid has some issues. He pulls out a pellet gun and doesn't think that maybe shit's hitting the fan when the school goes on lockdown. Then the cops show up, and it doesn't occur to him that maybe he should put the toy gun down.
Can't say I feel sorry for him.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34058353]ah i figured they would have been trained for trying to make nonlethal shots
also yeah i would imagine that shooting a child might turn their focus away from holding a gun, but thats beside the point
i don't blame them for killing him, i'm only saying that i thought a nonlethal shot might have been wiser, but either way you can't blame them for shooting.[/QUOTE]
Nonlethal shots are bullshit. In the time they could have lined up a shot, he could have shot them.
Legs and arms and shit are constantly moving, and are way thinner than your torso.
Cops can't be fucking demigods, stop acting like they should be the best gunmen in the world, and be able to handle everything perfectly.
Yeah if they want to do a non lethal shot they'd be better off hitting them in the chest with a rubber bullet than aiming metal bullets at their arms and legs.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;34057424][B]YOU DON'T FUCKING GUN DOWN A FUCKING PERSON THAT'S NOT FUCKING FIRING IN ANY FUCKING WAY.
[/B]Could've tased him at the very most, Jesus fucking Christ.[/QUOTE]
he's not firing, so you don't shoot him? you want him to kill someone first?
[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;34058008][img]http://i40.tinypic.com/f29fnp.jpg[/img][img]http://i43.tinypic.com/2ylocvl.jpg[/img]
Please, tell me how a someone could tell the difference between the two when it's being pointed at them.[/QUOTE]
well you see that little safety thing that is there? yeah that's a big difference and i think that all cops shoulda been able to tell
/sitting behind a screen not understanding shit exaggeration
Technically this isn't late since when the last one was made it hadn't been determined it was just a pellet gun. Still he made a stupid move pointing it at people and refusing to lower it, and pellet guns can still be lethal weapons. The cops did the right thing.
[editline]4th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Clementine;34058580]well you see that little safety thing that is there? yeah that's a big difference and i think that all cops shoulda been able to tell
/sitting behind a screen not understanding shit exaggeration[/QUOTE]
That's the wrong model of gun anyway, the thing on the side is a firing mode selector for a glock 18, which is selective fire and capable of full-auto, the real one could be any one of their semi-auto guns. On the off chance a cop noticed that in the middle of all that it would make their actions even more justified.
[QUOTE=Repulsion;34057372]Huh. Terrible thing to happen, but it really seems like it was the kids fault. I mean, punching a kid in the nose and then holding out a pellet gun with the appearance of a real one?
I still bet there was some way to prevent it, though.[/QUOTE]
I try not to lose sleep over random kids being idiots.
[QUOTE=Clementine;34058580]well you see that little safety thing that is there? yeah that's a big difference and i think that all cops shoulda been able to tell
/sitting behind a screen not understanding shit exaggeration[/QUOTE]
Actually, that's a selector switch to switch the gun from semi to full auto on the real Glock 18.
THIS JUST IN: AMERICAN COPS SLAUGHTER 8TH GRADE BOY IN FRONT OF CLASSMATES OVER TOY GUN-POLICE BRUTALITY RAMPANT IN AMERICA
/sarcasm
It sounds like an outstandingly smooth, appropriate, and professional handling of a dangerous situation on the part of the cops.
[QUOTE=rivershark;34058705]THIS JUST IN: AMERICAN COPS SLAUGHTER 8TH GRADE BOY IN FRONT OF CLASSMATES OVER TOY GUN-POLICE BRUTALITY RAMPANT IN AMERICA
/sarcasm
It sounds like an outstandingly smooth, appropriate, and professional handling of a dangerous situation on the part of the cops.[/QUOTE]
not to say they did anything wrong but i'm not sure how shooting him to death was outstandingly smooth
[QUOTE=Kopimi;34058747]not to say they did anything wrong but i'm not sure how shooting him to death was outstandingly smooth[/QUOTE]
Smooth in this case is a relative term. I mean as opposed to shooting him 50 times or trying to take the gun away from him. It sounds like the cops tried to talk him down and defuse the situation while remaining cautious, but when he crossed the line and pointed it at them then the cops did what they had to do. Seems the two officers remained calm and did the most rational thing to do in such a situation.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.