• Colorado police kill Vietnam veteran who killed intruder attacking grandson
    83 replies, posted
Joined in march, named "HeySwineFest" and using an ironic BLM pic. Pretty sure this is an anti-cop troll lol
Unfortunately HeySwineFest is just your garden variety bonehead with bad opinions, not a troll.
I don't even understand how, with the details of the shoot in the open, you could possibly cling to the "jackbooted thug violently murders plainly innocent old man" approach. Police have to respond to gunshots. They have to. That's their job. If they arrive on a scene, knowing there is an armed perp, knowing that someone has been shot but not knowing who, and see a guy with a gun, that guy is a suspect until tensions are lowered and everyone can talk calmly. If that guy refuses to put his gun down - or even looks like he's getting ready to use it - he's going to get shot. Is it a shame? Yes. It's a terrible misunderstanding, not a murder. As a gun owner I'm well aware that if I ever have to use a gun defensively, there is a procedure, a list of things you need to do immediately after the threat has been dispatched, and at the very top of that list is DO NOT HAVE A GUN IN YOUR HAND WHEN POLICE SHOW UP. That means stow it - put it back in its holster, put it on the floor, whatever you have to do, you cannot be holding that gun when cops show up. That's common sense. Second is respond to police commands. Unfortunately he was deaf and could not hear the commands, but had he not been holding the gun in the first place this would've been diverted entirely.
heh, it doesn't matter that you made a post elaborating your position, bud.... I'm gonna rate you bad reading once or twice and not explain my reasoning outside of emotional platitudes, and then it's all over, kid..... cucked again, fascist snowflake...
Just a fancy title for castle doctrine.
They announced. He was deaf and couldn't hear them. They didn't know or have any way to know he was deaf. It was a lost cause. He should've put the gun down. If you are holding a gun and someone points a gun at you I guarantee you'll do every frickin thing in your power to shoot first. Try living in reality for a little while with the rest of us.
I'm honestly having a difficult time ascertaining whether you're a troll, or seriously committed to your conviction. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. Police, like most jobs, are necessitated based upon a need, or some criteria which requires fulfillment. In order to effect this need, a series of tasks, in this case crime intervention, are detailed. When these tasks are completed successfully, the criteria and therefore expectations of the beneficiaries are satisfied, thus establishing a standard for task completion. However, when an exception occurs, expectations are not met, and standard is deviated. Would you agree that police mishap is more newsworthy and therefore more commonplace in media? Would you agree that this is not exclusive to just police, rather many other jobs? Even generally speaking, how should "value for human life" be evaluated or determined? Police have an obligation, as per their job description, to enter a building after an incident like this has taken place. I assume you have some level of firearms experience based upon your bullish critique of the police, and their tactics and response to this specific scenario. What would you suggest to a police officer who may one day wind up in a similar situation? Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts.
This just in: if you put your gun down before police arrive but after shooting the attacker, you and everyone else in your house will drop dead.
Oh, get over yourself, jesus christ. You think this is going to get you anywhere? I'm speaking objectively because I don't try to use emotional manipulation to win an argument. Of course I fucking feel for the guy and his family. We aren't at his memorial service, we're at a post-mortem. No it's not his fault he couldn't hear and no it's not the police's fault either. That's why I'm chalking this up to a tragic misunderstanding and not cops roaming around looking for innocent old people to fucking murder. They did the best they could with the information they had. Believe it or not legitimate tragedies where no individual can easily be blamed do occur.
Can you show me this department's policy stating that they're to identify themselves as officers, first and foremost when a man is walking up on them with a gun? I'd still like to see some sort of source on what I need to read up on about these officers, and the amount of time they had to react to this, by the way.
God damn dude, if the had been old-punch you would have been banned already for multiple reasons. "““For the next 13 seconds, officers continued to give at least five commands to Mr. Black to drop the gun and to show his hands,” Metz said Thursday at a news conference. “We don’t know why, but for whatever reason Mr. Black did not drop the gun.” You are going on about hard hearing, veteran, etc. Sorry dude, but none of those things matter during the first initial response. Cops had no way of knowing ANY of that. You keep saying the cops didn't identify themselves but clearly they did. It is as you already fucking said - the guy was hard of hearing. You literally debunked your own argument.
Weird how you keep not listening to a single fucking thing anybody has said to you and you keep going on like a complete idiot saying stupid shit because you're too blinded by how much you wanna stick it to the man to actually look at what happened and consider literally any aspect to this that doesnt fit with what you already want to think.
the funny thing about trolls is that if you don't respond to them they do more and more egregious shit for attention until they get banned maybe try not talking to the person wiggling a worm directly in front of your face waiting for you to bite it, it just validates them
Hey, you seem like you could use some actual information on how a police dept operates. Luckily for you, most have their training manuals and SOPs online, to see if they acted within protocols or not. Here they are for the Dep't in question, so you can do some reading, if you'd like. Directives Manual
what movie are you gonna watch
Idiocracy
If you consider that -The police committed no error or malpractice -They shot and killed an innocent person doesn't that seem like a pretty fucking glaring flaw in the law enforcement system?
NOT THERE WHEN THE INTRUDER ATTACKS comes late and have no idea what the fuck is going on when the owner have already dealt with the intruder wow at this rate they never should've showed up
Do you expect the police to have clairvoyance?
Generally I expect police procedure that doesn't require clairvoyance for them to not shoot innocents.
You should probably read up on procedure then and the reasons those procedures are in place. And then look at the details of the cases where it becomes relevant.
'We don't know why'? The dude had just discharged a firearm indoors without hearing protection. He wouldn't be able to hear shit even if he had perfect hearing to begin with. I guarantee the officers couldn't hear anything either after shooting him, and everyone involved will have sustained some level of permanent hearing loss. Guns are really fucking loud. I wish suppressors were recognized as safety devices rather than treated as Hollywood assassination tools, because being able to hear after a lawful shoot literally could have saved this guy's life.
thanks for reminding me to take my government assigned policeman out for a walk today
I think they mean more as in like, we don't know if it was due to not hearing, or adrenaline making him jumpy and pointy, confusion, malice, or what, and that we're all working on speculation. I'm sure having some nice ringing in his ears didn't help, whatever the case. Have you ever handled a firearm? Go shoot 9mm 5 times with no HP and let me know how your hearing is after. I've shot a handgun without ear pro once and only once because it fucked with my hearing. I promise you anything above subsonic .22 is physically painful.
5 rounds of 9mm without earpro doesn't give you permanent hearing loss
It will certainly damage your hearing, and muffle it pretty badly in the short term. A supersonic crack feet from your ears will always damage your hearing.
Even one round of 9mm without earpro is enough to cause permanent hearing loss. Hearing damage is immediate, permanent, and cumulative. Five rounds of 9mm indoors without earpro is more than enough to be temporarily deafening. I once had a 9mm go off right next to me indoors, I had difficulty hearing for hours, and my ears rang for three days. Being in an enclosed space magnifies the intensity of the sound considerably. This is literally why SWAT teams and anyone else who does a lot of urban fighting uses suppressors; it's not for the sake of stealth, it's to protect their long-term hearing and short-term ability to respond to orders and hear suspects.
It's fucking baffling to see people saying "Well fine - don't call the police for help when you're in danger!" sarcastically in response to a victimized citizen successfully neutralizing a threat to his family only for the cops to arrive - too late to do anything about the intruder - and murk him in his own house. Why do you think that's a counter-argument instead of an A+ fantastic idea? What good did the cops accomplish here? Who's better off for their presence? By the time they showed up the victims just needed medical attention, by the time they were done a victim was dead - why are you trying to cobble together excuses for this institution? Protect yourself, protect your family, protect your community - that's not what cops are around for.
I’m sorry but you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Would that change the fact that in situations like these, cops following procedure systemically leads them to kill innocents?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.