Quake3World

ctrlnuke wrote:Do you actually believe that's how it happened? Honestly, your question is irrelevant and not even worth arguing with.

I know that's not how it happened. It was just a simple question, would you answer it?

It has nothing to do with the argument. You lost, don't derail.

It's completely relevant. I didn't lose, you're giving up.

You're asking me if I condone the acts of a police officer standing over a dead body and shooting it until "it makes him feel better."

Of course that is completely relevant.

Then why is it so hard to answer the question?

R00k wrote:Then why is it so hard to answer the question?

The agrument right now is whether or not the police had the right to shoot man after he tried to stab an officer in the chest after the officers repeatedly told him to put down the knife and pepper sprayed him.

Now, asking if a cop should shoot a dead body until "it makes him feel better" is taking the argument to a psychological level which has nothing to do with the ways (see physical) to subdue a threat--what we were originally debating about.

ctrlnuke wrote:

R00k wrote:Then why is it so hard to answer the question?

The agrument right now is whether or not the police had the right to shoot man after he tried to stab an officer in the chest after the officers repeatedly told him to put down the knife and pepper sprayed him.

Now, asking if a cop should shoot a dead body until "it makes him feel better" is taking the argument to a psychological level which has nothing to do with the ways (see physical) to subdue a threat--what we were originally debating about.

LOL, so you think the guy was still running around chasing them after the 9th shot.

R00k wrote:

ctrlnuke wrote:

R00k wrote:Then why is it so hard to answer the question?

The agrument right now is whether or not the police had the right to shoot man after he tried to stab an officer in the chest after the officers repeatedly told him to put down the knife and pepper sprayed him.

Now, asking if a cop should shoot a dead body until "it makes him feel better" is taking the argument to a psychological level which has nothing to do with the ways (see physical) to subdue a threat--what we were originally debating about.

LOL, so you think the guy was still running around chasing them after the 9th shot.

Already adressed, don't back track.

ctrlnuke wrote:...and back to my point...you seem to be making a big deal of the 10 shots thing, which actually isn't a factor in this at all. Like I said earlier, what does it matter if the guy has 2 slugs in him or 10? There were at least 5 cops, at most 2 shots to the torso each. And it's not like they counted shots, 10 shots from that many cops would be off in less than 2 seconds.

Well I guess you've got it figured out then.

10 guys completely surrounding a man with a 3-inch knife would obviously need to kill him with overwhelming force.

Would you think it was alright if one of them came up behind him and smashed his skull with a baseball bat instead of shooting him?

over whelming force is shooting the guy after he tried to kill a cop?

You don't even consider that video overwhelming force?

How do you define overwhelming force?

This is a case of police protecting other officers. Trying to make it into anything more is making it into something it's not.
1. The man tried to kill a cop.
2. Police killed him instead.

R00k wrote:
Would you think it was alright if one of them came up behind him and smashed his skull with a baseball bat instead of shooting him?

That would have been fucking awesome.

Big fucking deal. The general rule of thumb is that if someone is within 20 feet of an officer and is attempting to attack them with a weapon, they shoot them with their guns. Why do they do this? They do this because tasers don't always work. Certain types of vests can actually keep tasers from penetrating the clothing and attaching to the body. The idiot had a weapon and was attempting to attack an officer, and they didn't want to take any chances of someone getting hurt. Big fucking deal

Nightshade wrote:

R00k wrote:
Would you think it was alright if one of them came up behind him and smashed his skull with a baseball bat instead of shooting him?

That would have been fucking awesome.

Yea, I had a nice mental image when I thought of it. Would make for some good tv. :icon32:

ctrlnuke wrote:This is a case of police protecting other officers. Trying to make it into anything more is making it into something it's not.
1. The man tried to kill a cop.
2. Police killed him instead.

Listen, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. Like I said in my first post, I don't disapprove of the dude getting shot - that's what happens when you attack a police officer; cause and effect.

But I do dislike the attitudes of a lot of the cops in this country, and to me, it strikes a sour chord when I see overwhelming force being used, when you have plenty of cops standing around to subdue somebody, but decide fuck it and just end him anyway like his life is worth shit. Maybe his life is worth shit, I don't know that anymore than the cops do.

And if the guy can kill somebody with a 3-inch blade when there are 10 big guys in kevlar surrounding him, then he must be Chuck Fucking Norris.

eepberries wrote:

Big fucking deal. The general rule of thumb is that if someone is within 20 feet of an officer and is attempting to attack them with a weapon, they shoot them with their guns. Why do they do this? They do this because tasers don't always work. Certain types of vests can actually keep tasers from penetrating the clothing and attaching to the body. The idiot had a weapon and was attempting to attack an officer, and they didn't want to take any chances of someone getting hurt. Big fucking deal

Plus he was a nigra

R00k wrote:

ctrlnuke wrote:This is a case of police protecting other officers. Trying to make it into anything more is making it into something it's not.
1. The man tried to kill a cop.
2. Police killed him instead.

Listen, I'm mostly playing devil's advocate here. Like I said in my first post, I don't disapprove of the dude getting shot - that's what happens when you attack a police officer; cause and effect.

But I do dislike the attitudes of a lot of the cops in this country, and to me, it strikes a sour chord when I see overwhelming force being used, when you have plenty of cops standing around to subdue somebody, but decide fuck it and just end him anyway like his life is worth shit. Maybe his life is worth shit, I don't know that anymore than the cops do.

And if the guy can kill somebody with a 3-inch blade when there are 10 big guys in kevlar surrounding him, then he must be Chuck Fucking Norris.

It still isn't an officer's job to get stabbed in the arm or leg unnecesarily. Just because the guy had a 3 inch blade doesn't mean he couldn't have cut one of them up.

R00k wrote:And if the guy can kill somebody with a 3-inch blade when there are 10 big guys in kevlar surrounding him, then he must be Chuck Fucking Norris.

make some bloody sense; if they followed your logic and didn't shoot him, he probably COULD have killed somebody with a 3-inch blade when there were 10 big guys in kevlar surrounding him. The only significance of the kevlar is that it means they are carrying guns. As soon as your argument strips them of guns or the right to use them when they are clearly being attacked, one or more of them easily could be killed.

eepberries wrote:

Big fucking deal. The general rule of thumb is that if someone is within 20 feet of an officer and is attempting to attack them with a weapon, they shoot them with their guns. Why do they do this? They do this because tasers don't always work. Certain types of vests can actually keep tasers from penetrating the clothing and attaching to the body. The idiot had a weapon and was attempting to attack an officer, and they didn't want to take any chances of someone getting hurt. Big fucking deal

If 10 cops surround 1 man with a knife and 10 shell casings land on the ground after the man tries to take out (read: kill) one of the cops, how many shell casings do you expect to find on the ground...

Dark Metal wrote:If you try to kill a cop, you deserve to get shot 10, 20, 50, 100 times.

AMEN

sliver wrote:

R00k wrote:And if the guy can kill somebody with a 3-inch blade when there are 10 big guys in kevlar surrounding him, then he must be Chuck Fucking Norris.

make some bloody sense; if they followed your logic and didn't shoot him, he probably COULD have killed somebody with a 3-inch blade when there were 10 big guys in kevlar surrounding him. The only significance of the kevlar is that it means they are carrying guns. As soon as your argument strips them of guns or the right to use them when they are clearly being attacked, one or more of them easily could be killed.

I'm not trying to strip them of the right to use their guns; I thought we'd already established that.

I'm playing armchair quarterback, and asking why in hell the government spends all that money on training when ten of them together can't subdue a single guy with a pocket knife.

edit: They had every right to shoot him, and they didn't necessarily do anything wrong.

Hmmm, I have 3 cops in my family, and that's fight or flight instinct, if you have a gun, and somebody tries to stab you, you shoot him, trust me, you would do the same thing if you have been trained how to use a gun.

ctrlnuke wrote:This is a case of police protecting other officers. Trying to make it into anything more is making it into something it's not.
1. The man tried to kill a cop.
2. Police killed him instead.

The fact is despite people not disapproving of the outcome based on the circumstances, it could have been prevented had preventative measures been available and used. If the cops had beanbag guns, tazers, and other "less than lethal" alternatives they would have been able to subdue the suspect with much less probability of someone sustaining a lengthy injury, let alone death.