Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5825

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I think the "Because that's all the ammunition we had." is a clever way of disguising the fact the SWAT team needed to discharge 68 rounds to kill one guy because of poor marksmanship as rdx pointed out.
Did you miss the part where it said they HIT him 68 times?
I must have.

Where they shooting him while he was on the ground then?
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6650|'Murka

Macbeth wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

I think the "Because that's all the ammunition we had." is a clever way of disguising the fact the SWAT team needed to discharge 68 rounds to kill one guy because of poor marksmanship as rdx pointed out.
Did you miss the part where it said they HIT him 68 times?
I must have.

Where they shooting him while he was on the ground then?
Don't know. Article didn't say. Possible that he wasn't. Possible, but not probable.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Did you miss the part where it said they HIT him 68 times?
I must have.

Where they shooting him while he was on the ground then?
Don't know. Article didn't say. Possible that he wasn't. Possible, but not probable.
I like to think that the bullets entering his body held him up. ya know like in the movies.
mikkel
Member
+383|6841

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I'm not going to bite, lowing. Let's try this again.

mikkel wrote:


Yeah, and then you added the ill-conceived quip about how the liberal media focuses more on a criminal than an officer. Don't pretend that you don't have an opinion beyond the response.
I've striked out the "liberal" part for you. Hopefully you can stay on track now.
lol, is there something there I have said that isn't true? In this case, or countless others where concern for the criminal outweighs that of the victim or the police?
Let's see.

I appreciate the fact that this sheriff told it like it was and the media could choke on it if they liked. I also love the idea that it is so offensive to those that would worry more about the piece of shit criminal than the cops he shot.
You insinuate that the media can "choke on it" for daring to ask whether or not firing 110 rounds and hitting a man 68 times was excessive. Then you suggest that the people who'd ask that question, or consider the shooting excessive, worry more about a criminal than his victims, a patently absurd notion that doesn't follow in any way, shape or form.

It's disturbing that this requires explanation. When a violent criminal is shot and killed while shooting at police, people generally consider it good riddance and move on. It's a common occurrence, and that's why national media doesn't extensively cover it. When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, people generally consider it a damned shame, and move on. It's a common occurrence, and that's why national media doesn't extensively cover it.

When a criminal is shot 68 times by police, people generally wonder who the hell needed to be shot 68 times to be brought down, and what kind of circumstances warrant that kind of massive force. It's an uncommon occurrence, and that's why national media carries the story and investigates the circumstances. The people who feel it excessive to put that much ammunition into a single individual aren't generally concerned about the individual, but about the officers who feel it necessary to do so. To suggest that it has anything to do with caring more for a criminal than an officer is massively dishonest, and wholly disturbing.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

mikkel wrote:

lowing wrote:

mikkel wrote:

I'm not going to bite, lowing. Let's try this again.


I've striked out the "liberal" part for you. Hopefully you can stay on track now.
lol, is there something there I have said that isn't true? In this case, or countless others where concern for the criminal outweighs that of the victim or the police?
Let's see.

I appreciate the fact that this sheriff told it like it was and the media could choke on it if they liked. I also love the idea that it is so offensive to those that would worry more about the piece of shit criminal than the cops he shot.
You insinuate that the media can "choke on it" for daring to ask whether or not firing 110 rounds and hitting a man 68 times was excessive. Then you suggest that the people who'd ask that question, or consider the shooting excessive, worry more about a criminal than his victims, a patently absurd notion that doesn't follow in any way, shape or form.

It's disturbing that this requires explanation. When a violent criminal is shot and killed while shooting at police, people generally consider it good riddance and move on. It's a common occurrence, and that's why national media doesn't extensively cover it. When a police officer is killed in the line of duty, people generally consider it a damned shame, and move on. It's a common occurrence, and that's why national media doesn't extensively cover it.

When a criminal is shot 68 times by police, people generally wonder who the hell needed to be shot 68 times to be brought down, and what kind of circumstances warrant that kind of massive force. It's an uncommon occurrence, and that's why national media carries the story and investigates the circumstances. The people who feel it excessive to put that much ammunition into a single individual aren't generally concerned about the individual, but about the officers who feel it necessary to do so. To suggest that it has anything to do with caring more for a criminal than an officer is massively dishonest, and wholly disturbing.
Then you would think the media's first questions would be about the dead and wounded officers, and not about why they shot the fucker 68 times? If it doesn't matter, then why ask the question?
mikkel
Member
+383|6841
Did you even read any of that?
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

mikkel wrote:

Did you even read any of that?
yup question still stands, if your questions are in regards to the criminal and not the officers well being.

Last edited by lowing (2011-09-05 12:33:27)

Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7014|Noizyland

That is a crack-up of a quote.

Don't like the tone of the e-mail/article though. I mean it was a legitimate question to ask and stupid to try it make and look like it was asked by "the liberal media" out of concern for the criminal, illegal immigrant or not. Excessively shooting a perpetrator is unprofessional regardless of whether it's deserved, (which it was,) or if I find it funny, (which I do because I'm a cruel cunt.)

That's the problem with a lot of journalism and news reporting; factually true but tonally slanted.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Ty wrote:

That is a crack-up of a quote.

Don't like the tone of the e-mail/article though. I mean it was a legitimate question to ask and stupid to try it make and look like it was asked by "the liberal media" out of concern for the criminal, illegal immigrant or not. Excessively shooting a perpetrator is unprofessional regardless of whether it's deserved, (which it was,) or if I find it funny, (which I do because I'm a cruel cunt.)

That's the problem with a lot of journalism and news reporting; factually true but tonally slanted.
everyone is missing the point here. WHat makes this so great has nothing to so with the media. It has everything to do with the sheriff not giving 2 flying fucks what anyone thinks regarding this shooting. He didn't pull any punches, he didn't try to white wash their actions. He told it just like it was. They shot that fucker 68 times and only 68 times because they ran outta ammo. That is a classic.
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|7014|Noizyland

lowing wrote:

Ty wrote:

That is a crack-up of a quote.

Don't like the tone of the e-mail/article though. I mean it was a legitimate question to ask and stupid to try it make and look like it was asked by "the liberal media" out of concern for the criminal, illegal immigrant or not. Excessively shooting a perpetrator is unprofessional regardless of whether it's deserved, (which it was,) or if I find it funny, (which I do because I'm a cruel cunt.)

That's the problem with a lot of journalism and news reporting; factually true but tonally slanted.
everyone is missing the point here. WHat makes this so great has nothing to so with the media. It has everything to do with the sheriff not giving 2 flying fucks what anyone thinks regarding this shooting. He didn't pull any punches, he didn't try to white wash their actions. He told it just like it was. They shot that fucker 68 times and only 68 times because they ran outta ammo. That is a classic.
Yes, and I get that and I think that's great. My objection is to the suggestion that questioning the Sheriff's actions is dismissively "liberal" or out of concern for the criminal. Whether I like the Sheriff's actions or not, and I do, I still recognise it as unprofessional and something that I wouldn't necessarily condone. His response to the question is classic but the question itself is totally warranted, that's all.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6650|'Murka

Ty wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ty wrote:

That is a crack-up of a quote.

Don't like the tone of the e-mail/article though. I mean it was a legitimate question to ask and stupid to try it make and look like it was asked by "the liberal media" out of concern for the criminal, illegal immigrant or not. Excessively shooting a perpetrator is unprofessional regardless of whether it's deserved, (which it was,) or if I find it funny, (which I do because I'm a cruel cunt.)

That's the problem with a lot of journalism and news reporting; factually true but tonally slanted.
everyone is missing the point here. WHat makes this so great has nothing to so with the media. It has everything to do with the sheriff not giving 2 flying fucks what anyone thinks regarding this shooting. He didn't pull any punches, he didn't try to white wash their actions. He told it just like it was. They shot that fucker 68 times and only 68 times because they ran outta ammo. That is a classic.
Yes, and I get that and I think that's great. My objection is to the suggestion that questioning the Sheriff's actions is dismissively "liberal" or out of concern for the criminal. Whether I like the Sheriff's actions or not, and I do, I still recognise it as unprofessional and something that I wouldn't necessarily condone. His response to the question is classic but the question itself is totally warranted, that's all.
^True statement.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Roger Lesboules
Ah ben tabarnak!
+316|6817|Abitibi-Temiscamingue. Québec!

Macbeth wrote:

I think the "Because that's all the ammunition we had." is a clever way of disguising the fact the SWAT team needed to discharge 68 rounds to kill one guy because of poor marksmanship as rdx pointed out.
Not poor marksmanship, they fired 68 bullet at the guy probably because they got pissed off from getting shot at by an illegal asshole that killed cops?

If it's worth shooting at it once, its worth shooting at it until your clip is empty!

I remember seeing this phrase on a picture on these forum a while ago if im right.
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5713|Ventura, California
Glad that piece of trash is gone.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

rdx-fx wrote:

Took 68 shots to drop the guy?

Can someone please spend some money on marksmanship training for these guys?!
Every shot is a potential stray bullet or ricochet, there's nothing clever about firing 68 shots...
Fuck Israel
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

rdx-fx wrote:

Took 68 shots to drop the guy?

Can someone please spend some money on marksmanship training for these guys?!
Every shot is a potential stray bullet or ricochet, there's nothing clever about firing 68 shots...
Sounds like they were confident in their application of the 4 rules of gun safety. That fucker got his and no one else was hurt after the cops got done with him. I am happy
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6388|'straya
But if a ricochet did hit someone, people would be calling for the cops heads.

68 rounds is excessive. Yes, it's a clever one-liner. Yes, the guy deserved it. But that doesn't mean that it was professional or safe.

Asking why they needed to fire so many rounds is a perfectly valid question.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6650|'Murka

It was more than 68 rounds. 68 rounds are what hit the guy.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6388|'straya
I understand that, but they don't give an actual number of rounds fired so saying 68 should be sufficient.

E: nvm, read it fully, apparently 110 shots.

Last edited by Little BaBy JESUS (2011-09-06 03:29:47)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX
Then they truly are imbeciles.
Fuck Israel
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

But if a ricochet did hit someone, people would be calling for the cops heads.

68 rounds is excessive. Yes, it's a clever one-liner. Yes, the guy deserved it. But that doesn't mean that it was professional or safe.

Asking why they needed to fire so many rounds is a perfectly valid question.
we could "what if" this to death. It is obvious they did not do this in the middle of a busy intersection. THey were obviously well aware no civilians were in danger of their gun fire.

sure it was a legit question. Again, it is the answer that I applaud, by a sheriff who did not have the inclination to be questioned by the media at that moment in time.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

But if a ricochet did hit someone, people would be calling for the cops heads.

68 rounds is excessive. Yes, it's a clever one-liner. Yes, the guy deserved it. But that doesn't mean that it was professional or safe.

Asking why they needed to fire so many rounds is a perfectly valid question.
we could "what if" this to death. It is obvious they did not do this in the middle of a busy intersection. THey were obviously well aware no civilians were in danger of their gun fire.

sure it was a legit question. Again, it is the answer that I applaud, by a sheriff who did not have the inclination to be questioned by the media at that moment in time.
And if those dumb trigger happy hicks had got the wrong guy?
What then?
Fuck Israel
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Little BaBy JESUS wrote:

But if a ricochet did hit someone, people would be calling for the cops heads.

68 rounds is excessive. Yes, it's a clever one-liner. Yes, the guy deserved it. But that doesn't mean that it was professional or safe.

Asking why they needed to fire so many rounds is a perfectly valid question.
we could "what if" this to death. It is obvious they did not do this in the middle of a busy intersection. THey were obviously well aware no civilians were in danger of their gun fire.

sure it was a legit question. Again, it is the answer that I applaud, by a sheriff who did not have the inclination to be questioned by the media at that moment in time.
And if those dumb trigger happy hicks had got the wrong guy?
What then?
yeah yeah yeah dilbert, and WHAT IF, he was really a werewolf and it wasn't the 68 shots that put him down but the ONE silver bullet??!!!

WHAT THEN???
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX
Werewolves don't exist.

The Plod do regularly get the wrong guy.
Fuck Israel
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6891|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Werewolves don't exist.

The Plod do regularly get the wrong guy.
YEAH but WHAT IF they DID!!??  and they didn't get the wrong guy either.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5597|London, England
Bloodlust.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard