he was mentally ill. i guess summary executions for retards is standard fare in the land of the free. even nazi germany sent them off to camps, out of sight and out of mind.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-07 13:03:53)
those cops should be at least charged with manslaughter. total unnecessary loss of life.
I wonder if any rounds missed and where it was that they hit.
just FYI, it's a massive political and media issue in the UK that our armed police (a very small and specialist fraction of the total police-force) are trained to 'shoot to kill' in the case of emergencies, when they will need to be deployed (they're basically our SWAT teams, or suchlike). the media and populace here genuinely have a problem with the fact that even the hard-ass gun specialist cops are trained to kill in moments of emergency. what the fuck happened to shooting to disable a threat in america? that guy had a knife. i don't want to descend to armchair-general hypothesizing and 'what ifs'/'but onlys'... but seriously, one shot to the leg would have put him down. a football squad of cops emptying their magazines into a minimum threat - a mentally deranged person in a state of bother - is literally death by firing squad. even in china they get a trial.
It was a knife of mass destruction and he was making steps sideways. Like a crab getting ready to fight! They should have called in a helicopter sniper, imo. Or a fighter jet.
they wouldn't shoot him in China. Those organs are of value zique, take him out back pop one in the head and you can sell the organs now!Uzique The Lesser wrote:
just FYI, it's a massive political and media issue in the UK that our armed police (a very small and specialist fraction of the total police-force) are trained to 'shoot to kill' in the case of emergencies, when they will need to be deployed (they're basically our SWAT teams, or suchlike). the media and populace here genuinely have a problem with the fact that even the hard-ass gun specialist cops are trained to kill in moments of emergency. what the fuck happened to shooting to disable a threat in america? that guy had a knife. i don't want to descend to armchair-general hypothesizing and 'what ifs'/'but onlys'... but seriously, one shot to the leg would have put him down. a football squad of cops emptying their magazines into a minimum threat - a mentally deranged person in a state of bother - is literally death by firing squad. even in china they get a trial.
i find it troubling that all the americanised members have to respond to police brutality with is cynical little one-liners and inert quips.
Why Americans so stupid.
Alpha as fuck.
Speaking of police TV programming, fucking Fox is getting rid of Cops! Sonsabitchesunnamednewbie13 wrote:
Yet another episode that will probably never see the light of day on a police propaganda TV program. And how does the chief defend this? "Oh, well, uh, as far as I know, uh, he had a history."Uzique The Lesser wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcnPW_xDmVA
What happened to all the less lethal stuff in their arsenal? Did they leave it at the office? Bloodthirsty clowns signing onto the force so they can "impose their will on others" afaik. What a fucking execution.
Didn't even offer him a cigarette and a blindfold. Philistines.
e: The could have just thrown a fishing net over the guy and winched him into the back of a police van if they didn't want to get close. lol
i guess when people are getting executed on your streets routinely all you can do is make stupid sarcastic jokes.
there's an essay in there somewhere about how irony is the dominant mode of american popular culture. irony is the form of rhetoric that typically exposes the gap between the ideal and the reality.
there's an essay in there somewhere about how irony is the dominant mode of american popular culture. irony is the form of rhetoric that typically exposes the gap between the ideal and the reality.
Makes me think back to the eerily patient cops handling the world's whiniest disarmed Iraq veteran while his kid stood by and filmed it. I wonder how those guys would've handled this one, or if the cops in this newer video would've simply shot him on the spot.
Most places I've been to or read much from train "shoot to stop." However, getting a fast stop without unnecessary risk to the defender usually involves upper torso and central nervous system shots, which have a good chance of being lethal. Shooting someone who is moving in the leg is an exceedingly difficult thing to do under stress. Add to that, there are major arteries in the upper leg, so you might kill them anyway if you hit your target (but are less likely to hit it in the first place).Uzique The Lesser wrote:
what the fuck happened to shooting to disable a threat in america?
If you are afraid for your (or someone else's life), should you take the shot with a higher or lower probability of stopping the attacker?
In the US, we view shooting at someone as using lethal force. If the attacker lives, good for them. The question is "was the use of lethal force justified?" The end state of the attacker doesn't factor into that question, only the events leading to the shooting.
If the shooting was not justified, then how the attacker wound up will determine if the charge is something like "assault with a deadly weapon" or murder.
taliban dummies? Really? redneck hard on
Read this and thought of you ignorant people. Enjoy.
New Justice Department report destroys anti-gun movement claims.
The Justice Department Report
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Suck it you liberal gang of faggots.
New Justice Department report destroys anti-gun movement claims.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism … -NarrativeBrietbart Editorial wrote:
Don't look for a new Justice Department report about American gun violence to receive any serious media coverage over the coming days, or ever. According to the report from the department's Bureau of Statistics, every argument the media and the left are currently making to push for new restrictions on our Second Amendment civil rights, are made up of anti-science nonsense. This report not only proves the media wrong, it proves the NRA right.
Between the years of 1993 and 2011, as the assault weapons ban expired, more Americans purchased guns, the Supreme Court overturned outright gun bans, and individual states not only loosed gun control restrictions but also issued concealed carry permits to private citizens, incidents of gun violence in America collapsed.
Between 1993 and 2011, nonfatal gun crimes plummeted 69%; from 1.5 million to 467,300. Gun-related murders dropped 40%; from 18,253 to 11,101. Gun-related murders for black Americans plummeted by 51%.
The report also shows that the media-created hysteria over school shootings is wildly misleading. Between '93 and '11, the murder rate in schools dropped by almost a third; from 29 to 20.
Background checks have also been exposed as another bogus narrative the media's crafted out of thin air. This report proves beyond any doubt that closing the so-called gun show loophole will accomplish next to nothing. Less than one-percent of state prisoners caught with a gun purchased it at a gun show. Moreover, who knows how many of those criminals might have passed or did pass a background check.
So-called assault weapons are also not a problem, Only "2% of state inmates and 3% of federal inmates were armed with a military-style semiautomatic or fully automatic firearm."
The Justice Department Report
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Suck it you liberal gang of faggots.
the UK police use the same defense, and to be honest i don't have that many qualms about it. it's never simple to 'shoot to disable' someone. a gun is a lethal object at the end of the day. most police forces here will use non-lethal ammo or riot dispersal type equipment in 9/10 applications/situations, anyway. the real gun squads only come out for the serious crime, or matters of utmost security.RAIMIUS wrote:
Most places I've been to or read much from train "shoot to stop." However, getting a fast stop without unnecessary risk to the defender usually involves upper torso and central nervous system shots, which have a good chance of being lethal. Shooting someone who is moving in the leg is an exceedingly difficult thing to do under stress. Add to that, there are major arteries in the upper leg, so you might kill them anyway if you hit your target (but are less likely to hit it in the first place).Uzique The Lesser wrote:
what the fuck happened to shooting to disable a threat in america?
If you are afraid for your (or someone else's life), should you take the shot with a higher or lower probability of stopping the attacker?
In the US, we view shooting at someone as using lethal force. If the attacker lives, good for them. The question is "was the use of lethal force justified?" The end state of the attacker doesn't factor into that question, only the events leading to the shooting.
If the shooting was not justified, then how the attacker wound up will determine if the charge is something like "assault with a deadly weapon" or murder.
with that said, your phrase "if you are afraid for your life" doesn't really apply to that above video. 6+ cops versus one semi-retarded man? that situation really did not need to escalate.
In America, most police departments only authorize the use of a gun for life threatening situations. If you shoot a fleeing suspect in the leg your getting in trouble because a suspect running away does not warrant deadly force. This is why you see fat cops chasing cross country runners across peoples yards instead of just shooting them. A cop is more likely to use a nightsticks, pepper spray, flashlights or one of those collapsible things (I've only heard them referred to as "ni**er-whippers", not sure what the actual term is). Cops here shoot to kill, not to disable.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the UK police use the same defense, and to be honest i don't have that many qualms about it. it's never simple to 'shoot to disable' someone. a gun is a lethal object at the end of the day. most police forces here will use non-lethal ammo or riot dispersal type equipment in 9/10 applications/situations, anyway. the real gun squads only come out for the serious crime, or matters of utmost security.RAIMIUS wrote:
Most places I've been to or read much from train "shoot to stop." However, getting a fast stop without unnecessary risk to the defender usually involves upper torso and central nervous system shots, which have a good chance of being lethal. Shooting someone who is moving in the leg is an exceedingly difficult thing to do under stress. Add to that, there are major arteries in the upper leg, so you might kill them anyway if you hit your target (but are less likely to hit it in the first place).Uzique The Lesser wrote:
what the fuck happened to shooting to disable a threat in america?
If you are afraid for your (or someone else's life), should you take the shot with a higher or lower probability of stopping the attacker?
In the US, we view shooting at someone as using lethal force. If the attacker lives, good for them. The question is "was the use of lethal force justified?" The end state of the attacker doesn't factor into that question, only the events leading to the shooting.
If the shooting was not justified, then how the attacker wound up will determine if the charge is something like "assault with a deadly weapon" or murder.
with that said, your phrase "if you are afraid for your life" doesn't really apply to that above video. 6+ cops versus one semi-retarded man? that situation really did not need to escalate.
Of course, then there are the civil suits if the guy lives... even if he was in the process of attacking you...RAIMIUS wrote:
Most places I've been to or read much from train "shoot to stop." However, getting a fast stop without unnecessary risk to the defender usually involves upper torso and central nervous system shots, which have a good chance of being lethal. Shooting someone who is moving in the leg is an exceedingly difficult thing to do under stress. Add to that, there are major arteries in the upper leg, so you might kill them anyway if you hit your target (but are less likely to hit it in the first place).Uzique The Lesser wrote:
what the fuck happened to shooting to disable a threat in america?
If you are afraid for your (or someone else's life), should you take the shot with a higher or lower probability of stopping the attacker?
In the US, we view shooting at someone as using lethal force. If the attacker lives, good for them. The question is "was the use of lethal force justified?" The end state of the attacker doesn't factor into that question, only the events leading to the shooting.
If the shooting was not justified, then how the attacker wound up will determine if the charge is something like "assault with a deadly weapon" or murder.
"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
-Frederick Bastiat
as a freshly established liveleaker i'm sure you see plenty of videos of cops shooting people who are running away. i've seen countless videos of cops gunning people down.Extra Medium wrote:
In America, most police departments only authorize the use of a gun for life threatening situations. If you shoot a fleeing suspect in the leg your getting in trouble because a suspect running away does not warrant deadly force. This is why you see fat cops chasing cross country runners across peoples yards instead of just shooting them. A cop is more likely to use a nightsticks, pepper spray, flashlights or one of those collapsible things (I've only heard them referred to as "ni**er-whippers", not sure what the actual term is). Cops here shoot to kill, not to disable.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the UK police use the same defense, and to be honest i don't have that many qualms about it. it's never simple to 'shoot to disable' someone. a gun is a lethal object at the end of the day. most police forces here will use non-lethal ammo or riot dispersal type equipment in 9/10 applications/situations, anyway. the real gun squads only come out for the serious crime, or matters of utmost security.RAIMIUS wrote:
Most places I've been to or read much from train "shoot to stop." However, getting a fast stop without unnecessary risk to the defender usually involves upper torso and central nervous system shots, which have a good chance of being lethal. Shooting someone who is moving in the leg is an exceedingly difficult thing to do under stress. Add to that, there are major arteries in the upper leg, so you might kill them anyway if you hit your target (but are less likely to hit it in the first place).
If you are afraid for your (or someone else's life), should you take the shot with a higher or lower probability of stopping the attacker?
In the US, we view shooting at someone as using lethal force. If the attacker lives, good for them. The question is "was the use of lethal force justified?" The end state of the attacker doesn't factor into that question, only the events leading to the shooting.
If the shooting was not justified, then how the attacker wound up will determine if the charge is something like "assault with a deadly weapon" or murder.
with that said, your phrase "if you are afraid for your life" doesn't really apply to that above video. 6+ cops versus one semi-retarded man? that situation really did not need to escalate.
LOL, well I guess there is no point in arguing with you since my credibility has been destroyed for watching videos on liveleak.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
as a freshly established liveleaker i'm sure you see plenty of videos of cops shooting people who are running away. i've seen countless videos of cops gunning people down.Extra Medium wrote:
In America, most police departments only authorize the use of a gun for life threatening situations. If you shoot a fleeing suspect in the leg your getting in trouble because a suspect running away does not warrant deadly force. This is why you see fat cops chasing cross country runners across peoples yards instead of just shooting them. A cop is more likely to use a nightsticks, pepper spray, flashlights or one of those collapsible things (I've only heard them referred to as "ni**er-whippers", not sure what the actual term is). Cops here shoot to kill, not to disable.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
the UK police use the same defense, and to be honest i don't have that many qualms about it. it's never simple to 'shoot to disable' someone. a gun is a lethal object at the end of the day. most police forces here will use non-lethal ammo or riot dispersal type equipment in 9/10 applications/situations, anyway. the real gun squads only come out for the serious crime, or matters of utmost security.
with that said, your phrase "if you are afraid for your life" doesn't really apply to that above video. 6+ cops versus one semi-retarded man? that situation really did not need to escalate.
ad hominem much bro?
i'm not insulting your credibility at all. i just observed it was funny that you, of all bf2s'ers posters (if we are to apply crude stereotypes), visits liveleak. it doesn't injure your credibility at all, it only bolsters the view most people already had of you. visiting liveleak doesn't change anything. you still have the same opinions.
Hold on while I scroll down and look at the comments...Extra Medium wrote:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/05/07/Justice-Dept-Report-Destroys-Medias-Gun-Control-Narrative
The Justice Department Report
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fv9311.pdf
Suck it you liberal gang of faggots.
What on earth will the com mun ists do if this DOJ report collapses their fabricated crisis?
The FLEEBAGGING LlBT@RDS will do the samething they do when we are threatened by countries like Iran & N. Korea, NOTHING, & then blame it on Bush somehow !!! Here is another FACT the FLEEBAGGERS don't want us to know, there was about 580 people kiIIed in the last 30 years due to mass sh00ters, now thats a lot but wait until you see this next number !!!!! In the past 30 years there has been over 350,000 people kiIIed by CRIMINAL THUGS ( over 80% of these thugs are minorities, I KNOW BIG SHOCK ) with ILLEGAL guns none the less !!!!! We don't have a gun problem people, WE HAVE A CRIMINAL THUG PROBLEM, plain & simple !!!!
Those damn com mun ist FLEEBAGGING LIBT@RDS are kiIIing totally eradicatingThe greatest danger to us all is the Cancer of Progressivism. We CANNOT debate this Cancer, nor reason with this Cancer, nor tolerate living with this Cancer. We must eradicate this Cancer wherever it manifests. Total eradication of the Cancer of Progressivism is our ONLY effective domestic strategy...Root it out from every nook and cranny in our government and society. Anything less is Sovereign suicide!
You know what, never mind. It isn't even worth making fun of today.
I think I'll go play a first person sh00ter.
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
violence has decreased steadily since the 1970's. violence and death have been on a pretty much permanent historical decline since the fucking bronze age. those figures don't really mean much. steven pinker has an interesting thesis on violence in society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better … Our_Nature
however, that sort of trend/statistic doesn't really omit the fact america has tens of thousands of gun deaths a year, does it? you are still world-leaders in that. the fact it is 'decreasing' overall is hardly a fucking runaway victory. i cannot believe how dense some people treat statistics sometimes. context, context, context. so because americans, after a particularly bloody 6 months when it comes to massacres and media-orgy shooting incidents, falsely believe gun-crime is on the increase, this somehow invalidates gun-control arguments, or gun crime debates? the fuck sort of reality do you even live in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better … Our_Nature
however, that sort of trend/statistic doesn't really omit the fact america has tens of thousands of gun deaths a year, does it? you are still world-leaders in that. the fact it is 'decreasing' overall is hardly a fucking runaway victory. i cannot believe how dense some people treat statistics sometimes. context, context, context. so because americans, after a particularly bloody 6 months when it comes to massacres and media-orgy shooting incidents, falsely believe gun-crime is on the increase, this somehow invalidates gun-control arguments, or gun crime debates? the fuck sort of reality do you even live in.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-05-08 05:16:25)
Are you and Uzique best friends IRL or something? Just because the report has a bunch of idiots in the comments does not mean the report has somehow lost credibility.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
idiotic nonsense about comments
You people are fools.
No.Extra Medium wrote:
Are you and Uzique best friends IRL or something? Just because the report has a bunch of idiots in the comments does not mean the report has somehow lost credibility.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
idiotic nonsense about comments
You people are fools.
I iooked at your Breitbart link, and was curious about what kind of people read it. So I scrolled down and looked at the first three comments shown. Real great first fucking impression of the readership we've got there.
Are you best friends with factory farms or something? Because it looked like you just bent over and took one in the ass for them in the animal rights thread.
Fixed for Breitbart consumption.Extra Medium wrote:
Suck it you liberal gang of faggots. sUk it u libertard gang of fagz