For the FTP's amongst us

We need a change of subject.
I think these college kids are on to something here.

https://defensemaven.io/bluelivesma...ch-had-active-shooter-EIH_hawAV0KH5OHEuBV01Q/

 

You would.

How many of those kids, you think, submitted applications to become unarmed police there or anywhere?

 

More guns is the answer, not less.

 

1MPH speed limiters on all autos is the answer.

 

There you go egging people on...

 

I can’t believe I just read the last ten pages of this thread.

 

Whoo-hooo, FTP!

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/15/7036...-driver-for-giving-him-the-finger-court-rules

 

It's been explained to you why you are wrong. To try and prove yourself right, you change scenarios or standards, hence moving the goal posts. Please keep it up, if nothing else it helps kill the boredom as long as you don't mind looking foolish.

 

No sir. You say he tried to run over the cop - incorrect. You say the cop was in danger - incorrect (he put himself in a dangerous position after the first shots, but not before). You say the suspect is at fault for not complying when being held at gunpoint- incorrect, you cannot kill somebody simply for failure to comply. You say that somehow the whole incident is justified because the car was stolen - again, incorrect because there's no evidence that the suspect even knew the car was stolen, much less that it was stolen in a violent manner (based on some accounts, the car was rented by another person, not returned, then borrowed by this guy that morning, meaning there's no way the police even knew who he was). The ONLY WAY your justification holds up is if he'd just carjacked the car or committed some other crime and the police had a valid expectation that he'd continue on a violent spree if they let him go. He hadn't, wasn't, and by all indications, didn't even know the police were tracking him.

The only thing that's been explained is your bias to automatically side with the cop, giving him the benefit of the doubt in some twisted assumption that his life is automatically worth significantly more than the suspect. You're willing to let him be judge, jury, and executioner on the ASSUMPTION that his judgement is correct and that the suspect's actions MIGHT somehow lead to injury or death to the officer. You just don't understand how fucking dangerous that is. You remind me of the old SouthPark episode where Jimbo and Ned have to say all the animals are "COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!!" before they can shoot them. http://southpark.cc.com/clips/149674/its-coming-right-for-us

In every other scenario I've proposed, the principles stay the same. I've only tried to make it more clear to you people who are dead set on siding with the police in every situation.

You keep saying it's the suspect's responsibility to act in a manner that keeps him from being killed by the police, and that is INSANE. It's exactly the same type of mindset that blames women for getting raped. I will give you that it's STUPID to ignore someone who's holding a gun on you, and that if you don't comply, you're probably going to get shot, but I WILL NOT accept that it's automatically your fault. You have to question the legitimacy of whether or not the gun is being held on you for a legal reason, even if it's a cop doing it. Obviously the best time to do that is after the incident, but since this guy isn't alive to do it himself, the general public has to do it.

Every other way you've tried to shut me down has just been typical internet troll bullshit. Almost all of you guys are the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "nananana".

 

A Nissan Altima is a truck pulling a trailer now? The rear tires follow a path similar to that of the front on a car. There's also the issue of the body of the car being in the way. IF, and I say IF, the cop was in any danger of anything it would have been faling backward and if somehow he'd managed to fall straight down where he stood, his feet/lower legs might have been injured by the rear tires. In reality, what would have happened if the car had hit him with any force whatsoever, he'd have been pushed backwards out of harms way. The contact seen in the video was the cop trying to use his body to stop the car (hello, physics). This is completely contrary to the PD's policy identified below:


Discharging firearms at a moving or fleeing vehicle is prohibited, unless it is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious physical injury to the officer or another person.

Officers will not voluntarily place themselves in a position in front of an oncoming vehicle where Deadly Force is the probable outcome. When confronted by an oncoming vehicle, officers will move out of its path, if possible, rather than fire at the vehicle.

 

I wish you were capable of having a discussion instead of trying to be cute by keying on stupid nuances and making dumb jokes.

 

No, you haven't. You just keep saying the cop was in danger/fear, when he clearly wasn't. Then you tell me I don't know how cars work (I do).

 

He was not in a place of danger. There was no imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death. Being bumped by a car will not kill or significantly injure you.

YOU ARE CLEARLY AND REPEATEDLY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THIS WAS A HOTHEAD COP WHO SHOT THIS GUY BECAUSE HE WAS TRYING TO FLEE, NOT BECAUSE HE WAS BEING VIOLENT