18 and Dead. - Page 25

bobabode · #**241** 08-13-2014, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

You're right.

It was a real Toad sticker too.

Probably bigger than the one DJ carries.

Certainly worthy of a 47 round barrage from six officers.

No matter how you look at it Finn's right. Pull a weapon on a LEO and you'll most likely end up dead.

4-2-7 · #**242** 08-13-2014, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow

What's more fucked up is jumping to conclusions when you have no facts. We'll find out in due time and I bet folks who have jumped to conclusions that end up not being supported by the facts will not concede, but shout conspiracy. I refuse to be pulled into such pointless discussions.

I think he just likes the attention with his phony outrage

4-2-7 · #**243** 08-13-2014, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

What troll?

You

donquixote99 · #**244** 08-13-2014, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeke

1. Once you impede me from performing my job duties? That's what you are.
2. Once you assault me -- in any way -- you get appropriate force.
3. Once you can reach my gun, you get dead.

That's the training.

That's the job.

Entitlement again. You get to declare war if someone 'impedes' you?

We're trying to discuss what appropriate force is in various situations. If a guy shoves an officer, perhaps it's appropriate to shoot him. Depends on the circumstances, of which there are conflicting accounts, and of which we actually know nothing.

If a guy shoots someone, I'd say he's proven dangerous enough to shoot him in the back when he's running away.

But shooting the guy who shoved you in the back? Are you sure that would be OK? Because your earlier comments say just that, don't they?

You keep trying to make any 'assault on a peace officer' into an instant death sentence. But civilians don't have that--they can respond with deadly force only if in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm. So again, the attitude seems to me to be 'police entitlement.'

And you've got training and procedures. So you're not responsible, the training and procedures shield you. Sort of like the 'just following orders' defense, isn't it?

bobabode · #**245** 08-13-2014, 02:40 PM

deleted

finnbow · #**246** 08-13-2014, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Being mentally ill in the presence of an armed cop is a bad idea.

Except it's not an idea.

Surrounding a mentally ill guy and screaming at him--is that a good idea?

When somebody pulls a weapon on you, do you have time to perform a psychiatric evaluation of the guy? Regardless, being mentally deranged probably makes him more dangerous.

donquixote99 · #**247** 08-13-2014, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode

Who are you talking about Don?

Someone we are mostly trying to ignore. Perhaps that is the point of your question?

donquixote99 · #**248** 08-13-2014, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobabode

No matter how you look at it Finn's right. Pull a weapon on a LEO and you'll most likely end up dead.

That accurately describes the world we've got. Now, is it the way things should be? Can we reasonably expect police to have other solutions to threats, besides violence?

bobabode · #**249** 08-13-2014, 02:47 PM

deleted

donquixote99 · #**250** 08-13-2014, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finnbow

When somebody pulls a weapon on you, do you have time to perform a psychiatric evaluation of the guy? Regardless, being mentally deranged probably makes him more dangerous.

I don't have expert knowledge in this area, but I think it is possible in some cases to classify the the psychiatric state of a person in the field, very quickly, if you are trained in a few basic things to look for.

You second question expresses an inaccurate prejudice, I think.