I well understand not all autopsies are the same and can be preformed for different reasons.
What is humorous (for lack of a better word and not in a funny, haha way) is how the results will be spun to prove the facts we want. Autopsies are not black and white, one or zero situations. Some results are yes or no... Was Brown shot? yes...
Some questions... bullet tragedies; exactly what position the body was in when the bullets entered and exited... cannot always be stated without question...
For many, if we can get a maybe, might as to what we want the facts to be... Then we declare them as undisputed facts... Without question... And conveniently forget that other possibilities exist...
That ain't gonna happen.
Sometimes even when some people see hard evidence (video of Mike Brown shoplifting and assaulting the store clerk) there were people denying the video. Many of his supporters were saying it wasn't him, even though the family admitted it was. Another person actually said the video was "photo shopped."
The reason I mention the above is because you will probably get the same reaction with the autopsy results.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Randisist:
I well understand not all autopsies are the same and can be preformed for different reasons.
What is humorous (for lack of a better word and not in a funny, haha way) is how the results will be spun to prove the facts we want. Autopsies are not black and white, one or zero situations. Some results are yes or no... Was Brown shot? yes...
Some questions... bullet tragedies; exactly what position the body was in when the bullets entered and exited... cannot always be stated without question...
For many, if we can get a maybe, might as to what we want the facts to be... Then we declare them as undisputed facts... Without question... And conveniently forget that other possibilities exist...
That ain't gonna happen.
Sometimes even when some people see hard evidence (video of Mike Brown shoplifting and assaulting the store clerk) there were people denying the video. Many of his supporters were saying it wasn't him, even though the family admitted it was. Another person actually said the video was "photo shopped."
The reason I mention the above is because you will probably get the same reaction with the autopsy results.
Sometimes even when some people see hard evidence (video of Mike Brown shoplifting and assaulting the store clerk) there were people denying the video. Many of his supporters were saying it wasn't him, even though the family admitted it was. Another person actually said the video was "photo shopped."
The reason I mention the above is because you will probably get the same reaction with the autopsy results.
There is already a news video of the spokesman for the Brown Family out where the family spokesman states the autopsy proves Brown was shot in the back while trying to surrender... Because... The medical examiner who did one of the autopsies has stated one arm wound was inconclusive as to which direction Brown was facing when the bullet stuck Brown... Ipso de facto... Brown was executed without cause...
0
Quote Originally Posted by canovsp:
That ain't gonna happen.
Sometimes even when some people see hard evidence (video of Mike Brown shoplifting and assaulting the store clerk) there were people denying the video. Many of his supporters were saying it wasn't him, even though the family admitted it was. Another person actually said the video was "photo shopped."
The reason I mention the above is because you will probably get the same reaction with the autopsy results.
There is already a news video of the spokesman for the Brown Family out where the family spokesman states the autopsy proves Brown was shot in the back while trying to surrender... Because... The medical examiner who did one of the autopsies has stated one arm wound was inconclusive as to which direction Brown was facing when the bullet stuck Brown... Ipso de facto... Brown was executed without cause...
Police are absolutely not trained to shoot to kill if shooting to injure can stop the target.
I dunno DJ. I think they don't want to kill. But if you are taught center-mass---and or shoot til they stop. Isn't that really a shoot to kill? That is what most of these current and retired LEOs seem to say from many areas:
The police department I recently retired from in Canada are trained to shoot for MASS (chest, heart area). When a shooting occurs, there is a lot of adrenalin pumping and unless the officer is doing this type of shooting everyday, it would be difficult to do what they show in Hollywood (shoot the gun out of their hand, or wound their shoulder at 100 yards etc). If the gun comes out and used, it's a shoot to kill. You don't keep shooting until the suspect is dead. The first shot is a shoot to kill and if (s)he goes down, you keep the gun trained on him and then do a threat assessment and take it from there.
And:
Shooting to "wound," is a creation of writers and directors in Hollywood. "I'm all right, Sarge, they only got me in the shoulder and leg. No problem"
I have a friend, now retired from L.A.P.D., Homicide Det., who got into a shooting several years ago with a man wanted on a Homicide warrant. He told me, "We were about 15 feet apart. He was jumping around and shooting at me and I was shooting at him. He missed me with six and I fired five times (.38 revolvers) and finally hit him in the knee with my fifth round. He collapsed. He was trying to kill me and I was trying to kill him. Luckily I blew out most of his knee"
In a real gunfight, when some bad guy is actually capping rounds at you, sometimes, things don't always go according to plan.
Center-of-mass is the only way to go... and hope like Blue Blazes that round(s) center punches the bad guy.
When I was a Weapons Training Instructor with a very large non-Federal department, we taught to "shoot to stop the threat," and "don't stop shooting until the threat is over." Any bad guy worth shooting once, is worth shooting twice.
We also taught, "Just because you're shot, it doesn't mean you're gonna die. Keep on fighting no matter what!" You'd be surprised how many people take a round and just give up right there without continuing the fight.
FWIW. L.W.
and:
The way it was explained to me, the ONLY reason in Arizona for legally shooting someone is to stop the threat. To shoot to stop the threat, one must shoot intending to kill. A live BG can still shoot or hurt you or others.
However, if the threat ends while the BG is still alive, you've accomplished your intentions without killing him. No more shooting.
Therein lies the difference if you think about it. If a person were to shoot to kill, they'd keep shooting until the perp was dead. If you shoot to end the threat, and the threat stops while the BG is still alive, you've accomplished your goal. If the bad guy dies, you've also accomplished your goal.
So, you shoot only to end the threat.
and:
Talked with a soon to be retired officer....the general responce was,
"We were trained to shoot to stop...having them die was just a bonus."
and:
The alternative to shoot to kill is shoot to "wound" and only an idiot would try and do that.
If you need to pull your trigger it is because you or your families life is in immediate danger (be you a cop or not) and when that is the case, you shoot at the center of the body TO STOP THE THREAT....and the best way to stop a threat is TO KILL IT.
and:
Law Enforcement in Washington State are trained to stop the threat. Center of mass when available or anywhere else until the threat is over. Unfortunately, death sometimes occures.
and:
Just a PC language difference...they are triained to shoot to stop...it's just with current technoloby, "stoping" and "killing" are about the same thing.
High center of mass simply becasue it gives you the most error for a telling hit...a little left or tight, up or down, and you still connect with something vital. Just so happens that those viatal areas that produce stopping also tend to produce death. Any drastic rapid drop in blood pressure, and you drop like a sack of doorknobs...center of mass happens to be the hign pressure center of circulation, so a hole in any of the major pipes there usually shuts the sytem down.
So the way it's designed, a police officer can say he shot to stop...the death of the suspecvt was an unintended consequence of needing to stop him.
and:
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Police are absolutely not trained to shoot to kill if shooting to injure can stop the target.
I dunno DJ. I think they don't want to kill. But if you are taught center-mass---and or shoot til they stop. Isn't that really a shoot to kill? That is what most of these current and retired LEOs seem to say from many areas:
The police department I recently retired from in Canada are trained to shoot for MASS (chest, heart area). When a shooting occurs, there is a lot of adrenalin pumping and unless the officer is doing this type of shooting everyday, it would be difficult to do what they show in Hollywood (shoot the gun out of their hand, or wound their shoulder at 100 yards etc). If the gun comes out and used, it's a shoot to kill. You don't keep shooting until the suspect is dead. The first shot is a shoot to kill and if (s)he goes down, you keep the gun trained on him and then do a threat assessment and take it from there.
And:
Shooting to "wound," is a creation of writers and directors in Hollywood. "I'm all right, Sarge, they only got me in the shoulder and leg. No problem"
I have a friend, now retired from L.A.P.D., Homicide Det., who got into a shooting several years ago with a man wanted on a Homicide warrant. He told me, "We were about 15 feet apart. He was jumping around and shooting at me and I was shooting at him. He missed me with six and I fired five times (.38 revolvers) and finally hit him in the knee with my fifth round. He collapsed. He was trying to kill me and I was trying to kill him. Luckily I blew out most of his knee"
In a real gunfight, when some bad guy is actually capping rounds at you, sometimes, things don't always go according to plan.
Center-of-mass is the only way to go... and hope like Blue Blazes that round(s) center punches the bad guy.
When I was a Weapons Training Instructor with a very large non-Federal department, we taught to "shoot to stop the threat," and "don't stop shooting until the threat is over." Any bad guy worth shooting once, is worth shooting twice.
We also taught, "Just because you're shot, it doesn't mean you're gonna die. Keep on fighting no matter what!" You'd be surprised how many people take a round and just give up right there without continuing the fight.
FWIW. L.W.
and:
The way it was explained to me, the ONLY reason in Arizona for legally shooting someone is to stop the threat. To shoot to stop the threat, one must shoot intending to kill. A live BG can still shoot or hurt you or others.
However, if the threat ends while the BG is still alive, you've accomplished your intentions without killing him. No more shooting.
Therein lies the difference if you think about it. If a person were to shoot to kill, they'd keep shooting until the perp was dead. If you shoot to end the threat, and the threat stops while the BG is still alive, you've accomplished your goal. If the bad guy dies, you've also accomplished your goal.
So, you shoot only to end the threat.
and:
Talked with a soon to be retired officer....the general responce was,
"We were trained to shoot to stop...having them die was just a bonus."
and:
The alternative to shoot to kill is shoot to "wound" and only an idiot would try and do that.
If you need to pull your trigger it is because you or your families life is in immediate danger (be you a cop or not) and when that is the case, you shoot at the center of the body TO STOP THE THREAT....and the best way to stop a threat is TO KILL IT.
and:
Law Enforcement in Washington State are trained to stop the threat. Center of mass when available or anywhere else until the threat is over. Unfortunately, death sometimes occures.
and:
Just a PC language difference...they are triained to shoot to stop...it's just with current technoloby, "stoping" and "killing" are about the same thing.
High center of mass simply becasue it gives you the most error for a telling hit...a little left or tight, up or down, and you still connect with something vital. Just so happens that those viatal areas that produce stopping also tend to produce death. Any drastic rapid drop in blood pressure, and you drop like a sack of doorknobs...center of mass happens to be the hign pressure center of circulation, so a hole in any of the major pipes there usually shuts the sytem down.
So the way it's designed, a police officer can say he shot to stop...the death of the suspecvt was an unintended consequence of needing to stop him.
Actually its 2 in chest. 1 in neck or head. That drill is to defeat ballistic vests. The LA bank robbery taught us that. Now it also includes one on each side of the pelvis to create massive shock to stop the threat.
Center of mass does several things. 1st it gives the shooter a large target to hit in a high stress situation. 2nd the sudden dump of energy from the hollow point will create massive shock. 3rd there will hopefully be enough mass to stop the bullet from over penetrating and hitting a bystander behind the suspect that was not seen.
I've been doing this job for 20 years. I got a whole lot of years left. I will use my weapon if called upon. I hope that never happens. My biggest fear is not hitting the suspect but rather accidently hitting an innocent person nearby.
I have to tell you that I hope to never have to discharge my weapon at someone. I've come very close several times. The aftermath of what the officer, his/her family, as well as the family of the suspect is horrible. Officers will be dragged through the mud in the press and in court. God forbid if the suspect was African American and the officer white.
Anyone who thinks they want to get into a shooting better look at the statistics on those that have. Most don't make it 2 years into their carreer. The majority if married get divorced. Psychological, "what if" will haunt you for the rest of your life.
It isn't like Hollywood where you in a shooting one moment and drinking with boys afterwards.
0
Actually its 2 in chest. 1 in neck or head. That drill is to defeat ballistic vests. The LA bank robbery taught us that. Now it also includes one on each side of the pelvis to create massive shock to stop the threat.
Center of mass does several things. 1st it gives the shooter a large target to hit in a high stress situation. 2nd the sudden dump of energy from the hollow point will create massive shock. 3rd there will hopefully be enough mass to stop the bullet from over penetrating and hitting a bystander behind the suspect that was not seen.
I've been doing this job for 20 years. I got a whole lot of years left. I will use my weapon if called upon. I hope that never happens. My biggest fear is not hitting the suspect but rather accidently hitting an innocent person nearby.
I have to tell you that I hope to never have to discharge my weapon at someone. I've come very close several times. The aftermath of what the officer, his/her family, as well as the family of the suspect is horrible. Officers will be dragged through the mud in the press and in court. God forbid if the suspect was African American and the officer white.
Anyone who thinks they want to get into a shooting better look at the statistics on those that have. Most don't make it 2 years into their carreer. The majority if married get divorced. Psychological, "what if" will haunt you for the rest of your life.
It isn't like Hollywood where you in a shooting one moment and drinking with boys afterwards.
Being involved in one shooting situation in my careerI can truthfullysay that when someone is pointing a gun at you all you can think about is stopping them before they shoot you, and that means shooting at the largest exposed part of that individual you can see. (read center mass) I know of no Officer who has been in that situation who has time to think about weather that shot will kill or wound. The individual was hit center mass, which was about 1 to 1 1/2" below his heart. He was given medical treatment, a trial and a nice cell in prison afterwards.
0
Being involved in one shooting situation in my careerI can truthfullysay that when someone is pointing a gun at you all you can think about is stopping them before they shoot you, and that means shooting at the largest exposed part of that individual you can see. (read center mass) I know of no Officer who has been in that situation who has time to think about weather that shot will kill or wound. The individual was hit center mass, which was about 1 to 1 1/2" below his heart. He was given medical treatment, a trial and a nice cell in prison afterwards.
Police Academy instructors say over and over, "shoot to STOP." Defense attorney's would love to hear "shoot to KILL." Can you imagine how that could be twisted around in court?
0
Police Academy instructors say over and over, "shoot to STOP." Defense attorney's would love to hear "shoot to KILL." Can you imagine how that could be twisted around in court?
Well.... Sharpton has to make while the sun shines- he's not qualified for anything other than whining....
And telling the truth is only effective when you have a receptive audience...
It's much easier to wallow in self pity and point to inequities than to pull oneself out of their current predicament through hard work, education, and a little self introspection....
0
Well.... Sharpton has to make while the sun shines- he's not qualified for anything other than whining....
And telling the truth is only effective when you have a receptive audience...
It's much easier to wallow in self pity and point to inequities than to pull oneself out of their current predicament through hard work, education, and a little self introspection....
"So, Let me get this straight, the Press can report from Gaza, not be
touched, report within ISIS, not be touched, report on the Ukrainian
border, not be touched and on the other hand get arrested reporting in
bumfu*k Missouri????? This country has gone to garbage"
~~~~~ZOSO~~~~~
0
"So, Let me get this straight, the Press can report from Gaza, not be
touched, report within ISIS, not be touched, report on the Ukrainian
border, not be touched and on the other hand get arrested reporting in
bumfu*k Missouri????? This country has gone to garbage"
"So, Let me get this straight, the Press can report from Gaza, not be touched, report within ISIS, not be touched, report on the Ukrainian border, not be touched and on the other hand get arrested reporting in bumfu*k Missouri????? This country has gone to garbage"
Correct---totally different situation. I am sure they are not disobeying local law enforcement in Gaza or irritating Isis. They wanna make a statement in Ferguson. Solid agenda in place is all.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TheGoldenGoose:
"So, Let me get this straight, the Press can report from Gaza, not be touched, report within ISIS, not be touched, report on the Ukrainian border, not be touched and on the other hand get arrested reporting in bumfu*k Missouri????? This country has gone to garbage"
Correct---totally different situation. I am sure they are not disobeying local law enforcement in Gaza or irritating Isis. They wanna make a statement in Ferguson. Solid agenda in place is all.
I dunno DJ. I think they don't want to kill. But if you are taught center-mass---and or shoot til they stop. Isn't that really a shoot to kill? That is what most of these current and retired LEOs seem to say from many areas:
The police department I recently retired from in Canada are trained to shoot for MASS (chest, heart area). When a shooting occurs, there is a lot of adrenalin pumping and unless the officer is doing this type of shooting everyday, it would be difficult to do what they show in Hollywood (shoot the gun out of their hand, or wound their shoulder at 100 yards etc). If the gun comes out and used, it's a shoot to kill. You don't keep shooting until the suspect is dead. The first shot is a shoot to kill and if (s)he goes down, you keep the gun trained on him and then do a threat assessment and take it from there.
And:
Shooting to "wound," is a creation of writers and directors in Hollywood. "I'm all right, Sarge, they only got me in the shoulder and leg. No problem"
I have a friend, now retired from L.A.P.D., Homicide Det., who got into a shooting several years ago with a man wanted on a Homicide warrant. He told me, "We were about 15 feet apart. He was jumping around and shooting at me and I was shooting at him. He missed me with six and I fired five times (.38 revolvers) and finally hit him in the knee with my fifth round. He collapsed. He was trying to kill me and I was trying to kill him. Luckily I blew out most of his knee"
In a real gunfight, when some bad guy is actually capping rounds at you, sometimes, things don't always go according to plan.
Center-of-mass is the only way to go... and hope like Blue Blazes that round(s) center punches the bad guy.
When I was a Weapons Training Instructor with a very large non-Federal department, we taught to "shoot to stop the threat," and "don't stop shooting until the threat is over." Any bad guy worth shooting once, is worth shooting twice.
We also taught, "Just because you're shot, it doesn't mean you're gonna die. Keep on fighting no matter what!" You'd be surprised how many people take a round and just give up right there without continuing the fight.
FWIW. L.W.
and:
The way it was explained to me, the ONLY reason in Arizona for legally shooting someone is to stop the threat. To shoot to stop the threat, one must shoot intending to kill. A live BG can still shoot or hurt you or others.
However, if the threat ends while the BG is still alive, you've accomplished your intentions without killing him. No more shooting.
Therein lies the difference if you think about it. If a person were to shoot to kill, they'd keep shooting until the perp was dead. If you shoot to end the threat, and the threat stops while the BG is still alive, you've accomplished your goal. If the bad guy dies, you've also accomplished your goal.
So, you shoot only to end the threat.
and:
Talked with a soon to be retired officer....the general responce was,
"We were trained to shoot to stop...having them die was just a bonus."
and:
The alternative to shoot to kill is shoot to "wound" and only an idiot would try and do that.
If you need to pull your trigger it is because you or your families life is in immediate danger (be you a cop or not) and when that is the case, you shoot at the center of the body TO STOP THE THREAT....and the best way to stop a threat is TO KILL IT.
and:
Law Enforcement in Washington State are trained to stop the threat. Center of mass when available or anywhere else until the threat is over. Unfortunately, death sometimes occures.
and:
Just a PC language difference...they are triained to shoot to stop...it's just with current technoloby, "stoping" and "killing" are about the same thing.
High center of mass simply becasue it gives you the most error for a telling hit...a little left or tight, up or down, and you still connect with something vital. Just so happens that those viatal areas that produce stopping also tend to produce death. Any drastic rapid drop in blood pressure, and you drop like a sack of doorknobs...center of mass happens to be the hign pressure center of circulation, so a hole in any of the major pipes there usually shuts the sytem down.
So the way it's designed, a police officer can say he shot to stop...the death of the suspecvt was an unintended consequence of needing to stop him.
and:
Police Department in Canada huh? Was that before the security firm in Maine, but after the trucking company in New York?
Just wonderin'
Since you were an 'officer' in Canada, you would know that only certain police there are allowed to even possess weapons, and they are taught not to draw them unless it is life threatening.
That is different than the US.
As I said before, apples and oranges. If an officer fears for his or another person's safety and believes there is an imminent threat, they are taught to warn and fire at vital targets.
At all other times, they are taught not to fire to kill. If you question that, google how many people are shot and injured by police as opposed to killed. That should clue you in alone.
Direct from the National Board of the State Police Training Manuel-
0
Quote Originally Posted by Raiders22:
I dunno DJ. I think they don't want to kill. But if you are taught center-mass---and or shoot til they stop. Isn't that really a shoot to kill? That is what most of these current and retired LEOs seem to say from many areas:
The police department I recently retired from in Canada are trained to shoot for MASS (chest, heart area). When a shooting occurs, there is a lot of adrenalin pumping and unless the officer is doing this type of shooting everyday, it would be difficult to do what they show in Hollywood (shoot the gun out of their hand, or wound their shoulder at 100 yards etc). If the gun comes out and used, it's a shoot to kill. You don't keep shooting until the suspect is dead. The first shot is a shoot to kill and if (s)he goes down, you keep the gun trained on him and then do a threat assessment and take it from there.
And:
Shooting to "wound," is a creation of writers and directors in Hollywood. "I'm all right, Sarge, they only got me in the shoulder and leg. No problem"
I have a friend, now retired from L.A.P.D., Homicide Det., who got into a shooting several years ago with a man wanted on a Homicide warrant. He told me, "We were about 15 feet apart. He was jumping around and shooting at me and I was shooting at him. He missed me with six and I fired five times (.38 revolvers) and finally hit him in the knee with my fifth round. He collapsed. He was trying to kill me and I was trying to kill him. Luckily I blew out most of his knee"
In a real gunfight, when some bad guy is actually capping rounds at you, sometimes, things don't always go according to plan.
Center-of-mass is the only way to go... and hope like Blue Blazes that round(s) center punches the bad guy.
When I was a Weapons Training Instructor with a very large non-Federal department, we taught to "shoot to stop the threat," and "don't stop shooting until the threat is over." Any bad guy worth shooting once, is worth shooting twice.
We also taught, "Just because you're shot, it doesn't mean you're gonna die. Keep on fighting no matter what!" You'd be surprised how many people take a round and just give up right there without continuing the fight.
FWIW. L.W.
and:
The way it was explained to me, the ONLY reason in Arizona for legally shooting someone is to stop the threat. To shoot to stop the threat, one must shoot intending to kill. A live BG can still shoot or hurt you or others.
However, if the threat ends while the BG is still alive, you've accomplished your intentions without killing him. No more shooting.
Therein lies the difference if you think about it. If a person were to shoot to kill, they'd keep shooting until the perp was dead. If you shoot to end the threat, and the threat stops while the BG is still alive, you've accomplished your goal. If the bad guy dies, you've also accomplished your goal.
So, you shoot only to end the threat.
and:
Talked with a soon to be retired officer....the general responce was,
"We were trained to shoot to stop...having them die was just a bonus."
and:
The alternative to shoot to kill is shoot to "wound" and only an idiot would try and do that.
If you need to pull your trigger it is because you or your families life is in immediate danger (be you a cop or not) and when that is the case, you shoot at the center of the body TO STOP THE THREAT....and the best way to stop a threat is TO KILL IT.
and:
Law Enforcement in Washington State are trained to stop the threat. Center of mass when available or anywhere else until the threat is over. Unfortunately, death sometimes occures.
and:
Just a PC language difference...they are triained to shoot to stop...it's just with current technoloby, "stoping" and "killing" are about the same thing.
High center of mass simply becasue it gives you the most error for a telling hit...a little left or tight, up or down, and you still connect with something vital. Just so happens that those viatal areas that produce stopping also tend to produce death. Any drastic rapid drop in blood pressure, and you drop like a sack of doorknobs...center of mass happens to be the hign pressure center of circulation, so a hole in any of the major pipes there usually shuts the sytem down.
So the way it's designed, a police officer can say he shot to stop...the death of the suspecvt was an unintended consequence of needing to stop him.
and:
Police Department in Canada huh? Was that before the security firm in Maine, but after the trucking company in New York?
Just wonderin'
Since you were an 'officer' in Canada, you would know that only certain police there are allowed to even possess weapons, and they are taught not to draw them unless it is life threatening.
That is different than the US.
As I said before, apples and oranges. If an officer fears for his or another person's safety and believes there is an imminent threat, they are taught to warn and fire at vital targets.
At all other times, they are taught not to fire to kill. If you question that, google how many people are shot and injured by police as opposed to killed. That should clue you in alone.
Direct from the National Board of the State Police Training Manuel-
Police Department in Canada huh? Was that before the security firm in Maine, but after the trucking company in New York?
Just wonderin'
Since you were an 'officer' in Canada, you would know that only certain police there are allowed to even possess weapons, and they are taught not to draw them unless it is life threatening.
That is different than the US.
As I said before, apples and oranges. If an officer fears for his or another person's safety and believes there is an imminent threat, they are taught to warn and fire at vital targets.
At all other times, they are taught not to fire to kill. If you question that, google how many people are shot and injured by police as opposed to killed. That should clue you in alone.
Direct from the National Board of the State Police Training Manuel-
No--not me---was saying those are posts on LEO forum---and my point is they all pretty much say the opposite of you. They say they are taught NOT to fire warning shots, taught to fire at center mass, taught to fire until there is no longer a threat.
I thought you wanted to be serious. I was asking a legitimate question to you. According to these people, that are trained/trainers in this field, they are taught to shoot to stop the threat. Basically, if you pull gun you have to be willing to kill. So, my question to you is the same---isn't shoot to stop (center-mass) basically being trained to kill?
If you are just being sarcastic and dismissing these guys cool. But did you read what the guy said about the PC wording of the training instructions?
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Police Department in Canada huh? Was that before the security firm in Maine, but after the trucking company in New York?
Just wonderin'
Since you were an 'officer' in Canada, you would know that only certain police there are allowed to even possess weapons, and they are taught not to draw them unless it is life threatening.
That is different than the US.
As I said before, apples and oranges. If an officer fears for his or another person's safety and believes there is an imminent threat, they are taught to warn and fire at vital targets.
At all other times, they are taught not to fire to kill. If you question that, google how many people are shot and injured by police as opposed to killed. That should clue you in alone.
Direct from the National Board of the State Police Training Manuel-
No--not me---was saying those are posts on LEO forum---and my point is they all pretty much say the opposite of you. They say they are taught NOT to fire warning shots, taught to fire at center mass, taught to fire until there is no longer a threat.
I thought you wanted to be serious. I was asking a legitimate question to you. According to these people, that are trained/trainers in this field, they are taught to shoot to stop the threat. Basically, if you pull gun you have to be willing to kill. So, my question to you is the same---isn't shoot to stop (center-mass) basically being trained to kill?
If you are just being sarcastic and dismissing these guys cool. But did you read what the guy said about the PC wording of the training instructions?
What strikes me is- If the complaint is that blacks are being stereotyped and profiled- How does looting and destroying your community do anything but reinforce that view? There is nothing peaceful about destroying the convenience store where the original crime occurred-
Peaceful protests are fine- I'm just not sure where these occurred-
And- as an aside- who's gonna pay for this Indian gentle mans shop being destroyed?
He did nothing wrong...but yet he's more of a victim of this than anyone IMO-
The thug teenager just pissed on the wrong tree.... Bum rush a cop and the outcome is predictable-
It's funny to me that the video Slovak posted had gotten zero press because the agenda doesn't square with the truth-
0
What strikes me is- If the complaint is that blacks are being stereotyped and profiled- How does looting and destroying your community do anything but reinforce that view? There is nothing peaceful about destroying the convenience store where the original crime occurred-
Peaceful protests are fine- I'm just not sure where these occurred-
And- as an aside- who's gonna pay for this Indian gentle mans shop being destroyed?
He did nothing wrong...but yet he's more of a victim of this than anyone IMO-
The thug teenager just pissed on the wrong tree.... Bum rush a cop and the outcome is predictable-
It's funny to me that the video Slovak posted had gotten zero press because the agenda doesn't square with the truth-
The whole point in center mass is you are more likely to hit. If you are trying to just wound---you probably miss altogether---then the bad guy has a better chance. Not one of those guys at any time in any of the various states said try to wing a bad guy. Always center-mass. That is more or less shoot to kill. If you have to shoot: you are shooting to kill, correct? That is my question.
0
The whole point in center mass is you are more likely to hit. If you are trying to just wound---you probably miss altogether---then the bad guy has a better chance. Not one of those guys at any time in any of the various states said try to wing a bad guy. Always center-mass. That is more or less shoot to kill. If you have to shoot: you are shooting to kill, correct? That is my question.
What strikes me is- If the complaint is that blacks are being stereotyped and profiled- How does looting and destroying your community do anything but reinforce that view? There is nothing peaceful about destroying the convenience store where the original crime occurred-
Peaceful protests are fine- I'm just not sure where these occurred-
And- as an aside- who's gonna pay for this Indian gentle mans shop being destroyed?
He did nothing wrong...but yet he's more of a victim of this than anyone IMO-
The thug teenager just pissed on the wrong tree.... Bum rush a cop and the outcome is predictable-
It's funny to me that the video Slovak posted had gotten zero press because the agenda doesn't square with the truth-
Of course, and why the press is so upset about the store video being released, etc.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dsn150:
What strikes me is- If the complaint is that blacks are being stereotyped and profiled- How does looting and destroying your community do anything but reinforce that view? There is nothing peaceful about destroying the convenience store where the original crime occurred-
Peaceful protests are fine- I'm just not sure where these occurred-
And- as an aside- who's gonna pay for this Indian gentle mans shop being destroyed?
He did nothing wrong...but yet he's more of a victim of this than anyone IMO-
The thug teenager just pissed on the wrong tree.... Bum rush a cop and the outcome is predictable-
It's funny to me that the video Slovak posted had gotten zero press because the agenda doesn't square with the truth-
Of course, and why the press is so upset about the store video being released, etc.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.