Officer’s Quick Thinking Averts Tragedy After Three STUPID Texas Teens Refuse to Comply

a reply to: peskyhumans

You have no true understanding about what you're talking. This isn't a gun-safety issue.

The rest of your comment is an incoherent rant based on nothing factual nor credible. But, you know, keep on swinging at all the pitches, and maybe you'll hit one eventually.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I know what they are, feel free to point them out.

The point is that the officer was never in any danger outside of what he thought could happen.

So to say it was his quick thinking that avoided a tragedy is just false, him just not shooting first is what prevented this.
Sure we can get into what if's all day that that doesn't change what actually was the case.
3 kids with a fake gun.

And just to add, you continuity to go after me is one of those fallicies you keep bringing up

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agree with you. There are good cops and bad cops. My problem is that, in most cases, the good cops cover for the bad ones, so are they really "good"? The SYSTEM is the problem.

As an aside, I think it's a VERY sad statement that we feel the need to call to attention to and praise a cop that is simply doing the job he was trained and sworn to do.

What is his job? To stop and point guns at someone who has a thing he finds objectionable? Seems to me this could have been handled much better without anyone fearing for their life. What reasonable and articulate suspicion was there that these 3 were involved in a crime?

a reply to: SlapMonkey

You don't point a gun at anyone you do not intend to kill. A police officer does not point a gun at people who are being non-violent. No excuses.

And the fact is you are being a clueless SOB. If it was your kids that cop was pointing a gun at, you would be singing a different tune, for sure.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

What reasonable and articulate suspicion was there that these 3 were involved in a crime?

Maybe the 911 call from a woman who felt the one kid waving a handgun around was scary or illegal?
You tell me.

a reply to: Sremmos80

No, it's called responding to responses, but I guess you'd feel better if I just ignored your comments?

Look, considering all possibilities of danger is what LEOs, military, and anyone who finds themselves in deadly situations regularly must do in order to stay alive. Sure, the gun was fake. Did the lady calling 911 know that? No, she described it as a "big [expletive] gun" that was being waived around.

I think the part of this whole headline that a tragedy was avoided absolutely is speaking to the cop having the patience and professional restraint not to fire his weapon--the videos associated with this explicitly state that fact, so it makes me wonder if you've watched the videos.

I guess I just don't understand your point of view because I, much like the officer, lack the clarvoyance to know when guns are fake when we can't see them, or to know if only one or all three of the kids had a firearm. See, I'm capable of realizing the amount of unkowns in a situation like this and why an LEO would respond in this manner to the call that was made. I just simply can't understand why you don't.

But, alas, I'll quit responding to you after this point, if that's what you'd prefer. I wouldn't want to you continue thinking that holding a discussion is some sort of logical fallacy anymore.

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

What reasonable and articulate suspicion was there that these 3 were involved in a crime?

Maybe the 911 call from a woman who felt the one kid waving a handgun around was scary or illegal?
You tell me.

That us not reasonable articulate suspicion. And what links that call to these 3.

I'm scared of you, can a cop come and threaten you? Or do you actually have to DO something illegal AND be identifiable as the person who did it?

originally posted by: peskyhumans
a reply to: SlapMonkey
You don't point a gun at anyone you do not intend to kill. A police officer does not point a gun at people who are being non-violent. No excuses.

Actually, it happens all the time. An LEO's firearm is not only a tool to use offensively, but defensively, as well. Holding a firearm at the ready and intending to shoot to kill someone are two different things.

Where are you learning this stuff you're saying?

And the fact is you are being a clueless SOB. If it was your kids that cop was pointing a gun at, you would be singing a different tune, for sure.

No, I'd be like the parents of these three kids and be pissed off that they put their own lives in jeopardy by waving a replica gun around in public and getting the cops called on them and having to be held at gunpoint until they pulled their head out of their arse and complied with the officer responding to a valid 911 call. What I would do is hold my son accountable for acting like a jackass, I'd apologize to the LEO--no, I'd make him apologize--then we'd go home and have a long discussion about how stupid action often beget stupid, sometimes deadly, outcomes.

But, awwww shucks, Mr. Pesky, maybe that'd just be me knowing how to be an appropriate parent when my son does something stupid. Hell, I may have even shown gratitude to the officer for showing such restraint in lieu of such stupidity by my son.

Silly, clueless, sonofab*tch me. What would I know? I sure am glad you're here to keep me on the right path...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Sremmos80

No, it's called responding to responses, but I guess you'd feel better if I just ignored your comments?

Look, considering all possibilities of danger is what LEOs, military, and anyone who finds themselves in deadly situations regularly must do in order to stay alive. Sure, the gun was fake. Did the lady calling 911 know that? No, she described it as a "big [expletive] gun" that was being waived around.

I think the part of this whole headline that a tragedy was avoided absolutely is speaking to the cop having the patience and professional restraint not to fire his weapon--the videos associated with this explicitly state that fact, so it makes me wonder if you've watched the videos.

I guess I just don't understand your point of view because I, much like the officer, lack the clarvoyance to know when guns are fake when we can't see them, or to know if only one or all three of the kids had a firearm. See, I'm capable of realizing the amount of unkowns in a situation like this and why an LEO would respond in this manner to the call that was made. I just simply can't understand why you don't.

But, alas, I'll quit responding to you after this point, if that's what you'd prefer. I wouldn't want to you continue thinking that holding a discussion is some sort of logical fallacy anymore.

Good call. A Leo passing by might mistake the conversation you're holding as a weapon and summarily execute you.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

No its the personal insults that I was pointing out, I dont mind you responding to me, just go after the ball not the player.

Yes we are at the point where a cop gets congratulated for not taking the callers word and actually doing what he is supposed to.
Has nothing to do with quick thinking but just doing his job.

Oh and still waiting for you to point out the fallicies in my first post.

a reply to: Tardacus

if they aren`t doing anything illegal they should just comply with the officers orders and everything will get straightened out and everyone can go on their way, no harm no foul.

Not complying with an officer's directive is escalating the situation in which you will always lose. Today kids can mouth off to teachers, tell them to F-off, and they know they'll just get a slap on the wrist. They think they can do the same thing with the police!

I've watched as a kid ignored a police officer's directive to put his cell phone away in school, after he ignored several teachers who asked him to put it away earlier. He attacked the police officer and they were wrestling on the cafeteria floor! So just because this kid felt like he had the right to listen to his cell phone in school, he ended up getting charged for assaulting a police officer! Give a kid an option to put his cell phone away or serve a 1 hour detention, they take the detention 9 times out of 10! That's just a snippet of how ignorant a lot of high school teens are today.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Where do you get this stuff? Officers are not trained to shoot to wound, they are trained to shoot to kill. They aim for the body, the center of mass. There is no such thing as "aiming a gun at someone defensively".

If you don't know that you never point a gun at something you don't intend to destroy, I hope you don't own a firearm. Do you even live in the United States? I feel like I'm talking to a Brit or something.

a reply to: Sremmos80

But you said you know what a logical fallacy is, so I figured I didn't need to take the time.

But, for one, expecting an officer to know the facts of the "case" before even arriving on scene is the first glaring one. I think you can find the other couple without me.

Best Regards.

a reply to: WeRpeons

The ignorance extends up the age ladder...it's not just teens.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst


That us not reasonable articulate suspicion. And what links that call to these 3.

I'm scared of you, can a cop come and threaten you? Or do you actually have to DO something illegal AND be identifiable as the person who did it?

It's not? Hmmm... It's reasonable to believe the 911 caller did see the kid in the gray hoodie wave a gun around and felt strongly enough about it to call 911. Articulate? I think the 911 caller articulated quite clearly that the kid in the gray hoodie was waving said gun around and caused her concern. Armed with this information, the officer had more than enough reasonable articulate suspicion to conduct the stop as he did.

What links the call to these 3?
The fact, if you actually watched the video, you will hear the officer state the caller was still looking at the 3 as the officer made contact. What more could dispatch have told him? What more did he need?

As for doing something illegal, it is illegal in Texas to display a firearm, unless it is a black powder pistol made prior to 1899, or a long arm. Since it had not yet been determined the firearm was a BB gun, the officer had all he needed to conduct the stop as he did.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I never said he needed to know, I said that him saying all the what if this and that doesn't change the facts.
I said all it does is create a false sense of danger.
You not agreeing with my thought process is not a fallacy, there is a defined set of them.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Sremmos80

But you said you know what a logical fallacy is, so I figured I didn't need to take the time.

But, for one, expecting an officer to know the facts of the "case" before even arriving on scene is the first glaring one. I think you can find the other couple without me.

Best Regards.

Assuming there is a case just because an officer is present is a good one too.

a reply to: peskyhumans

This is just another case of cops going to overly violent insane extremes to subjugate "potential threats" instead of respecting the rights and freedoms of American citizens.

www.azcentral.com...

Maybe this is why they are "overly violent"

originally posted by: peskyhumans
There is no such thing as "aiming a gun at someone defensively".

Yes there is. It's called "not actually shooting them". The gun is there to hopefully dissuade someone from doing something stupid.

If he was using the gun "in the offensive" but didn't actually shoot anyone, then he's doing it wrong.

The officer got a call and he responded on the basis of the information available to him at the time. That information suggested a possible threat. He took control of the situation, established there wasn't a threat or crime, everyone went home safely. BUT YOU'RE STILL NOT HAPPY.

Basically, however he handled the situation, you would still be complaining about something.

you dont shoot whites!!!!!