Sad they executed this poor guy by firing squad in Nashville

a reply to: SeaWorthy

again you post CLEARLY SHOWING you dont know quano from peanut butter about how tazers (or other less than lethal devices) , action distances / lethal range of weapons, and use of force (be lethal or not) work.

if you REALLY WANT TO KNOW answers to your questions then do a simple google search and you tube search before you post again.

because you keep bringing this up after that you dont care about facts .

scrounger

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: scrounger


Deflection? How so? Up front I took a position that this case, this case taken individually, as you firmly state needs to be the manner in which we judge law enforcement actions, those actions were justified. They were correct. And to that you are correct in saying that this case does not mean that other police actions are ''police are out killing people because they wanted to' or some such wording. However this does not mean that NO law enforcement officers are of that nature, all it suggests is that there are SOME who are and some who do. Not all but just some.

ah the back tracking tap dance of deflection from what you really posted.

here is small portion of what you posted


quote

The rest of that post was in consideration of a larger spectrum of police actions.

end quote

so if wrongful deaths of police as you now claim ("there are SOME who are and some who do. Not all but just some") then it IS NOT "a larger spectrum of police actions".

it would then be a sad/tragic/illegal RARE OCCURANCE (as it really is) and would be viewed as such.

but you didnt say that did you nor imply that did you.

you clearly if not totally blunt(up front) state police ILLEGALLY KILLING PEOPLE is common (aka large spectrum of police actions)

you stated it , now want to backtrack instead of own it when called out.

typical and not unexpected.

scrounger

originally posted by: rickymouse
If you have a bunch of police around you with guns, you don't pull something quickly out of your pocket and point it at them. They call that kind of action...death by cop.

I do not think that the action of the police was wrong, they were trying to get him to just give up and go with them...probably just minor charges or a psychological evaluation. If someone pulls a gun on me and I have a gun, I am going to shoot. With the numbers of police getting shot lately, I believe their action of shooting him was justified. Hopefully enough people see this and learn to comprehend that it was the guys fault he was dead that it will stop others from making the same stupid mistake. Cops have lives and families too, they have to protect themselves too. That guy should not have done what he did.

oh yeah, what ever happened to all the un armed sociologists that were supposed to replace the cops in these situations?

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: rickymouse
If you have a bunch of police around you with guns, you don't pull something quickly out of your pocket and point it at them. They call that kind of action...death by cop.

I do not think that the action of the police was wrong, they were trying to get him to just give up and go with them...probably just minor charges or a psychological evaluation. If someone pulls a gun on me and I have a gun, I am going to shoot. With the numbers of police getting shot lately, I believe their action of shooting him was justified. Hopefully enough people see this and learn to comprehend that it was the guys fault he was dead that it will stop others from making the same stupid mistake. Cops have lives and families too, they have to protect themselves too. That guy should not have done what he did.

oh yeah, what ever happened to all the un armed sociologists that were supposed to replace the cops in these situations?

ill answer that for 200 alex

because they either smart enough , hypocritical enough, and/or cowardly enough to put their lives/asses for what THEIR MOUTHS/CAUSES/VIEWS/RANTS are.

just like (not trying to derail or deflect issue, just example) those that DEMAND business do a, b c but wont put up THEIR MONEY TO CREATE A BUSINESS to "show us how its done"

scrounger

originally posted by: sarahvital

originally posted by: rickymouse
If you have a bunch of police around you with guns, you don't pull something quickly out of your pocket and point it at them. They call that kind of action...death by cop.

I do not think that the action of the police was wrong, they were trying to get him to just give up and go with them...probably just minor charges or a psychological evaluation. If someone pulls a gun on me and I have a gun, I am going to shoot. With the numbers of police getting shot lately, I believe their action of shooting him was justified. Hopefully enough people see this and learn to comprehend that it was the guys fault he was dead that it will stop others from making the same stupid mistake. Cops have lives and families too, they have to protect themselves too. That guy should not have done what he did.

oh yeah, what ever happened to all the un armed sociologists that were supposed to replace the cops in these situations?

If the guy pulled out something while the shrink was talking to him....would the cops have shot the guy if he was aiming it at the shrink? Probably not till he pointed it at an actual cop, shrinks might tend to be expendable.

a reply to: machineintelligence

in my younger years i had a few very close calls with law enforcement, not getting shot as much as just spending most of my life in a little box.

i had a lawyer that i still speak to as he is a family friend, he once told me the time to fight is in court not with the police.


you cant out run Motorola as some say.

another catch phrase, if you do the crime, you should be ready to do the time.


the only way this could have ended better is if he called 911 and said he was surrendering and would toss the gun out of the car at a very slow speed so it could be picked up and than have every one back off and him get out of the car with his hands up.

obviously not a lot of criminals are going to do that, and when you run and than pull a gun your going to get shot.

a reply to: scrounger

you clearly if not totally blunt(up front) state police ILLEGALLY KILLING PEOPLE is common (aka large spectrum of police actions)

Man oh man, you sure do read into things what you want to read into them don't you.

a reply to: machineintelligence

Who did they execute

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: scrounger

you clearly if not totally blunt(up front) state police ILLEGALLY KILLING PEOPLE is common (aka large spectrum of police actions)

Man oh man, you sure do read into things what you want to read into them don't you.

sigh

ok ill try one more time

WHAT EXACTLY DID YOU MEAN by "The rest of that post was in consideration of a larger spectrum of police actions"

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

I think you must have taken it to mean a wider spectrum of (bad) police actions. That was not my intent. My intent by saying wider spectrum was simply, this was one action that demonstrates the patience of law officers and unfortunate action that at times must be measured out. AND there are in that wider spectrum of police actions, cases were some police act in a way not in accordance with how we as citizens would like them to act. I'm trying to make this clear but all I can guess is that. It you want to believe that law officers are always justified in how they measure out their actions then that is how you see them. I do not.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: scrounger

I think you must have taken it to mean a wider spectrum of (bad) police actions. That was not my intent. My intent by saying wider spectrum was simply, this was one action that demonstrates the patience of law officers and unfortunate action that at times must be measured out. AND there are in that wider spectrum of police actions, cases were some police act in a way not in accordance with how we as citizens would like them to act. I'm trying to make this clear but all I can guess is that. It you want to believe that law officers are always justified in how they measure out their actions then that is how you see them. I do not.

so to shorten your long winded tap dance is this

you presume that an officer had done wrong right out of the gate because of a "wide spectrum" of illegal bad behavior.

got it

to which THE FACTS do not support

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

OK. For the sake of civility I will try this one more time. Did you read the first post I put up in this thread? If not, I will quote it for you here.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid knew what they were facing. So did this guy. They did not want to go to jail and rot so they went down fighting an insurmountable foe. It appears this dude did as well.

He wanted to get killed. He knew what they would do and brought it on himself.

Do you recall the first reply to your accusations that I made to you? If not, I will quote them for you here

those actions were justified. They were correct

If you want to take those words and turn them upside down for whatever reasons you may have, they are your reasons alone and no longer serve as any concern on my part.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

yes you did say those things and without question.

but you left out THE LAST PART of that post.

the part i called you out on and you tried to defend

you are being civil

just also cherry picking.

oh BTW your quote

quote

It you want to believe that law officers are always justified in how they measure out their actions then that is how you see them. I do not.

end quote

shows quite clearly you feel police are "guilty of illegal killing " (using this case) unless they are proved otherwise
because of (again YOUR WORDS) "that wider spectrum of police actions,".

a ASSUMPTION that to date HAS NEVER BEEN SUPPORTED BY FACTS.

you can tap dance, cherry pick, and deflect in a "civil manor" till doomsday.

your own words have shown your true feelings.

oh and to presume GUILT (your view) is against the constitutional right WE ALL ENJOY.

"INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW"

its ok to presume (for whatever OPINION you hold) cops are guilty due to "wider spectrum of police actions" in any incident up front.

but does not make YOUR OPINION fact.

scrounger

a reply to: scrounger

You sir appear to be in search of an enemy and believe you have found one. Your continued attempt to ''prove'' this enemy you have lit upon points to this assumption. Here, sir, is another example from your last post.

You correctly quoted one of my statements. ''If you want to believe that law officers are always justified in how they measure out their actions then that is how you see them. I do not.''.

You then reply with this, directly quoted from your response to that quote of mine. '' shows quite clearly you feel police are "guilty of illegal killing " (using this case) unless they are proved otherwise ''

Now I will attempt to draw attention to one word in my quote that you appear to have glossed over. I will quote the entire sentence and capitalize that word. ''If you want to believe that law officers are ALWAYS justified, then that is how you see them.

Your reply can only be a true response to that statement, of what it says, by adding one additional word. I will do that for you now and capitalize that word. '' shows quite clearly you feel SOME police are '' guilty of illegal killing''. However it would be more proper to this case and my assessment in general to say that '' shows quite clearly you THINK, SOME police MAY be guilty of illegal killing. The MAY of course depends upon any individual case under examination.

There, sir, is all I can do for you.

Bye

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

bye bye

your repeating, rehashing and reserving the same deflection dish wont be missed.

especially since you have not changed your tune of "but i didnt say that"

scrounger

BTW i NEVER SAID they were always in the right

i said the TRACK RECORD shows most are and i wait until THE EVIDENCE shows they are guilty of an illegal killing

you stated clearly you dont believe that and PRESUME they did wrong.

big difference and you demanding "guilty until proven innocent"

scrounger