Police aim guns at motorists going through checkpoint

Spookybelle
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

And what does the angle of their weapon actually have to do with anything?

Until people are being fired upon or beaten with them does it really matter if its pointed at you or the ground?

I suppose you could say its more scary to have the gun pointed at you but its irrelevant to the actual situation and what's going on.

I'm not aware of any guns accidentally going off and killing a person just because the police had the gun pointed at them.

If there are cases of that I suppose I would change my view of the subject.

A simple google search proves you wrong.

police accidental discharge

Do the search yourself (I am done dealing with your false statements, educate yourself), from cops shooting themselves, to civilians, to suspects in handcuffs...

It happens.

reply to post by Spookybelle

And what does the angle of their weapon actually have to do with anything?

Uh, everything? Ever had a gun pointed at your head?

reply to post by redoubt


Yea, if I knew there was audio and video being recorded. Otherwise, hell no.
Upsetting the totalitarians is inevitably an undermanned and asymmetrical affair.

reply to post by Spookybelle


Point a firearm at me for no reason and you are a HOSTILE.
That's the message I get from this policy. Hostility toward all
of us just for being us. The american people.

benrl

Spookybelle
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

And what does the angle of their weapon actually have to do with anything?

Until people are being fired upon or beaten with them does it really matter if its pointed at you or the ground?

I suppose you could say its more scary to have the gun pointed at you but its irrelevant to the actual situation and what's going on.

I'm not aware of any guns accidentally going off and killing a person just because the police had the gun pointed at them.

If there are cases of that I suppose I would change my view of the subject.

A simple google search proves you wrong.

police accidental discharge

Do the search yourself (I am done dealing with your false statements, educate yourself), from cops shooting themselves, to civilians, to suspects in handcuffs...

It happens.

edit on 28-10-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)

I never said it didn't happen and I clearly stated I was not aware of any.

You should not attribute false statements to people.

If that is indeed true then it is a problem that needs to be fixed.

reply to post by benrl

The officer who shot the 13yo in CA, a trainer for tactics and said to be expert on firearms, shot himself in the leg while holstering his weapon. Accidents happen...

Things like this are why more people need to carry some sort of recording device with them in their car.

Citizen: "Sir, why are you pointing a weapon in my face."

Cop: "Shut the hell up and do as I say."

Lawsuit.

randyvs
reply to post by Spookybelle

 

Point a firearm at me for no reason and you are a HOSTILE. That's the message I get from
this policy. Hostility toward all of us just for being us. The american people.

Is it a hostile reaction or a precautionary one?

Since there are more cases of citizens creating violent outbreaks with firearms, at least being reported such as school shootings, would it not make sense for law enforcement to take more caution by approaching with raised weapons to counter that?

Not stating this is the case I am merely asking your opinion.

Linkreply to post by Spookybelle


Well Spooky you just may have to change your thinking.
And this is enough to make you stop and think. Yes it does matter where the gun is pointing because if it's pointed at me then we have a problem.

Link

reply to post by Spookybelle



Your statements here make it clear you are trolling.
Why are you doing that?

Is it just me or does it look like the gun is not actually facing the motorist but actually pointing more down the side of the car. It looks like the photograph was taken at an angle that caused it to appear to be directly in the face of the motorist. Don't get me wrong that is very intimidating no matter which direction the gun is facing but just look real close at the photo, just saying.

randyvs
reply to post by Spookybelle

 

Point a firearm at me for no reason and you are a HOSTILE.
That's the message I get from this policy. Hostility toward all
of us just for being us. The american people.

edit on 28-10-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Exactly.

Spookybelle

benrl

Spookybelle

benrl

Spookybelle
reply to post by benrl

 

Its nothing new.

How many people did Lincoln have arrested, with no proof, because someone thought they posed a political threat to his presidency?

Seriously, this type of action has always existed and throwing up a few pictures will not erase that fact. Is it right? Of course not, but it has never progressed beyond what it is.

Protest the actions but people who try to insinuate that the problem is getting worse are being disingenuous.

Your argument is false, The excuses used to implement such action are becoming less and less critical.

Lincoln was a president facing a time of civil war, he had to guard against military coups...

By all statistics the US has had a massive decline in violent crime, Yet these incidents are on the rise.

IT is the triggering events that are becoming more common as the line to incite such a thing has shrunk, there is no arguing against the increase in police military like tactics.

It took massive riots during the civil rights movement to cause such things, now a small occupy protest gets maced in the face.

edit on 28-10-2013 by benrl because: (no reason given)

Perhaps you would care to post those statistics then since that is what you are claiming. We could then compare the statistics to determine if you are indeed telling the truth that violent crime is on the rise.

Protip: You might actually be surprised when you look at the statistics.

FBI source

Crime falls again

Fantastic, so what's the problem again?

If current police behavior is dropping violent crime then I say keep it up, increase it even because the results are paying off.

Careful what you wish for, maybe next time you'll be the one staring down the barrel of a gun.

2manyholes
Linkreply to post by Spookybelle

 

Well Spooky you just may have to change your thinking.
And this is enough to make you stop and think. Yes it does matter where the gun is pointing because if it's pointed at me then we have a problem.

Link

edit on 28-10-2013 by 2manyholes because: (no reason given)

I have no problem changing my view and I very well may be wrong.

I wouldn't be debating this if I had not stopped and thought about it. However, I am still not convinced that there has been any significant change to law enforcement people that makes them any more hostile today then they have ever been.

I was pulled over a few days ago and the officer was very friendly and did not pull his weapon out. However, when I was 17 I was yanked out of my car and handcuffed because a cop thought I was about to rob the store I was parked in front of. He did have his gun drawn but its because he thought the situation warranted it.

reply to post by Hillbilly123069


Thats retarded.

Why not have ONE person stand next to the rear window with the gun aimed at the interior of the car if its SOOO necessary and have the other officer talk to drivers...this way......we dont have guns aimed at people.

OR, or, or, hear me out.......You just DONT aim your weapon at people for no reason...

reply to post by zivivi


I think you are correct about the angle. Of course most here won't see it that way.

If not then the officer was in the wrong. The person clearly does not look like a threat and a gun should not be pointed at him.

While I don't believe in checkpoints at all, in this situation I understand looking into a vehicle to see if the driver matches the description of the suspect or if he is laying down in the backseat. What happens a majority of the time in situations like this is the suspect will steal a vehicle or call a buddy to come pick them up.

So I understand slowing traffic to view inside the vehicle from a distance. However, I believe law enforcement should not stop the vehicle and definitely not search it. That would be a violation of the drivers 4th Amendment right.

reply to post by Spookybelle

Is it a hostile reaction or a precautionary one?

I have a problem first of all with your use of the term reaction.
If the reaction of shoving a firearm in peoples faces was caused
by the action of driving a car thru a checkpoint ? That's hostile.

reply to post by Spookybelle


Spookybelle, I have to put some counterpoint in here. Just as little as twenty yrs ago the average police officer was a radically different personality type than they are today. Police used to be hired as family men from the community they were going to be policing. There were a fraction of them town to town than there is nowadays.

Now the police hire ex military enforcer types and they are part of huge departments that twenty years ago might only have a half dozen units per city. I would agree there have always been the good and the bad ones, but now there is an entirely different training and preparation regimen that is NOT focused on the well being of the citizens they are policing.

Our individual rights have taken a HUGE hit incrementally over the last twenty years and this place is not what it used to be in any way shape or form. I would definitely disagree that this has always been the norm and that we are just seeing more of it because of technology. Times they are a changing and it is not for the better IMHO.

randyvs
reply to post by Spookybelle

 

Is it a hostile reaction or a precautionary one?

I have a problem first of all with your use of the term reaction.
If the reaction of shoving a firearm in peoples faces was caused
by the action of driving a car thru a checkpoint ? That's hostile.

Exactly, its disregarding the presumption of innocence and jumping to the reaction to a hostile.

You only point a gun at something you are willing to kill, so in this picture we have proof of a cop willing to kill an innocent.

Anyone with the smallest most elementary knowledge of firearms understands that fact, something that one poster in this thread seems to be purposefully misunderstanding.


ETA: there is an old internet adage Ive followed, on occasion I forget it, but this will be one time Ill follow it. AS its become clear there's no reasoning with some, and we have all made excellent valid points...

Don't feed the trolls.

So to those who've all made good points, good day.

To those with their heads buried in the sand, I hope you wake up before its you on the receiving end of the police state.

Coopdog
reply to post by Spookybelle

 

Spookybelle, I have to put some counterpoint in here. Just as little as twenty yrs ago the average police officer was a radically different personality type than they are today. Police used to be hired as family men from the community they were going to be policing. There were a fraction of them town to town than there is nowadays.

Now the police hire ex military enforcer types and they are part of huge departments that twenty years ago might only have a half dozen units per city. I would agree there have always been the good and the bad ones, but now there is an entirely different training and preparation regimen that is NOT focused on the well being of the citizens they are policing.

Our individual rights have taken a HUGE hit incrementally over the last twenty years and this place is not what it used to be in any way shape or form. I would definitely disagree that this has always been the norm and that we are just seeing more of it because of technology. Times they are a changing and it is not for the better IMHO.

Well if we assume your contention is correct then you should ask yourself why the policy of hiring was changed?

Would that not be the more logical path to go down then simply blaming the law enforcement personal who are doing what they were hired to do?

Why did agencies decide to hire less family men and more military men? Did they decide it was required or something?

What was their goal in changing the make-up of employees?