Shoot to wound mentality

[Maxxthepenguin]

If a policeman is drawing his gun on you and you suspect your life is in danger, that gun is precisely what people's minds will jump to to defend themselves.

By the way, you do realize that if a policeman is drawing his gun on you, are are NOT supposed to be drawing yours. It's kind of illegal. And not healthy. The police have the authority to tell you to drop your weapon while still holding theirs. You don't.

I can't imagine that flying in court, either. "I only shot the cop because he drew his gun on me!" No shit, what were you doing for the cop to be chasing you in the first place? A crime, perhaps, that required intervention by law enforcement personnel?

I'm talking about legality, I'm talking about human response. People getting killed for stealing a TV is bullshit.

There are also people learn to distrust cops and always defend against them. Is it bullshit? Yes. But I don't think it's worth killing them over, especially since it fosters even more of that distrust.

[Charla]

If by "defend against them" you mean "whip out a gun as soon as they show up", then it kinda does justify killing them over. Reaching for a gun in front of a cop is suicide, and I have no problem with that.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Also, isn't New York City understaffed cop wise? I can't imagine this increasing recruiting numbers...

Here's the article where I read this:

*Warning* NSFL- Not Safe For Liberals (the site, not the article)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/200 ... bling.html

That site is full of bullshit, assumptions, and complete lack of impartial use of the english language. Let's take this paragraph example:

Besides, suppose a cop only wings a bad guy, and the attacker -- surely shooting to annihilate -- then manages to kill him, his partner or an innocent bystander. Does Paterson actually believe that the life of a criminal with deadly intent is somehow more precious than any of these three thoroughly guiltless individuals?

Firstly they didn't say criminal, they said bad guy, which sets up the cop as the ever good guy. Good guys do good things and bad guys do bad things, so this use of the language is extremely manipulative

Criminals do bad things also, either choice of words sets up the cop as good guy. What would you call someone a cop is going after? A suspect? That sets the cop up as a good guy to. Maybe we should call them "innocent persons" so we don't set the cop up as a good guy.

Then you have the "surely shooting to annihilate" and I can only respond to it by pointing out the argument that many people have for gun rights saying they're there to defend against other people who have guns. If a policeman is drawing his gun on you and you suspect your life is in danger, that gun is precisely what people's minds will jump to to defend themselves.

Holy cow. If a cop draws a gun on you, and you draw your gun on the cop your not responsible for what happens next? If you die in the process the cop deserves 15 years in prison?

Then there is the assumption that police always know if there is deadly intent with the quote "criminal with deadly intent."

I think they were hoping the reader was intelligent enough to realize they were referring to a criminal with a gun who is in the process of/about to use it on the cop. Also, if someone draws a gun a cop, until the cop figures out if they have deadly intent, the cop shouldn't fire back?

Criminals don't commit crimes and suddenly become sociopaths. They are not guiltless, though they do often have a fucked up sense of morals. What this doesn't mean though is that they're stupid enough to kill a cop. The cops are far better connected than any of those criminals and the criminals know it (and if not then what the fuck, let's increase government spending on police instead of cut it.) Police should always take lethal force once a criminal has proven himself stupid enough to take it himself.

In general ya, but I'm pretty sure they were referring to criminals who were in the process of/about to fire on a cop.

[Howard Roark]

nono shoot to kill is fine, but i wanna be there when the cop kills the guy with his cellphone/tv remote/other shiny black object in his hand and says "woops!"

little bit of pie on your face there officer..

[Priran]

I started a semester long shit storm in high school by posing this very question in my American politics class. Infuriating gun toting rednecks has always been a passion of mine. I guess blowing up quails and rabbits with an Assault rifles and fucking hand grenades covers up those pesky inadequacies we are too chickenshit to deal with?

But to answer your question, I guess that takes effort and makes too much sense?

I'm curious, what do you think gives you the right to take away people's guns if they haven't commited a crime yet? Because in the future they might?

Because they won't need them if the criminals are gun-free, too. We're very close to making such a thing work, too. All we have left is to figure out how to ensure criminals no longer have and cannot obtain guns. Once we've got that, we're home free.

snort

Yeah, all you have to figure out is how to sneak the "guns are banned" law past gun rights lobbies, recall the millions of firearms in circulation, get citizens to agree to the prospect of nullifying a part of the bill of rights, and get criminals to abide by the laws that say "no more guns k?".

Then your shit'll be set.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I had an entire response typed out but I accidentally pressed back on my keyboard and lost it >_> So I'll respond to one specific tidbit.

I think they were hoping the reader was intelligent enough to realize

You don't use such intensely emotional language as they used unless either your emotions are out of control or you don't think your message will be strong enough on intellectual and rational appeal. Or you're writing an entertainment piece.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Hmm, I guess it's a matter of opinion, but I don't find anything "intensely emotional" about describing a criminal who's pulling a gun on a cop "a criminal with deadly intent."

[Maxxthepenguin]

Well, assuming you are somebody who is for allowing all US citizens to be allowed firearms for self defense, aren't there ever cases where people pull guns without the intent to shoot, but rather to show that you are not defenseless?

[Mizango]

I started a semester long shit storm in high school by posing this very question in my American politics class. Infuriating gun toting rednecks has always been a passion of mine. I guess blowing up quails and rabbits with an Assault rifles and fucking hand grenades covers up those pesky inadequacies we are too chickenshit to deal with?

But to answer your question, I guess that takes effort and makes too much sense?

I'm curious, what do you think gives you the right to take away people's guns if they haven't commited a crime yet? Because in the future they might?

Minority report baby, Minority report.

Guns have directed me directly so of course I am a bit biased. Guns kill things. People with guns kill things. Remember that the next time you speak to your parents. I have not heard a word, breath, seen, spoke to nor hugged either or my parents in 5 years now. But you're right, had guns not been involved they would have still been killed by some invisible high velocity projectile.

I like your "why take away a gun if they haven't committed a crime yet" line. So we should only take them after the fact? Wait until someone's life is forever ruined and maimed and then get the nuts to gloat "lulz das 1 moar gun off da steetz"? That's fucking retarded.

Let me take my selfish, one sided views on guns and set them to the side and embrace your cowboy gun toting mentality, because what do I know? Guns dont change lives, how selfish of me to impart my disdain for a worthless fucking tool on you.

[Correction]

I don't buy the 'pull guns without intent to shoot' scenario. It's completely unrealistic and relies on people going against survival instincts. I see a gun, my only reaction is 'someone's about to die' and I don't think second-guessing that instinct is possible outside of a movie. I don't see how one can expect police to follow some procedural flowchart to make a different kind of decision in that scenario.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Well, assuming you are somebody who is for allowing all US citizens to be allowed firearms for self defense, aren't there ever cases where people pull guns without the intent to shoot, but rather to show that you are not defenseless?

Of course, but were not talking about civilian vs. civilian here. Were talking about civilian vs. cop. And I can't think of a situation where someone pulls a gun on a cop, the cop kills them, and then deserves 15 years in jail.

[Mizango]

I don't see how one can expect police to follow some procedural flowchart to make a different kind of decision in that scenario.

That mental picture made me laugh lol.

[Remyo]

Well, assuming you are somebody who is for allowing all US citizens to be allowed firearms for self defense, aren't there ever cases where people pull guns without the intent to shoot, but rather to show that you are not defenseless?

if they are legally owning the weapon and have a ccw they shouldn't be "showing" it off.

[Turambar]

nono shoot to kill is fine, but i wanna be there when the cop kills the guy with his cellphone/tv remote/other shiny black object in his hand and says "woops!"

little bit of pie on your face there officer..

If a cop has a gun on you and you're dumb enough to suddenly reach inside your coat, you deserve whatever you get.

[Priran]

Guns have directed me directly so of course I am a bit biased. Guns kill things. People with guns kill things. Remember that the next time you speak to your parents. I have not heard a word, breath, seen, spoke to nor hugged either or my parents in 5 years now. But you're right, had guns not been involved they would have still been killed by some invisible high velocity projectile.

I like your "why take away a gun if they haven't committed a crime yet" line. So we should only take them after the fact? Wait until someone's life is forever ruined and maimed and then get the nuts to gloat "lulz das 1 moar gun off da steetz"? That's fucking retarded.

Let me take my selfish, one sided views on guns and set them to the side and embrace your cowboy gun toting mentality, because what do I know? Guns dont change lives, how selfish of me to impart my disdain for a worthless fucking tool on you.

I'm not sure if "develop a superiority complex" is the hidden cow level of grief or if bad things really can happen to assholes, but it amuses me that you think that because you've been through something traumatic, you can bait the bull and act like they're the jackass when they posit a completely reasonable viewpoint that just so happens to be contrary to your own.

Guartz actually made a legitimate point for once, so you can stop acting like you're on Oprah and say something interesting or make it clear that you're not intending to participate in anything like an argument.

[Charla]

I dunno, I think "/point Minority Report" is a pretty good response right there, even if it doesn't address the actual issue at all.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Well, assuming you are somebody who is for allowing all US citizens to be allowed firearms for self defense, aren't there ever cases where people pull guns without the intent to shoot, but rather to show that you are not defenseless?

Of course, but were not talking about civilian vs. civilian here. Were talking about civilian vs. cop. And I can't think of a situation where someone pulls a gun on a cop, the cop kills them, and then deserves 15 years in jail.

I don't think the 15 years is fair, actually. I think maybe 2 + fired is good. Because it's a bad thing that was done, but not entirely unprovoked.

[Correction]

Well, assuming you are somebody who is for allowing all US citizens to be allowed firearms for self defense, aren't there ever cases where people pull guns without the intent to shoot, but rather to show that you are not defenseless?

Of course, but were not talking about civilian vs. civilian here. Were talking about civilian vs. cop. And I can't think of a situation where someone pulls a gun on a cop, the cop kills them, and then deserves 15 years in jail.

I don't think the 15 years is fair, actually. I think maybe 2 + fired is good. Because it's a bad thing that was done, but not entirely unprovoked.

Where's the original thread that spawned this unique derail? Is there some news background I'm missing here? I can't think of a single scenario where "guy pulls out a gun in front of a cop, cop shoots and kills guy" should ever land the cop in jail or make him lose his job.

[Charla]

Originally from the Spitzer thread. Apparently the LT. governor David Paterson proposed a mandatory 15-year sentance for any officer who "is found to have not shot to wound" (wording from the other thread, didn't look for more info really). The bill went nowhere, but some article somewhere mentioned it again now that Paterson is getting a real office. Anyway, someone brought it up in the Spitzer thread, Shuemue mentioned that it might not be such a bad idea, I countered, and we agreed not to derail.

Offtopic, does anyone else thing his name looks like it should be pronounced pay-ter-son instead of pat-er-son? I mean, that second t is supposed to do something, right?

[Mizango]

I dunno, I think "/point Minority Report" is a pretty good response right there, even if it doesn't address the actual issue at all.

Playing the Guartz conspiracy card for laughs.

lolPriran, always the cantankerous ass nugget that is willing to interject himself into any conversation in which he was not a part of. My comments were not directed to the masses, it was directed to a specific individual. Get the fuck off of my cock and find another forum to troll.

My apologies if my personal situation in regards to this specific topic at hand affected your livelihood and personal wellbeing in some form or fashion. A word to the wise; next time speak when spoken to, but then again if you did that you wouldn't be lolPriran I suppose.

I will give you 1 point for plugging Oprah on BG though. Kudos there.