If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS June Giveaway ***Keltec SUB2000***
The guy had no firearm
He attacked a lady but the lady was close to the officer and he was ?20feet? away running away
Cop shot him with a rifle and it went through the drywall and killed the innocent person
Or he thought the guy was armedLooks like the cop with the rifle couldn't wait to shoot someone...
Boot licking can be offensive. Good call there.No offense here bro, but that innocent bystanders death isn't the fault of the police officer. It's the fault of the mass shooter that the police officer had to respond to and engage. The police cannot be expected to hit their target 100% of the time. But the fact remains that the police had to discharge their weapons because of an active Mass shooter. That makes any casualties that occurred that day the fault of that mass shooter and not the police. Yes it's tragic that an innocent bystander died, but again that's not the fault of the police.
If some a****** didn't decide to go reenact Columbine that day, that woman would still be with us.
Cool. So then when something goes down, the cops have a blank check to just open fire or do anything? If some innocent bystanders get it well that’s unfortunate?This.
Many states transfer these charges to the instigator, and honestly all states should as long as there's not egregious action. You shoot the next school killer, over pen and bag Mr. Garrison behind them, mentally that's on you, morally that should be on the shooter all day long.
And your point is? Well, he thought he was armed. So that makes it OK to kill innocent people?Or he thought the guy was armed
"Officers located the suspect, and an officer-involved shooting occurred."
My agency taught us to never use passive voice. How damn hard is it to just say, "...and they shot him"?
Passive voice always deflects responsibility.
You answered your own question, which I assume was intended.
Obviously, just like attacking animalsAnd your point is? Well, he thought he was armed. So that makes it OK to kill innocent people?
Listen to Andrew Branca's Law of Self Defense channel.Cool. So then when something goes down, the cops have a blank check to just open fire or do anything? If some innocent bystanders get it well that’s unfortunate?
These free passes continue to happen because of people like you. Congratulations on being part of the problem.
Of course they have other options but as we know officer, safety is paramount, so we better choose the one least dangerous for us and open fire. Of course, it’s the one that’s most dangerous for the public but they don’t care.
Boot licking can be offensive. Good call there.
It must be nice to have this blank check any time things get real. Congratulations on being part of the problem.
To who? To the girl, her life. To the cop, his life. I carry a gun because my life is important to me.So whose life is more important in that moment? The girl or the cop?
Let's replace that cop with yourself or someone in your family who isn't a cop, you think if the result were the same you wouldn't be doing time?
All depends on the lawyer and the training of the peon.That seems to be the consensus.
I've never shot a movie, but I know that if Adam Sandler stars in it, it sucks.If you want to criticize how the police do their job, feel free to put on the uniform, pick up a weapon, and start working a patrol.
Until then, you would do well to not judge their actions with hindsight being 20/20 and the standard being perfection when under fire.
If you want to criticize how the police do their job, feel free to put on the uniform, pick up a weapon, and start working a patrol.
Until then, you would do well to not judge their actions with hindsight being 20/20 and the standard being perfection when under fire.
This is the most idiotic bullshit argument.
Now do climate scientists. And teachers. And ATF agents. And the IRS. And doctors. And carpenters. And auto mechanics.
I absolutely can judge the way a cop does his/her job, just like I can judge my mechanic, or doctor, or lawyer, even though I've never been any of those.
If you think otherwise, you should never speak about every vocation that you haven't personally participated in. Don't forget important differences like "in a big city" is different than "in a small town", and "cabinet making" is different than "framing" After all, if you've never done those jobs, you can't possibly know if they're being done well.
Stray bullets that harm or kill innocent bystanders are not the fault of the police officers
This statement is simply wrong.Stray bullets that harm or kill innocent bystanders are not the fault of the police officers engaging the mass shooter. The blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the shooter.
I find it comical that most people here probably wouldn't be able to get 50% of their shots in a standard police silhouette at 20 yards under ideal range conditions are criticizing police officers who miss their target while under fire from a mass shooter armed with a semi-automatic rifle.
This statement is simply wrong.
A defenders actions are only transferable if those actions are objectively reasonable.
A large number of police responses are not objectively reasonable and would result in a non-LEO defender being charged and convicted. However LEO hides behind qualified Immunity so the question of objective reasonableness doesn't even get asked.
It's not hard to find video of police sending poorly or completely unaimed volleys of fire downrange like they are using suppressive fire on the front line of a major military battle. And in pretty much all of those events the police suffer no serious consequences for their negligence and recklessness.
I agree. It's absurd that a cop would be responsible for shooting 6 bystanders when faced with the imminent thread of a mass shooter who's gun is mere feet away!
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJuF8UQuNm4
Denver police officer pleads guilty in LoDo shooting that wounded six bystanders
The Denver police officer accused of shooting six bystanders while aiming at an armed man in Lower Downtown in July 2022 pleaded guilty on Tuesday.www.denverpost.com
If you want to criticize how the police do their job, feel free to put on the uniform, pick up a weapon, and start working a patrol.
This statement is simply wrong.
A defenders actions are only transferable if those actions are objectively reasonable.
A large number of police responses are not objectively reasonable and would result in a non-LEO defender being charged and convicted. However LEO hides behind qualified Immunity so the question of objective reasonableness doesn't even get asked.
I find it comical that most people here probably wouldn't be able to get 50% of their shots in a standard police silhouette at 20 yards under ideal range conditions are criticizing police officers who miss their target while under fire from a mass shooter armed with a semi-automatic rifle.
Your post lacks all merit and your comparisons are completely off base. You cannot compare cabinet making to being a police officer under fire during a mass shooting event. To even try to justify that comparison is pure lunacy and only serves to highlight the egregious and obvious weakness of your position.
Stray bullets that harm or kill innocent bystanders are not the fault of the police officers engaging the mass shooter. The blame for that lies squarely on the shoulders of the shooter. But if you think you're up to the challenge I'll be happy to throw some rounds at you from my AR air soft or a paintball gun while you see if you can stay on target with 100% accuracy. I bet you dont... now imagine having real rounds thrown at you.