Israel has released highly edited drone footage that still contradicts their false narrative despite having the part where the shooting and running happens edited out. If it showed Palestinians killings themselves attacking food trucks like Israel has claimed caused ALL the deaths and injuries, does anyone really believe it wouldn’t be aired immediately?

Today they claim they only fired warning shots…but since when are “warning shots” fired into a crowd from tanks and drones?

This was a genocidal massacre by a nation that has shown itself to be worse than Nazi Germany. International condemnation is coming from everywhere but America. It’s disgusting, and may cost Biden the election.

Wow! Now you take all your guns outside and practice killing people with warning shots!

"engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack...is NOT entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense...person is NOT privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant UNLESS the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape"

Warning shots seem to be enough for you to allow this kid to kill someone because they are so threatening. Warning shots seem like a reasonable means of attempting to escape. Warning shots were not exhausted by Rittenhouse, who is stuck having to exhaust all reasonable means of escape before using deadly force per Wisconsin law because he was engaged in unlawful behavior during the incident. If he doesn't exhaust all reasonable means of escape, self defense cannot apply. If he claims the shot fired in the air is threatening, he acknowledges that it's a means of escape through intimidation. Checkmate, dumbass.

I thought I saw a Phalanx! Lethal R2-D2 for the win!
lol

So, I did a little reading; the Mark 38 has been through several upgrades---from the original 25 mm Bushmaster mount with no weather protection (on a naval ship? really?)---to the streamlined "big brother" mount we see now and 30 mm shells (sudden thought; is there ammunition interchangeability with the A-10's gun and if not; why not? lol)

There is, in fact, a deliberate "off-set" mode now introduced for firing warning shots---I guess you designate the target and set "off-set" so that you put shots across the bow/spray them with water? To avoid macerating a mere obvious idiot as opposed to someone who actually means you harm? Although there's no way to tell if that's what's going on here for sure...

Depends.

If there was an intruder in my home I knew wasn't my wife, cat, or dog (the only ones with any business being here) that didn't announce themselves and entered my bedroom, absolutely 100% they're getting the 12 gauge. It's way easier to get out of jail than out of the morgue, and my wife won't be raped or killed, nor both of us eaten (we have bears here) because I was afraid to protect us.
Because I don't live alone, I would likely call out to be sure it wasn't my wife unless I could actually see her there with me. Because I don't WANT to kill someone, I might fire a warning shot but with a pump action that's not necessary, and my first load is low power bird shot...the second is buckshot, third on are slugs.


Full disclosure, I live in California now, where the law isn't on my side. A few years ago a man in my town shot one of three armed home invaders inside his house and was actually prosecuted. I'm fairly certain he was acquitted, I'm 100% certain he was in the right.

"These people" might well mean 'the robbers'. Who else bangs on your door uninvited in the early morning (in the dark?) and refuses to leave until threatened with a gun? This is in Detroit, not Mayberry.

"Walker told WJBK TV that “she was like, ‘Why are you trying to break into my house?’ I was trying to explain to her that I was trying to get directions to Rochester High. And she kept yelling at me. Then the guy came downstairs, and he grabbed the gun,"
When the homeowner is clearly scared and screaming at you to leave, don't argue and keep trying to get inside.
Bang on my door at the break of dawn and refuse to leave, I won't give a warning shot, and I won't miss, race is not a factor.

Sounds to me like he was trying to rob them, got caught, and made up a ridiculous story about being lost and attacked for being black.


So many obvious fake racism claims posted lately that it seems nearly certain to me this is just more of the same. Let's see the full, unedited surveillance video, I bet it tells a different story.

Not kids or war on terror.

The problem in this video here isn't what could've happened to the cop or how threatening the suspect was or even racial bias. That shit is secondary.
A man got shot 2 times in the chest because he did not do what he was told to. He was passive agressive and was murdered because of it. That was murder.
If a law enforcement officer can not subdue a single person without shooting them in the chest, he is either beyond incompetent and his whole organisation needs to be seriously reevaluted concerning their training methods and oversight practices or he just enjoys murdering the shit out of people.
There is no argument that there was not another option how to react. Even if he didn't have a taser, he should have at least some pepperspray. Or hey, try firing a warning shot. If that fails, you can still immobilize the suspect by shooting them in the legs. However, dead men don't sue, right?
That man got murdered and I don't give a shit why. He was killed without reason.

As long as my 15 friends with rifles, shotguns, and pistols pointed at your head come with me, and the instant you start to point the rifle at a person they get to fire, then fine, name the date and place, I'll be there with bells on to get to taser you and 'detain' you afterwards. This guy only pointed his weapon at himself, and only fired a single shot directly up....like a warning shot...a thing cops have apparently forgotten exists.
If you need 100% guarantee of safety in your duty, you should NEVER be a cop, or even be in public.
It's funny you always take that position that cops should be able to kill with impunity instead of taking the slightest risk to their own safety, for instance you often say they should never even try tasers even with massive backup because tasers MIGHT not stop the person, so they should just shoot to kill instead if there's ANY risk to themselves (or if they think they can make up a risk...'he grabbed my taser' comes to mind), and you also take the position that cops have this incredibly dangerous job and are all 'brave little soldiers' we should look up to...which is it?

Well, it's certainly better than living in a country where you get twenty years for firing warning shots. Shit, even living in Greece is better than the US, at least people there know how useless their government is and how much they're fucked right now.

I am confused about this case. Which part of Zimmerman is white? Isn't he Latino? And if there are no witnesses (according to the court case), how do we know if he is guilty or innocent? Why don't we get upset about this instead or as well? http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/florida-mom-marissa-alexander-serve-20-years-firing-warning-shot-while-george-zimmerman It feels as though we are getting swept along here in some sort of hysteria rather than a measured appropriate response to these events.

You misunderstand the motivation for the language of stereotype used to describe the general dynamics of alcohol in Great Britain, i.e., a pub at every intersection-Hey man, alcohols' the last legal drug here in the states as well for the same reason: Governments and international criminals (same same, but different, as they say in Thailand) control the drug trade around the world. They limit which drugs may be manufactured or sold. They make incredible amounts of money doing so.

Governments and international criminals also corner the market on guns and artillery and ammunition and do their best to control the distribution and manufacture to insure one thing: Control and centralization of power.

We're not suggesting Brits are more prone to drunkenness and brawling than the same sort of tits in the U.S. I am simply suggesting sane remedies that do not involve baby-out-with-bathwater solutions to some seriously flawed fundamentals: societal and cultural evolution should be determined by sober consensus without emotion instead of this bullshit, "But what about the children?!" line of reasoning promulgated by criminals in power...A line that is trumpeted by so-called representatives and used as a tool (kind of like a gun is a tool) along with the complicit and effective tool of propaganda called market television, or major media, or whatever label for abject disinformation and agenda-pumping that benefits a few that some people who see owning guns as horrifying, have bought into.

The way to keep your children safe form psychopaths is to reinvent society and gradually change culture in a direction that heals the planet instead of raping it. Less fucking insane parents mean less fucking insane kids. Fuck licensing firearms, how about licensing parents before they plop out another?

How do you cure a country like North Korea, whose people for a few generations have been systematically trained in totalitarian shit-think?? It's a job no one wants to think about. As long as planetary ass-rape is the direction we are headed, guns guns guns my easily-insulted brother, and less shit-think. I'm not a fucking idiot, but my government is being run into the ground by cunts and assholes and douchebags who have most of the control over most of the guns and drugs! See how simple it is??

Guns violence by a FEW + International media coverage with a view to convincing people that guns (OF ANY KIND OR CAPACITY) are the problem = what should be an insult to your intelligence at the very least, and a goddamn warning shot across the bow that World Police State is what the cunts really want for humanity.

Gun control happens shortly after a gun is manufactured, unless you want to accidentally hurt yourself or another utilizing another kind of control. Self-Control maybe??

In the US, every year, firearms in the hands of citizens are used 2.5 million times in self-defense.

Fifty-four percent of the defensive gun uses involved somebody verbally referring to the gun. Forty-seven percent involved the gun being pointed at the criminal.
Twenty-two percent involved the gun being fired.
Fourteen percent involved the gun being fired at somebody, meaning it wasn't just a warning shot; the defender was trying to shoot the criminal.
And then in 8 percent they actually did wound or kill the offender.


Disarmed citizens are serfs. Three guesses which political party promoting government dependency doesn't want you to be able to defend yourself.

http://youtu.be/-bvJMmCCS-8

Above link- no rap music/editing - also shows why they need to drive against traffic sometimes. Just so people understand, it is vital to;

1) Always move faster than the current traffic
2) Always avoid stopping for more than a minute
3) Do not allow other cars to follow closely.

Most people in Iraq know to keep their distance from NATO vehicles on the move.

Bumping the vehicles is a necessity - the horn is worthless in this traffic as you can tell from the link I posted in this comment.

Warning shots are also sometimes necessary if someone follows too closely.

Of course there are dickhead soldiers out there doing dickhead things (I think I saw a vid of solders running over some poor taxi for no reason), but these guys are just trying to get from point A to point B without having an RPG coming through the window.

More like "Guards shoot warning shots from a cargo ship" - completely diferent.

The pirates never made it onto the ship and they were never shot.

In states with Castle Doctrine laws, you don't have to prove that someone is breaking into your house with harmful intent. The law assumes that the unauthorized entry implies felonious intent and authorizes the use of deadly force to protect yourself.

In other words, you don't have to wait around to be sure that the intruder is going to harm you, you can assume it from the act of illegal entry. This removes the troublesome and ill-defined burden of people in their own homes having to wait to get into a deadly situation where they find themselves at a disadvantage before they can defend themselves, and is, IMO a good law.

The thing that gun control advocates fail to acknowledge is that the guy breaking in was also aware of the law, i.e., that if you break into someone's home it's fair for the homeowner to assume that you're there to inflict personal injury and you can be killed with no criminal or civil repercussions on the shooter. He had the same information that she did regarding the law, yet she didn't choose whether or not to start the situation, he did.

Armed with that knowledge, he still chose to break into a woman's house carrying a weapon. There is simply nobody to blame in this situation other than the intruder. The man broke into her house intending to use violence in a calculated way to get whatever he wanted. He was met with someone who also was prepared to use violence, and he lost.

If she would have scared him off with a warning shot or something similar, he would have likely come back after her at some other place and time, when she was at a disadvantage. As unsavory as it is to take a life, the guy had it coming to him. The fact that she waited in her hall to shoot him when he came through the door is of no consequence, as it would have come to violence sooner or later. At least she was able to take advantage of her situation.