"Visibly unarmed, he could have had any weapon you choose in his pockets."
Yes. He could also have planted a nuclear bomb under the cops feet in advance. or be carrying reactive explosives that detonate when shot at. Anything is POSSIBLE. The thing is: Most people, even the ones who are visibly worked up and out of control, are most likely NOT going to try and kill you. Even people who have just murdered two people.

My question is this: Suppose you had 2 cops, cop 1 draws a weapon on every arrest or any situation he/she deems to be potentially dangerous. Cop 2 never draws a weapon, unless the situation is totally out of control. Which cop is most likely to end up in a situation where someone dies or get shot?

Bicycle, the last sentences showed me that you have a level head and stopped me from my knee-jerk reaction... The case here was from the start a very possible deadly force.

Double murder suspect...the guy had nothing to lose, already by judgment of safety, because he murdered two people and lets be honest, if he killed the cop he now had another gun. It is not the officer I worry about (though it would be sad if he lost his life) but the innocent guy driving by who gets shot for his car.

Second, the guy here obviously had a method to murder people. Whether he killed those two with a knife or gun would be irrelevant. I can kill you with a knife within 21 feet before you have time to draw your weapon, and that is a fact.

Third, 8% of officers die by their own weapon. That is not a small number. I would play the lotto with those odds...just saying. Once in hand to hand you better be able to win regardless of their skill...

You shoot to kill because of what might happen, not what has happened. Drawing the gun was 100% right. That four seconds where you are scrambling is three shots from the bad guy--at least I can get off three.

I would say they exercised too much restraint in that case, i credit them for their restraint, but i wouldn't want things to get far enough to have one of them get shot. Smack the crap out of a fighter with a telescopic baton, by all means, or pepper spray, or tazer.

Interesting though that it was their own gun that ended up escalating the physical confrontation into a firearm confrontation. However with the wild west nostalgia for gun laws over there, i can't see how you could send them out unarmed.

It's funny really, I can watch people get shot in the face all day long in this game and barely flinch, but I see kitty get run over and I feels bad. I am a bad, bad man.

It's like if you watched a cow get shot in the head, carved up and then served to you on a plate. You might be like "I'm gonna eat this timidly".

If you just walk in to a restaurant, totally abstracted from the process and a juicy hunk of meat is presented to you. You just dive right in.

If this water just came out of your tap and it was clean, tasteless and deemed healthy. Few days and you'd totally forget where or how it got there.

Don't confuse the Unions that attack the Mayor with actual people. The Unions are dicks that are a business just like Sharpton (Making them millions) and Wal-Mart. Of course they spout of shit like Donald Trump or Obama on any given day.

Down here many cops state that Brown was a thug who threw around a store clerk in a potentially deadly robbery. There is a reason criminals can be charged for murder if an officer dies on his way to a crime like that. Or if someone gets shot by a store clerk on accident. The inherent nature of violence that Brown brought to the store alone was potentially deadly.

This video is the same as the censored Kim Jung Un video, or half the Epic Rap Battles. I remember my wife crying when they mentioned Merlin Monroe having miscarriages because she had four. But never once did she bemoan the Battles.

And yes, it annoyed me that you made mention that this video was NOT racist but the above sifter not-to-be-named ignored that...shows how much he listens.

This would be funnier if there were some truth to it...except the part about the possibility of getting shot.

That IS part of the argument for bans on child porn, but it is the flimsiest part of the argument too. You really can't argue that a child suffers every time child porn of her is viewed in a literal sense. Instead we argue that allowing it would encourage (more of) it to happen. Yet you could argue the same thing about pictures of dead children.

Newtboy also brings in another aspect of society and Hollywood that is lopsided. Sex and violence in movies. Children getting shot or maimed and dieing in movies? no problem! But you imply the natural act of procreation between adults? R rating for you!

I think we can do better.

How is it not surprising that the problem sees no problem?

You say : "I don't see people getting beat up, or shot, or assaulted, or arrested for no reason"
So, those that were "beat up, or shot, or assaulted, or arrested", were for a good reason, right?

Ever consider that those reasons are often made up?
Ever consider that the stories you heard around the water cooler were simply B.S., and it was in fact the police simply preying on innocent people?



Just what exactly does LE do for me, or anyone?

Do police have super powers and spidey senses?
Will they magically teleport to someone getting raped, and prevent it?
Will they magically teleport to someone getting run over, and prevent it?
Will they magically teleport to someone getting beaten, and prevent it?
Will they magically teleport to someone getting robbed, and prevent it?
The answer is : no.

Police can't actually /help/ anyone.
They can only show up after the fact, and ask you what happened, and if you know who did it.
If you don't know who it was, tough shit. Sucks to be you.
Unlike on TV, there is no in-depth investigation. The most they do is tell you to call them if you remember something else. (This is speaking from experience)

What if you're not around to even tell them anything? Almost every murder committed by an unrelated stranger without witnesses or video goes unsolved.
Why? Because all police know how to do is ask friends/family where they were, and if everyone has an excuse, police got nothing.

At least when a normal person [that you can identify] harms you, you /can/ call the police, and maybe, just maybe, if they feel like it, they will round them up after the fact.

(They often don't. We've had people dumping trash on our land : police didn't respond. We've had people hunting [strangers shooting guns] on our property : police didn't respond. Brought evidence of a fraud to the police station, with account numbers, names, addresses : we won't investigate. The only time they ever came was to talk with my mother after she reported her credit card number was being used by a stranger - LOL, of all the things, they bother coming for /that/?)

But if the police harm you, you've got nowhere to turn to - but them. And they care more about each other, than some stranger.

Heck, I've been tailgated by a cop, on a multi-lane road, so close his headlights weren't even visible over my trunk. He could have gone around me any time. After miles, when I finally sped up - BAM. Ticket.

I've pulled up to a roadblock by my house, and asked if I could go by. The guy was so incensed that he detained me for hours, and told me I was threatening his life, reckless driving, and not wearing a seatbelt.

I've been threatened by a cop - because I interrupted her chat with her girlfriend to ask for directions around a road they were closing off.

I've been pulled over with gun drawn, for trivial speeding (well below reckless).

Seriously people, every time you get pulled over, you are at risk of getting shot, because someone is trained to be suspicious and paranoid, and they saw something shiny.

Just look at how they behave. Cop shoots his daughter in his own garage, because he thought she was a burglar.
What, too much to ask just to look at the person to see if they're even a burglar? Shoot first ask questions later.

Every year there are multiple cases of police raiding a house and shooting people - only to find out it was the wrong house. What, too much trouble to be a decent human being and just knock first, and ask for whoever they need to come out?

Oh, but that might put them at a greater risk. And we all know that police take MINIMAL risks themselves, and instead risk the lives of the citizens. (Why not approach with gun drawn? At least you're ready to shoot the suspect. And if you accidentally shoot the suspect, oh well, just say they 'attacked'. No biggie. Why take the risk.)
The biggest risk they take, is the one they dream up for when they want to take credit for being the heroes they never were.

Look at the friggin VT shooting. Swarms of cops surrounding a building. Man inside, could be killing more people by the moment... and the cops just camp out and wait for him to kill himself.
Worst part, is if it were my family inside, and I tried to go in and stop the shooter, the police would just shoot me for trying to enter.

(And no, police don't deserve heroic praise. They deserve the _pay_check_ they signed up for. If that's not enough, they should take life more seriously and really think about what it is they're getting into, before they do it. Take responsibility, like an adult should.)

The police are a liability. They're armed. They're selfish. They're paranoid and suspicious. They're jumpy.
IMO, the best thing to do is keep away from them, don't look at them, don't talk to them. Stay away, and stay safe.

Oh yeah, and the police are also immune form the constitution's equal protection clause. "Because interpretation".

Look at the numbers. You are less likely to be arrested or go to jail in NORTH KOREA, than here in the U.S. of A. By a factor of 4 last I checked.
What the heck is going on here?

1 in 18 men is either in jail, on parole, or somewhere in the process of going to jail.
Most of the countries in Europe have smaller populations, than the people that we have 'in the system'. And most of the people we have 'in the system', never even harmed another person. They're just arrested for 'behavior crimes' - simply doing things that are not allowed. This is madness. The system is mad, the police are mad.

You don't end up with videos of a gang of police acting like gangsters, if it's a matter of 'a few bad apples'. They all have to be in the same frame of mind.
If they weren't all of the same frame of mind, one would do something bad, and the others would say "whoa there man, you're out of line".
But instead, they all do it. Because there are no 'bad apples'.
There is 'bad training', and 'bad culture', and it permeates the profession.

And when I say bad, I don't mean that "they are trained to be thugs".
I mean that the police don't see suspects as 'citizens (members of the state) that the police are on the side of'.
Whoever crosses their path is dehumanized. Some kind of "other", that the police need to protect society from. Not realizing that those people /are/ society, and /they/ need protection.
The kind of behavior that I see in these kinds of videos, it's simply treason. Betrayal of the state.

If the laws of this country were written to provide restitution to victims - and there were no laws to simply tell people how to live, and if the police spent their time providing restitution to victims, then I would have nothing but the greatest appreciation for the police.
As it stands, there's very little nobility around this profession. Majority of the job is simply picking on people - sometimes because they did harm, but usually because they mind their own business in an unapproved of way, or for kicks.

-scheherazade

This is kinda hilarious in that his central argument is that the "art" of some movies is ruined due to a PG 13 rating, when 99% of his examples are throwaway blockbuster fluff anyway.

His example of the Oscars is even more flawed, in that the majority of "good" movies tell an adult story and use sex or violence to serve the story, not the other way around.

The one thing I do find disturbing is sanitisation of violence as in the new Robocop. I watched the original Robocop as a kid (yes, I was too young for it). The violence is horrifying. But the new one is "safe" for kids in that you see tonnes of guys getting shot with no blood. How is that better? If you're going to depict violence on screen, it should be violent!

I hope the guy who did this gets his butthole touched in prison. In b4 some nerd or his dog get shot by a twitchy cop.

Very provocative controversial video worthy of a *discussion (so I won't discard), but it is definitely snuff, so I'm redacting the video.

I didn't realize he was holding a knife, but it does seem he was. Not only did the officer(s) yell at him to drop the knife, but the guy with the red-and-white-striped shirt yelled at him "Come on, drop it, bro!" (at 1:38) immediately before the officers started firing.

Seems obvious it's suicide by cop. The officers should not have used a TASER if he was holding a knife and approaching them. Deadly force is definitely necessary in that case. In fact, I think the officer on the left may have even let him get too close as it is. If the guy did want to attack them and wasn't just looking to die, he could have thrust forward and stabbed the officer while he was getting shot.

That he had just recently committed a robbery is relevant because it might have given him a reason to react the way he does in the police version of events.

Just robbed a store, and a cop comes by? Maybe he reacts more aggressively than usual, because he thinks that's why the cop is talking to him. And then a bunch of bad things happen and he gets shot.

@harlequinn, you do realise that NZ actually has quite sensible gun laws? You can own semi-auto rifles and so on but to do so you need a firearms licence. This includes not only a police check, but the cops will actually come to your house and check that you have adequate storage provisions for your guns. On top of that

You will have difficulty being deemed 'fit and proper' to possess or use firearms if you have:

- a history of violence
- repeated involvement with drugs
- been irresponsible with alcohol
- a personal or social relationship with people deemed to be unsuitable to be given access to firearms
- indicated an intent to use a firearm for self-defence.

To me those are perfectly reasonable and sensible restrictions.

@scheherazade, ah yes, the libertarian argument. I want a gun and fuck everyone else.

Kids getting shot at school? Fuck 'em, not my problem.
Random nutjob mows down a bunch of people in California? Fuck 'em, not my problem.

The fact is that guns do cause harm. The "people kill people" argument is beyond infantile. Of course, people kill people.... with a gun. It's a lot harder to go on a mass killing spree armed with a stick.

Here are the indisputable facts:
- There are some sick people out there. Some are just fucked up, some are in need of help.
- Sometimes these people snap.
- Sometimes when they do, they get a gun and kill a bunch of other people.
- If they didn't have a gun, the harm would be less.
I'm assuming no-one disputes those facts.

Now there are two solutions to this:
- Pro-gun advocates take the position that citizens need guns to defend themselves from this kind of situation. They often argue that instead of taking guns away from everyone, we should focus on either helping the mentally unbalanced or stopping them by shooting them.
- Gun control advocates take the position that if the shooter didn't have access to a gun in the first place, then maybe the whole mess would be avoided or at the very least minimised.

To me, it's a simple matter of practicalities. Option 1 is simply not working. We're decades (possibly centuries) away from completely understanding mental illness, that's if we achieve that at all. Meanwhile, crazy/insane/evil people are still going on shooting rampages.
And stopping them after the fact? That's pretty cold comfort to the people that have already been killed.

I am genuinely perplexed as to how people don't understand this.
Gun control works. In every other developed country in the world, there are reasonable and sensible laws restricting firearm ownership, and there is nothing like the kind of insane shootings we see on a regular basis in the US.

No-one is arguing that all guns should be taken away. No-one is saying you can't hunt or target shoot or even defend your home if necessary (although again, in the civilised world, most of us have no need for that).

But jesus, maybe you don't need an AR-15 with a massive clip. And is it that unreasonable to check to see if someone is mental or criminal before selling them a gun?

Apparently, in the US, it is.