• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Political Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
superjames1992 said:
I’m guess I’m just not sure what else the cop is supposed to do when a person points a taser at them? They can’t just let themselves get shot, can they?
Click to expand...
I'd like to see more aiming for legs or shoulders or something. But maybe they are more than we know, or maybe that would require more/different training, or maybe the instinct is just to nullify the threat.... I don't know, as I'm just guessing about stuff I have little first hand knowledge about.
 
superjames1992 said:
I’m guess I’m just not sure what else the cop is supposed to do when a person points a taser at them? They can’t just let themselves get shot, can they?
Click to expand...

Roll over and take it, apparently.

Nah in this case, considering that my dad is not a big fan of police, when even HE is saying that this is a justified shooting...it probably is a justified shooting.
 
eyewall said:
Looks like a white girl was involved in burning the Wendy's.

Click to expand...

She should definitely go to jail, but the Wendys is already on fire when this recording begins so we don’t know the full story. Just like the initial videos yesterday just showed the cop shooting an unarmed man in the back when actually the man was armed after stealing the cops weapon and was trying to use it against him.
 
Jimmy Hypocracy said:
Someone said it earlier. The education system is responsible for this. These kids are completely lost.
Click to expand...
Just graduated college last year. The education system has an agenda and has many kids brainwashed. It’s frightening because so many kids buy it all up. 70% of the stuff I learned in school is irrelevant in the real world.
 
Rain Cold said:
I'd like to see more aiming for legs or shoulders or something. But maybe they are more than we know, or maybe that would require more/different training, or maybe the instinct is just to nullify the threat.... I don't know, as I'm just guessing about stuff I have little first hand knowledge about.
Click to expand...
I also don’t have first hand knowledge, either, but my understanding is that officers are not trained/taught to “shoot to wound” because it is much more difficult than shooting at the body (and so the officer is much more likely to miss his/her shot), and also because wounding a person may not neutralize their ability to strike back.

Some additional info:

www.ajc.com

Here's why police don't shoot to wound in the case of deadly force

Here's why police don't shoot to wound in the case of deadly force
www.ajc.com www.ajc.com

Maybe these practices should be changed, but I can certainly understand the arguments against “shooting to wound.”
 
Rain Cold said:
Ok, but we should come out and categorically denounce this kind of behavior. Maybe Wendy's can take care of these employees for a bit, but businesses should be expected to make up for this kind of activity. And many simply can't.
Click to expand...

It's too bad the people responsible for burning it down can't be caught and held responsible, not only for burning it down, but for providing for the former employees. If these lowlifes had to bear responsibility maybe it would stop some of this. Of course, they likely don't have the money but they can pay a portion of their future income towards making this right. Personal Responsibility!
 
superjames1992 said:
I also don’t have first hand knowledge, either, but my understanding is that officers are not trained/taught to “shoot to wound” because it is much more difficult than shooting at the body (and so the officer is much more likely to miss his/her shot), and also because wounding a person may not neutralize their ability to strike back.

Some additional info:

www.ajc.com

Here's why police don't shoot to wound in the case of deadly force

Here's why police don't shoot to wound in the case of deadly force
www.ajc.com www.ajc.com

Maybe these practices should be changed, but I can certainly understand the arguments against “shooting to wound.”
Click to expand...

Yeah shooting to wound is risky and dangerous for the cop. It may not stop the individual if he hits them and it also makes it much easier to miss as well. Imagine someone running at you or attacking you, it’s much harder to hit a leg or arm vs center mass. Concealed carry classes teach the same concept, at least mine did, when acting in self defense.
 
Snowflowxxl said:
Just graduated college last year. The education system has an agenda and has many kids brainwashed. It’s frightening because so many kids buy it all up. 70% of the stuff I learned in school is irrelevant in the real world.
Click to expand...
They want ONE world government and will stop at nothing to get it.
 
snowlover91 said:
Yeah shooting to wound is risky and dangerous for the cop. It may not stop the individual if he hits them and it also makes it much easier to miss as well. Imagine someone running at you or attacking you, it’s much harder to hit a leg or arm vs center mass. Concealed carry classes teach the same concept, at least mine did, when acting in self defense.
Click to expand...

I have a family member in LE and have heard this as well. Shoot to wound is a good theory, and may be possible in some situations, but is not usually practical or effective. Like you said, it's way harder to shoot an arm or leg and may not be effective. If a criminal is aiming something at you they are trying to kill. Police officers have to protect themselves, other citizens, and most have their own families to think about. An attack on an officer is generally taken as a threat to life as the officer may not get a redo. Reason 101 why people need to take responsibility and stop fighting officers and aiming stuff at them.
 
snowlover91 said:
Yeah shooting to wound is risky and dangerous for the cop. It may not stop the individual if he hits them and it also makes it much easier to miss as well. Imagine someone running at you or attacking you, it’s much harder to hit a leg or arm vs center mass. Concealed carry classes teach the same concept, at least mine did, when acting in self defense.
Click to expand...
We need a gun that shoots a net and when it covers the perpetrator the net constricts rendering them useless. If someone can come up with something better than a tazer but less deadly than a gun they would be rich.
 
superjames1992 said:
I also don’t have first hand knowledge, either, but my understanding is that officers are not trained/taught to “shoot to wound” because it is much more difficult than shooting at the body (and so the officer is much more likely to miss his/her shot), and also because wounding a person may not neutralize their ability to strike back.

Some additional info:

www.ajc.com

Here's why police don't shoot to wound in the case of deadly force

Here's why police don't shoot to wound in the case of deadly force
www.ajc.com www.ajc.com

Maybe these practices should be changed, but I can certainly understand the arguments against “shooting to wound.”
Click to expand...

Never shoot to wound anyone ever, this applies to civilian's or a officer, if feel your in enough danger to use lethal force then you aim center mass, the goal is not to wound or kill but to incapacitate which center mass has the highest chance of doing....
 
Jimmy Hypocracy said:
As a white man, If a cop ran up at that moment and shot her in the back you wouldn’t hear a word out of me. She put a lot of lives in danger including firemen and first responders.
Click to expand...

This is a terrible post......you are advocating for that cop to violate many of her constitutional rights....the only way that would be legal is if someone was in immediate danger of death. Otherwise that would be murder......seriously think that statement through.....kinda surprised to see it from you.
 
Downeastnc said:
This is a terrible post......you are advocating for that cop to violate many of her constitutional rights....the only way that would be legal is if someone was in immediate danger of death. Otherwise that would be murder......seriously think that statement through.....kinda surprised to see it from you.
Click to expand...
How about a natural gas explosion setting the nearby apartments ablaze? Or blowing up the gas station next door killing everyone standing in the street? MANY people were in immediate danger. I think the main point of my post is to recognize when a person is inviting bad things to happen to them. Regardless of the color of their skin. If she would have been shot, I would not stand here and make excuses for this woman because we share the same skin tone.
 
This about 40 minutes long but some food for thought on police, "white privilege", and opportunity. He makes some great points. It's hard to argue with ubiquitous qualities like determination, tenacity, gumption, and even a little common sense.
 
The taser has to make contact. Doesn't shoot. They have those but it's a net blaster kind of weapon. Good to about 20 feet.

The shoot em in the leg is a very tough thing to do in the heat of the moment. Center mass is hard enough. The man resisted and ran with a weapon. No choice but to put him down. The minute he took the weapon he became a clear and present danger.
 
Last edited:
eyewall said:
I don't agree with burning down the Wendy's, but I am not going to cry over it either. I am more concerned with systemic and institutional racism that has created the mess we are in today.
Click to expand...
Then stop voting Democrat and encouraging government to be the daddy in the home. This goes for all races. You lose the family , you lose the foundation for which a society communties success must stand on.
 
Snowflowxxl said:
this is the definition of spin. They fail to mention anything about the guy attacking the cop and stealing their weapon and trying to use it against them.
Click to expand...

Such a poor decision. His poor daughter. At what point to we take responsibility for our own actions and stop blaming the oppressor?
 
Jimmy Hypocracy said:
thisView attachment 42877
Click to expand...

I love it! Only problem is, with where we are today, I could see some getting offended and saying it is "insensitive to the needs of others," "tone deaf," "color blind," a "statement of privilege," or just "how dare this be placed in a school in the midst of a diversity of impressionable kids who might take it as a statement of blame." Then the school will have to issue an apology and say they "missed the mark," "it was poorly executed," and that it "doesn't represent the schools focus on acceptance and inclusion for all students. "
Did I miss any?
?
 
Iceagewhereartthou said:
I love it! Only problem is, with where we are today, I could see some getting offended and saying it is "insensitive to the needs of others," "tone deaf," "color blind," a "statement of privilege," or just "how dare this be placed in a school in the midst of a diversity of impressionable kids who might take it as a statement of blame." Then the school will have to issue an apology and say they "missed the mark," "it was poorly executed," and that it "doesn't represent the schools focus on acceptance and inclusion for all students. "
Did I miss any?
?
Click to expand...
Man, you’ve really got down. You know the entire playbook.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top