The Firestarter
Full Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2010
- Messages
- 29,162
She could have easily looked like 65 yrs old. Can't take those risks.I mean, she was 5ft tall and 80lbs. Massive risk.
She could have easily looked like 65 yrs old. Can't take those risks.I mean, she was 5ft tall and 80lbs. Massive risk.
Maybe his wife is similar in stature and beats him up ?? I'm 5ft 1ish (not 80 lbs) but I can pack a punch if the situation calls for it.I mean, she was 5ft tall and 80lbs. Massive risk.
You admitted that you'd prefer cops to kill 'criminals' without defining exactly what constitutes a 'criminal'. So either either your statement is blanket enough to conclude that you would also prefer a jaywalker to get killed, or you must define exactly what crimes are deserving of being killed.
Which one is it? This isn't splitting hairs, these are your words, i'm just trying to get a better understanding of it.
That's before you get into the fact that nobody is actually a criminal until they've been convicted of a crime, until that point they are merely a suspect.
Is that splitting hairs? Maybe for the sake of this debate, but in real life, no.
And, it's not up to the police to assume something about a person or their actions - this is where biases kick in, and you open yourself up for a million hypothetical situations.
You just keep on doubling down on this misguided opinion of yours don’t youA 13 year old can kill just as surely as a 30 year old
You just keep on doubling down on this misguided opinion of yours don’t you
He was ordered to put his hands in the air. He complied. He was killed.
None of what he just said is opinion. It’s verifiable fact as seen from video footage.You're entitled to your opinion.
You admitted that you'd prefer cops to kill 'criminals' without defining exactly what constitutes a 'criminal'. So either either your statement is blanket enough to conclude that you would also prefer a jaywalker to get killed, or you must define exactly what crimes are deserving of being killed.
Which one is it? This isn't splitting hairs, these are your words, i'm just trying to get a better understanding of it.
That's before you get into the fact that nobody is actually a criminal until they've been convicted of a crime, until that point they are merely a suspect.
Is that splitting hairs? Maybe for the sake of this debate, but in real life, no.
And, it's not up to the police to assume something about a person or their actions - this is where biases kick in, and you open yourself up for a million hypothetical situations.
Also this same poster responded to me in the Chauvin thread, talking about how defense lawyers and a proper justice system are cornerstones of our society, and there are lots of people that are wrongly accused/convicted of things. And now here are are, saying he prefers criminals to be killed, but police should always have a proper defense. Absolute joke.
To be fair. What you post about these issues is incomprehensible!It's almost as if you have an inability to comprehend what I post.
To be fair. What you post about these issues is incomprehensible!
Who said inconsistent.Sure if you don't try hard to read and understand. I can see why some struggle. Perhaps you can point out inconsistency where you see it instead of making glib comments.
If only you all had the same attitude to guns, you wouldn't be in this mess.Hey feck you
Who said inconsistent.
Incomprehensible.
Incomprehensible - not able to be understood.
That is the very definition of your views on this topic. Preferring an outcome where the police survive over the criminals. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.
I’m sure I could find plenty of other examples of consistently incomprehensible views from you
Is this SOP? Seems bizarre...
There were reports some days ago about them threatening media with arrest over loudspeaker, instructing them to leave. I didn’t really dig into it but it sounded troubling.
Is this SOP? Seems bizarre...
Yeah but what happened before they laid down? Also why are they outside at that time of night??? Where are their parents?
These questions must be asked.![]()
Also, you can't put yourself in their shoes. Sometimes a camera looks like a gun when you are improperly using your disco flashlight.
There were reports some days ago about them threatening media with arrest over loudspeaker, instructing them to leave. I didn’t really dig into it but it sounded troubling.
16? Jeezus.
You've got to be a heartless prick to think she deserved it.
A 13 year old can kill just as surely as a 30 year old
Curious to hear how you differentiate the Ashli Babbitt killing when she was erroneously described as 16 years old v Adam Toledo’s killing.I will always favor outcomes that see cops survive over criminals or nobody will do the job.
Saying someone deserves to die is different from understanding why somebody did die. In both cases each died from their actions but what they truly deserved was justice. However the law allowed the LEO in each case to protect themselves when facing grave danger.
Do you have a problem with police being able to protect themselves when faced with immediate danger that threatens their life?
In only one case was the deceased actively disobeying orders when being shot.
Edit: To be clear, neither should be dead.
No problem at all. Both results were consequences of their actions. I think threat assessment could be improved upon, though.Saying someone deserves to die is different from understanding why somebody did die. In both cases each died from their actions but what they truly deserved was justice. However the law allowed the LEO in each case to protect themselves when facing grave danger.
Do you have a problem with police being able to protect themselves when faced with immediate danger that threatens their life?
Do we both agree that a LEO should be legally allowed to protect themselves when their life is threatened?
Under no circumstance should Babbitt and Wright ever be compared. One was committing treason while the other was running away. One was abetting others in an attempted coup while ignoring multiple orders to cease, the other ultimately complied with and officer's request but was shot. FFS.
I'm on team @MrMarcello but I think you are confusing Wright with Toledo. Wright was struggling and trying to flee. He still should not have been tazed, much less shot though for gods sake.
Yes, wrong person. Wright definitely was attempting to flee (or whatever) but the circumstances are nowhere near the same as a person taking part in a coup. In fact, treason is punishable by death per 18 USC 2381, and the Secret Serviceman was protecting elected officials. Personally feel every one of those feckers storming the Capital should have been shot on the spot. Try storming a military installation and see how long they last before blasted with M4s and M16s.
There are certainly others that could be compared to Wright but Babbitt is on her own in this realm.
No problem at all. Both results were consequences of their actions. I think threat assessment could be improved upon, though.
It’s the difference in exhortations I find curious.
If it is actually actively being threatened? Yes. If they think it is being threatened or are scared? Hell no. They don't get to guess.
The difference between the first quoted post & the second.Explain please.
What is "actively threatened"? Is that a legal requirement for LEO response or perhaps something you have introduced to help your arguments?
I'm really only interested in the law here. We ask LEOs to "guess" all the time though.
If only you all had the same attitude to guns, you wouldn't be in this mess.