Daniel Shaver shooting

[Speaker to Animals]

He's hammering you with some truth. The cops do not possess extra rights. They really don't, no matter how many crackpot juries let them off for murder.

[Fife]

Fife rage postin'.


Capps about to take a back seat as #1 repeato-bot.

Answer one question; or explain why it's a bad question. I'll take my hat off and back away.

Describe the difference in a cop's right to use violence in self-defense and your right to use violence in self-defense.

[Smitty-48]

I can't quite tell why the guy suddenly makes a reach move while he was crawling, like I say, maybe he was pulling his pants up, but that was the exact wrong time and place to reach for his hip like that, because even just watching it on youtube, my trigger finger twitches when he does that.

[Fife]

I can't quite tell why the guy suddenly makes a reach move while he was crawling, like I say, maybe he was pulling his pants up, but that was the exact wrong time and place to reach for his hip like that, because even just watching it on youtube, my trigger finger twitches when he does that.

Blah blah blah, STFU. The jury has spoken.

Describe the difference in a cop's right to use violence in self-defense and your right to use violence in self-defense.

[DBTrek]

He's hammering you with some truth. The cops do not possess extra rights. They really don't, no matter how many crackpot juries let them off for murder.

No, he's hammering us by JAQ'ing off.
"Just Asking Questions!"

World doesn't owe annoying fucks answers.
No one one the forum(or Earth) owes Fife their time, if he can't be bothered to make an intelligent point.

But since you've bothered to contribute, I'll tell you he's wrong - as the Garner case of 1985 and later In the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling outline pretty well when officers can shoot and what factors should be taken into consideration.

And the ruling isn't - "Whatever citizens can do, you know, same for cops".

[nmoore63]

It appears you have lower standards for trained professionals than I do.

That's not a safe place for them to take the suspect into custody, with a blind corner right there, getting him to move out of the way, so they can continue to cover the corner while he is being taken into custody, is tactically sound, and exactly what I would do too.

The fact that he appears to reach for it in the process, a second time, after being specifically warned not to, on pain of being shot, loudly, clearly, and in no uncertain terms, is a separate issue.

Sorry bro, this ain’t falluja. There is no hostage. There is no shots fired. There is no officer down.

Somebody said they saw someone with a gun. No crime even committed yet. No need to show such reckless risk of human life just to save time.

The cop ordered a hysterical person from no threat to potential threat because he sucks.

Neglect homicide.

[Speaker to Animals]

He's hammering you with some truth. The cops do not possess extra rights. They really don't, no matter how many crackpot juries let them off for murder.

No, he's hammering us by JAQ'ing off.
"Just Asking Questions!"

World doesn't owe annoying fucks answers.
No one one the forum(or Earth) owes Fife their time, if he can't be bothered to make an intelligent point.

But since you've bothered to contribute, I'll tell you he's wrong - as the Garner case of 1985 and later In the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling outline pretty well when officers can shoot and what factors should be taken into consideration.

And the ruling isn't - "Whatever citizens can do, you know, same for cops".

A cop has no extra rights. This cop should have been required to make an affirmative defense in that shooting. Period. He obviously could not have done so.

[Fife]

He's hammering you with some truth. The cops do not possess extra rights. They really don't, no matter how many crackpot juries let them off for murder.

No, he's hammering us by JAQ'ing off.
"Just Asking Questions!"

World doesn't owe annoying fucks answers.
No one one the forum(or Earth) owes Fife their time, if he can't be bothered to make an intelligent point.

But since you've bothered to contribute, I'll tell you he's wrong - as the Garner case of 1985 and later In the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling outline pretty well when officers can shoot and what factors should be taken into consideration.

And the ruling isn't - "Whatever citizens can do, you know, same for cops".

Describe the difference in a cop's right to use violence in self-defense and your right to use violence in self-defense.

[DBTrek]

A cop doesn't need extra rights, they do however, have court mandated extra considerations based upon the hazards of their job.
Hazards like having to be the one sent by the state to see why some guy is waving a rifle out a hotel window.

[Smitty-48]

It appears you have lower standards for trained professionals than I do.

That's not a safe place for them to take the suspect into custody, with a blind corner right there, getting him to move out of the way, so they can continue to cover the corner while he is being taken into custody, is tactically sound, and exactly what I would do too.

The fact that he appears to reach for it in the process, a second time, after being specifically warned not to, on pain of being shot, loudly, clearly, and in no uncertain terms, is a separate issue.

Sorry bro, this ain’t falluja. There is no hostage. There is no shots fired. There is no officer down.

Somebody said they saw someone with a gun. No crime even committed yet. No need to show such reckless risk of human life just to save time.

The cop ordered a hysterical person from no threat to potential threat because he sucks.

Neglect homicide.

Hysterical sniper in the bell tower reaches for it a second time after being clearly warned not to on pain of being shot; you get shot for that in Canada, never mind Fallujah.