Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A thread about when it's okay for cops to shoot people

1565759616264

Posts

  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I think the issue at hand in this sort of argument is usually that the manner in which people on the front lines of conflict have been trained to deal with conflict is deadly force.

    I mean I can't fault a person for defaulting to shooting when what he or she has been taught is how to shoot people. My current combat techniques include "the fetal" and "hope it doesn't think urine is tasty". If you add to that "threaten with gun" or "shoot", well... what the hell else am I supposed to do in any moderately dangerous situation?

    I'd imagine that being criticized for violent action is frutstruating to soldiers/cops/border patrol not necessarily because they love killing, but because they feel like you're lambasting them for choosing the most sensible of a list of their available options.

  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    I think the issue at hand in this sort of argument is usually that the manner in which people on the front lines of conflict have been trained to deal with conflict is deadly force.

    I mean I can't fault a person for defaulting to shooting when what he or she has been taught is how to shoot people. My current combat techniques include "the fetal" and "hope it doesn't think urine is tasty". If you add to that "threaten with gun" or "shoot", well... what the hell else am I supposed to do in any moderately dangerous situation?

    I'd imagine that being criticized for violent action is frutstruating to soldiers/cops/border patrol not necessarily because they love killing, but because they feel like you're lambasting them for choosing the most sensible of a list of their available options.

    I cannot lime this hard enough.

    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Nartwak wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I found that Iraqi children respond quite quickly to having an M-16 pointed at them. Adults too, obviously.

    Look at this guy, winning hearts and minds.

    Oh, I'm sorry princess. Didn't mean to spoil your belief that combat zones are candy coated places where puppies and kittens play with unicorns.

    The United States / Mexico border isn't a combat zone though, so this whole comparison is kind of silly in the first place.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • legionofonelegionofone __BANNED USERS
    edited June 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Nartwak wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I found that Iraqi children respond quite quickly to having an M-16 pointed at them. Adults too, obviously.

    Look at this guy, winning hearts and minds.

    Oh, I'm sorry princess. Didn't mean to spoil your belief that combat zones are candy coated places where puppies and kittens play with unicorns.

    The United States / Mexico border isn't a combat zone though, so this whole comparison is kind of silly in the first place.

    Cause its not like there's cross border drug trafficking by people armed with assault weapons.

    Oh wait.

    http://www.willcoxrangenews.com/articles/2010/06/02/opinion/editorials/edit1.txt

    http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=202847&catid=28

    "They have shit," Krause said. "Rights my ass. 'Rights'. Nobody has any fucking rights unless they've got a machine gun."
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    So how does the actual danger of the rock throwing actually justify anything in this case when the person only shot the Mexican as he was running away.

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    The other side contends that he wasn't running away, but was instead throwing 90mph fastballs that were also sharp as razors accurately over 60 feet.

  • HenroidHenroid Nobody Nowhere fastRegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Henroid wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Nartwak wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I found that Iraqi children respond quite quickly to having an M-16 pointed at them. Adults too, obviously.

    Look at this guy, winning hearts and minds.

    Oh, I'm sorry princess. Didn't mean to spoil your belief that combat zones are candy coated places where puppies and kittens play with unicorns.

    The United States / Mexico border isn't a combat zone though, so this whole comparison is kind of silly in the first place.

    Cause its not like there's cross border drug trafficking by people armed with assault weapons.

    Oh wait.

    http://www.willcoxrangenews.com/articles/2010/06/02/opinion/editorials/edit1.txt

    http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=202847&catid=28

    The war on drugs isn't a literal war and the border still isn't an actual designated combat zone. Go take a seat in the corner and think about what you've said.

    "Ultima Online Pre-Trammel is the perfect example of why libertarians are full of shit."
    - @Ludious
    PA Lets Play Archive - Twitter - Blog (6/15/14)
  • NartwakNartwak Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Hehh, how naieve. WAR is hell
    *threatens to murder children; is macho hero*
    Oh!! Thank you for protecting America.

    Spoiler:
  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Scalfin wrote: »
    Nice dodge. Now, do you feel that I'd be justified in shooting you if you were throwing rocks from three meters short of the winning shot put at the latest Olympics, or am I only allowed to shoot Hispanics?

    As a former collegiate shot-putter, I have to wonder if you know how little distance that is.

    This is evidence that if you are armed with a rock I should shoot you.

    Just for my own safety.

    You probably know Rock-Fu.

    A shot is definitely a dangerous object. A kid in my junior high got put into a coma from accidentally walking in front of the ring when a guy was throwing.

    But at least they have limited range and nice round edges. Unlike rocks, which are smaller and pointy. Not unlike the theory behind bullets.

    Ross, I can appreciate that it's probably more fun to hang around for a few pages making silly snide remarks at low-hanging fruit and all, but if you're as prepared to debate this issue as you seem to be I'd appreciate an answer to my last question. It was a number of pages ago, so:
    Spoiler:

    Additionally, out of curiosity, how many of the people supporting the use of lethal force as justified here (which I'm not really contesting, for the record) would also support the idea that the officer should have been equipped with rubber bullets or some other less-lethal alternative so that lethal force didn't become the best resolution to the problem?

  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Rubber bullets can be lethal, and carrying an extra weapon or extra clips of non-lethal rounds could be problematic depending on the weight and size of that equipment.

    Generally speaking tasers, beanbag shotguns, and rubber bullets should only be used in scenarios where a very serious and potentially lethal amount of force is required. If you're in a situation where you clearly shouldn't shoot someone with a real bullet, its probably a situation where you shouldn't use a rubber bullet either.

    Less lethal munitions are an excellent option for law enforcement to have and can be critical for dealing with riot-type situations, but "he's running away so just shoot him with rubber bullets" is a terrible precedent to set, and "wait, put away your real firearm and grab your rubber bullets, load those, now you're ready!" is also a pretty terrible precedent.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • WaffenWaffen Ours is the Fury Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    SkyCaptain wrote: »
    Fuck it, make it open season on anyone that crosses a clearly defined border. That'll quickly stop 'em from trying to cross. We could even set up remotely operated video-feed turrets to be a more efficient use of manpower. :mrgreen:

    It might be a better game show that we can all sit down and play with our families on our Nintendo Wii.

    In all seriousness, I hate how the media is handling this one. I'm reading articles such as "ARMED MEXICAN GANGS APPEAR NEAR BORDER" or "AMERICANS PREPARE FOR STORM". Its rather silly. The media is hyping this one up like there is going to be a war.

  • AbbalahAbbalah Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Rubber bullets can be lethal, and carrying an extra weapon or extra clips of non-lethal rounds could be problematic depending on the weight and size of that equipment.

    Generally speaking tasers, beanbag shotguns, and rubber bullets should only be used in scenarios where a very serious and potentially lethal amount of force is required. If you're in a situation where you clearly shouldn't shoot someone with a real bullet, its probably a situation where you shouldn't use a rubber bullet either.

    Less lethal munitions are an excellent option for law enforcement to have and can be critical for dealing with riot-type situations, but "he's running away so just shoot him with rubber bullets" is a terrible precedent to set, and "wait, put away your real firearm and grab your rubber bullets, load those, now you're ready!" is also a pretty terrible precedent.

    Situations like the one being discussed, though, are pretty much exactly the kind of scenario in which less-lethal (but yes, obviously not NON-lethal) options on the force continuum are needed. This wasn't a situation where a real bullet clearly shouldn't have been used, but it WAS a situation that could have been resolved with a rubber one.

    And those are bad precedents, certainly, but so is "shot a teenager in the head because he was throwing rocks"

    I would argue that the risk of the terrible precedents you've proposed is bad, but probably a lot less bad than the one which actually transpired in this case.

    Edit: Hate to leave right after calling someone out on posting and running, but it's about to be work time for me. I'll check back in sometime later tonight, though.

  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I'm a fan of simple and generally clear rules of engagement for law enforcement personnel. Any situation that requires the use of a firearm, whether firing rubber bullets or not, is, by definition, going to need to be dangerous and tense.

    I'm not really sold on the idea of "I'm in a life-threatening scenario but I need to stop and decide if I should use my happy-bullet gun or my kill-you-bullet gun." Less lethal munitions are ideal for group dispersal, riot situations, controlled-but-dangerous scenarios (say someone off their meds, wandering the streets with a knife--dangerous scenario, but also one where the responding officers have time to control, quarantine, and analyze the situation).

    Assuming our analysis of the situation is correct and the border patrol officer shot the kid as he was fleeing, yes rubber bullets would have been preferable to real bullets. But no bullets would have been the proper response, so I see no reason to create a weird in-between prone to misinterpretation, mistake, and abuse.

    Imagine it somewhat similar to the general rules for using lethal force: Aim for the body or center of the visible mass, don't "aim for the hand" or "aim for the leg." You're either shooting someone with potentially lethal force out of necessity or you aren't.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Waffen wrote: »
    Its rather silly. The media is hyping this one up like there is going to be a war.

    Well, it would be to their advantage if it became one, so they have no reason to not encourage it.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Waffen wrote: »
    Its rather silly. The media is hyping this one up like there is going to be a war.

    Well, it would be to their advantage if it became one, so they have no reason to not encourage it.

    Have any of them attempted to make comparisons to the start of the Mexican-American war?

  • SkyCaptainSkyCaptain Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Waffen wrote: »
    SkyCaptain wrote: »
    Fuck it, make it open season on anyone that crosses a clearly defined border. That'll quickly stop 'em from trying to cross. We could even set up remotely operated video-feed turrets to be a more efficient use of manpower. :mrgreen:

    It might be a better game show that we can all sit down and play with our families on our Nintendo Wii.

    In all seriousness, I hate how the media is handling this one. I'm reading articles such as "ARMED MEXICAN GANGS APPEAR NEAR BORDER" or "AMERICANS PREPARE FOR STORM". Its rather silly. The media is hyping this one up like there is going to be a war.

    Haha, I can see the game now with rifle attachments for the wiimote.

    The RPG Bestiary - Dangerous foes and legendary monsters for D&D 4th Edition
  • psychoticdreampsychoticdream Registered User
    edited June 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Waffen wrote: »
    Its rather silly. The media is hyping this one up like there is going to be a war.

    Well, it would be to their advantage if it became one, so they have no reason to not encourage it.

    Have any of them attempted to make comparisons to the start of the Mexican-American war?

    my money's on beck starting with that shit.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Nartwak wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Hehh, how naieve. WAR is hell
    *threatens to murder children; is macho hero*
    Oh!! Thank you for protecting America.

    If I found out tomorrow that you died, I'd be a happier person.

    No, really, I mean that. Just thought you should know.
    Burtletoy wrote: »
    The other side contends that he wasn't running away, but was instead throwing 90mph fastballs that were also sharp as razors accurately over 60 feet.

    Well, I don't know about the hilariously snarky second half, but I didn't see anybody running away in that video.
    Abbalah wrote: »
    Additionally, out of curiosity, how many of the people supporting the use of lethal force as justified here (which I'm not really contesting, for the record) would also support the idea that the officer should have been equipped with rubber bullets or some other less-lethal alternative so that lethal force didn't become the best resolution to the problem?

    Of course. Giving people too many options for force can present its own problems, but there may be an argument for equipping these officers with a mid-rage option that's less-lethal (like rubber bullets), and in this case that probably would have been a better response.

    Basically, I both disagree and agree with PotatoNinja...I think the use of deadly force was justified, and that's the only time rubber bullets should be used, but I think that if rubber bullets would have been equally effective (which I do) and less likely to lead to lethal results (which they would be) then they'd be a better choice.
    The cop told the FBI he was surrounded, the FBI says that's a load of shit

    Right, and you haven't considered for a second that he actually thought he was surrounded? That he perceived one or more rocks as having come from another direction, whether correctly or not?
    I'm sorry you think I'm a pacifist (I'm not) but I'm not the one saying this is a situation thats the same as a cop getting a brick thrown at him from a few feet away thrown by a grown man versus a teen 40-60 feet away who's actually standing in another country

    Fifteen is pretty well developed, at least for rock-throwing purposes. And all you're doing with your "brick from a few feet away" is increasing the likelihood of serious injury...then we're back to that "what percentage chance of injury, and what severity, is he supposed to accept" question. I'm in no way saying git's the same as a brick thrown at close range. I'm saying that the risk of serious injury is still unacceptably high regardless.
    There is a gradient between pacifist and "kill more of them so they stop being uppity" that you espouse, and I'm tired of this "dangerous job, unfathomable difficulties" as an excuse. Working at a recycling plant or in a coal mine is far more dangerous than being a border patrol officer. Working as a fisherman makes working as a cop look like a job as a kindergarten teacher for how dangerous it is.

    If there was a way for coal miners or fisherman to shoot back to reduce the risk of their job, I'd not second-guess them either. As it is, I support mandating pretty much any safety gear and safety practices that can help, and penalizing companies out the ass that don't follow these practices.

    Yes, police work (in general) is not the most dangerous job in America. But it's actually still up there...it's nowhere near Kindergarten teacher. And most of the stats you find are only talking about workplace mortality...when you factor in workplace injury (from being assaulted) it's pretty damn dangerous as well.

    This doesn't mean I'm willing to shrug off a cop shooting an unarmed and handcuffed man in the back, or tasing old ladies at the side of the road, or anything. I'm not that guy. But when we're talking about uses of force in actual self-defense? In some cases I'm willing to grant some leeway, at least in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. Which I'm not seeing here.
    I have no doubt it's high stress, border patrol agents are understaffed, etc. I'd even be willing to buy that this guy just made a mistake or exercised bad judgement - I wouldn't even necessarily want him to be fired for that (but he should probably be put on a desk job if he can't handle it).

    Right, but see I don't agree that (given a few base assumptions) he made a bad judgment. If the kids were still throwing rocks, and the threat of force with the firearm didn't stop it, the use of the firearm is justified to me. I'd probably still put him on a desk regardless, because I'd bet dollars to pesos that he's much more upset about this than any of you are, whether it was justified or not.
    What I do have a problem with is immediately accepting that he was justified without more evidence in his favor (what evidence there is, according to FBI analysts, is not in his favor)

    See, and I start from the assumption that most law enforcement officers aren't inhuman monsters who wake up every day hoping they can kill a teenager. At which point absent fairly strong evidence to the contrary (and "what evidence there is" here doesn't seem particularly strong) I do generally grant the benefit of the doubt when it comes to uses of force.

    I believe violence was used against him, I believe he felt he was in danger of serious injury, so he responded with the most effective force available to him in that situation. At that point I put the burden on those who would disagree to prove that any of those three clauses are not true (or reasonable). You've not met it, nor has Scalfin (hilarious logic games notwithstanding...I'd love to see him break out a pen and paper and work some formal logic problems while I'm chucking rocks at him).
    Imagine it somewhat similar to the general rules for using lethal force: Aim for the body or center of the visible mass, don't "aim for the hand" or "aim for the leg." You're either shooting someone with potentially lethal force out of necessity or you aren't.

    Yes and no. If using rubber bullets, he should still aim center mass in an attempt to keep from missing (since the round goes somewhere) and follow all other safety rules regarding the use of regular bullets. But I don't see a problem with the idea of using a less-lethal round even if a lethal round would be justified...in a case like this the intent is "stop the attack" not "kill the person." Hell, that's the case with pretty much any use of deadly force...it's just that with other attacks the most effective means to stop it is "make the person bleed out and die quickly" whereas here "hit them with rubber bullet and hopefully not kill them" would be equally effective.

  • krushkrush Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    well... this thread certainly took an unexpected turn...

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Yeah, never did I figure the internet would provide me with an argument where people are justifying shooting people who throw rocks.

  • krushkrush Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lucid wrote: »
    Yeah, never did I figure the internet would provide me with an argument where people are justifying shooting people who throw rocks.

    well... not really that (although that's rather disturbing in it's own right), but that the last time I popped in the talk was of Arizona's laws, and now I pop in and it's about an incident that happened in Texas and justifiable force (which I could have sworn had it's own thread not long ago).

  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lucid wrote: »
    Yeah, never did I figure the internet would provide me with an argument where people are justifying shooting people who throw rocks.

    You didn't figure people would endorse self defense? If they were still throwing rocks at him at the time, and it seems they were, he was totally justified in his actions. It's a shitty situation, but the agent retaliated appropriately.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lucid wrote: »
    Yeah, never did I figure the internet would provide me with an argument where people are justifying shooting people who throw rocks.

    You didn't figure people would endorse self defense? If they were still throwing rocks at him at the time, and it seems they were, he was totally justified in his actions. It's a shitty situation, but the agent retaliated appropriately.

    I think some people just can't comprehend that things other than guns can seriously injure or kill people.

    Guy up where I used to live got punched once and died. True story.

  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Guess he should've shot the bastard first.

  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Lucid wrote: »
    Yeah, never did I figure the internet would provide me with an argument where people are justifying shooting people who throw rocks.

    You didn't figure people would endorse self defense? If they were still throwing rocks at him at the time, and it seems they were, he was totally justified in his actions. It's a shitty situation, but the agent retaliated appropriately.

    I think some people just can't comprehend that things other than guns can seriously injure or kill people.

    Yes. I think people are thinking 'rock throwing' the context of a riot, where the cops have full body armor and helmets. In this case, the guy was at risk for a traumatic brain injury or worse. It's fucking unfortunate, and the kid involved obviously wasn't considering the consequences (being a kid), but there's no question that hurling masonry at someone has a chance to kill. At that point, the border patrol agent was fully within his rights to protect himself. Again, this whole situation is fucking horrible. As I said earlier, it reminds me of an officer shooting a kid with a realistic toy gun. This is going to haunt that man for the rest of his life.

  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lucid wrote: »
    Guess he should've shot the bastard first.

    If we indulge your hypothetical that he was armed and aimed at the time the fist was headed towards his face, would you really begrudge him if he did? If video evidence showed that the fist was traveling at sufficient velocity (before being interrupted by hypothetical gunshot) to have killed him outright otherwise, as ended up actually happening?

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Fully within his rights to protect himself, sure. That doesn't mean that shooting a kid was the best way to do that (or that he was "within his rights" to do it.)

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    stand up! It was the smallest on the list but
    pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
  • LucidLucid Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    I was being sarcastic in response to the little story about instant death punches. Yes, many things are dangerous. What of it though?

  • krushkrush Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Fully within his rights to protect himself, sure. That doesn't mean that shooting a kid was the best way to do that (or that he was "within his rights" to do it.)

    prolly coulda thrown rocks back...


    ... but then he would have hit a kid in the head giving him/her brain damage and the Mexican government would demand action or some other bullshit.

    I don't think this incident had a real clear way of avoiding something fucked up happening to someone.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Not shooting the fleeing suspect?

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Not being a drug smuggler.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Fully within his rights to protect himself, sure. That doesn't mean that shooting a kid was the best way to do that (or that he was "within his rights" to do it.)

    I agree that being justified doesn't make it the best possible response. He was justified, however. That was getting glossed over a bit here. This is a case of self defense. If blame needs to be assigned, it should be on the person throwing the rocks, not the person retaliating.

    And it isn't clear if they were fleeing or seeking cover. They were still throwing rocks at the time of the shooting, which is the key component in all this.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    GungHo wrote: »
    Not being a drug smuggler.

    I would like to know when being a drug smuggler makes it OK to shoot that person.

  • krushkrush Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Not being a drug smuggler.

    I would like to know when being a drug smuggler makes it OK to shoot that person.

    *spits snuff juice on the ground*

    'cause, dem Messicans brang dem drugs in hurr ta keel 'muricans!!! Keel 'em ah say!!!



    Someone will find justification... just give it a few more replies.

  • GungHoGungHo Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Not being one sure helps you keep out of situations where some crazy cop might shoot your face off.

    "Adios, mofo" -- TX Gov Rick Perry (R)
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Couscous wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Not being a drug smuggler.

    I would like to know when being a drug smuggler makes it OK to shoot that person.

    When you work for NSA or CIA but not FBI or DEA. One of those situations where it's critical to keep your alphabet soup in order.

    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Lucid wrote: »
    I was being sarcastic in response to the little story about instant death punches. Yes, many things are dangerous. What of it though?

    Defending yourself against attacks that can cause serious injury or death is justifiable?

    Throwing rocks at other human beings can be incredibly dangerous?

    Your initial statement (implying that replying to rocks with a gun) implies one of two positions: either you don't believe that thrown rocks can cause serious injury, or you seem to think that illegally assaulting somebody places them under an obligation to respond only with equal or lesser force in their defense.

    I disagree with both. Thrown rocks can cause serious injury. And when under an unlawful assault I am under no obligation whatsoever to my assailant to "play fair." My little anecdote regarding a single punch being fatal is meant to highlight why. When you take it upon yourself to assault me, you are putting my life and health in danger...quite possibly in much more danger than you mean to. I will not restrain myself to your level of force to defend myself.

    krush wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    GungHo wrote: »
    Not being a drug smuggler.

    I would like to know when being a drug smuggler makes it OK to shoot that person.

    *spits snuff juice on the ground*

    'cause, dem Messicans brang dem drugs in hurr ta keel 'muricans!!! Keel 'em ah say!!!


    Someone will find justification... just give it a few more replies.

    Yes, making fun of rednecks will definitely win the argument.

    I've not seen any conclusive evidence that the kid was running away immediately prior to shots being fired. I definitely haven't seen any real evidence that all the kids were running away immediately prior to shots being fired.

    Whether he's a drug dealer is irrelevant, since nobody has shown that he (and his friends) were fleeing. And I'll agree it's irrelevant regardless, but whatever.
    prolly coulda thrown rocks back...


    ... but then he would have hit a kid in the head giving him/her brain damage and the Mexican government would demand action or some other bullshit.

    I don't think this incident had a real clear way of avoiding something fucked up happening to someone.

    Depends whether you consider letting the suspect being arrested go to be "something fucked up happening." I do, personally, especially since that seems to have been the entire point of the rock throwing (this is a tactic that has been used in the past). But if you're willing to allow the escape of the suspect, thus making the assault on the officer a success...well, that was an option.

    But yeah, once the kids started chucking rocks they sent this whole situation on a train to Fucked-Up Town. Funny how assaulting law enforcement officers who are trying to do their job (well, assaulting anybody who is armed) can tend to do that.
    I agree that being justified doesn't make it the best possible response. He was justified, however. That was getting glossed over a bit here. This is a case of self defense. If blame needs to be assigned, it should be on the person throwing the rocks, not the person retaliating.

    And it isn't clear if they were fleeing or seeking cover. They were still throwing rocks at the time of the shooting, which is the key component in all this.

    I know the limed is an incredibly radical concept to some.

  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    Situation: 6 year old sees his mom getting arrested for something. Kid runs up and kicks the cop in the shin.
    The mcdermott approach: Open fire with sub machine guns.

    I mean shit, the cop could have lost his balance, fallen and hit his head, and gotten brain damage or worse!

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    NotYou wrote: »
    Situation: 6 year old sees his mom getting arrested for something. Kid runs up and kicks the cop in the shin.
    The mcdermott approach: Open fire with sub machine guns.

    I mean shit, the cop could have lost his balance, fallen and hit his head, and gotten brain damage or worse!

    Yes, because that's exactly what I said.

    EDIT: It's exactly this kind of stupid that makes discussing issues like this impossible.

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited June 2010
    krush wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Fully within his rights to protect himself, sure. That doesn't mean that shooting a kid was the best way to do that (or that he was "within his rights" to do it.)

    prolly coulda thrown rocks back...


    ... but then he would have hit a kid in the head giving him/her brain damage and the Mexican government would demand action or some other bullshit.

    I don't think this incident had a real clear way of avoiding something fucked up happening to someone.
    Like i said it's pretty hard to nail someone with a rock at 60 feet, making that a poor way to defend yourself

    Guns are much better

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
This discussion has been closed.