The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Officers of the law/Accountabilty aka Shooting @ bachelors.
That was a bullet fired straight up in the air, and it still is dangerous enough to be potentially lethal. A bullet not fired exactly straight in the air coming down is going to be much faster and more dangerous. Firing a bullet in the air has the potential to kill someone, and is never a good idea.
Firing a bullet has the potential to kill someone.
That statement doesn't need qualifiers of any sort. I don't care what MythBusters did, I don't care what anecdotal evidence says. If you pull a trigger of a gun with live ammo, you can potentially kill somebody.
Seriously. When you hear that one officer fires like thirty fucking rounds, considering that not one single round was fired at officers, your WTF-meter should be spiking. Honestly, while I agree that the officers probably, given reasonable doubt, weren't guilty of any form of homicide I think that officer in particular should be charged with some form of reckless endangerment.
Because seriously. He certainly didn't put 30 holes in Bell, and every last one of those bullets has to go somewhere.
Just 30?
Pfft.
In 1995 NYPD unloaded 125 rounds into a bodega at holed-up, would-be robbers, without the robbers firing a single shot back. Said a former police official at the time: "They were shooting to the echo of their own gunfire."
Well, I was arguing for stricter gun control regulations in the gun nuts thread last week with the intention of reducing the number of deaths/injuries from accidental shootings.
Maybe we should just take guns away from NYPD officers instead?
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Seriously. When you hear that one officer fires like thirty fucking rounds, considering that not one single round was fired at officers, your WTF-meter should be spiking. Honestly, while I agree that the officers probably, given reasonable doubt, weren't guilty of any form of homicide I think that officer in particular should be charged with some form of reckless endangerment.
Because seriously. He certainly didn't put 30 holes in Bell, and every last one of those bullets has to go somewhere.
Just 30?
Pfft.
In 1995 NYPD unloaded 125 rounds into a bodega at holed-up, would-be robbers, without the robbers firing a single shot back. Said a former police official at the time: "They were shooting to the echo of their own gunfire."
Well, I was arguing for stricter gun control regulations in the gun nuts thread last week with the intention of reducing the number of deaths/injuries from accidental shootings.
Maybe we should just take guns away from NYPD officers instead?
Yeah, but most of these came from one guy.
In all honesty, can we just put out an announcement pointing that three of of the perpetrators of the Boston Massacre got away with it?
Seriously. When you hear that one officer fires like thirty fucking rounds, considering that not one single round was fired at officers, your WTF-meter should be spiking. Honestly, while I agree that the officers probably, given reasonable doubt, weren't guilty of any form of homicide I think that officer in particular should be charged with some form of reckless endangerment.
Because seriously. He certainly didn't put 30 holes in Bell, and every last one of those bullets has to go somewhere.
Just 30?
Pfft.
In 1995 NYPD unloaded 125 rounds into a bodega at holed-up, would-be robbers, without the robbers firing a single shot back. Said a former police official at the time: "They were shooting to the echo of their own gunfire."
Well, I was arguing for stricter gun control regulations in the gun nuts thread last week with the intention of reducing the number of deaths/injuries from accidental shootings.
Maybe we should just take guns away from NYPD officers instead?
Some experts call it "contagious shooting." When one cop starts shooting the rest of them do too, like a mechanical reflex, without even taking the time to analyze the situation. You hear shots you start shooting too. In this case, you had cops shooting in the car ahead of the Altima, who weren't being rammed or run over.
Cops like this reasoning because portraying it as a mechanical reflex removes the mens rea element from any possible criminal proceeding for any but the initial shooter. The worrisome element is that if it is indeed a reflex then it's bound to continue happening.
There wasn't as much of a problem back when they carried 6-shot .38 revolvers, because they take a lot longer to reload. But a NY cop got killed while he was reloading, and that led to the department moving to 15-round mags (+1 in the chamber) that can be swapped out in under a second.
Some experts call it "contagious shooting." When one cop starts shooting the rest of them do too, like a mechanical reflex, without even taking the time to analyze the situation. You hear shots you start shooting too. In this case, you had cops shooting in the car ahead of the Altima, who weren't being rammed or run over.
Cops like this reasoning because portraying it as a mechanical reflex removes the mens rea element from any possible criminal proceeding for any but the initial shooter. The worrisome element is that if it is indeed a reflex then it's bound to continue happening.
There wasn't as much of a problem back when they carried 6-shot .38 revolvers, because they take a lot longer to reload. But a NY cop got killed while he was reloading, and that led to the department moving to 15-round mags (+1 in the chamber) that can be swapped out in under a second.
Yeah, pretty much. I read that the testimony of the officer who fired his gun empty twice was that he didn't even realize he had done it. He thought it had malfunctioned, so he swapped magazines and then fired. Basically he thought his 16th shot was his first. The "malfunction" had actually been the slide lock.
How do these people get badges? This case is starting to sound to me like an advertisement for how incompetent gun nuts can get a pistol with firearm certification, because I can't see a person who doesn't know that he's shot off a bullet.
How do these people get badges? This case is starting to sound to me like an advertisement for how incompetent gun nuts can get a pistol with firearm certification, because I can't see a person who doesn't know that he's shot off a bullet.
Have you ever been in a situation where you were using a firearm in defense of yourself or others? Particularly with others firing at the same time as well?
I've not, but I've been in similar situations (yay IEDs and rockets). Time acts funny, and your senses don't always work right. And all the training in the world, while beneficial, won't necessarily be enough. I can absolutely see how such a thing is possible.
Not that this is the norm, obviously...I'd say it's a pretty extreme example. But it's not completely unimaginable to me.
How do these people get badges? This case is starting to sound to me like an advertisement for how incompetent gun nuts can get a pistol with firearm certification, because I can't see a person who doesn't know that he's shot off a bullet.
Have you ever been in a situation where you were using a firearm in defense of yourself or others? Particularly with others firing at the same time as well?
I've not, but I've been in similar situations (yay IEDs and rockets). Time acts funny, and your senses don't always work right. And all the training in the world, while beneficial, won't necessarily be enough. I can absolutely see how such a thing is possible.
Not that this is the norm, obviously...I'd say it's a pretty extreme example. But it's not completely unimaginable to me.
I have been, quite a number of times. Both at range and in close quarters. Both where threats were clearly identifiable, and where they were not. I had never even wounded a non-combatant, let alone emptied 2 magazines without knowing it into anybody. That is recklessness at it's worst, and incredibly criminally negligent.
But unfortunately, the evidence didn't exist. It will be Civilly negligent, however, especially with Al sharpton out for their gizzards~
And who knows this may spark the appeal to NY's appellate, but it will not come down from this Supreme Court in a negative manner for the cops, no way no how.
Antonin will jump out of his seat and vein people to death
The guy who says a bullet can't go through a car is full of shit, by the way.
Oh, no shit. Even on Future Weapons (the Kriss TDI episode), they showed Mack putting a FMJ .45ACP round through one door, a human target analog, and then the other door, IIRC.
The guy who says a bullet can't go through a car is full of shit, by the way.
Oh, no shit. Even on Future Weapons (the Kriss TDI episode), they showed Mack putting a FMJ .45ACP round through one door, a human target analog, and then the other door, IIRC.
He's probably seen too many movies where the shooter was in front of or behind the car, so the bullet hit the door with almost no force.
I hear once you've been shot in the arm you can brush it off and keep pwning.
Or, I've heard your arm is pulverized wherever the bullet hits your arm and it hangs there, useless while you scream, so filled with pain you cant move.
Which is right?
I hear once you've been shot in the arm you can brush it off and keep pwning.
Or, I've heard your arm is pulverized wherever the bullet hits your arm and it hangs there, useless while you scream, so filled with pain you cant move.
Which is right?
Your an American aren't you? Pick one of those guns that grow on trees down there and go find out.
We believe in the scientific method here in D&D. That means experimentation to prove a hypothesis.
I hear once you've been shot in the arm you can brush it off and keep pwning.
Or, I've heard your arm is pulverized wherever the bullet hits your arm and it hangs there, useless while you scream, so filled with pain you cant move.
Which is right?
Your an American aren't you? Pick one of those guns that grow on trees down there and go find out.
We believe in the scientific method here in D&D. That means experimentation to prove a hypothesis.
Man, you're so funny with your shit spelling and cracks on America.
The guy who says a bullet can't go through a car is full of shit, by the way.
Oh, no shit. Even on Future Weapons (the Kriss TDI episode), they showed Mack putting a FMJ .45ACP round through one door, a human target analog, and then the other door, IIRC.
He's probably seen too many movies where the shooter was in front of or behind the car, so the bullet hit the door with almost no force.
Or where a bullet knocks out the back windshield, and then stops without hitting any occupants or going through the front windshield.
I hear once you've been shot in the arm you can brush it off and keep pwning.
Or, I've heard your arm is pulverized wherever the bullet hits your arm and it hangs there, useless while you scream, so filled with pain you cant move.
Which is right?
Your an American aren't you? Pick one of those guns that grow on trees down there and go find out.
We believe in the scientific method here in D&D. That means experimentation to prove a hypothesis.
Man, you're so funny with your shit spelling and cracks on America.
Canada isn't exactly perfect either.
Huh? I was joking that if he's wondering what happens when someone is shot in the arm, he should go start shooting people in the arm and find out.
I'd just like to clarify that no firearm was found in or around their vehicle.
But keep in mind that whether or not I own a gun or have even ever FIRED a gun, if I tell someone "I'm gonna shoot you" in a serious manner, that can be taken as a death threat and I am considered armed and dangerous.
I just wanted to cement that there were only extremely shaky legal grounds for the shootings.
You guys must get your news from somewhere other than me.
Everything I heard was "wedding day wedding day" and "unarmed men shot 34 times." Even in the detailed reports I heard, there was never any mention of trying to ram someone with a car. I just learned that here.
Only after reading this thread am I doubting that this should have been murder charges against the officers.
You guys must get your news from somewhere other than me.
Everything I heard was "wedding day wedding day" and "unarmed men shot 34 times." Even in the detailed reports I heard, there was never any mention of trying to ram someone with a car. I just learned that here.
Only after reading this thread am I doubting that this should have been murder charges against the officers.
Well, the officer (plainclothes, gun drawn) was blocking their car. I get the feeling they weren't so much trying to ram him as escape from what they thought was a really bad situation.
Still, doubt is good. It's a lot better than blindly arguing one side regardless of facts, which both sides of this debate (in the media, anyway) are guilty of.
I'd just like to clarify that no firearm was found in or around their vehicle.
But keep in mind that whether or not I own a gun or have even ever FIRED a gun, if I tell someone "I'm gonna shoot you" in a serious manner, that can be taken as a death threat and I am considered armed and dangerous.
I just wanted to cement that there were only extremely shaky legal grounds for the shootings.
And just as shaky grounds for the judge not to believe the witnesses. Since the DA did this shit you bet your ass they got 0 prepwork in.
JoschuaESQ on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited April 2008
DAs are fucking weak when it comes to prosecuting law officers and rape cases, that's for sure.
DAs are fucking weak when it comes to prosecuting law officers and rape cases, that's for sure.
Also, after hearing this was on his wedding day,
Who gives a fuck? This doesn't matter at all. The only thing this would change is the jury, tugging at their wittle heart stwings to get a guilty verdict.
DAs are fucking weak when it comes to prosecuting law officers and rape cases, that's for sure.
Also, after hearing this was on his wedding day,
Who gives a fuck? This doesn't matter at all. The only thing this would change is the jury, tugging at their wittle heart stwings to get a guilty verdict.
That doesn't matter in criminal court, but I'm guessing it will come up in civil court.
Maybe i'm fucked up but generally if you attempt to run someone over it's reasonable to assume that they may retaliate a bit violently.
So they were cops, all that means is that they've come to distrust society and will of course have stronger reactions to perceived criminals that in the majority of cases treat them like expendable shit. The only problem I see is poor usage of a fire arm.
(Edit: That NY Times link was really really well done)
DasUberEdward on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Maybe i'm fucked up but generally if you attempt to run someone over it's reasonable to assume that they may retaliate a bit violently.
So they were cops, all that means is that they've come to distrust society and will of course have stronger reactions to perceived criminals that in the majority of cases treat them like expendable shit.
Unfortunately, there is a specific regulation that pertains to the case, an the NYPD broke it.
Maybe i'm fucked up but generally if you attempt to run someone over it's reasonable to assume that they may retaliate a bit violently.
So they were cops, all that means is that they've come to distrust society and will of course have stronger reactions to perceived criminals that in the majority of cases treat them like expendable shit.
Unfortunately, there is a specific regulation that pertains to the case, an the NYPD broke it.
Which regulation? I didn't read through the entire backlog, I mean their sting operation sounds pretty fishy in the first place.
'The don't shoot at a moving car' one. And what was wrong with the undercover operation (not a sting)?
I'm not saying that anything was particularly wrong with it. Just that the set up seems like a bit of a powder keg. Undercovers in a night club in queens trying to shut it down? One can't expect that to occur without incident.
I'm not seeing anywhere that the cops actually declared that they were officers so that makes things a bit tricky. If they were actually in uniform I think this would be an open and shut case.
DasUberEdward on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Maybe i'm fucked up but generally if you attempt to run someone over it's reasonable to assume that they may retaliate a bit violently.
So they were cops, all that means is that they've come to distrust society and will of course have stronger reactions to perceived criminals that in the majority of cases treat them like expendable shit.
Unfortunately, there is a specific regulation that pertains to the case, an the NYPD broke it.
Which regulation? I didn't read through the entire backlog, I mean their sting operation sounds pretty fishy in the first place.
Not to fire at a moving vehicle unless weapons that are not the vehicle are being used.
I agree fully with what you're saying about the shift of burden of proof, but I still believe I'm failing at representing the point I was trying to make.
Here is an analogical situation with a civilian. Tell me if it's too far off.
--You have a permit to carry concealed.
--You get attacked by 3 drunk guys on your way home with your buddy. The guys may or may not have weapons. --They probably hit you hard in the body. Twice. You manage to shoot one of them and proceed emptying the clip, you're the only one that's shooting.(now, that would never happen of course, it just so happens that civilians are WAAAAY more responsible with legally owned weapons.). 1 dies, 2 are injured. Police comes, you're all in custody.
There is a trial. The circumstances are:
Neither of the 3 attackers has ever had trouble with the law.
No weapons are found on the crime scene or on any of the guys.
No injuries are present on you or your buddy.
You & your buddy claim that the guys attacked you, that you felt your life threatened and you had to shoot.
The two other guys, claim one of them tripped and fell on you, you panicked, pushed him and shot him. They are awful witnesses, unable to speak properly and sometimes even contradicting themselves.
Will that be enough for an acquittal on a manslaughter charge??(that's a genuine question)
MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.
You'd probably be no-billed in several jurisdictions. In most states where concealed carry is allowed, them all beating on you is usually grounds for escalation, especially if there's no real way for you to get away (i.e. you're not just in your car and they're beating on the hood). You're not obliged to take the beating, and you are usually authorized to stop a beating by use of deadly force, provided that you're reasonably in fear of your life (three drunk strangers kicking your ass is usually cause for reasonable fear). However, if you keep shooting after they start to flee or fall on the ground, then you're going to do jail time. You're allowed to stop an attack, that's it.
Firing a bullet has the potential to kill someone.
That statement doesn't need qualifiers of any sort. I don't care what MythBusters did, I don't care what anecdotal evidence says. If you pull a trigger of a gun with live ammo, you can potentially kill somebody.
Let's stop droning on that little issue.
Rules of engagement for regular folks, to police, to military require that the bullet be aimed at a specific target. Warning shots are simply not authorized. The whole idea should be washed from the brain.
Furthermore, for non-police, even just brandishing a firearm is often not legal, unless you're stopping an attack in progress. Police also have regulations for when they can and can't clear leather. In the military, you can't just point your rifle at everyone, either. Warnings are pretty much always verbal rather than visual.
Firing a bullet has the potential to kill someone.
That statement doesn't need qualifiers of any sort. I don't care what MythBusters did, I don't care what anecdotal evidence says. If you pull a trigger of a gun with live ammo, you can potentially kill somebody.
Let's stop droning on that little issue.
Rules of engagement for regular folks, to police, to military require that the bullet be aimed at a specific target. Warning shots are simply not authorized. The whole idea should be washed from the brain.
You're missing my point.
I don't care who it is, what regulation, what rules of engagement or whatever the fuck says. Completely separate the issue at hand. You fire a gun with live ammo, you can kill someone. Bullets don't give a fuck for your intentions.
Firing a bullet has the potential to kill someone.
That statement doesn't need qualifiers of any sort. I don't care what MythBusters did, I don't care what anecdotal evidence says. If you pull a trigger of a gun with live ammo, you can potentially kill somebody.
Let's stop droning on that little issue.
Rules of engagement for regular folks, to police, to military require that the bullet be aimed at a specific target. Warning shots are simply not authorized. The whole idea should be washed from the brain.
You're missing my point.
I don't care who it is, what regulation, what rules of engagement or whatever the fuck says. Completely separate the issue at hand. You fire a gun with live ammo, you can kill someone. Bullets don't give a fuck for your intentions.
No shit. That's why the rules are what they are, and why warning shots are expressly forbidden. Moreover, I was saying they are expressly forbidden almost everywhere where people comprehend gravity. I was supporting your point, not missing it...
Firing a bullet has the potential to kill someone.
That statement doesn't need qualifiers of any sort. I don't care what MythBusters did, I don't care what anecdotal evidence says. If you pull a trigger of a gun with live ammo, you can potentially kill somebody.
Let's stop droning on that little issue.
Rules of engagement for regular folks, to police, to military require that the bullet be aimed at a specific target. Warning shots are simply not authorized. The whole idea should be washed from the brain.
You're missing my point.
I don't care who it is, what regulation, what rules of engagement or whatever the fuck says. Completely separate the issue at hand. You fire a gun with live ammo, you can kill someone. Bullets don't give a fuck for your intentions.
No shit. That's why the rules are what they are, and why warning shots are expressly forbidden. Moreover, I was saying they are expressly forbidden almost everywhere where people comprehend gravity. I was supporting your point, not missing it...
DAs are fucking weak when it comes to prosecuting law officers and rape cases, that's for sure.
Also, after hearing this was on his wedding day,
Who gives a fuck? This doesn't matter at all. The only thing this would change is the jury, tugging at their wittle heart stwings to get a guilty verdict.
Because getting killed after you just got married is pretty shitty. Not that getting killed isn't shitty but it just makes the whole thing shittier, like life decided to kick you in the nuts right after butt-raping you.
Posts
That statement doesn't need qualifiers of any sort. I don't care what MythBusters did, I don't care what anecdotal evidence says. If you pull a trigger of a gun with live ammo, you can potentially kill somebody.
Let's stop droning on that little issue.
Well, I was arguing for stricter gun control regulations in the gun nuts thread last week with the intention of reducing the number of deaths/injuries from accidental shootings.
Maybe we should just take guns away from NYPD officers instead?
Yeah, but most of these came from one guy.
In all honesty, can we just put out an announcement pointing that three of of the perpetrators of the Boston Massacre got away with it?
Some experts call it "contagious shooting." When one cop starts shooting the rest of them do too, like a mechanical reflex, without even taking the time to analyze the situation. You hear shots you start shooting too. In this case, you had cops shooting in the car ahead of the Altima, who weren't being rammed or run over.
Cops like this reasoning because portraying it as a mechanical reflex removes the mens rea element from any possible criminal proceeding for any but the initial shooter. The worrisome element is that if it is indeed a reflex then it's bound to continue happening.
There wasn't as much of a problem back when they carried 6-shot .38 revolvers, because they take a lot longer to reload. But a NY cop got killed while he was reloading, and that led to the department moving to 15-round mags (+1 in the chamber) that can be swapped out in under a second.
How do these people get badges? This case is starting to sound to me like an advertisement for how incompetent gun nuts can get a pistol with firearm certification, because I can't see a person who doesn't know that he's shot off a bullet.
I'd think being unable to hear would tip me off.
I have been, quite a number of times. Both at range and in close quarters. Both where threats were clearly identifiable, and where they were not. I had never even wounded a non-combatant, let alone emptied 2 magazines without knowing it into anybody. That is recklessness at it's worst, and incredibly criminally negligent.
But unfortunately, the evidence didn't exist. It will be Civilly negligent, however, especially with Al sharpton out for their gizzards~
And who knows this may spark the appeal to NY's appellate, but it will not come down from this Supreme Court in a negative manner for the cops, no way no how.
Antonin will jump out of his seat and vein people to death
Oh, no shit. Even on Future Weapons (the Kriss TDI episode), they showed Mack putting a FMJ .45ACP round through one door, a human target analog, and then the other door, IIRC.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
He's probably seen too many movies where the shooter was in front of or behind the car, so the bullet hit the door with almost no force.
Or, I've heard your arm is pulverized wherever the bullet hits your arm and it hangs there, useless while you scream, so filled with pain you cant move.
Which is right?
Your an American aren't you? Pick one of those guns that grow on trees down there and go find out.
We believe in the scientific method here in D&D. That means experimentation to prove a hypothesis.
Man, you're so funny with your shit spelling and cracks on America.
Canada isn't exactly perfect either.
Or where a bullet knocks out the back windshield, and then stops without hitting any occupants or going through the front windshield.
Huh? I was joking that if he's wondering what happens when someone is shot in the arm, he should go start shooting people in the arm and find out.
Defensive much?
I just wanted to cement that there were only extremely shaky legal grounds for the shootings.
Everything I heard was "wedding day wedding day" and "unarmed men shot 34 times." Even in the detailed reports I heard, there was never any mention of trying to ram someone with a car. I just learned that here.
Only after reading this thread am I doubting that this should have been murder charges against the officers.
Well, the officer (plainclothes, gun drawn) was blocking their car. I get the feeling they weren't so much trying to ram him as escape from what they thought was a really bad situation.
Still, doubt is good. It's a lot better than blindly arguing one side regardless of facts, which both sides of this debate (in the media, anyway) are guilty of.
And just as shaky grounds for the judge not to believe the witnesses. Since the DA did this shit you bet your ass they got 0 prepwork in.
Also, after hearing this was on his wedding day,
Who gives a fuck? This doesn't matter at all. The only thing this would change is the jury, tugging at their wittle heart stwings to get a guilty verdict.
That doesn't matter in criminal court, but I'm guessing it will come up in civil court.
So they were cops, all that means is that they've come to distrust society and will of course have stronger reactions to perceived criminals that in the majority of cases treat them like expendable shit. The only problem I see is poor usage of a fire arm.
(Edit: That NY Times link was really really well done)
Which regulation? I didn't read through the entire backlog, I mean their sting operation sounds pretty fishy in the first place.
I'm not saying that anything was particularly wrong with it. Just that the set up seems like a bit of a powder keg. Undercovers in a night club in queens trying to shut it down? One can't expect that to occur without incident.
I'm not seeing anywhere that the cops actually declared that they were officers so that makes things a bit tricky. If they were actually in uniform I think this would be an open and shut case.
Rules of engagement for regular folks, to police, to military require that the bullet be aimed at a specific target. Warning shots are simply not authorized. The whole idea should be washed from the brain.
Furthermore, for non-police, even just brandishing a firearm is often not legal, unless you're stopping an attack in progress. Police also have regulations for when they can and can't clear leather. In the military, you can't just point your rifle at everyone, either. Warnings are pretty much always verbal rather than visual.
You're missing my point.
I don't care who it is, what regulation, what rules of engagement or whatever the fuck says. Completely separate the issue at hand. You fire a gun with live ammo, you can kill someone. Bullets don't give a fuck for your intentions.
That gif is boring as shit, I've seen it around many times. Next time I'll just tell you to go fuck yourselves
Because getting killed after you just got married is pretty shitty. Not that getting killed isn't shitty but it just makes the whole thing shittier, like life decided to kick you in the nuts right after butt-raping you.