Man shot 22 times before finally going down.

imported post

I noticed that the article didn't mention the physical stature of the suspect. Just how big, muscular was he? This would have an affect on the penetration of the bullets. Not to mention what the suspect was wearing.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

most people fall right over. Something to do with the extra gravitational pull on the inserted parts.

Click to expand...

That's good. I'll have to remember that.

imported post

Hmm...an LEO related thread and no cop-haters.

Hey Nitrocvnt...looks like you were wrong!

imported post

amazing, reinforces the point. shoot till the aggressive action ceases.

that's a problem that has been pointed out to me about training with double(taps) or the mozambique. if you are not careful when training with those, you will automatically lower your weapon after firing the rounds,(advice from my APC instructor). so if you train with those drills, ensure that you do not develop that "muscle memory" or habit, which would cause you to lose precious time if the first shots do not cause the aggressive behavior to cease.

not in any way saying that the officer did this, seems that he performed admirably.
I am saying that the perp still going with 22 rounds in his system, demonstrates the necessity of maintaining your sight picture, and readiness to fire.

imported post

wow after reading the story i have serious problems with why the cop even approached this man in the first place.

lucky the guy was "wanted for murder" in another state. might have just been another innocent man killed by a govt thug wanting to "know what he was doing".

disgusting article and disgusting website. and it infuriates me reading the horseshit analysis of the situation, and what a LEO should and shouldn't let someone do.

imported post

MetalChris wrote:

Hmm...an LEO related thread and no cop-haters.

Hey Nitrocvnt...looks like you were wrong!

Click to expand...

sorry i ruined it.

man killed by cop who wanted to know what he was doing in a parking lot.

SHOW ME THZZZZZZZZZ PAPERZZZZZ

imported post

mrbiggles wrote:

wow after reading the story i have serious problems with why the cop even approached this man in the first place.

lucky the guy was "wanted for murder" in another state. might have just been another innocent man killed by a govt thug wanting to "know what he was doing".

disgusting article and disgusting website. and it infuriates me reading the horse@#$% analysis of the situation, and what a LEO should and shouldn't let someone do.

Click to expand...

The other guy shot the cop first. In this case I'd have to say this is a good shoot.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

mrbiggles wrote:

wow after reading the story i have serious problems with why the cop even approached this man in the first place.

lucky the guy was "wanted for murder" in another state. might have just been another innocent man killed by a govt thug wanting to "know what he was doing".

disgusting article and disgusting website. and it infuriates me reading the horse@#$% analysis of the situation, and what a LEO should and shouldn't let someone do.

Click to expand...

The other guy shot the cop first. In this case I'd have to say this is a good shoot.

Click to expand...

maybe had was pushed over the edge by LEOs and govt prying into his life?

he parks his car in a parking lot... da da daaaaaaaaa at night and now he can be harassed and have his paperzzzz demanded.

give me a break. if the guy wasn't "wanted for murder" in another state i'd say he was a patriot.

imported post

Sorry, being "pushed too hard" doesn't justify lethal force. The guy hadn't been falsely arrested or anything.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Sorry, being "pushed too hard" doesn't justify lethal force. The guy hadn't been falsely arrested or anything.

Click to expand...

you may be right... at this moment in time.

but being pushed too hard certainly justifies deadly force. without this we would've never became a nation.

the cop never should've approached him, nothing would've happened. and no one would be dead. and people like me wouldn't have YET ANOTHER example as to why our govt is too big and too powerful.

imported post

I agree the stop was bordering suspicionless, but two wrongs do not make a right.

Edit: If you define "pushing too hard" a certain way I might agree with you. But in this case I don't think the BG had any justification to open fire. I doubt he was concerned much with "justice", either.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I agree the stop was bordering suspicionless, but two wrongs do not make a right.

Edit: If you define "pushing too hard" a certain way I might agree with you. But in this case I don't think the BG had any justification to open fire. I doubt he was concerned much with "justice", either.

Click to expand...

yes, i understand your points.

thats why i said the cop was "lucky" that the guy was wanted for murder in another state, and apparently was a criminal.

LEOs should mind their own business, and only respond to real crimes where there is a victim.

my freedom is more important than a LEOs safety on the job.

imported post

The guy was driving around at night with no headlights on. I'm pretty sure that's against the law in most places.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

The guy was driving around at night with no headlights on. I'm pretty sure that's against the law in most places.

Click to expand...

lots of things are against the law that aren't necessarily wrong.

more and more things will become "against the law" so you can be controlled by government

imported post

mrbiggles wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

The guy was driving around at night with no headlights on. I'm pretty sure that's against the law in most places.

Click to expand...

lots of things are against the law that aren't necessarily wrong.

more and more things will become "against the law" so you can be controlled by government

Click to expand...

While you may disagree with the concept (and you are free to leave the US any time) in this country we ask Police to care for the general safety of the country. Part of their job is to TRY to stop crimes before they occur, but it is also part of their job to investigate them after the fact. It is clear you are NOT a business owner bordering a parking lot with someone driving around with his light off at night, and endangering the lives of othersin the area. Then the guy parks and starts staring at the buildings as though he might be scoping the place out. Might e the actions of s drunk. Oh yea we pay LEOs to check out drunks in cars too. Oh whats that an open alcoholic beverage in a car, that the LEO had seen the guy driving. Um ... Illegal in most states for good reason.

Had this guy NOT ALREADY KILLED SOMEONE, there might not have been any problem. Looks to me like this particular LEO might just have saved the next persons life. Oh and that next person ... That could have been you. That LEO did exactly what we pay him to do. You don't like what he does then change the law, but don't blame this particular LEO for doing what we pay him to do.

Of course you are free not to pay the taxes that pay his salary if you want to practice what you preach.

Regards

imported post

mrbiggles wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

The guy was driving around at night with no headlights on. I'm pretty sure that's against the law in most places.

Click to expand...

lots of things are against the law that aren't necessarily wrong.

more and more things will become "against the law" so you can be controlled by government

Click to expand...

Uh, what?

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

mrbiggles wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

The guy was driving around at night with no headlights on. I'm pretty sure that's against the law in most places.

Click to expand...

lots of things are against the law that aren't necessarily wrong.

more and more things will become "against the law" so you can be controlled by government

Click to expand...

While you may disagree with the concept (and you are free to leave the US any time) in this country we ask Police to care for the general safety of the country. Part of their job is to TRY to stop crimes before they occur, but it is also part of their job to investigate them after the fact. It is clear you are NOT a business owner bordering a parking lot with someone driving around with his light off at night, and endangering the lives of othersin the area. Then the guy parks and starts staring at the buildings as though he might be scoping the place out. Might e the actions of s drunk. Oh yea we pay LEOs to check out drunks in cars too. Oh whats that an open alcoholic beverage in a car, that the LEO had seen the guy driving. Um ... Illegal in most states for good reason.

Had this guy NOT ALREADY KILLED SOMEONE, there might not have been any problem. Looks to me like this particular LEO might just have saved the next persons life. Oh and that next person ... That could have been you. That LEO did exactly what we pay him to do. You don't like what he does then change the law, but don't blame this particular LEO for doing what we pay him to do.

Of course you are free not to pay the taxes that pay his salary if you want to practice what you preach.

Regards

Click to expand...

you don't understand the constitution. you are a big government liberal.

i wonder if you will still say LEOs job is to stop crimes before they happen when you are stopped and harassed for OC. because they thought you might commit a crime in the near future.

you will regret your stance one day, when its you who is on the other side of a LEOs gun. and you can say blah blah you aren't a criminal blah blah it won't happen blah.

pretty soon you will be a criminal. because they will make something you do illegal.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

mrbiggles wrote:

Tomahawk wrote:

The guy was driving around at night with no headlights on. I'm pretty sure that's against the law in most places.

Click to expand...

lots of things are against the law that aren't necessarily wrong.

more and more things will become "against the law" so you can be controlled by government

Click to expand...

Uh, what?

Click to expand...

you couldn't possibly believe that even 1% of our federal/state/local "laws" are designed to protect and maintain your rights.

if they are not for that purpose, what purpose are they? to control what you do.

imported post

mrbiggles wrote:

...SNIP

you don't understand the constitution. you are a big government liberal.

i wonder if you will still say LEOs job is to stop crimes before they happen when you are stopped and harassed for OC. because they thought you might commit a crime in the near future.

you will regret your stance one day, when its you who is on the other side of a LEOs gun. and you can say blah blah you aren't a criminal blah blah it won't happen blah.

pretty soon you will be a criminal. because they will make something you do illegal.

Click to expand...

LOL:lol:

You have obviously not been reading this forum very much, and you certainly did not read what I wrote. Just to clear things up a bit I was on the other end of the gun once and you are right it is not fun. However, it did not cause me to lose complete control of my faculties as it apparently did in your case.

The fact is that police cannot stop all crime, but they can stop some. This is done through preemptive actions as in the case of the OP, or it is done through just being someplace. SO tell us if you will how many crimes has your armed presence stopped? 1, 20, 50, 0, or isit impossible to tell? Well that is the case with Law enforcement too. While it is easy to document how many people are arrested or even interdicted, there are no stats for crimes stopped just because the bad guy saw a LEO and decided not to commit a crime.

The real roll of the police is to maintain order and to bring persons accused of a crime before a court of proper jurisdiction. They do that by enforcing the laws that are on the books. Say if some one is wanted for murder in some state, it would be the DUTY of a LEO to bring that person to justice. In some cases the "lead" that allows the LEO to find the person is some suspicious activity on the part of the person. Oh wait that is what happened in this case so we already know you do not understand these simple facts.

Now my original point was that we pay LEOs to do just what this LEO did, and if you don't like that then your only CONSTITUTIONAL choice is to work to change the law. I don't blame this LEO for dong what we paid him to do any more than I blame you for not being able to understand what he did or discuss it without blaming the wrong people.

Regards

imported post

mrbiggles wrote:

Hawkflyer wrote:

mrbiggles wrote:

Click to expand...

you don't understand the constitution. you are a big government liberal.

Click to expand...

HA HA! You just called Hawkflyera big government liberal? LOL

You obviously don't know Hawkflyer.

Also, this isn't youtube. Please try to use proper capitalization, like youwere taughtin the liberal government school system you apparently learned to write in.

ETA: I can't let thisgo. From now on, Hawk, your new nickname is BGL!