Iraq Veteran Killed By Deputies

[Dispatcher]

imported post

Removed comment, not worth it.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Dispatcher wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

You do not user less lethal measures on a guy with a gun.

You absolutely do. That's why you have them. The whole idea is for police to put themselves at risk to subdue the citizen with no citizen loss of life. Just as firefighters put themselves at risk for the citizen, even if the citizen got himself trapped in a fire he may have started, so the police risk themselves for the citizen.

There is no preexisting right to go home at night when you take the public's dollar.

What sort of fantasy world are you living in? Seriously?

You are paid with public money, therefore you lose the right of self defense? Did I interpret that comment correctly? You are payed public money so you have no right to go home to your wife and kids at night?

Essentially it breaks down to a simple argument. You are all for citizens arming themselves for self defense and acting in self defense with a firearm. However, you believe that just because someone is working on a public dollar for the greater good of all that they lose the right of self defense? In essence you argue, some have the right to defend themselves, but not others.

The whole idea is not for police to subdue a citizen with no loss of life. This is not a utopia. Bad things happen, people die.

The whole idea is that police subdue a suspect while keeping the loss of life at a minimum and only use lethal force when there is no other choice.

Defense for some, but not for all? That whole argument is lunacy.

I see little of this making sense to you though. You shut out common reasoning and practical sense for some sort of flawed reasoning based on flimsy and unsubstantiated evidence as shown by this little gem of a comment "They (the police) look for every excuse to kill a citizen." That's an absolute fallacy that can't be backed up with anything substantial unless one looks for the most distorted and exaggerated evidence to support grandiose accusations that are altogether baseless.

As strange as it may seem.... there are a few people in the world that would agree with 357. They have their own reasons that are often flawed or skewed. They are out of touch with reality and often hate government.. this includes hating the police. They view the police as expendable members of society.

And you were on the mark... self defense for some... but not the police. The same police who do a job and take on the risk so the general public does not have to. I guess if they did it for free they have a right to live.

To 357 and his group.... the police should walk up one after the next and try to take away that rifle. It matters not to him that several cops would be killed attempting this. They are being paid... to die after all.

"The needs of the many out weight the needs of the few, or the one."
— Spock from Star Trek

 

[smoking357]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

To 357 and his group.... the police should walk up one after the next and try to take away that rifle.

The police are supposed to be able to get the rifle with no loss of life and no harm to anyone.

If the only way to defuse the situation is with your own rifle, hell, any ordinary citizen can do that. We don't need really expensive police to gun people down.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Dispatcher wrote:

What sort of fantasy world are you living in? Seriously?

I grew up being told America was a free country. I guess I keep the fantasy that it might, one day, be one.

You are paid with public money, therefore you lose the right of self defense? Did I interpret that comment correctly?

Do firemen have the right to self defense by running away from burning buildings?

You are payed public money so you have no right to go home to your wife and kids at night?

Do firemen get to ignore someone trapped on an upper floor in a wooden house? This "right," you posit means that your own safety is placed above all else. Do firemen have such a "right?"

Essentially it breaks down to a simple argument. You are all for citizens arming themselves for self defense and acting in self defense with a firearm. However, you believe that just because someone is working on a public dollar for the greater good of all that they lose the right of self defense? In essence you argue, some have the right to defend themselves, but not others.

Wow, some people. Just, wow. I'm not sure how much smaller I can make the knowledge nuggets for you.

The whole idea is not for police to subdue a citizen with no loss of life.

OH

MY

GOD!

Once in a while, they actually speak honestly, and it's really scary when they do.

The whole idea is that police subdue a suspect while keeping the loss of life at a minimum and only use lethal force when there is no other choice.

"No other choice?" Hahahahahahahaaaaa. This is a rather low-intellect occupation we're discussing, so they should leave weighty decisions to more intelligent persons of greater imagination.

Defense for some, but not for all? That whole argument is lunacy.

Curious, what is a citizen's right of self defense against the police?

Every citizen has the right to go home at night, right?

I see little of this making sense to you though. You shut out common reasoning and practical sense for some sort of flawed reasoning based on flimsy and unsubstantiated evidence as shown by this little gem of a comment "They (the police) look for every excuse to kill a citizen." That's an absolute fallacy that can't be backed up with anything substantial unless one looks for the most distorted and exaggerated evidence to support grandiose accusations that are altogether baseless.

Why is it the pro-cop folks have the most hateful, belligerent, deadly and disgusting views and dare to call their Hell "common sense"? It's not that common, kiddo. Most people think it's quite disgusting to kill people.

 

[jadedone4]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

To 357 and his group.... the police should walk up one after the next and try to take away that rifle.

The police are supposed to be able to get the rifle with no loss of life and no harm to anyone.

If the only way to defuse the situation is with your own rifle, hell, any ordinary citizen can do that. We don't need really expensive police to gun people down.

... and pray tell what training, defensive-mechanisms and/or "time-limit to defuse" the situation is allowable to "Bob" or "Mike" or "Jane" to get their guy and resolve the situation....?

Any thoughts on "standardizing" this home-grown jurisprudence/justice...? Who (i.e. "any ordinary citizen" as you state) should be allowed to manage such a situation... first come, first served/shoot...? How about a lottery-system, or maybe on Monday, Wednesday and Friday's it is from one-side (north) of the street, and alternate days for the other side (south or east)...?

Limiting police-officers to one-dimensional "tasks" under the "serve and protect" to make the above arguments, is just plain ignorant (check Webster's "stupid is knowing better and doing it anyway; dumb is not knowing and doing it..." did say anyone was either/or, just provided the definitions...).

As a African-American my "interactions" with cops has been less than stellar - bunch of *bleep'n* pricks that I have dealt with in the dozen or so times (but only ONE ticket to boot for it 24May85, prom night). so was it bad cops, probably; but I have had some good experiences with those that are well-trained (and who probably were breast-feed as youngn's i.e. taught some manners at an early age... )

What next, we are gonna "tar and feather" fireman for having Dalmations...?

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

To 357 and his group.... the police should walk up one after the next and try to take away that rifle.

The police are supposed to be able to get the rifle with no loss of life and no harm to anyone.

If the only way to defuse the situation is with your own rifle, hell, any ordinary citizen can do that. We don't need really expensive police to gun people down.

When faced with an opponent that has made up his/her mind they want to die why should a cop and a bad guy die?? I'm sure a time frame and necessary options were exhausted before the man was shot. Something in this mans actions transpired to justify a shot, Anyone who stands and challenges several members of an elite force, has only one thing on his mind, and that is out gunning them all, or die trying! NOT I hope they talk this gun out of my hands so I can go see a psychiatrist. The man was terribly distressed obviously, but he was going to see his mission through and that was to die.. I still say i hope that a high ranking military officer or official was present to try to talk this man down, but who knows.. COPS do not have an obligation to die on the job!! What planet are you from anyway??

 

[smoking357]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

COPS do not have an obligation to die on the job!!

Cops have a duty to ascertain that a threat was imminent. That just about always means letting the citizen fire first. Not firing in the air. Not firing into the trees, but firing at a cop or a citizen or pointing the gun at them where it is going to cause a probable death. If the cop or target is behind cover while the pointing occurs, that doesn't permit use of lethal force. Whenever a cop kills a citizen, it should generate a murder charge that remains until the cop is able to prove his innocence.

Missouri can't go solid blue fast enough for me. When they clear the Rebel flags and pickup trucks out of the middle of the state, it won't be such a strident and hateful place.

 

[rolexbenz190e]

imported post

rj3663 wrote:

Pay close attention this time...The guy was a former sniper and if he had any intention of shooting any of these swat personel the ground would have been littered with corpses! As far as these guys being ex military, nope. They come from the academy barely twenty one and get a badge and a gun and get out of jail free card. They are very different from military. They have absolutly no concept of God and country nor honor. Its a pass to be a bully and maintain an adrenelin rush.

It was murder. It did not have to happen!

Actually, most agencies require at least 3 years of employment with the same agency before you can even apply for SWAT. Then after you apply, you still have to wait a few more year because the list is a long one and you are going to be at the bottom of it to get in. So as for your comment on being fresh out of the academy and straight into SWAT, I will have to disagree on that.

 

[Carnivore]

imported post

All though I don't fly the stars and bars on my flag pole, and the politically correct had it removed from my old highschool(Central Rebels) I do accept it as a part of Americas rich history and heritage, and pick up trucks although I own 2 of em are just a freedom of choice, that is routinely and randomnly accepted in this country, Which of these do you have a problem with? The American heritage, freedom of choice, or both? as far as the hatred line, we as humans have the ability to manifest hatred within our own souls, it's doesn't just happen .Which obviously each individual is in control of whether your from ParkHills missouri or where ever your land of the free is.

 

[AWDstylez]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

AWDstylez wrote:

He can be a little out there sometimes. But, by way of exercise... tell me what I need the cops for? I'm plenty capable of defending myself. What use does that leave for the cops? I would say they're there to keep terrible drivers out of my way, but they have never and will never do that (too busy ticketing me for rolling stop signs at 2am with no one around, never there when people are doing 100+mph and weaving in and out of traffic on the highway, never there when your grandpa is drifting over the double yellow at me, etc), so it's a moot point.

You have to look at history and see why the law enforcement was created.

Without law enforcement.. the people... such as yourself... will do what they decide is right. They may decide to not follow anylaws or rules and do what is in their best interests.If they do not follow the rules, who will hold them accountable anyway? The answer.. other people. So now you have a battle of people.

Good answer. This line of reasoning will be exploited to shoot people down in the future... if only it hadn't come from you. The radicals won't give you any credibility.

 

[rj3663]

imported post

Pay close attention. I did not say they come straight out of the academy and go to swat. But if you would care to check yesterdays article , hometownonline.com , the photo of the SWAT member dressing up in his costume shows a very young individual. I have no idea of his real age and have not, as of yet even commented on his age but feel free to check the article for yourself.

 

[deepdiver]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

Missouri can't go solid blue fast enough for me. When they clear the Rebel flags and pickup trucks out of the middle of the state, it won't be such a strident and hateful place.

If Missouri keeps going that way, as soon as the Blue Goons give me my tax return they have held for the last 4 months because they are "out of funds" since they wasted all their money on the useless skin at either end of I-70, I'll be happy to pakc up my business, take my capital, my assets, my income, my tax base and all my employees, their assets, their income, their tax base and to halt the future move of my high tax base business partners to MO and go somewhere not adversarial to business.

All that being said, this entire thread is one of the stupidest things I have ever read on OCDO. A vet gets handed divorce papers, grabs a rifle, starts screaming and goes for death by cop. All of a sudden he is supposedly suffering from PTSD and the cops are a bunch of murderers.

There is nothing indicating a relationship between his being a veteran and his wanting to die by someone else's hand. Was he nuts? Probably. Sane people don't usually try to get other people to off them. Was he a coward for not doing it himself? Maybe, but then maybe he was Catholic and took the whole don't off yourself thing seriously. I don't know. But I am confident that the cops out there that day weren't itching to just off the guy. I am also confident that the guy did everything he could to get offed. One thing you learn in a good psych program (I'm not sure any exist anymore) and especially in suicide prevention/therapy specialties is that you can't save everyone and not everyone wants to be saved.

That adults even have to have a conversation about this is boggling. That people would suggest that cops rush in to this situation with tasers and pepper spray suggests that such people should not own guns because they have watched too many tv shows and played too many video games and are no longer capable of discriminating between stupid crap that looks cool on tv and stupid crap that just makes you dead in real life.

Maybe I need another week off from the forum....

 

[suntzu]

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

suntzu wrote:

Aaron1124 wrote:

suntzu wrote:

the people should absolutely demand the total and complete disbanding of ALL swat teams nationwide. They are soldier wannabes, they get a kick out of it.

The "swat" person who killed that soldier should be put on trial for murder.

Are you kidding? 80% of SWAT officers come from the military. They are not "soldier wannabes" because what SWAT does and what the military does is as different as night and day. Different objectives and different missions. You can't compare them at all, aside the fact that they both carry weapons. On top of that, what were the officers suppose to do? Wait for the guy to shoot them before they opened fire?

If a school trained sniper had wanted to take on a "swat team"--do you actually think he would have done so in the open, or would he conceal himself, draw swat out and then pick them off?

If this sniper had wanted to kill the police--he would have done so.

Yes, they are soldier wannabes. Either they could not hack it in the military or could not get in...so they became police and go out and like to dress up and play army. They have Army hair cuts, they try to dress and act like the military, they try to carry military weapons, they ride around in armored cars....they are soldier wannabes.

yes, you are actually correct--the job of the military and the police are as different as night is from day...So why is it exactly that the police like to play Army so much?

Yes all--and I do mean ALL "swat teams" should be disbanded, and the police absolutely forbidden to ever play army again.

The "officer(s)" who killed that man should be in jail.

Your post is ignorant and idiotic on so many levels. First you say that he could have killed them all if he wanted? You really think he'd be able to get off more than one burst off before the officers gunned him down?

So please explain how they are "soldier wannabes". They could not "hack" it in the military? You realize the military is MUCH easier to get into than the police force? The military requires an enlistment, and there isn't a limit on how many can enlist. Once you enlist and pass basic training, you're in. The police force, on the other hand, is a competitive field, and for every department opening, there are potentially hundreds of applicants. Your entire statement reveals stupidity. There are just too many issues to touch with you.

1. A school trained sniper is not going to walk into an exposed area and confront the police if his intention is to have a fight with them. A school trained sniper will draw them out into the open, while the sniper shoots from a highly concealed position--locating a true Army or USMC sniper is going to be extremely difficult to say the least--unless they just blundered on top of him by complete accident.

2. Yes, law enforcement by and large are soldier wannabes--you might not like it, but that is the way it is. They dress like the Army, they cut their hair like the Army, many of them wear fatigues like the Army and the Marines do--especially in the south. They try to carry military weapons, they have "swat teams" modeled on Special Forces and Ranger training--they are wannabe soldiers.

3. Getting into the military is one thing--making it through the training is another. While many can and do make it through basic training, those who go on to be Ranger qualified, or make it into and through Special Forces--or successfully make it through Scout Sniper or Force Reconnaissance with airborne and seaborne qualifications is much more difficult.

4. Yes, if his intention was to take out the police--he would have done so, and there would have been very little they could have done to stop him. That is what they teach a school trained sniper to do--and they are very good at it.

5. Yes, by and large most, not all, but most police are soldier wannabes who either could not hack it in the military, or could not get in to begin with and so they had to find something else to make them feel important--for those who could get in and did make it through--when they got out they missed the thrill and excitement involved in that kind of activity--so they had to find another profession that was as similar as possible.

there are still a good few left in law enforcement--but they are by far in the minority now.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

To 357 and his group.... the police should walk up one after the next and try to take away that rifle.

The police are supposed to be able to get the rifle with no loss of life and no harm to anyone.

If the only way to defuse the situation is with your own rifle, hell, any ordinary citizen can do that. We don't need really expensive police to gun people down.

Right idea.. wrong logic.

The police are EXPECTED to make every effort to diffuse the situation.To resolve dangerous situations without having to fire a shot.

This does not mean that the police are not supposed to do anything when bad guypoints a loaded rifle at them. The police are allowed to defend themselves like anyone else would be.

While YOU may believe the police should die so a bad guy can live... the rest of the normal society will think differently. Hell,there are going to be a few people that will argue that the police should just shoot the guy and get it over with.

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

Carnivore wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

To 357 and his group.... the police should walk up one after the next and try to take away that rifle.

The police are supposed to be able to get the rifle with no loss of life and no harm to anyone.

If the only way to defuse the situation is with your own rifle, hell, any ordinary citizen can do that. We don't need really expensive police to gun people down.

When faced with an opponent that has made up his/her mind they want to die why should a cop and a bad guy die?? I'm sure a time frame and necessary options were exhausted before the man was shot. Something in this mans actions transpired to justify a shot, Anyone who stands and challenges several members of an elite force, has only one thing on his mind, and that is out gunning them all, or die trying! NOT I hope they talk this gun out of my hands so I can go see a psychiatrist. The man was terribly distressed obviously, but he was going to see his mission through and that was to die.. I still say i hope that a high ranking military officer or official was present to try to talk this man down, but who knows.. COPS do not have an obligation to die on the job!! What planet are you from anyway??

Well said.

This guy has been all over the board spouting his desire to disband the police and allow citizens to take over.

I go to so many calls NOW that citizens cannot seem to handle on their own and I wish they would.

I can only imagine what would happen when it came time to solve a murder or rape. We can get a rope and string up the first guy we think did it. And if we are wrong... some other citizens can string us up too.

This guy is a nut and I suspect he did not drink all hiscoolaid in Jamestown. :lol:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

suntzu wrote:

1. A school trained sniper is not going to walk into an exposed area and confront the police if his intention is to have a fight with them. A school trained sniper will draw them out into the open, while the sniper shoots from a highly concealed position--locating a true Army or USMC sniper is going to be extremely difficult to say the least--unless they just blundered on top of him by complete accident.

2. Yes, law enforcement by and large are soldier wannabes--you might not like it, but that is the way it is. They dress like the Army, they cut their hair like the Army, many of them wear fatigues like the Army and the Marines do--especially in the south. They try to carry military weapons, they have "swat teams" modeled on Special Forces and Ranger training--they are wannabe soldiers.

3. Getting into the military is one thing--making it through the training is another. While many can and do make it through basic training, those who go on to be Ranger qualified, or make it into and through Special Forces--or successfully make it through Scout Sniper or Force Reconnaissance with airborne and seaborne qualifications is much more difficult.

4. Yes, if his intention was to take out the police--he would have done so, and there would have been very little they could have done to stop him. That is what they teach a school trained sniper to do--and they are very good at it.

5. Yes, by and large most, not all, but most police are soldier wannabes who either could not hack it in the military, or could not get in to begin with and so they had to find something else to make them feel important--for those who could get in and did make it through--when they got out they missed the thrill and excitement involved in that kind of activity--so they had to find another profession that was as similar as possible.

there are still a good few left in law enforcement--but they are by far in the minority now.

#1. Not exactly. He may not want to kill anyone but wants to die. If his plan to die is too slow or failing he may resort to shooting at people to get the police to shoot him.

#2. Cops do not want to be soldiers. Many cops are former soldiers. Not all cops have military style haircuts and uniforms. What exactly is a "military" weapon? Do cops carry tow missiles and claymore mines? or are you talking about an AR-15. The same rifle that is so popular with many gun owners. The only thing military about law enforcement is the idea of a rank structure and obedience to orders.

#5. Absolutely ridiculous statement. Cops do not want to BE military. They want to be cops. The department itself is operated like the military. As I said... most cops are FORMER military. Solders and Airmen that served several years. Some cops actually enlist in the national guard so they can serve their country and their community.

The idea that someone whofailed to make it in the military would resolve his existence and join the police department to make up for it... is just moronic. :uhoh:

Did you ever think that some people do not want to be soldiers but do want to be cos?

Did you ever think that most cops join as a calling to help their community?

Did you ever think that some people join for the pay and benefits?

 

[smoking357]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

While YOU may believe the police should die so a bad guy can live... the rest of the normal society will think differently.

The police are bad guys, so you'll have to be more specific, and attitudes about the police are rapidly changing.

Hell, there are going to be a few people that will argue that the police should just shoot the guy and get it over with.

And vice versa.

 

[jadedone4]

imported post

I forget... who was OPEN CARRYING during this event (as part of the topic of this forum)...?

yawn....:banghead:

 

[LEO 229]

imported post

smoking357 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

While YOU may believe the police should die so a bad guy can live... the rest of the normal society will think differently.

The police are bad guys, so you'll have to be more specific, and attitudes about the police are rapidly changing.

Hell, there are going to be a few people that will argue that the police should just shoot the guy and get it over with.

And vice versa.

That is YOUR opinion. As wrong and ill conceived as it may be.. you are entitled to it. You really need medication and therapy.

 

[smoking357]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

smoking357 wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

While YOU may believe the police should die so a bad guy can live... the rest of the normal society will think differently.

The police are bad guys, so you'll have to be more specific, and attitudes about the police are rapidly changing.

Hell, there are going to be a few people that will argue that the police should just shoot the guy and get it over with.

And vice versa.

That is YOUR opinion. As wrong and ill conceived as it may be.. you are entitled to it. You really need medication and therapy.

Hopefully, Obama can get his plan though, and I can get it.