Saturday FTP

[03trubluGT]

I love it when people bring up that McDonald's coffee BS. Go take a look at the pictures of what that coffee did to that woman and then get back with me. Before you do the search, grab a barf bag.

Good Lord.

She asked for coffee, they mistakenly served her lava in a cup.

[exlude]

Just like doctors assume risk of practicing.

Pretty poor comparison there. Dave said that you assume risk of self injury. How is that "just like" doctors exactly? lol

The bad guys here don't look like bad guys in combat. Just ask Deputy McLain that got his head blown off last week. When it comes to going home, there is a certain amount of need to look like everyone as a threat. If you don't, you end up on the memorial, just like McLain.

Oh yeah? Please tell me more about how much easier it is to identify the enemy in combat. You know, in a culture where men are expected to have weapons on them. I'm just mad you're withholding this information from our military.

Oh, you trained for and never experienced a conventional war a long time ago....

So you are willing to give someone with a gun (either real or percieved) the upper hand to kill you? I seriously don't think so. I already explained the way I would have liked to see this scenario unfold, but it's too late.

And here's why you fail in most of these conflicts and why public opinion is continually declining. This highlights Dave's exact point. You have decided to treat everyone as a criminal, despite legal standards of the exact opposite, in the name of self preservation. Now, self preservation is absolutely important, so I understand it...but it's also what leads to so many of these mistakes. Is that part avoidable? Probably not, only mitigated. However, the law enforcement culture continually misdirects and protects it's own, regardless of any level of liability.

But is he? Is a doctor ever "punished" for just a little mistake that costs life or limb? No, he just gets sued and keeps on trucking....

First, you might want to review/research this claim a little better...to save yourself a little embarrassment. Also, I'm sure you are aware of mitigating factors in law. So you'll understand the importance of intent now that I've reminded you of it.

So making a simple mistake that you have all the time in the world to think about isn't as bad as perceiving a threat and protecting your own life? Gotcha.

Do you read what you're quoting?

[03trubluGT]

Pretty poor comparison there. Dave said that you assume risk of self injury. How is that "just like" doctors exactly? lol

If you really need me to spell this out for you, maybe you shouldn't expend the effort to try to correct me. Maybe I expected to much when I thought you might understand this with context, but here we go.....

Doctors assume a risk in practicing "just like" officers do in performing their job. The risks aren't exactly the same, but we both experience a risk.

Oh yeah? Please tell me more about how much easier it is to identify the enemy in combat. You know, in a culture where men are expected to have weapons on them. I'm just mad you're withholding this information from our military.

Well, the PD doesn't have aircraft overhead watching the target prepare to do an act of violence for one. How many FLIR vids have you seen of taiban preparing roadside IEDs and then pull up how many FLIR vids of police helicopter performing surveillance before a crime happens. Police also don't have the advantage of satellite imagery. So, there's just one example of how the military can more readily identify a threat, and I'm just getting started.

See how easy that was? You showed your ass on that one....

Oh, you trained for and never experienced a conventional war a long time ago....

WTF are you trying to say? So I was in the Marines, trained, and I really didn't go to Desert Storm in January of 1991? Shit, and here I thought it was just a bad dream.........

And here's why you fail in most of these conflicts and why public opinion is continually declining. This highlights Dave's exact point. You have decided to treat everyone as a criminal, despite legal standards of the exact opposite, in the name of self preservation. Now, self preservation is absolutely important, so I understand it...but it's also what leads to so many of these mistakes. Is that part avoidable? Probably not, only mitigated. However, the law enforcement culture continually misdirects and protects it's own, regardless of any level of liability.

Wrong. You don't have to treat everyone as a criminal, you have to be on guard as if they have the potential (in certain situations, not all). You sure don't operate on threat level 5 on accident scenes. I was actually discussing this with Dave and I believe that the officers that resort to deadly force first are 1) younger than the average officer, 2) have less tenure than the average officer 3) are probably not veterans and 4) probably don't maintain a high level of physical conditioning and mental training. You have these people resorting to deadly force when in a lot of situations it probably could have been avoided.

You are absolutely WRONG when you say LEOs continually misdirect and protect it's own. Look how many the FWPD has fired for DWI. Do an open records request and look how many officers have been disciplined over the last 5 years and then get back with me. I know of officers that have served suspensions for violations ranging from being late for work to driving the wrong way down a one way street during a pursuit.

So, when you say that officers (as a whole) are protected, you are a fucking idiot. Take a look at how many DPD has fired......
It is a department's duty to cull out the bad apples. To retain a problem employee is negligent and therefore a liability. One of the problems is that people like you don't like the idea of justifiable force. Why do you think a lot of these situations are cleared of criminal charges? Just because people like you don't like it doesn't mean that it's not legally justified.

And here goes the broken record TruBlue.... Just because you are justified in using deadly force, doesn't mean you should.....

First, you might want to review/research this claim a little better...to save yourself a little embarrassment. Also, I'm sure you are aware of mitigating factors in law. So you'll understand the importance of intent now that I've reminded you of it.

I don't need to. If you would like to do it for me and prove me wrong, instead of throwing out a baseless accusation, be my guest.

Do you read what you're quoting?

WTF are you trying to say?

The ball is in your court, sir.

[exlude]

If you really need me to spell this out for you, maybe you shouldn't expend the effort to try to correct me. Maybe I expected to much when I thought you might understand this with context, but here we go.....

Doctors assume a risk in practicing "just like" officers do in performing their job. The risks aren't exactly the same, but we both experience a risk.

I got what you were saying, and letting you know your response was so far outside the context that it was a dumb response with little relevance. I guess you're sticking to your dumb, irrelevant response.

Well, the PD doesn't have aircraft overhead watching the target prepare to do an act of violence for one. How many FLIR vids have you seen of taiban preparing roadside IEDs and then pull up how many FLIR vids of police helicopter performing surveillance before a crime happens. Police also don't have the advantage of satellite imagery. So, there's just one example of how the military can more readily identify a threat, and I'm just getting started.

See how easy that was? You showed your ass on that one....

So you're going to use a statistic (without a number), based off a broken sample group, in reference TTPs that are not the same, from things you see on the internet. Yeah, that's me showing my ass! lmao!

WTF are you trying to say? So I was in the Marines, trained, and I really didn't go to Desert Storm in January of 1991? Shit, and here I thought it was just a bad dream.........

Oh I forgot about that COIN environment, you know, the one that was minimal and is applicable here. I'm mistaken on you deploying, though.

Wrong. You don't have to treat everyone as a criminal, you have to be on guard as if they have the potential (in certain situations, not all). You sure don't operate on threat level 5 on accident scenes.

Exactly what I was saying, however, in the part where I quoted you you contradicted this.

You are absolutely WRONG when you say LEOs continually misdirect and protect it's own. Look how many the FWPD has fired for DWI. Do an open records request and look how many officers have been disciplined over the last 5 years and then get back with me. I know of officers that have served suspensions for violations ranging from being late for work to driving the wrong way down a one way street during a pursuit.

So, when you say that officers (as a whole) are protected, you are a fucking idiot. Take a look at how many DPD has fired......
It is a department's duty to cull out the bad apples. To retain a problem employee is negligent and therefore a liability. One of the problems is that people like you don't like the idea of justifiable force. Why do you think a lot of these situations are cleared of criminal charges? Just because people like you don't like it doesn't mean that it's not legally justified.

This is the point that you are continually made fun of. I think it's been addressed enough.

And here goes the broken record TruBlue.... Just because you are justified in using deadly force, doesn't mean you should.....

omgnofuckinshit

I don't need to. If you would like to do it for me and prove me wrong, instead of throwing out a baseless accusation, be my guest.

What did I accuse you of? Oh, that you didn't look into what you're talking about? And your response was?

I don't need to.

hahaha

WTF are you trying to say?

The ball is in your court, sir.

Ugh you're dense. Dave says he believes that people who kill people, mistake or not, need to be help accountable. Mentioning nothing about severity of punishment. You response with "so you don't think...". A sentence that implies the exact opposite as his post. I point it out, you still don't get it. I know critical thinking isn't your forte...but stress on this one and you might figure it out.

[bcoop]

Just FYI - this happened in 2010. The family was awarded $6.5 million in Federal court. Unanimous decision that the officers were negligent, and violated his fourth amendment rights.


Interested to see what Matt has to say now...

[Sleeper]

Sounds like a fucked up situation, If they did not announce themselves and order him to drop the so called weapon. They deserve punishment for their actions.

When did the cops stop tazing people and just go back to just shooting them?

[davbrucas]

Matt stated in text that the officers were idiots and handled the situation negligently. But decisions have consequences, and unfortunately for this guy, the officers' decision to approach him without announcing their presence cost him his life. But it seems the family got paid nicely.

[Pope]

Just FYI - this happened in 2010. The family was awarded $6.5 million in Federal court. Unanimous decision that the officers were negligent, and violated his fourth amendment rights.


Interested to see what Matt has to say now...

http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1102195&postcount=44