Dealing with dindus. Worth the watch.
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
90 comments displayed.
#258 to #257
-
skebaba (08/18/2015) [-]
Yes. Doesn't change the fact that humans are too emotional to decide a sentence impartially and our brains are flawed, lying to us all the time based on the neural pathways that are organized differently in each individual and our experiences throughout our lives. Jury should only be allowed when we can be 100% sure the jury let not a drop of emotion affect on the decision of whether the person is guilty or not. Unless that has been achieved, jury should be banned.
#275 to #258
-
wrpen (08/18/2015) [-] So what you're saying is no human being should be involved in the sentencing of another human being for their crimes.
You don't understand what bias is. When you look at this comment, you subconsciously judge my grammar and spelling, which is perfect. This makes you ever so slightly impartial, and biases anything you say or do in response. On the other hand, I'm talking to you and have indicated I don't agree, which immensely counters whatever you liked about this comment. All in all, you should somewhat dislike me before you even process my exact argument, putting it in a bad light in your mind.
Now get into a court situation. You have to hear the defendants voice, you have to see his face, and you have to process everything he says in defense of himself. Say he was accused of raping a child, this probably means you automatically hate his guts and want him dead. Now say he provides vacation photos of Holland, dated three days prior and four days after the crime, as evidence. You can now definitely conclude that this man is not guilty, but you don't want to, because your first impression of him was child rapist. On top of that, it's not quite exactly proven that he never committed the crime, only that he has proof that he was in Holland at certain times
At this point, most people will latch on to the fact that he has no proof that he wasn't in the United States during the crime, only that he was in Holland at two times when the crime wasn't happening. It's absolutely absurd to think that he would fly to the U.S. for two or three days and molest a child in that time, only to go back to Holland immediately afterwards and come back again, but it's statistically impossible for no one human being in the court that day to make that conclusion, and it's probable that several of the jury members will.
This is bias. The hypothetical defendant is absolutely innocent, but the judge, jury, and arresting officer cannot deny that he was capable of committing the crime, and with no other suspects being brought forward, someone must be punished. If not to ease the minds of the public, then to not have wasted the thousands of dollars in resources. You can't control your bias, and you can't prevent it. Doing it is the equivalent of a super power.
You don't understand what bias is. When you look at this comment, you subconsciously judge my grammar and spelling, which is perfect. This makes you ever so slightly impartial, and biases anything you say or do in response. On the other hand, I'm talking to you and have indicated I don't agree, which immensely counters whatever you liked about this comment. All in all, you should somewhat dislike me before you even process my exact argument, putting it in a bad light in your mind.
Now get into a court situation. You have to hear the defendants voice, you have to see his face, and you have to process everything he says in defense of himself. Say he was accused of raping a child, this probably means you automatically hate his guts and want him dead. Now say he provides vacation photos of Holland, dated three days prior and four days after the crime, as evidence. You can now definitely conclude that this man is not guilty, but you don't want to, because your first impression of him was child rapist. On top of that, it's not quite exactly proven that he never committed the crime, only that he has proof that he was in Holland at certain times
At this point, most people will latch on to the fact that he has no proof that he wasn't in the United States during the crime, only that he was in Holland at two times when the crime wasn't happening. It's absolutely absurd to think that he would fly to the U.S. for two or three days and molest a child in that time, only to go back to Holland immediately afterwards and come back again, but it's statistically impossible for no one human being in the court that day to make that conclusion, and it's probable that several of the jury members will.
This is bias. The hypothetical defendant is absolutely innocent, but the judge, jury, and arresting officer cannot deny that he was capable of committing the crime, and with no other suspects being brought forward, someone must be punished. If not to ease the minds of the public, then to not have wasted the thousands of dollars in resources. You can't control your bias, and you can't prevent it. Doing it is the equivalent of a super power.
#222 to #48
-
drtrousersnake (08/18/2015) [-] if you are not guilty and comply, odds are you will not have any problems.
#7
-
sinery (08/17/2015) [-] Though I really do think all cops should wear cams.
I mean, we got 'em in the sizes of a pen tip for **** sake.
I mean, we got 'em in the sizes of a pen tip for **** sake.
#161 to #7
-
xbyronx (08/18/2015) [-] As someone going through the ropes of the police academy myself, I absolutely have no objection to dash cams and body cams. I one hundred percent agree. If anything it adds job security, rather then threatens it. A female perp can accuse you of rape and **** , and male perps can resist more then they claim. My sheriffs department doesn't require cameras but I'' be buying my own.
#22 to #7
-
masdercheef (08/18/2015) [-] Not only would it discourage whatever police misconduct there may be, but it would also stop people from falsely accusing officers of misconduct.
It's really a win-win to wear them, the only reasons you wouldn't want one is if you're doing something wrong or there's literally no funding at all to support it, in which case you've got a whole lot of other problems on your plate.
It's really a win-win to wear them, the only reasons you wouldn't want one is if you're doing something wrong or there's literally no funding at all to support it, in which case you've got a whole lot of other problems on your plate.
#70 to #22
-
taniv ONLINE (08/18/2015) [-] While I am definitely pro-bodycam, it doesn't fix the mentality.
There are cases where officers are caught on camera using excessive force on non-threatening individuals under the justification of non-compliance that causes bodily harm to the invididual specifically Eric Garner who got choked to death for being standing in one spot, being emotional, and moving his arms away when cops went to grab it. he was just talking to them, and one guy decided he didn't have time for it. The cop got fired for homicide. .
Not to mention the cases where an officer is acting in complete accordance with their duties and expectations, but people who don't understand that make a movement about it arguably, this is the Brown case if you believe Darren Wilson's testimony, and all of the case's "consistent" testimonies, like I do there was also a situation where an unarmed white man got shot days after Brown and people tried to label it as "police brutality" even though body cam footage showed the officer attending a call about a possibly armed suspect so he had his gun drawn while he was on the move, the man who got shot was walking away and refusing police orders before turning around, seeing the officer had a gun, lifting up his shirt, saying " **** you" and putting his hand in his waistband. The same thing that arguably got Brown killed; if you conceal your hands, especially reaching into your waistband, you're probably gonna get shot
There are cases where officers are caught on camera using excessive force on non-threatening individuals under the justification of non-compliance that causes bodily harm to the invididual specifically Eric Garner who got choked to death for being standing in one spot, being emotional, and moving his arms away when cops went to grab it. he was just talking to them, and one guy decided he didn't have time for it. The cop got fired for homicide. .
Not to mention the cases where an officer is acting in complete accordance with their duties and expectations, but people who don't understand that make a movement about it arguably, this is the Brown case if you believe Darren Wilson's testimony, and all of the case's "consistent" testimonies, like I do there was also a situation where an unarmed white man got shot days after Brown and people tried to label it as "police brutality" even though body cam footage showed the officer attending a call about a possibly armed suspect so he had his gun drawn while he was on the move, the man who got shot was walking away and refusing police orders before turning around, seeing the officer had a gun, lifting up his shirt, saying " **** you" and putting his hand in his waistband. The same thing that arguably got Brown killed; if you conceal your hands, especially reaching into your waistband, you're probably gonna get shot
#99 to #70
-
epicalania ONLINE (08/18/2015) [-] And while there are cases of police using excessive force on camera there's also a lot of cases that are off camera that could be stopped if there was permanent evidence to show the misconduct, and this would apply to both parties. EG, alot of ******* wouldn't be such dicks to cops if they knew that everyone would know how they acted, they can't just call racism, and a lot of cops would be more cautious to follow the proper rules so that if a case got disputed the criminal wouldn't be able to get out of it because of their misconduct
And for the people who don't understand, you could show them exactly what happened and if they still think the officer/arrested was out of line they're welcome to their opinion but they won't be able to deny facts. EG, if some **** charges at a cop and gets shot, people won't be able to say 'he was complying', 'he wasn't threatening them', they'd have to accept that the ****** charged at the cop, they could still say the cop used more force then he had to if they thought so, but they couldn't deny that he charged at the cop
And for the people who don't understand, you could show them exactly what happened and if they still think the officer/arrested was out of line they're welcome to their opinion but they won't be able to deny facts. EG, if some **** charges at a cop and gets shot, people won't be able to say 'he was complying', 'he wasn't threatening them', they'd have to accept that the ****** charged at the cop, they could still say the cop used more force then he had to if they thought so, but they couldn't deny that he charged at the cop
#240 to #99
-
talldumbdork (08/18/2015) [-] I used to work security for a small police department. Every officer wanted bodycams. Money was definitely an issue, but I'm hoping there are grants financed to support struggling departments afford them.
#270 to #240
-
taniv ONLINE (08/18/2015) [-] Oh yeah, I'm all for body cams and they'll fix many issues and give us a whole new insight into police work and individual cases I think Obama is pushing for increased police funding that includes bodycams and he's receiving bipartisan support. At least I hope he is. It's not really left or right wing issue, this helps everyone.But someone somewhere has probably already found a reason to hate the words because of the mouth that spoke them
I'm just saying, evidence doesn't fix willful ignorance. People who choose to be narrow-minded, choose to believe whatever simplistic world view they possess, and choose to see any logic that disagrees with them as hostile, hollow or heretical, will not change. They require a different strategy that for the life of me I have yet to figure out, and I don't think anyone really has a formula to it because each case is unique.
I'm just saying, evidence doesn't fix willful ignorance. People who choose to be narrow-minded, choose to believe whatever simplistic world view they possess, and choose to see any logic that disagrees with them as hostile, hollow or heretical, will not change. They require a different strategy that for the life of me I have yet to figure out, and I don't think anyone really has a formula to it because each case is unique.
#289 to #270
-
epicalania ONLINE (08/19/2015) [-] It won't stop willfull ignorance but it will provide proof to stop idiots being tricked by the willfully ignorant.
Let me ask you a question, how many of the protestors of the average "police brutality protest" do you think are willfully ignorant? Half? Three quarters? A third? How many do you think are caught up and tricked by the others?
Let me ask you a question, how many of the protestors of the average "police brutality protest" do you think are willfully ignorant? Half? Three quarters? A third? How many do you think are caught up and tricked by the others?
#291 to #289
-
taniv ONLINE (08/19/2015) [-] It depends on the protest. Some of those protests are legitimate and raise legitimate points. Some of them are woeful misunderstandings of the police force that lead to good cops being demonized.
I think mob mentality and cultural conformism is a huge part of it though. Even with movements that almost everyone can agree were for the better and progressed us in a logical step forward, involved using mob mentality and cultural conformism.
Boondocks does a real good job of painting that. They have a stereotype of the "uncle Tom" black guy whose a self-hatingjew negro that believes he was born white and suffers from reverse vitiligo (meaning his skin slowly turned black), but they also have the grandpa who's an interesting character; he was accidentally a civil rights hero. They made this dude a complete pansy who didn't really care about black rights, but accidentally made his way into a lot of civil rights stories.
Just causes can be supported by people mindlessly following a trend; think about how many people preach about animal rights vs how many actually do anything about it? Or the "Kony 2012" incident? Everyone agrees child soldiers are bad except Kony , but the movement was essentially a farce led for personal profit and supported by keyboard activists I had a crush on a girl who sent it to me so I was a supporter as well, regrettably; pussy is powerful .
There will always be willfully close minded people, is it the majority? I don't think so, because people still have to choose which shepherds to follow. The goal then is to ensure that we raise quality shepherds. We lead sheep into finer pastures.
My final message is this: if you want to raise people who are close minded but not dangerous, raise people on love. Loving your neighbours, even when they're your enemies. You'll have a police force that still learns how to neutralize a threat, but uses minimal force and treats a subdued criminal like a human being, less repeat criminals and a public that respects their law enforcement. You want to label every officer a neo-nazi, then you're not making yourself any more safe in bed tonight. Love. Even when it's hard to love, because that's when you need to love the most
I hope this essay answered your question
I think mob mentality and cultural conformism is a huge part of it though. Even with movements that almost everyone can agree were for the better and progressed us in a logical step forward, involved using mob mentality and cultural conformism.
Boondocks does a real good job of painting that. They have a stereotype of the "uncle Tom" black guy whose a self-hating
Just causes can be supported by people mindlessly following a trend; think about how many people preach about animal rights vs how many actually do anything about it? Or the "Kony 2012" incident? Everyone agrees child soldiers are bad except Kony , but the movement was essentially a farce led for personal profit and supported by keyboard activists I had a crush on a girl who sent it to me so I was a supporter as well, regrettably; pussy is powerful .
There will always be willfully close minded people, is it the majority? I don't think so, because people still have to choose which shepherds to follow. The goal then is to ensure that we raise quality shepherds. We lead sheep into finer pastures.
My final message is this: if you want to raise people who are close minded but not dangerous, raise people on love. Loving your neighbours, even when they're your enemies. You'll have a police force that still learns how to neutralize a threat, but uses minimal force and treats a subdued criminal like a human being, less repeat criminals and a public that respects their law enforcement. You want to label every officer a neo-nazi, then you're not making yourself any more safe in bed tonight. Love. Even when it's hard to love, because that's when you need to love the most
I hope this essay answered your question
#292 to #291
-
epicalania ONLINE (08/19/2015) [-] So I have to rush and go back to working from my break, I got a lot of stuff I need to do but before I go I want you to know I've read your comment, I largely agree with it.
I have some clarifications for my previous comment and some points I'd like to raise but I can't right now, I will get back to you on it though.
I have some clarifications for my previous comment and some points I'd like to raise but I can't right now, I will get back to you on it though.
#241 to #112
-
talldumbdork (08/18/2015) [-] Then there needs to be more regulation and less loopholes. You can't deny it's a start. You can't use examples like that to completely turn down a step in the right direction. I hate that argument because it detracts from a good thing.
#61 to #22
-
failtolawl ONLINE (08/18/2015) [-] Yet some people don't support it because one party introduced it and therefore the other party is destined to not support it.
#204 to #22
-
roarflmao (08/18/2015) [-]
The "if you´ve done nothing wrong you got nothing to hide" mentality scares me a bit, however making it optional to have a cam on you sounds like a great idea imo, but forcing you to have one just seems like an uncessary stress.
However if an officer gets several complaints about misconduct, forcing them to wear a camera or quit seems fair.
Definitly a good thing in moderation
However if an officer gets several complaints about misconduct, forcing them to wear a camera or quit seems fair.
Definitly a good thing in moderation
#100 to #38
-
epicalania ONLINE (08/18/2015) [-] That's something that's gotta be looked at and taken into context, wether it was racism or speeding doesn't matter in the main point, which is that he wasn't an idiot and didn't and up on the ground with a bullet somewhere in him
#290 to #265
-
epicalania ONLINE (08/19/2015) [-] Pulling over someone famous would definitely make a cop cautious because of the publicity they could generate if they find a fault in their conduct If the cop was rude or overly forceful or something the famous person could ruin their reputation a lot easier than many others.
But I think a cop who was way over the line would still cross it for him.
And if he was rude and uncompliant and all sorts of ******* , he'd probably still get his ass beat.
So I'm not saying that being kinda famous didn't affect it, but the basic conduct is what most affected him not getting a bullet
But I think a cop who was way over the line would still cross it for him.
And if he was rude and uncompliant and all sorts of ******* , he'd probably still get his ass beat.
So I'm not saying that being kinda famous didn't affect it, but the basic conduct is what most affected him not getting a bullet
#202 to #5
-
saltyfries (08/18/2015) [-] this is getting more and more true by the year, a classic video with more relevance now than ever b4.
#214 to #5
-
anonymoose (08/18/2015) [-] Crash course on how not to get shot by the police for dummies. 
#42
-
commontroll (08/18/2015) [-] I really respect the guy for both accepting their offer, and not being too stubborn to learn from it. It's a shame the other "activists" will just say that he's a shill and traitor and lash out at him.
#101 to #42
-
epicalania ONLINE (08/18/2015) [-] He had an opinion and he was given an opportunity to see things from another perspective, I respect anyone's opinion when they're willing to test their own theories, or if they aren't sure then to try to become sure.
And he admit it at the end which quadruples my respect for him
And he admit it at the end which quadruples my respect for him
#11
-
voltkills (08/17/2015) [-] "i didnt understand the importance of compliance" and that right there is the issue with most of these didndu nuffins, they assume automatically the cop is rasict and so get all jumpy and aggressive, refuse to comply, and then get shot, comply with an officer and as long as your not really doing illegal **** , youll be fine. I mean even in an instance where I recall the officer had no reason to shoot and was actually in the wrong, the situation that unfolded actually happened because the victim ran away from a routine traffic stop.
#43 to #11
-
commontroll (08/18/2015) [-] Well, in that situation people also noticed that the cop had tazer wires trailing from his chest, and the tazer was on the ground, theory is that the guy used the cop's tazer on said tazer. Granted I haven't looked into that case in months so I don't know if that was confirmed.
#27
-
Deavas (08/18/2015) [-] "i didnt understand how big an importance with compliance was"
no. i know you didnt. and neither do dindus or sjws
no. i know you didnt. and neither do dindus or sjws
#9
-
kenshirokisame (08/17/2015) [-] good. shows a real eye opener on how little time they have to make a decision
#20
-
anonymoussarcasm (08/18/2015) [-] No one has ever been shot and killed by the police while being compliant, and showing your hands. Though seriously this goes a long way to show that he swallowed his pride and changed his mind to a degree. Most shootings happen within yards of each other.
#273 to #20
-
masaasa (08/18/2015) [-]
Just want to say that if people in the United States had less firearms the police would face less of these situations. If for example 90% of the people had firearms it would of course be more likely to get shot i.e. the fear of getting shot is larger. Less guns, less harm
#274 to #273
-
anonymoussarcasm (08/18/2015) [-] That's not how it works at all jackass. If you're carrying a gun either concealed carry or open carry and are compliant with a cop and exercise your rights respectfully and intelligently you won't get shot for having a gun. This is the same thing as making drugs illegal thinking people won't use them then.
#33 to #20
-
youregaylol (08/18/2015) [-] you'll notice all of these dindu stories that people riot about never involve an officer shooting a non threatening compliant black man in the face, it always involves them being threatening and non compliant, why is that if the police are as racist as these people say?
#200 to #20
-
heartlessrobot (08/18/2015) [-] Or the schizophrenic dude that was cuffed and on the floor when a cop shot him in the head. But hey, it'll never make news, and never be heard at protests. He was white.
#140 to #20
-
knightmrku (08/18/2015) [-] I watched a video on 4chan recently of a man with his hands up sitting on his couch surrendering and surrounded by police when they sicked a police dog on him. The dog bit his throat and it looked like he died horribly. It's rare but it happens. Can't find the video right now or i'd post it.
#141 to #140
-
anonymoussarcasm (08/18/2015) [-] I know what video you're referring to and yes that is a very rare occurrence.
#142 to #141
-
knightmrku (08/18/2015) [-] just got some more info, he didn't die but was bit in the face. Hard to tell without sound on 4chan.
“It’s hard to watch. This ruined my whole life….I’ve always been very cordial
and very respectful to any officer. I was just in shock the whole time.
I did nothing but try to make it easy for them. I thought I would not
be a threat sitting down.”
He has undergone about $60,000 worth of reconstructive surgery since the incident.
According
to the police narrative, Hoogvelt had set his neighbor’s trashcan on
fire and had earlier been waving a knife. Hoogveldt’s lawyer, Bob Sykes,
points out that does not justify the actions police took.
Read more at You need to login to view this link
“It’s hard to watch. This ruined my whole life….I’ve always been very cordial
and very respectful to any officer. I was just in shock the whole time.
I did nothing but try to make it easy for them. I thought I would not
be a threat sitting down.”
He has undergone about $60,000 worth of reconstructive surgery since the incident.
According
to the police narrative, Hoogvelt had set his neighbor’s trashcan on
fire and had earlier been waving a knife. Hoogveldt’s lawyer, Bob Sykes,
points out that does not justify the actions police took.
Read more at You need to login to view this link
#144 to #142
-
anonymoussarcasm (08/18/2015) [-] See I hate when things like this happen because people moronically think it means there is some 1984 **** going on. So they mistrust police and demonize them when they shouldn't.
#148 to #144
-
knightmrku (08/18/2015) [-] Agreed. This is really the only instance where i've seen this happen. It's kind of shocking to watch. However, being in another country really opened my eyes about how police and people should react to each other. When I first got here I was afraid of even talking to police based on what I've experienced in the States. However I found they are really just here to help and they are super chill. For example: driving around without license, trying to avoid going through an alcohol checkpoint because I thought i'd be in huge trouble. Got stopped and couldn't speak to them really. They spoke to me in English and asked if I had been drinking. They asked where I was from, and whose car I was driving. They were very nice and sent me on my way. Not there to make a quota, but to keep people safe.
#224
-
baronvonhuckle (08/18/2015) [-] Now if only he get the rest of the minority community to see sense.
I really do hope they all learn something from this.
Vest cameras are an obvious good idea though.
I really do hope they all learn something from this.
Vest cameras are an obvious good idea though.
#95
-
araell (08/18/2015) [-]
Shooting someone unarmed is still bad thing to do. Police are trained in hand in hand combat, thay have paper sprays, tazers, etc. there is no reason to use gun as a first instance.
#243 to #95
-
dagold ONLINE (08/18/2015) [-] While police are trained in hand to hand combat, take a look at the difference in size and potential force between the two. I'm 5'11, 170 lbs and in good shape. I'm also trained in military hand to hand combatives, but if someone that large got a hold of me my skills wouldn't matter if I couldn't move my arms or legs and all he has to do is break something and it is over. Hand to hand is a last resort and people on drugs won't give a **** about your mace or your taser, all that will result in is your death when it pisses them off even more.
#249 to #95
-
ghchamp (08/18/2015) [-] If you hit/attempt to attack a police officer, you deserve to be shot in my books. I understand that police are trained in hand to hand combat, but seriously what rational reason could someone have for attacking a police officer? Plus you never know if he has a knife or something as well.
#235
-
technobanana (08/18/2015) [-] Here america this will sort your problems, replace ya guns with these you dingus's works pretty well over here in the UK...
#238 to #237
-
technobanana (08/18/2015) [-] Nope.
Get rid of the guns
No need for guns
theres logic in that.
Get rid of the guns
No need for guns
theres logic in that.
#239 to #238
-
lazaman (08/18/2015) [-] Ok but everyone here has guns.
Those won't work.
Also people have tried to pass laws to make guns illegal, they get booed off the face of the earth.
People smoke weed, snort coke, do meth, its all illegal, but it still happens, so dumb ******* hicks like to argue, "Well, if people do ILLEGAL drugs, then people will still have ILLEGAL guns".
Those won't work.
Also people have tried to pass laws to make guns illegal, they get booed off the face of the earth.
People smoke weed, snort coke, do meth, its all illegal, but it still happens, so dumb ******* hicks like to argue, "Well, if people do ILLEGAL drugs, then people will still have ILLEGAL guns".
#242 to #239
-
technobanana (08/18/2015) [-] Its stupid... yes there are illegal guns here thats for sure but no way near enough to warrant every officer carrying a firearm, there are armed response units that guard things like air ports, the queens palace **** like that. But most of the country doesn't require guns.... its such a simple solution..
#259 to #242
-
catx (08/18/2015) [-] **catx used "*roll picture*"**
**catx rolled image**The arguments against stricter gun control are funny, in the us. It's easy and cheap to go out and get a gun. But if they were illegal, then all the criminals would be the only ones to have them right? Well, the truth is, in a market where guns are illegal, the prices on any firearm would be higher, much higher, and controlled by a system of legal dealers, and the only way to get one would be to actively seek out a dealer. I don't think that there would be half as many hard up, two bit, petty criminals robing people, and stores with guns. They'd use knives, and clubs. Also, these news reports crack me up. They put such and emphasis on using the gun. When cops often carry mace, tasers, and clubs. Maybe we could put more training into using your other equipment. Most places offer extra training after you already graduate and get started, too. They did the same segment on the news were I'm at. They used a news lady as the person taking the test though. Which is kind of funny, considering she had no prier police training, and had never used a firearm before. She ended up shooting a kid. I think it's just a campaign to make the shootings seem more exceptable. I wonder what would happen if we just took an average person and gave them a machine gun ad put them in the middle of a war zone? lol
**catx rolled image**The arguments against stricter gun control are funny, in the us. It's easy and cheap to go out and get a gun. But if they were illegal, then all the criminals would be the only ones to have them right? Well, the truth is, in a market where guns are illegal, the prices on any firearm would be higher, much higher, and controlled by a system of legal dealers, and the only way to get one would be to actively seek out a dealer. I don't think that there would be half as many hard up, two bit, petty criminals robing people, and stores with guns. They'd use knives, and clubs. Also, these news reports crack me up. They put such and emphasis on using the gun. When cops often carry mace, tasers, and clubs. Maybe we could put more training into using your other equipment. Most places offer extra training after you already graduate and get started, too. They did the same segment on the news were I'm at. They used a news lady as the person taking the test though. Which is kind of funny, considering she had no prier police training, and had never used a firearm before. She ended up shooting a kid. I think it's just a campaign to make the shootings seem more exceptable. I wonder what would happen if we just took an average person and gave them a machine gun ad put them in the middle of a war zone? lol
#261 to #259
-
technobanana (08/18/2015) [-] Apprently FJ love their guns, any anti gun comment, red thumbs. gg
#266 to #261
-
catx (08/18/2015) [-] **catx used "*roll picture*"**
**catx rolled image**Right. Reason is strictly forbidden here. lol. I don't like the idea of anyone being killed, cop, or criminal, but especially not an innocent person! It's funny the type of reasoning you get in the us. We abolished the death sentence in most places, but when someone gets shot by a cop it's like"well, was he committing a crime?" if the answer is "yes", then it's okay, ya know when you live the life of a criminal, but if the answer is "no", it's like "well, that's not okay, but the guy did seem like a criminal at the time, soo...." You can say whatever you like, but you can't deny the number of shootings in the US compared to all the other countries. But I bet all of those other countries are just overrun with a crazy amount of criminal activity, right? If we ban guns here the streets will run red with blood, right? I know I'm getting thumbed down for this. lol
**catx rolled image**Right. Reason is strictly forbidden here. lol. I don't like the idea of anyone being killed, cop, or criminal, but especially not an innocent person! It's funny the type of reasoning you get in the us. We abolished the death sentence in most places, but when someone gets shot by a cop it's like"well, was he committing a crime?" if the answer is "yes", then it's okay, ya know when you live the life of a criminal, but if the answer is "no", it's like "well, that's not okay, but the guy did seem like a criminal at the time, soo...." You can say whatever you like, but you can't deny the number of shootings in the US compared to all the other countries. But I bet all of those other countries are just overrun with a crazy amount of criminal activity, right? If we ban guns here the streets will run red with blood, right? I know I'm getting thumbed down for this. lol
#272 to #266
-
technobanana (08/18/2015) [-] well have a green from me to help! Crime is going to be a problem regardless of guns! Keep reasoning man what we need more of!
#83
-
warbob (08/18/2015) [-] But really, if a police officer is holding a gun aimed at your general direction, you're innocent, and you don't immedietly stop whatever you're doing and start solely doing what the policemans says (besides speeking obv) - then you're being incredibly stupid.
A nice one at the vehicle though, I'm certain that most people wouldn't shoot you for moving 2 feet while on the phone and grabbing something. Makes you realize how much on the edge they need to be to try and recognize that you're pulling a gun and dodge/shoot before you aim at them, while they themselves have probably not aimed at you yet because of safety measures.
A nice one at the vehicle though, I'm certain that most people wouldn't shoot you for moving 2 feet while on the phone and grabbing something. Makes you realize how much on the edge they need to be to try and recognize that you're pulling a gun and dodge/shoot before you aim at them, while they themselves have probably not aimed at you yet because of safety measures.
#244
-
rollingpicture (08/18/2015) [-] **rollingpicture used "*roll picture*"**
**rollingpicture rolled image**
Being a cop isn't an easy job.
**rollingpicture rolled image**
Being a cop isn't an easy job.
#93
-
instalation (08/18/2015) [-] Come on, they're wearing paintball masks. These guys are obviously up to no good.
#72
-
senorfrog (08/18/2015) [-] To everyone I'll just give this example. In the Fallout Shelter game I used to get attacked by raiders often when I had no weapons at all for my dwellers. SO the raiders come in, kill my people until I have like 3 left surviving. I used my caps to strengthen the door but the raiders would break it down and reek havoc. After sending some undesirables out to the waste land multiple times, I got enough guns for all 23 of my dwellers to be armed. So when raiders break in, I don't have to worry about my people. They just shoot the raiders if they get close and get back to work, continue screwing, or finish dealing with fires.
Just because bad people have guns does not mean guns are bad. Crazy people, bad people, public shooters will always be able to get guns cause it is easy to get them illegally. The only way to stop them or slow it down is to prove that good people, sane people, and police are out there with guns. The thought of not getting away from doing an illegal thing or not even getting one kill from a mass shooting is a deterrent to the life threatening crimes.
I for one wouldn't **** with a cop with a gun, mostly because THEY ARE THERE TO PROTECT US, just normal people who got training to deal with the crazies and bad people. And to those saying they are cops and should know how to do takedowns without killing, they are not Big Boss with CQC. When their life or a civilians is in danger from someone, they will not hesitate to make them not a threat. Best way is to shoot them, and bullets kill. Also listening to the cops is not giving up freewill, they are there to protect your life if you are not doing illegal things.
So tips to not get shot for being a threat:
1.Don't do illegal things
2.Don't be crazy
3.Don't be aggressive to people or cops
and 4.Stop being pricks
Just because bad people have guns does not mean guns are bad. Crazy people, bad people, public shooters will always be able to get guns cause it is easy to get them illegally. The only way to stop them or slow it down is to prove that good people, sane people, and police are out there with guns. The thought of not getting away from doing an illegal thing or not even getting one kill from a mass shooting is a deterrent to the life threatening crimes.
I for one wouldn't **** with a cop with a gun, mostly because THEY ARE THERE TO PROTECT US, just normal people who got training to deal with the crazies and bad people. And to those saying they are cops and should know how to do takedowns without killing, they are not Big Boss with CQC. When their life or a civilians is in danger from someone, they will not hesitate to make them not a threat. Best way is to shoot them, and bullets kill. Also listening to the cops is not giving up freewill, they are there to protect your life if you are not doing illegal things.
So tips to not get shot for being a threat:
1.Don't do illegal things
2.Don't be crazy
3.Don't be aggressive to people or cops
and 4.Stop being pricks
#107 to #72
-
tankeruber (08/18/2015) [-] And to those who think "but if we ban guns nobody, even bad people, have guns"
Here's a picture of how to make a shotgun using 5$ worth of pipe and a nail.
Information is not illegal.
Here's a picture of how to make a shotgun using 5$ worth of pipe and a nail.
Information is not illegal.
#82
-
ManicalMayhem (08/18/2015) [-] They report like a gun is the only tool at an officers disposal, but what about a taser, there are non lethal ways to handle the situation, and I do feel like the one where the person was approaching 'The officer" unarmed while a gun was pointed at the person is unrealistic as well if someone who is armed goes against someone unarmed the unarmed person will almost always back down, and even if he doesn't again that is a situation for tasers and non lethal modes to subdue someone, not a gun.
#128 to #82
-
vonspyder (08/18/2015) [-] Tasers dont do jack to people high on certain drugs or pumped on adrenaline, OC spray is just as likely to hurt the man using it as the man its aimed at, ASP batons and tonfa require close quarters which is quite likely to get the officer injured. So, you were saying?
