Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

the fuzzball    

Rank #2794 on Comments
the fuzzball Avatar Level 274 Comments: Ninja Pirate
Offline
Send mail to the fuzzball Block the fuzzball Invite the fuzzball to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Gender: male
Age: 21
Date Signed Up:7/29/2009
Last Login:10/23/2014
Location:maryland
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#2794
Highest Content Rank:#23138
Highest Comment Rank:#1073
Content Thumbs: 11 total,  14 ,  25
Comment Thumbs: 8441 total,  9262 ,  821
Content Level Progress: 0% (0/1)
Level -11 Content: Sort of disliked → Level -10 Content: Sort of disliked
Comment Level Progress: 90% (90/100)
Level 274 Comments: Ninja Pirate → Level 275 Comments: Ninja Pirate
Subscribers:0
Content Views:5911
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:2461
FJ Points:7499

latest user's comments

#20 - they have a class for that, its called personal finance and it…  [+] (16 new replies) 05/24/2014 on School +36
User avatar #51 - altairibnlaahad (05/24/2014) [-]
It was a graduation requirement in my high school.
User avatar #49 - sketchE (05/24/2014) [-]
fraduation requirement in the anchorage school district. go alaska
User avatar #46 - rockerforlife (05/24/2014) [-]
I'm from Miami, Fl and we don't have that, but thank god we have algebra II. I don't know what I'd do in my life without parabolas.
User avatar #43 - retentions (05/24/2014) [-]
hahahahaha rich school privilege
User avatar #47 - the fuzzball (05/24/2014) [-]
i went to public school
#37 - memenoob (05/24/2014) [-]
Personal finance is a requirement in my high school.
User avatar #26 - tvfreakuk (05/24/2014) [-]
Nope. This definitely wasn't an option in my school.

I dunno... Are you in the US? I'm from the UK, and maybe that's just another difference in our school systems.
I mean, in sixth form there was 'business management', which I guess might have covered some stuff like that - but I have no interest at all whatsoever in business management when all I'd want is the basics, like balancing a checkbook or whatever
User avatar #50 - sketchE (05/24/2014) [-]
depends on state and school district. i live in anchorage alaska and it was a school district requirement
User avatar #27 - the fuzzball (05/24/2014) [-]
yea im from the US. and the personal finance class is exactly what it sounds like. checkbooks and tax forms and bank statements. honestly one of the most useful classes I have ever taken.
User avatar #76 - Maadmann (05/24/2014) [-]
It's a shame that that was the math class that people who weren't doing anything with their lives took. I'm not saying that that was why it existed, but the people taking the class were kids that barely passed algebra. I would have loved to take it, too, but I never had any spots open in my schedule.
#32 - tacoperson (05/24/2014) [-]
I wish MY school had personal finance. Too bad I live in clark county, nevada. Worst district of one of the worst states.
User avatar #28 - tvfreakuk (05/24/2014) [-]
It would've been good to have something like that.
20 years old and I have no fucking clue how any of that works
I had no optional classes in secondary school (high school)... Except in Year 10 and 11 when I got to decide whether I wanted to do higher IT and lower RE, or vice versa

Then in sixth form it was basically "pick any classes you want", but like I said, no option for basic understanding in personal finance
User avatar #30 - the fuzzball (05/24/2014) [-]
thats a shame. it really should just be part of the standard curriculum. but like I said im my first comment, the class wasn't advertised at all and most years it ran in danger of being cancelled due to lack of enrollment. a few years it was cancelled.
User avatar #31 - tvfreakuk (05/24/2014) [-]
It's definitely a stupidly managed issue...
I did actually have a class that would've been the perfect place for that, but that subject was never even brought up in it.
In my school it was simply called 'Guidance'; and it taught us about some stuff like sex ed, citizenship and racism issues, and certain laws that pertained to basic human rights - but again, no finance - heck, not even much on actual politics tbh, which would have also been helpful.
It actually pisses me off. I can obviously learn about that stuff by myself now, there definitely isn't anything stopping me from doing it - but it just would've made everything a lot simpler and have it make more sense if I was taught about it in school, rather than second guessing myself about whether I'm doing the right thing with it like I always tend to do.
User avatar #22 - theblacksheep (05/24/2014) [-]
I don't know how many times someone has put something like this on FB or twitter and my response is always the same as yours. Except everyone at my school knew about it (I took it, pretty boring.. but useful).
User avatar #23 - the fuzzball (05/24/2014) [-]
I actually liked my personal finance class, I had a cool teacher and he gave out like 10 points extra credit on the final for anyone who opened up a retirement fund for themselves.
#70 - i dont think you can define "shovel to the forehead"… 05/23/2014 on Brain Damaging Habits 0
#239 - the one time I fell asleep in class the teacher did nothing th… 05/23/2014 on And the best teacher award... 0
#18 - they prolly should have if thats what they were going for. All…  [+] (1 new reply) 05/22/2014 on Deadpool 0
User avatar #19 - Jwako (05/22/2014) [-]
I just think they shouldnt have called him wade at all. it would have been fine it he was Shadow the hedgehog his original character
#16 - im open to re-imaginings  [+] (4 new replies) 05/22/2014 on Deadpool -3
User avatar #17 - Jwako (05/22/2014) [-]
I mean you could argue that this happened in an alternative universe, but they should have established that somehow.
User avatar #30 - gamagoriira (05/22/2014) [-]
I do believe that all the marvel movies are in an alternate universe. Perhaps Earth 161.
User avatar #18 - the fuzzball (05/22/2014) [-]
they prolly should have if thats what they were going for. All Im saying is that I didnt hate the deadpool they had.
User avatar #19 - Jwako (05/22/2014) [-]
I just think they shouldnt have called him wade at all. it would have been fine it he was Shadow the hedgehog his original character
#2 - yknow, i didnt mind the origins deadpool. the way I saw it, he…  [+] (13 new replies) 05/22/2014 on Deadpool -30
User avatar #7 - Jwako (05/22/2014) [-]
But we know deadpools story even before he was deadpool. he didnt have arm swords, teleportation or eye lasers.
#104 - bakagaijin (05/22/2014) [-]
he actually did have teleportation, but it just wasnt a power... he stole a teleportation thingy from cable and used it as his own
User avatar #105 - Jwako (05/22/2014) [-]
you know i meant as a power don't you, you goofball.
User avatar #16 - the fuzzball (05/22/2014) [-]
im open to re-imaginings
User avatar #17 - Jwako (05/22/2014) [-]
I mean you could argue that this happened in an alternative universe, but they should have established that somehow.
User avatar #30 - gamagoriira (05/22/2014) [-]
I do believe that all the marvel movies are in an alternate universe. Perhaps Earth 161.
User avatar #18 - the fuzzball (05/22/2014) [-]
they prolly should have if thats what they were going for. All Im saying is that I didnt hate the deadpool they had.
User avatar #19 - Jwako (05/22/2014) [-]
I just think they shouldnt have called him wade at all. it would have been fine it he was Shadow the hedgehog his original character
User avatar #11 - thebballin (05/22/2014) [-]
Yeah but who's to say that he doesn't get rid of the arm swords/laser beams when Wolverine cuts his head off?
User avatar #12 - Jwako (05/22/2014) [-]
because Wade didnt get any powers until after wolverine had become famous. He was supposed to be an upgrade to wolverine. We also know his whole story until the most recent comic already. He wasnt there, and he never had those powers.
#9 - iamnuff (05/22/2014) [-]
maybe the whole mobie is just deadpool telling someone else what happened, and he dicided to give himself loads of powers in his story, "because it was more badass"
User avatar #108 - sagedivinity (05/22/2014) [-]
Why would he want his own mouth to be sealed up?
#130 - iamnuff (05/23/2014) [-]
For the "merc without a mouth" jokes, obviously.
#9 - i prefer RC to coke and pepsi 05/22/2014 on Which is your choice? 0
#15 - a bullet  [+] (2 new replies) 05/22/2014 on Remember when Deadpool... +446
#215 - rdobet (05/23/2014) [-]
Open page
see comment
+fav(7)
favorite
-fave(12)
User avatar #16 - thetunnelsnakes (05/22/2014) [-]
Holy shit you made my day.
#291 - well its been an honer posting with you all 05/22/2014 on FJ will shut down in 1 week 0
#14 - ****** op hawlucha 05/20/2014 on Never underestimate FJ 0
#2 - for? 05/20/2014 on u redy? 0
#1 - how does porn make us lazy and unproductive?  [+] (5 new replies) 05/20/2014 on Who's laughing now? 0
User avatar #2 - mmfan (05/20/2014) [-]
It's a joke dude, but to actually answer your question:
To me, there seems to be more rule 34 on the internet than regular porn now (maybe not THAT much but you get the idea). Therefore there either must be more artists spending countless hours crafting masterpieces, or the artists that are already creating must be spending more time on their art instead of say... studying for their bar exam to become a lawyer.
#3 - theXsjados (05/21/2014) [-]
If someone is gonna draw are they're gonna draw art; how does not drawing art translate into becoming a lawyer?
User avatar #4 - mmfan (05/21/2014) [-]
People have to have some means of financially supporting themselves, when's the last time you saw a bunch of Disney rule 34 in a high class art auction?
#5 - theXsjados (05/21/2014) [-]
Yeah because skilled artists who can draw porn really well can't make money. Furry and fetish artists, like Jay Naylor, don't live on the money they make on commissions from individuals to draw their weird fetish requests, or they don't produce comics and etc that generate money for living.

People at comic conventions have made hundred of thousand of dollars selling their art and even simple crafts. Why do you think these events are so popular. They are consumer driven, funded by the sellers who set up shop in the events.

There is a large economy for art, a subset of that is for porn. Real porn is easy to find and unimaginitive. The obscure shit is what people pay money for.
User avatar #6 - mmfan (05/22/2014) [-]
Okay, I see your point, but for every successful entrepreneur artist... there's about a hundred or so artists that do their art as a hobby and have a job or profesional career on top of that. I'm not trying to take away from the professional art community. Don't take it so personally dude.
#11 - i know that, but you are saying guns are only for death and on…  [+] (7 new replies) 05/20/2014 on 2fast4u +1
User avatar #12 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
If they're giving up you give orders to lie flat on the ground with hands over head, noncompliance gets taser. suspects have to be in a submissive position before you move any closer.
User avatar #13 - preacherQ (05/20/2014) [-]
Bro, I live in a stand your ground state. If a dude comes at you with a shovel, you shoot him dead. The police should not be restricted to less than that. You subdue when you can, but if they are coming at you with intent to harm? You fucking defend yourself. And you can most definitely use a gun to subdue people. You use it the same way you would subdue anyone with anything short of beating them into submission. Also, I was under the impression that the whole "shoot a limb" thing was a myth. An officer does not fire his weapon at a suspect unless he has judged the situation merits deadly force. The whole "shoot to maim" thing is how you end up with dead officers.
User avatar #16 - aximil (05/20/2014) [-]
If they have a melee weapon, such as said shovel, and they do not move towards you, you may not fire upon them with a gun. You must order them to drop the weapon, and if they do not, you use your taser. But the second they move towards you, you may use your gun and aim for the legs. If they have a ranged weapon, or look as they're about to throw the melee weapon towards you, you may then shoot to kill.

Source: Dad's friend is a police officer
#21 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2014) [-]
Actual cop here. Not sure why I'm commenting, but w/e.
If I draw my gun and point it at you, it's because you're doing something to make me think that you're going to cause death or great bodily harm to me, one of my buddies, or the public. And I wouldn't point it at you unless I had every right to shoot you. I might give you an order, "drop the shovel," etc., or you might do something to show that you're no longer a threat. I'll adjust my response accordingly.
But never in a million years would I pull out my gun and point it at a dude's face if I was so close that he could grab it. We train to shoot from the hip at close quarters to avoid being disarmed. We also train how to disarm people who are pointing guns at us from this distance. And we train to create space, find cover, etc. Putting your gun in somebody's face is something you do after watching too much bad TV.
We shoot to stop threats. The most reliable way of doing this is to aim center of mass, not for arms and legs.
User avatar #22 - aximil (05/20/2014) [-]
I never said anything about getting near them. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I said. If they begin to go towards you with a melee weapon, then you shoot so they never get near you in the first place. It might be different from wherever your police force is located, but here he was taught to avoid killing the person if at all possible. If he has a sure shot at a limb, then he is to do that before aiming for the torso. Killing the criminal is suppose to be a last resort.
#23 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2014) [-]
Except that you're not killing them. You're using deadly force to stop a deadly threat. The result of which might be their death. Killing them isn't your intent, as you're not an executioner. It's a subtle distinction. Obviously, if the threat isn't deadly, you use other force options. Somebody running at me with a pool noodle probably isn't going to get shot (assuming I can clearly see that it's a pool noodle and not a steel pipe or something). But a gun is a deadly force option, and only a deadly force option. You only use it against a deadly threat, such as another gun, a shovel, a baseball bat, a knife, nunchaku, etc., and you don't use it in a "less lethal" manner, like aiming for the legs. Aim small, miss small.

tl;dr: Somebody comes at me trying to hit me with a shovel, they're getting a chest full of lead.
User avatar #14 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
I'm just going off of what I was told by a MP, they were definitely taught to shoot to maim.
#8 - fair enough, but you think that an officer should only pull a …  [+] (9 new replies) 05/20/2014 on 2fast4u +2
User avatar #10 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
if they have a shovel that shows intent, and your weapon should be drawn, or non lethal measures (taser, pepper spray, etc.) should be exhausted before you move into lethal measures. Its not your job to kill and maim, only when necessary. Your job as a police officer is to maintain the peace and provide assistance and protection in upholding the law.
User avatar #11 - the fuzzball (05/20/2014) [-]
i know that, but you are saying guns are only for death and only for shooting when just pulling a gun on someone might cause them to give in and surrender. which is when you would have to get close to them.
User avatar #12 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
If they're giving up you give orders to lie flat on the ground with hands over head, noncompliance gets taser. suspects have to be in a submissive position before you move any closer.
User avatar #13 - preacherQ (05/20/2014) [-]
Bro, I live in a stand your ground state. If a dude comes at you with a shovel, you shoot him dead. The police should not be restricted to less than that. You subdue when you can, but if they are coming at you with intent to harm? You fucking defend yourself. And you can most definitely use a gun to subdue people. You use it the same way you would subdue anyone with anything short of beating them into submission. Also, I was under the impression that the whole "shoot a limb" thing was a myth. An officer does not fire his weapon at a suspect unless he has judged the situation merits deadly force. The whole "shoot to maim" thing is how you end up with dead officers.
User avatar #16 - aximil (05/20/2014) [-]
If they have a melee weapon, such as said shovel, and they do not move towards you, you may not fire upon them with a gun. You must order them to drop the weapon, and if they do not, you use your taser. But the second they move towards you, you may use your gun and aim for the legs. If they have a ranged weapon, or look as they're about to throw the melee weapon towards you, you may then shoot to kill.

Source: Dad's friend is a police officer
#21 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2014) [-]
Actual cop here. Not sure why I'm commenting, but w/e.
If I draw my gun and point it at you, it's because you're doing something to make me think that you're going to cause death or great bodily harm to me, one of my buddies, or the public. And I wouldn't point it at you unless I had every right to shoot you. I might give you an order, "drop the shovel," etc., or you might do something to show that you're no longer a threat. I'll adjust my response accordingly.
But never in a million years would I pull out my gun and point it at a dude's face if I was so close that he could grab it. We train to shoot from the hip at close quarters to avoid being disarmed. We also train how to disarm people who are pointing guns at us from this distance. And we train to create space, find cover, etc. Putting your gun in somebody's face is something you do after watching too much bad TV.
We shoot to stop threats. The most reliable way of doing this is to aim center of mass, not for arms and legs.
User avatar #22 - aximil (05/20/2014) [-]
I never said anything about getting near them. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I said. If they begin to go towards you with a melee weapon, then you shoot so they never get near you in the first place. It might be different from wherever your police force is located, but here he was taught to avoid killing the person if at all possible. If he has a sure shot at a limb, then he is to do that before aiming for the torso. Killing the criminal is suppose to be a last resort.
#23 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2014) [-]
Except that you're not killing them. You're using deadly force to stop a deadly threat. The result of which might be their death. Killing them isn't your intent, as you're not an executioner. It's a subtle distinction. Obviously, if the threat isn't deadly, you use other force options. Somebody running at me with a pool noodle probably isn't going to get shot (assuming I can clearly see that it's a pool noodle and not a steel pipe or something). But a gun is a deadly force option, and only a deadly force option. You only use it against a deadly threat, such as another gun, a shovel, a baseball bat, a knife, nunchaku, etc., and you don't use it in a "less lethal" manner, like aiming for the legs. Aim small, miss small.

tl;dr: Somebody comes at me trying to hit me with a shovel, they're getting a chest full of lead.
User avatar #14 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
I'm just going off of what I was told by a MP, they were definitely taught to shoot to maim.
#6 - so the police should just shoot every person that starts to ru…  [+] (11 new replies) 05/20/2014 on 2fast4u 0
User avatar #7 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
if you're a police officer and not under duress and a suspect is running your job is to run after them, not pull your fucking gun and get close.
User avatar #8 - the fuzzball (05/20/2014) [-]
fair enough, but you think that an officer should only pull a gun if he fully intends to shot the person? what if they just have something like a shovel or something of that manner? they should just move towards them without their gun?
User avatar #10 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
if they have a shovel that shows intent, and your weapon should be drawn, or non lethal measures (taser, pepper spray, etc.) should be exhausted before you move into lethal measures. Its not your job to kill and maim, only when necessary. Your job as a police officer is to maintain the peace and provide assistance and protection in upholding the law.
User avatar #11 - the fuzzball (05/20/2014) [-]
i know that, but you are saying guns are only for death and only for shooting when just pulling a gun on someone might cause them to give in and surrender. which is when you would have to get close to them.
User avatar #12 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
If they're giving up you give orders to lie flat on the ground with hands over head, noncompliance gets taser. suspects have to be in a submissive position before you move any closer.
User avatar #13 - preacherQ (05/20/2014) [-]
Bro, I live in a stand your ground state. If a dude comes at you with a shovel, you shoot him dead. The police should not be restricted to less than that. You subdue when you can, but if they are coming at you with intent to harm? You fucking defend yourself. And you can most definitely use a gun to subdue people. You use it the same way you would subdue anyone with anything short of beating them into submission. Also, I was under the impression that the whole "shoot a limb" thing was a myth. An officer does not fire his weapon at a suspect unless he has judged the situation merits deadly force. The whole "shoot to maim" thing is how you end up with dead officers.
User avatar #16 - aximil (05/20/2014) [-]
If they have a melee weapon, such as said shovel, and they do not move towards you, you may not fire upon them with a gun. You must order them to drop the weapon, and if they do not, you use your taser. But the second they move towards you, you may use your gun and aim for the legs. If they have a ranged weapon, or look as they're about to throw the melee weapon towards you, you may then shoot to kill.

Source: Dad's friend is a police officer
#21 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2014) [-]
Actual cop here. Not sure why I'm commenting, but w/e.
If I draw my gun and point it at you, it's because you're doing something to make me think that you're going to cause death or great bodily harm to me, one of my buddies, or the public. And I wouldn't point it at you unless I had every right to shoot you. I might give you an order, "drop the shovel," etc., or you might do something to show that you're no longer a threat. I'll adjust my response accordingly.
But never in a million years would I pull out my gun and point it at a dude's face if I was so close that he could grab it. We train to shoot from the hip at close quarters to avoid being disarmed. We also train how to disarm people who are pointing guns at us from this distance. And we train to create space, find cover, etc. Putting your gun in somebody's face is something you do after watching too much bad TV.
We shoot to stop threats. The most reliable way of doing this is to aim center of mass, not for arms and legs.
User avatar #22 - aximil (05/20/2014) [-]
I never said anything about getting near them. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I said. If they begin to go towards you with a melee weapon, then you shoot so they never get near you in the first place. It might be different from wherever your police force is located, but here he was taught to avoid killing the person if at all possible. If he has a sure shot at a limb, then he is to do that before aiming for the torso. Killing the criminal is suppose to be a last resort.
#23 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2014) [-]
Except that you're not killing them. You're using deadly force to stop a deadly threat. The result of which might be their death. Killing them isn't your intent, as you're not an executioner. It's a subtle distinction. Obviously, if the threat isn't deadly, you use other force options. Somebody running at me with a pool noodle probably isn't going to get shot (assuming I can clearly see that it's a pool noodle and not a steel pipe or something). But a gun is a deadly force option, and only a deadly force option. You only use it against a deadly threat, such as another gun, a shovel, a baseball bat, a knife, nunchaku, etc., and you don't use it in a "less lethal" manner, like aiming for the legs. Aim small, miss small.

tl;dr: Somebody comes at me trying to hit me with a shovel, they're getting a chest full of lead.
User avatar #14 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
I'm just going off of what I was told by a MP, they were definitely taught to shoot to maim.
#5 - Picture 05/20/2014 on What would it be 0
#4 - well you know sometimes you have to get close to someone when …  [+] (15 new replies) 05/20/2014 on 2fast4u -1
User avatar #5 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
you don't use a gun to subdue, guns are for death, if you want to subdue use your hands or shoot a limb from a distance.
#20 - rainyeyes (05/20/2014) [-]
**rainyeyes rolled image**

So you're apprehending a suspect, their hands are on their head. You slowly approach to make sure that they don't turn and pull out a weapon. 1 on 1 they're going to take the first shot before you even have time to react. A drawn weapon is used to subdue an individual so that you may approach with caution and protect yourself in the event they resist on your approach.

Typically these suspects have a history of being armed and dangerous so it's not uncommon for police to use a firearm to subdue an individual who is seemingly compliant. The display of a firearm and its threat of discharge is considered as a use of force in all police services.

This is all within justification and context of the situation, of course. There is no reason to use a firearm to subdue an individual who is absolutely compliant or in an incapacitated state.
#45 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
**drtennant rolled image** hey he's stating opinion guys don't red thumb him, what we are talking about is a noncompliant that is not showing any signs of putting the officer under duress, if the officer is under duress of course he's going to draw and point, but at that point you give orders to lie down with hands on your head, or an un-natural position to throw them off balance, that way when they do comply you automatically have the upper hand and any motion contrary to your well being is met with force and can be dealt with accordingly.
User avatar #6 - the fuzzball (05/20/2014) [-]
so the police should just shoot every person that starts to run and dont even threaten them first?
User avatar #7 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
if you're a police officer and not under duress and a suspect is running your job is to run after them, not pull your fucking gun and get close.
User avatar #8 - the fuzzball (05/20/2014) [-]
fair enough, but you think that an officer should only pull a gun if he fully intends to shot the person? what if they just have something like a shovel or something of that manner? they should just move towards them without their gun?
User avatar #10 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
if they have a shovel that shows intent, and your weapon should be drawn, or non lethal measures (taser, pepper spray, etc.) should be exhausted before you move into lethal measures. Its not your job to kill and maim, only when necessary. Your job as a police officer is to maintain the peace and provide assistance and protection in upholding the law.
User avatar #11 - the fuzzball (05/20/2014) [-]
i know that, but you are saying guns are only for death and only for shooting when just pulling a gun on someone might cause them to give in and surrender. which is when you would have to get close to them.
User avatar #12 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
If they're giving up you give orders to lie flat on the ground with hands over head, noncompliance gets taser. suspects have to be in a submissive position before you move any closer.
User avatar #13 - preacherQ (05/20/2014) [-]
Bro, I live in a stand your ground state. If a dude comes at you with a shovel, you shoot him dead. The police should not be restricted to less than that. You subdue when you can, but if they are coming at you with intent to harm? You fucking defend yourself. And you can most definitely use a gun to subdue people. You use it the same way you would subdue anyone with anything short of beating them into submission. Also, I was under the impression that the whole "shoot a limb" thing was a myth. An officer does not fire his weapon at a suspect unless he has judged the situation merits deadly force. The whole "shoot to maim" thing is how you end up with dead officers.
User avatar #16 - aximil (05/20/2014) [-]
If they have a melee weapon, such as said shovel, and they do not move towards you, you may not fire upon them with a gun. You must order them to drop the weapon, and if they do not, you use your taser. But the second they move towards you, you may use your gun and aim for the legs. If they have a ranged weapon, or look as they're about to throw the melee weapon towards you, you may then shoot to kill.

Source: Dad's friend is a police officer
#21 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2014) [-]
Actual cop here. Not sure why I'm commenting, but w/e.
If I draw my gun and point it at you, it's because you're doing something to make me think that you're going to cause death or great bodily harm to me, one of my buddies, or the public. And I wouldn't point it at you unless I had every right to shoot you. I might give you an order, "drop the shovel," etc., or you might do something to show that you're no longer a threat. I'll adjust my response accordingly.
But never in a million years would I pull out my gun and point it at a dude's face if I was so close that he could grab it. We train to shoot from the hip at close quarters to avoid being disarmed. We also train how to disarm people who are pointing guns at us from this distance. And we train to create space, find cover, etc. Putting your gun in somebody's face is something you do after watching too much bad TV.
We shoot to stop threats. The most reliable way of doing this is to aim center of mass, not for arms and legs.
User avatar #22 - aximil (05/20/2014) [-]
I never said anything about getting near them. That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I said. If they begin to go towards you with a melee weapon, then you shoot so they never get near you in the first place. It might be different from wherever your police force is located, but here he was taught to avoid killing the person if at all possible. If he has a sure shot at a limb, then he is to do that before aiming for the torso. Killing the criminal is suppose to be a last resort.
#23 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2014) [-]
Except that you're not killing them. You're using deadly force to stop a deadly threat. The result of which might be their death. Killing them isn't your intent, as you're not an executioner. It's a subtle distinction. Obviously, if the threat isn't deadly, you use other force options. Somebody running at me with a pool noodle probably isn't going to get shot (assuming I can clearly see that it's a pool noodle and not a steel pipe or something). But a gun is a deadly force option, and only a deadly force option. You only use it against a deadly threat, such as another gun, a shovel, a baseball bat, a knife, nunchaku, etc., and you don't use it in a "less lethal" manner, like aiming for the legs. Aim small, miss small.

tl;dr: Somebody comes at me trying to hit me with a shovel, they're getting a chest full of lead.
User avatar #14 - drtennant (05/20/2014) [-]
I'm just going off of what I was told by a MP, they were definitely taught to shoot to maim.
#185 - i would prefer to limit human interaction as much as possible … 05/20/2014 on Hurd u liek faxt 0
#183 - noone ever asks if i want anything else, they dont care.  [+] (2 new replies) 05/20/2014 on Hurd u liek faxt 0
#184 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2014) [-]
Then demand the salt goddamn it! Just be like put the salt in the bag and no one gets hurt.
User avatar #185 - the fuzzball (05/20/2014) [-]
i would prefer to limit human interaction as much as possible and just take the old fries. they taste better anyway.
#1 - Picture  [+] (11 new replies) 05/19/2014 on Watch this while listening... +81
User avatar #21 - zhayce (05/20/2014) [-]
Wow, nice one.
User avatar #12 - citruslord (05/20/2014) [-]
Van Canto - The Final Countdown (Lyric Video)
That's totally Van canto. They do A Capella covers of alot of metal songs.
User avatar #66 - supercookieduster (05/20/2014) [-]
totally, those guys are ridiculous. gotta love the metallica covers by them
User avatar #48 - ashketchup (05/20/2014) [-]
A van cantian!
User avatar #16 - blargchikahonkhonk (05/20/2014) [-]
not sure if they have covered it but this will always be the best version www.youtube.com/watch?v=R82paQbF0Yo
User avatar #45 - zwaxor (05/20/2014) [-]
Wishmaster - The Misheard Lyrics You are absolutely-doodly wrong. This is obviously the best version!
#24 - xxxsonic fanxxx (05/20/2014) [-]
Nightwish is amazing, but what really bugs me is that they put the wrong album cover for that song.
User avatar #38 - animedudej (05/20/2014) [-]
i agree with you also every time i listen to nightwish i am reminded of those awesome WoW Music videos back in the day
User avatar #17 - citruslord (05/20/2014) [-]
I agree, Van Canto is mostly a little amusing here and there. Nightwish is pretty amazing , female singers are a rare treat in good metal.
#4 - watanukie (05/20/2014) [-]
ALL HAIL THE MIGHTY RIDDLY DIDDLY
#2 - vbrajvong (05/19/2014) [-]
I totally forgot about this. awesome
#1 - I DONT KNOW WHAT THIS SAYS 05/19/2014 on (untitled) +1
#64 - this made me so happy. RIP connor 05/19/2014 on New champion 0
#100 - come on bro, dont hold out on me like this, gimme them links. 05/19/2014 on This week in science 0
#32 - ****** loved this show. the best parts were the i… 05/18/2014 on mfw trying to get to the... +50
#439 - the black printer 05/18/2014 on Do it. 0
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 8938 / Total items point value: 13056

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #16 - ffffyou (01/24/2014) [-]
what a gay username
#15 - xxxsonic fanxxx (08/18/2013) [-]
Karakachuja?

Taka ho lafurita.
User avatar #3 - fallenoffacliff (04/20/2013) [-]
I like your avatar
User avatar #4 to #3 - the fuzzball (04/20/2013) [-]
thank you
User avatar #1 - comeatmebrother (02/15/2013) [-]
comment virginity is mine now.
User avatar #2 to #1 - the fuzzball (02/16/2013) [-]
for this profile I guess
 Friends (0)