yamaha wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: And GSR on the wound to the arm and inside the car.
Yep... but we're not going to let facts and evidence stop wild conjecture from happening now are we?
yamaha wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: And GSR on the wound to the arm and inside the car.
Yep... but we're not going to let facts and evidence stop wild conjecture from happening now are we?
PHeller wrote: It's just a wild case. Reading the interviews, I keep thinking to myself "none of this makes sense". I do think cameras would have helped dispel the notion that Brown never threatened Wilson.
What doesn't make sense? That he had just committed a felony? That a police officer had just stopped him after committing the felony? That he reached into the car, punched the officer and then grabbed for his firearm?
What's there left to make sense of? He was an ADULT. He was 6'4, 290lbs. He was not a kid. Not some "poor teen". He was an aggressive thug trying to get away with whatever he thought he could. Sorry... there's not much left to discuss.
Having been near the starting point when this kicked off http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Cincinnati_riots. All I have to say is I'm glad I'm not near Ferguson. I hope last night was the end of it.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:logdog wrote:Still going strong from the look of it...The anti-Ferguson movement has been around since the 90s.
I agree. This thread needs more Melissa Joan Hart.
It doesn't make sense that he'd attack an officer in his vehicle. Why didn't he run after getting shot through the door the first time? Why'd he turn around and run back towards the officer who just shot him?
I've never heard of THC making someone feel invisible.
That doesn't make sense. It doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Imagine what he was like OFF the THC. If he was this aggressive on it... he had to be a real peach off.
PHeller wrote: Ok, well how bout some other form of non-lethal long distance device? We really can't justify shooting an unarmed man a bunch of times, nor can we justify shooting a 12 year old kid with a toy gun. If an officer accidentally kills a guy after hitting him with a tazer, isn't that better than loading him full of lead? I don't think anyone blames Wilson for protecting himself, but with all the technology that law enforcement can and should be using, cant we figure out some way of not killing unarmed people? And don't use the excuse of "police wouldn't kill people if those people didn't attach police," because we all know there a mentally disabled people out there who do irrational things that could easily get them killed.
You are making the fallacy of considering an "unarmed" person to be an "innocent" person or a "non-lethal" person. I can kill you in many different ways without a weapon in my hands, and in most circumstances I could find an object to use within a stride or three that I could use to end your life.
It doesn't matter whether someone is "armed" or "unarmed," when they have committed to attacking you, you can either defend yourself by whatever means necessary, or you can give them the initiative and (probably) lose, which in a self-defense scenario means lose YOUR LIFE. If the person is attacking you in a manner which causes you to fear for your life, it will not be enough to do something "less-than-lethal" in hopes of delaying them long enough that you can change their mind about attacking you.
In reply to moparman76_69:
maybe he was trying to get to the now destroyed Little Ceasar's
PHeller, are you for real?
Honestly dude, you need to get out more. Im all for people having differing opinions, and even being uninformed, but damn man.
jsquared wrote: If the person is attacking you in a manner which causes you to fear for your life, it will not be enough to do something "less-than-lethal" in hopes of delaying them long enough that you can change their mind about attacking you.
This is because the current LtL methods are not effective enough.
Imagine if we could develop some sort of tranquilizer that could react within seconds, and be delivered as easily and reliably as a bullet, why wouldn't would trust that? Unless of course you want to kill someone, which most people don't want to do.
I merely advocating for advancements in LtL technology that can save both lives.
Wow... chemical? You realize that people's chemistry reacts differently to drugs. The pain killer that works on me, does not work on the wife. What works on her I'm allergic to etc.
Rather than spending money to not kill a possible killer, I'm more for finding the root cause of the violence and stopping THAT.
Bobzilla wrote: Wow... chemical? You realize that people's chemistry reacts differently to drugs. The pain killer that works on me, does not work on the wife. What works on her I'm allergic to etc. Rather than spending money to not kill a possible killer, I'm more for finding the root cause of the violence and stopping THAT.
Unfortunately, regardless of race, class, or education, people will still let rage, anger, or whatever else get to them, and we'll always have violent people. Does that mean they should all be put down?
Obviously a chemical LtL is a pipedream, but sounds nice, doesn't it?
No, it doesn't. And yes... you commit murder/attempt you deserve whatever comes next. I'm past that point of youthful silliness that thinks there is nice in everyone. I've seen enough people to know that just simply isn't the case.
This is purely my personal feelings here... but if you're arrogant/stupid enough to assault an armed police officer and you try to wrestle his firearm from him.... sorry for your parents. Apparently they failed. In this case... it's not hard to see that failure and why it occurred.
In reply to PHeller:
Actually, 100% effective Less than Lethal is a pipe dream.
E36 M3, I know people who are impervious to CN and spray OC peppermace on their doritos. They're all supposed to be used as behavior modifiers to entice cooperation and buy time. A taser, rubber bullets, CN & OC, they're all to make you think twice, they can't actually stop a threat. FWIW, I never want to be tasered again, but it definitely doesn't incapacitate you if you're determined to beat it.
I know its probably too soon, but #YOLO
Perhaps our city (or all) schools would be better to teach "Interactions with Police" at a younger age.
EDIT: Though I think it should be pretty obvious that you don't want to start a fight with a cop.
In reply to yamaha:
Never too soon. I get some winners on Facebook that it kills me to have to sit on.
yamaha wrote: funny stuff
just laft so hard I peed a lil
SWMBO is sending me hilarious E36 M3 that she's seeing on her Facebook.
Want to share so bad.
wbjones wrote:KyAllroad wrote: In reply to T.J.: Tear gas in not a war crime. All of us veterans were exposed to it. I'd like to see them using water cannons but that doesn't play well in the media either. Maybe a really loud PA system playing Garth Brooks music?he's right … in boot camp, had to remove my gas mask and recite my general orders before being allowed to exit the gas house
Yes, I was exposed to it in boot camp as well. It is illegal to use in warfare all the same.
Looks like there is an Executive Order that allows the military to use it under certain circumstances and only with Presidential approval.
Domestic law enforcement is exempt from the Chemical Weapons Convention, thus it is legal for cops to employ it.
pheller...damn dude...whiskey tango foxtrot. Ive seen professional trolls try and fail to troll as hard as youre accidentally trolling right now.
Pretty sure youre following some ad-lib script that chat-bots used to use in the great AIM wars of the mid nineties..."I think" insert absurd thought here "about" insert crisis of the day here ". OMFG Dont you think" insert large societal group here "is to blame?!? They should have to" insert absurd compensatory action here "for all the" insert opposing large societal group here.
Huuurrrrr
There was too much agreement in this thread. Had to mix it up.
4cylndrfury wrote: pheller...damn dude...whiskey tango foxtrot. Ive seen professional trolls try and fail to troll as hard as youre accidentally trolling right now. Pretty sure youre following some ad-lib script that chat-bots used to use in the great AIM wars of the mid nineties..."I think" *insert absurd thought here* "about" *insert crisis of the day here* ". OMFG Dont you think" *insert large societal group here* "is to blame?!? They should have to" *insert absurd compensatory action here* "for all the" *insert opposing large societal group here*. Huuurrrrr
PHeller wrote: EDIT: Though I think it should be pretty obvious that you don't want to start a fight with a cop.
In that case, Darwin wins again and society is better off in the long run.
PHeller wrote: There was too much agreement in this thread. Had to mix it up.
At the expense of your credibility?
In reply to PHeller:
I think that you put too much faith in people having a moral compass. It seems the underlying theme is that all people use logic or reason to make the decisions they make. That is a major flaw in your thought process.
You'll need to log in to post.
