Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

I'm waiting for the riots/protests over this and the 24/7 news cycle.

Quote:What's an sjw?

social justice warrior

Quote:It's interesting who ISN'T posting in this thread...

 

Isn't it though? 

 

I guess the usual suspects are too busy trying to get in touch with the media to claim they were molested by Donald Trump to notice this thread.  Give them time...to get their talking points spoon fed to them by their friends in the unbiased mainstream media.

Quote:social justice warrior

Gotcha. You dont wanna know some of the stuff going through my head

Quote:Gotcha. You dont wanna know some of the stuff going through my head

You're right. Lol. 

Quote:You're right. Lol.

Nothing scary but definitely not for the faint of heart

Still no posts from the usual suspects.  That figures...  they were probably triggered by some Halloween costume.

The whole thing is awful. Again.. dumbfounded that PCP is a drug people still do. It makes things like tasers almost non-effective. Unlike so many other situations which have been publicized, this guy's intent was very clear. If she truly didn't kill this guy because of fear of reprisal, she should have tried to shoot him in the leg first to see if that would incapacitate him. On PCP, doubtful. If he kept coming, she was well within her rights to kill him.

If she wants to refrain from using her weapon, that is her decision

In other countries they somehow subdue suspects without killing them. Maybe training would help.

Quote:In other countries they somehow subdue suspects without killing them. Maybe training would help.

No one said she HAD to kill him. Defend herself absolutely and if that meant a fatal shot then she was well within her rights. Have you ever dealt with someone on PCP? They have almost super human strength, no remorse while they are doing whatever they're doing. They're like the Terminator, they don't quit until subdued, killed or it wears off.

Quote:If she wants to refrain from using her weapon, that is her decision

The point was how did we as a country come to a reality that a cop doesn't want to defend herself because of public perception? When did personal safety take a back seat to public perception?

Quote:No one said she HAD to kill him. Defend herself absolutely and if that meant a fatal shot then she was well within her rights. Have you ever dealt with someone on PCP? They have almost super human strength, no remorse while they are doing whatever they're doing. They're like the Terminator, they don't quit until subdued, killed or it wears off.

 

I haven't no, i'm not a cop or wish to be one.

 

Well sure she should defend herself, but maybe she didn't feel adequately trained? British police don't even carry guns so I imagine there is other ways to subdue.

With the stipulation that I can't watch the video from work, and that I was busy having a life yesterday, I need to see the video. I don't believe in shooting someone whose only weapons are his fists, generally speaking, but if he did enough to find himself charged with attempted murder, it's worth seeing how much of a threat this unarmed man really posed. Was he smashing her head repeatedly into the pavement, or something else that shows a clear intent to kill?


His only weapons, as I read it, were his fists. That doesn't automatically rule out shooting, but shooting an unarmed man absolutely should draw additional scrutiny.


And before anyone whines that I was quick to condemn cops, there's a common thread there: I'd already seen those videos.

Quote:With the stipulation that I can't watch the video from work, and that I was busy having a life yesterday, I need to see the video. I don't believe in shooting someone whose only weapons are his fists, generally speaking, but if he did enough to find himself charged with attempted murder, it's worth seeing how much of a threat this unarmed man really posed. Was he smashing her head repeatedly into the pavement, or something else that shows a clear intent to kill?


His only weapons, as I read it, were his fists. That doesn't automatically rule out shooting, but shooting an unarmed man absolutely should draw additional scrutiny.


And before anyone whines that I was quick to condemn cops, there's a common thread there: I'd already seen those videos.

Several officers involved in a physical struggled with the dude. He first throws the female officer to the ground smashing her head rendering her unconscious.then they all kinda jump on him, tasers were having no impact on him. Unfortunately when most cops carry two weapons fists can quickly turn to hand full of officers gun. What they need are wrap up nets that they can encircle folks like that up harmlessly.

Cant watch the video at work so if the story is true its sick and the person who assaulted the officer needs to be jailed. 

Quote:The whole thing is awful. Again.. dumbfounded that PCP is a drug people still do. It makes things like tasers almost non-effective. Unlike so many other situations which have been publicized, this guy's intent was very clear. If she truly didn't kill this guy because of fear of reprisal, she should have tried to shoot him in the leg first to see if that would incapacitate him. On PCP, doubtful. If he kept coming, she was well within her rights to kill him.

That's not how it works.


You don't shoot someone in the leg and hope the threat stops in that situation. You end the threat.

So I've finally seen the video, and here are my thoughts:

 

It sure looks to me like the guy has his hand (or some part of his arm) on top of the officer's head as they fall. That, to me, is a sign that at the very least, he intends to put her under for a very long nap. Thing is, once he's on the ground, I don't see him squirming around trying to do further harm to her, and he wasn't really in position to be a threat to anyone else. Is shooting an unarmed man on the ground, even one who's just faceplanted an officer into the asphalt, justified? Up until they both went to the ground, I don't see anything that would lead me to think shooting him was the right course of action. Afterwards? I mean, really, how do you define the moment that it's right to shoot someone? Let's say a guy fires a shot at an officer then throws his gun away and falls to the ground. Does a police shooting have to be based on immediate threat, or are officers allowed to presume based upon past actions that that person is an imminent threat, even if they're currently in a position that renders them much less harmful? That's an honest question, and one I don't have the answer to. Even if you do decide to shoot when he's on the ground, aren't you running a very real risk of accidentally hitting the cop on the ground instead?

 

Am I glad the guy wasn't shot? Yeah. I like that our officers are being forced to think twice before drawing their weapon, but I do not like that they feel the need to give up their own lives to protect their department. That, to me, is a huge problem.

 

Would I have had a particular problem had the guy been shot? No. He drove another human being's face into the pavement from standing height. If there was any chance of him getting to that officer to do any further harm, disabling him would have been an easily justifiable action. My bigger concern would have been the chance of hitting, grazing and launching asphalt up into the officer who was already on the ground. Logistical rather than ethical, I guess.

Quote:I haven't no, i'm not a cop or wish to be one.

 

Well sure she should defend herself, but maybe she didn't feel adequately trained? British police don't even carry guns so I imagine there is other ways to subdue.

Yes, because that taser they used worked wonderfully for them.

Quote:So I've finally seen the video, and here are my thoughts:

 

It sure looks to me like the guy has his hand (or some part of his arm) on top of the officer's head as they fall. That, to me, is a sign that at the very least, he intends to put her under for a very long nap. Thing is, once he's on the ground, I don't see him squirming around trying to do further harm to her, and he wasn't really in position to be a threat to anyone else. Is shooting an unarmed man on the ground, even one who's just faceplanted an officer into the asphalt, justified? Up until they both went to the ground, I don't see anything that would lead me to think shooting him was the right course of action. Afterwards? I mean, really, how do you define the moment that it's right to shoot someone? Let's say a guy fires a shot at an officer then throws his gun away and falls to the ground. Does a police shooting have to be based on immediate threat, or are officers allowed to presume based upon past actions that that person is an imminent threat, even if they're currently in a position that renders them much less harmful? That's an honest question, and one I don't have the answer to. Even if you do decide to shoot when he's on the ground, aren't you running a very real risk of accidentally hitting the cop on the ground instead?

 

Am I glad the guy wasn't shot? Yeah. I like that our officers are being forced to think twice before drawing their weapon, but I do not like that they feel the need to give up their own lives to protect their department. That, to me, is a huge problem.

 

Would I have had a particular problem had the guy been shot? No. He drove another human being's face into the pavement from standing height. If there was any chance of him getting to that officer to do any further harm, disabling him would have been an easily justifiable action. My bigger concern would have been the chance of hitting, grazing and launching asphalt up into the officer who was already on the ground. Logistical rather than ethical, I guess.

I maintain my original point. When did we become a country where public perception is considered before safety when a cop is in danger.