- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Alton Sterling shooting - discussion thread
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:20 pm to RB10
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:20 pm to RB10
quote:
You're questioning whether the shooting should have taken place while simultaneously questioning them for trying to resolve the matter without deadly force first.
That's not what I'm saying at all, but you know that. I'm saying that if you and your buddy had weapons and you were required to take in a 300 pound man who also had a weapon, I highly doubt tackling him would be your strategy at that point.
2
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:22 pm to slackster
quote:
I'm saying that if you and your buddy had weapons and you were required to take in a 300 pound man who also had a weapon, I highly doubt tackling him would be your strategy at that point.
they didn't know he had a gun until he was on the ground, correct?
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:23 pm to Chad504boy
quote:
slackster confirms that he's not professional tactician in these matters then proceeds to input his unprofessional ignorant opinion on the matter.
FFS Chad thos is the OT. If we can't have opinions without being an expert on the subject this place wouldnt exist.
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:24 pm to UNO
quote:
until he was on the ground, correct?
The original 911 call was because he, or someone else hanging outside of the store, brandished a gun at someone else.
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:24 pm to slackster
quote:
That's not what I'm saying at all, but you know that. I'm saying that if you and your buddy had weapons and you were required to take in a 300 pound man who also had a weapon, I highly doubt tackling him would be your strategy at that point.
It's exactly what you're saying, actually.
You're questioning their methods of subduing a perp, even though they attempted to do so without firearms first.
You're criticizing them for trying to resolve the matter without guns, but had they pulled them first you'd probably be criticizing them for that, which is a reasonable assumption considering your posts in this thread. I mean, you're criticizing them for how they attempted to tackle the guy for fricks sake.
This post was edited on 7/6/16 at 12:28 pm
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:27 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Only if someone wants them to be. I don't see sides being drawn except for a couple of people who expressed their bias.
Usually the OT quickly draws sides and uses a plethora of labels before anyone really knows anything. I was taking a tongue in cheek shot at that predictable process. I am surprised this has reportedly not happened in this thread.
quote:
I don't see enough to tell wtf happened before the shooting.
A logical and informed (knows enough to know what he doesn't know) statement.
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:27 pm to slackster
Can't see much from that angle and the dip shite videoing dropped the phone BUT I find it hard to believe that they shoot an unarmed restrained guy. IF he wasn't armed then ofcoirse, it's murder. If he had a gun or went for one, I have 0 remorse.
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:28 pm to RB10
quote:I bet you've never lost a debate in your mind.
You're criticizing them for trying to resolve the matter without guns, but had they pulled them first you'd probably be criticizing them for that
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:29 pm to JJBTiger2012
quote:It's not likely, but...
BUT I find it hard to believe that they shoot an unarmed restrained guy
LINK
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:30 pm to shel311
quote:
I bet you've never lost a debate in your mind.
I'm seeing a guy criticize the cops for how they attempted to tackle a suspect. I think it's safe to assume he would criticize them for shooting him without trying to resolve the issue without deadly force.
That's not exactly a huge leap in logic. I've seen several of your posts though. Logic is not a concept you grasp well.
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:30 pm to RB10
I would love to see where all this proof of him reaching or not reaching for a gun. Everything going on in the video on the right side is obstructed by the bumper of the car. Hopefully some more video is available but it is probably too late. Once the masses get stirred the group think takes over and facts don't matter.
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:31 pm to UNO
quote:
they didn't know he had a gun until he was on the ground, correct?
People can't make up their mind which it is. Most people assume they knew he had a gun and they knew he was a felon.
Personally I think the officers' case is stronger if they did not know he was armed. I believe the "surprise" of the gun once on the ground leaves less room for criticism.
This post was edited on 7/6/16 at 12:31 pm
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:31 pm to slackster
quote:
FFS Chad thos is the OT. If we can't have opinions without being an expert on the subject this place wouldnt exist.
you're right, this the OT, we're all experts at everything and naive on nothing. you sir confirmed your ignorance on subject. tisk tisk tisk
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:32 pm to slackster
quote:
Personally I think the officers' case is stronger if they did not know he was armed. I believe the "surprise" of the gun once on the ground leaves less room for criticism.
i agree.
what i can't figure out is the three extra shots fired like 2 seconds after the initial two shots.
you just shot the dude point blank in the chest. if he’s not dead, you probably have him under control, right?
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:34 pm to RB10
quote:Best debater ever!!!
I'm seeing a guy criticize the cops for how they attempted to tackle a suspect. I think it's safe to assume he would criticize them for shooting him without trying to resolve the issue without deadly force. That's not exactly a huge leap in logic. I've seen several of your posts though. Logic is not a concept you grasp well.
Just make up stuff, can't lose!
Well done.
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:36 pm to UNO
quote:
they didn't know he had a gun until he was on the ground, correct?
He had pointed a gun at someone and run them off from the store. He was reported to LE. The dispatcher told them about the gun and why they were going while they were on the way there.
So yes, They knew he had a gun.
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:36 pm to RB10
quote:
You're questioning their methods of subduing a perp, even though they attempted to do so without firearms first.
By all accounts they were calm and rational up to point the decided to tackle him. If they knew he had a gun or suspected he had a gun, that doesn't seem like the next best step at that point. I'm sure they made what they thought was a calculated risk, but I'd be interested to know if that is the recommended tactic. We've seen officers draw their weapons in similar situations to force compliance, so I'd like to know why that wasn't done here. I'm not sure why that is such a hot take.
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:36 pm to UNO
quote:
you just shot the dude point blank in the chest. if he’s not dead, you probably have him under control, right?
I would assume, if you have to discharge your firearm, your goal is to shoot to kill. Regrettable as that may be, if someone ever broke in my house, a lot more than a single round would leave the magazine.
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:37 pm to UNO
quote:
they didn't know he had a gun until he was on the ground, correct?
and they didn't draw on him until he was on the ground presumably trying to get his weapon.
JUSTIFIED
Posted on 7/6/16 at 12:37 pm to shel311
You've brought nothing to the discussion. Move along.
Page 60 of 168
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News