- 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
0
Posted on 11/4/15 at 2:55 pm to uway
quote:
I don't want to ignore the threat. I want us to in general, not always take cops' word for it that their lives were in danger.
Well until OP or any of the other people can show me with proof that the cops acted incorrectly, I'm not inclined to believe them based off what little facts we do have.
I'm all for accountability for everyone involved.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 2:55 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
So we ignore the threat to them?
This is the problem with the discussion today. Police officers forget they are public servants.
It is their job to put themselves in danger. IT IS THEIR JOB TO PUT THE LIVES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE BEFORE THEIR OWN.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 2:57 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
It is their job to put themselves in danger. IT IS THEIR JOB TO PUT THE LIVES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE BEFORE THEIR OWN.
The driver wasn't innocent. The driver also put his child in that situation. The driver's child being present does not take away the officer's right to protect their own lives when threatened.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 2:57 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
proof that the cops acted incorrectly,
They killed a 6 year old
Posted on 11/4/15 at 2:57 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
The driver wasn't innocent
The child was
Posted on 11/4/15 at 2:57 pm to Strannix
That fact proves nothing.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 2:58 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
quote:
What other possibilities are there?
Too many to even mention, but you've made up your mind. No point in trying to change it.
bullshite. You're talking out of your arse. Either they didn't know the child was in the car and hit them on accident. Or they knew the child was there and shot the child on purpose. There's no other possibility, dumbass.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 2:58 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
The child was
And this is an unfortunate situation. Still doesn't proves the cops did anything wrong.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 2:58 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
You're talking out of your arse
Right back at you.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 2:58 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
This is the problem with the discussion today. Police officers forget they are public servants.
It is their job to put themselves in danger. IT IS THEIR JOB TO PUT THE LIVES OF INNOCENT PEOPLE BEFORE THEIR OWN.
That's not even close to what they believe.
They want to have it both ways.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 2:59 pm to LNCHBOX
First is there a video of what happened. Were they in a police car? Why were they after the guy in the first place. Did they know the suspect? Did they know if a child was in the vehicle? Can I shoot someone if they back into my vehicle? A child is dead. I hope that the shooters can justify their actions and I hope that a video exists.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:00 pm to rickyh
quote:
Can I shoot someone if they back into my vehicle?
Another complete oversimplification of the situation to try to make a point.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:01 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
The driver wasn't innocent. The driver also put his child in that situation. The driver's child being present does not take away the officer's right to protect their own lives when threatened.
So if a guy goes on a murder spree and takes a person hostage, escapes in a vehicle, and tries to run over an officer, the police can fire into the vehicle killing both the hostage and the murderer because the only person responsible for the hostage's safety is the murderer?
How does that make any sense at all?
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:03 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
So if a guy goes on a murder spree and takes a person hostage, escapes in a vehicle, and tries to run over an officer, the police can fire into the vehicle killing both the hostage and the murderer because the only person responsible for the hostage's safety is the murderer?
In that case, the police know there is someone else in the car. You don't know that here, and it makes a huge difference whether you care to admit it or not.
quote:
How does that make any sense at all?
Since it's not an apt comparison, it doesn't.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:03 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
So we ignore the threat to them?
If the cops were outside the car and he was coming after them, I can see shooting. If not, I don't see a threat.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:05 pm to LNCHBOX
quote:
That fact proves nothing.
It proves they discharged their weapons in a reckless and irresponsible manner. Before pulling the trigger, you've got to have a clear target, period. If you don't have a clean shot, then you don't fire. They were supposed to know this.
This post was edited on 11/4/15 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:05 pm to SabiDojo
quote:
So if a guy goes on a murder spree and takes a person hostage, escapes in a vehicle, and tries to run over an officer, the police can fire into the vehicle killing both the hostage and the murderer because the only person responsible for the hostage's safety is the murderer?
How does that make any sense at all?
In the scenario you made up, the officers know there is an innocent hostage in the car. Not at all comparable to what happened last night.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:05 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
It proves they discharged their weapons in a reckless and irresponsible manner.
No it doesn't. That's why you think there are only two possibilities.
Posted on 11/4/15 at 3:06 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
If the cops were outside the car and he was coming after them, I can see shooting. If not, I don't see a threat.
I can agree with this.
Page 8 of 54
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News