Reply With Quote
Well that dude is white, thats why he didnt dieded
This video has been posted but has been repeatedly ignored for some reason. The man was waving a gun at the cops but the cops tried talking to him for about 30 minutes then he was shot in the leg. He got arrested and everybody lived. DMC I thought cops only shoot to kill but he was shot in the leg from a distance?
I thought there was no other way to deal with this situation because why try to de-escalate and risk getting shot right? What was the exception in this case?
Well that dude is white, thats why he didnt dieded
they were aiming for his femoral artery. Just a bad shot.
Would have been funny if they teabagged him while he was on the ground.
That was my initial thought but I keep getting told I'm being a closed minded racist hate spreader. I'm in this thread with an open mind at the moment.
Have you ever heard of "Threat Neutralization Training"?That was my initial thought but I keep getting told I'm being a closed minded racist hate spreader. I'm in this thread with an open mind at the moment.
No. I'm listening.
If that guy was black he would be filled full of more bullet holes than a firing range.
It's training gun users to aim to neutralize a threat instead of kill. A kill shot if final. Maybe the per was guilty, maybe innocent. But his fate's been sealed at that point. Instead of shooting for the head or heart, the training would teach the shooter to go for a knee or shoulder. Put the target on the ground. Then take time to assess the situation. If the person is a threat, then a kill shot is in order. But if it turns out they are not a threat and possible innocent, then medical help can be sought and in most cases, the person would live. There would certainly be some lawsuits if an innocent person was shot. But at least they would live. Laws would have to be rewritten and a fund would probably have to be put in place to compensate the innocent shooting victims. But lives would be saved. And both sides of the story could be told.
But then again, maybe that's the point of shooting to kill.
i dont get these kind of arguments. The police were able to apprehend this man and nobody was killed. That's good right?
right?
so, that somehow equates to these officers being racist??
you can't just claim that these same officers would have killed this man had he been black.
Is this threat neutralization training new? If not, why wasn't this training used with the Cleveland boy or the Walmart kid?
Breaking News: Cops are human beings and all react differently when placed in similar situations. The world is an unfair place and being black sucks.
Would you believe it's not even practiced? It's what the gun haters don't want because it provides a reasonable use for a gun. And it's what the gun lovers don't want because they always want to kill something. But it's a realistic and logical step that society needs to consider.
Well, I'm comparing the police responses and it seems that the "threat neautralization training goes out the window" with black people. The guy with the knife for example, cops showed up and just shot him within seconds. Why?
Again, I'm keeping an open mind here.
Are you sure? There has to be something similar in training like this. I refuse to believe they leave everything up to the cops about how to use the gun.
fair enough.
no...I think you misunderstood. Cops are trained to shoot. But they're trained to shoot to kill. But my point is that if you can put a bullet into a head or heart, you could just as easily hit a thigh or shoulder. But as to cops, it seems there is too much la ude given to what they can use. Why didn't Wilson tazer Brown? Or why didn't they tazer this last dude instead of choking him. Seems that would have been way easier. Or simultaneous bean bag shots. If I'm behind a big black dude and I have to get him in control, I'm sure not going to jump up and grab him around the neck. I'm gonna taze his ass.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
