- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Because it's true. Why the hell would you A: enter Mexico illegally? and B: throw rocks at Mexican Cops?You say that now...
Bollocks to Mr. V and Cole, you'd be all over that **** and you know it, Probably be calling for the invasion of Mexico. Or at the very least bombing it...
Because it's true. Why the hell would you A: enter Mexico illegally? and B: throw rocks at Mexican Cops?
I like the veiled attempt to call me a racist. What, too cowardly to just come out and say you think I'm a racist?
OH btw... any warning shots fired?
No, they acted professionally. Professionals don't fire warning shots.
No, they acted professionally. Professionals don't fire warning shots.
Thats basement talk, I've been here for a month and already know that. Not going to bait me into saying that upstairs.
We're not talking about Rambo III here V...
http://polson.cals.cornell.edu/cals/devsoc/outreach/cfp/upload/ImmFacts-English.pdf7) USE OF FIREARMS - Immigration cannot use their weapons unless they believe that a person is going to kill or seriously hurt them or some other person. "Warning shots" are expressly prohibited.
No, they acted professionally. Professionals don't fire warning shots.
Against kids with rocks they should.
7) USE OF FIREARMS - Immigration cannot use their weapons unless they believe that a person is going to kill or seriously hurt them or some other person. "Warning shots" are expressly prohibited.
http://polson.cals.cornell.edu/cals/devsoc/outreach/cfp/upload/ImmFacts-English.pdf
Please clarify, because it seems to me that if an officer fires a warning shot, he's showing at least a modicum of awareness that there's something else to be done prior to pointing the gun at a teenager and firing, and facing all the legal ramifications/investigations that come as a result of it.
Untitled Document7) USE OF FIREARMS - Immigration cannot use their weapons unless they believe that a person is going to kill or seriously hurt them or some other person. "Warning shots" are expressly prohibited.
The Pros & Cons of Warning Shots and Signal ShotsWarning Shots - Introduction:
Warning shots are routinely banned by most law enforcement agencies for several reasons: the agencies may not trust their officers to make such a risky decision; the agencies are not willing to risk the intense (and costly) scrutiny of a negative outcome - when a warning shot impacts on a person(1); or, when one officer's firing of a warning shot leads other officers to believe that the suspect has fired a shot.(2) Finally, it may be that warning shots do not always work.(3) However, there are situations where warning shots would not only be appropriate, but also be an effective technique to prevent the necessity of the application of additional force. For example, warning shots have been proven effective in the stopping fleeing suspects(4). A warning shot could also be fired to get the attention of a crowd which is turning violent when no other means of communication may work. A warning shot could stop an armed aggressor who is moving in the direction of another person.
When a warning shot goes awry and hits a person(5) there is no acceptable excuse. Even if the shot is not construed as a Constitutional wrong(6), the shooting will be minimally considered as negligence on the part of the officer. "Any reasonable person would realize that firing a gun in someone's direction at close range [firing a warning shot] raises the likelihood that the person [within] the target [zone] may be hit by the bullet."(7) Where [a] police chief stated that he only intended to fire a warning shot, and the shot impacted on the suspect, the court said "There is no dispute ... over the fact that [the police chief] intentionally discharged his weapon in [the suspect's] direction and that the harm to [the suspect] was foreseeable. As the intent to fire is the only fact significant to the legal determination of whether [the police chief's] act was intentional."(8)
Well there it is everyone. It's in the book.
Shall we move on: Source: Lohan's SCRAM bracelet is set off - CNN.com
:blink:
What?? Is this your way of admitting you've been wrong and admit defeat?
ACES!
Well clearly it's in the book. It says shoot to kill if someone throws rocks. Discussion over.
No YOU are implying that my attitude is sheerly because the kid was Mexican. You are playing a passive aggressive game trying to paint me as "just a racist" because you have no counter to my comments. You said they should have used "less then lethal force" and I tore that apart, several times. You are left with nothing, so you pull that crap to try and discredit me because you have so far failed to make an argument that stands up to scrutiny.
Untitled Document
Warning shots are for Hollywood, and only Hollywood.
The Pros & Cons of Warning Shots and Signal Shots
I didn't bring up that example, but here's my example. A 15 year old kid from Minnesota throws rocks at the police, would you advocate lethally shooting that kid? They should have used less than lethal force, and if they didn't have any less than lethal weapons on them(which they should have) they should have fired warning shots. Also you are exaggerating the lethality of throwing rocks in this situation. They weren't being stoned.
From your source, there, it seems as though this officer would have had nothing to lose BY firing a warning shot. Your quoted document states "However, there are situations where warning shots would not only be appropriate, but also be an effective technique to prevent the necessity of the application of additional force" and also that it is UNACCEPTABLE to fire a warning shot and kill a victim. However, this victim was killed intentionally by the officer. So, what, if it was a warning shot gone wrong it's unacceptable, but if he's doing it with an intent to kill him, it's okay?
Lethal force isn't the appropriate response to rock throwing.
I've all ready, repeatedly shown that Warning Shots are FOR HOLLYWOOD.
Secondly, if you throw rocks at police, and the police feel threatened with death/bodily harm. Shoot to kill.
Your arguments would greatly benefit from some understanding of The REAL World, and not your fantasy land of "cops should fire warning shots" you get from watching TV and thinking that's how life works. It don't.
Besides, I didn't make this about race, the AP did with their story.
If you fire a "Warning shot" and miss, you risk unintentionally hitting a bystander. You shoot, you aim for center mass and shoot to kill. End of story.
OH btw... any warning shots fired?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?