A specific case comes to mind where a police officer tried shooting a python in a tree... missed, and hit someone's kid in the head down the block.
Not so much as even a formal investigation brought against him to start with... it wasn't until people started rallying and complaining that they did anything to him.. and last I heard there was no official punishment.
Had to laugh when I saw this option. A trained competent stable policeman is a contradiction in terms.
Badge + gun == dangerous person not to be trusted.
Why would you imply anything but?
Had to laugh when I saw this option. A trained competent stable policeman is a contradiction in terms.
Badge + gun == dangerous person not to be trusted.
When I said that anecdotal evidence was worse than no evidence, I was serious. The only thing worse than that is anecdotal evidence of a story that might have maybe happened one time.
This certainly sounds reasonable and measured.
Because it's factually inaccurate?
The story happened, otherwise I wouldn't have said ****.
FOXNews.com - Oklahoma Police Kill 5-Year Old Boy While Shooting at Snake - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
If you ****ing googled and applied yourself you'd have turned it up on your first search.
IN regards to the actual story... Had I fired that shot, and killed someone's child.. I'd be ****ing sitting in jail right now... same with any other normal citizen who wasn't wearing a badge.
A Cleveland County judge found two former Noble police officers guilty of second-degree manslaughter on Friday in the accidental shooting death of a 5- year-old boy, but he declined to rule immediately on a plea deal for the men. District Judge Tom Lucas said he will render a decision Monday morning on whether to accept the agreement between prosecutors and Robert Shawn Richardson, 30, and Paul Bradley Rogers, 34.
...
Under the plea agreement, Richardson and Rogers each would receive a two-year deferred prison sentence, meaning they likely would not have to spend any actual time behind bars. They also would pay a $500 fine and a $500 victims compensation assessment and surrender their police certification. Cleveland County First Assistant District Attorney David
Brockman said the proposed sentence is comparable to what prosecutors would offer in a negligent homicide case involving a vehicular accident. “If it’s an appropriate resolution for Joe Smith on the street,” he said, “it’s an appropriate resolution for these officers."
...
Family members said they believe that Rogers and Richardson are receiving special treatment because they were police officers. Brockman denied
that, telling the judge that charges were, in fact, filed in the case because the men were police officers.
Does that mean I hate cops? Absolutely not, does that mean I think they get unfair advantages in situations they **** up? Yes.
I have to wonder:
If "none of the above" has such a strong showing, why are each of these 'truths' (or a varianth thereof) so often seen posted by the anti-gun side?
I voted for #5 and #8.
I'm not necessarily anti-gun, and I'm not entirely sure about voting for #5. I think it depends on what is considered a 'standard weapon.' For example, an M4 can do far more damage than a Glock right?
For #8, that's common sense, officers and specially trained for their jobs.
Ummm....I'd have to disagree with you, at least in part.
I know lots of cops and lots of armed citizens. Many of the armed citizens I know have had more and better training than many of the cops.
When I was a county cop, we had four AD's (accidental discharges) in the locker room over three months. No one was injured. Most were attributed to racking the slide with the finger inside the trigger guard on a type of auto pistol with a light trigger. Now, that is just a newbie error... finger off the trigger until ready to fire is basic. Embarassing. At least they got the "pointed in a safe direction" part right. :doh Our Captain was not pleased.
The average cop does only that training that is required of him by the department. Many of the private armed citizens I know have sought out at least some advanced training with world-class instructors. Is this typical? I don't know, but its been my experience.
As for being more stable... naaaaaah, not really. Divorce is so common its practically a stereotype. Domestic abuse ditto, often covered up (seen that with my own eyes more than once.)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not busting on cops; I used to be one and the majority are good folks. My point is they are like human beings in general; their character and quality comes in many degrees and flavors.
Your last sentence is dead-on correct. Private armed citizens use guns for self-defense, or defense of others. Cops do that but also have to use weapons for effecting arrests in many cases. Where citizens usually try to avoid trouble when they can, cops are obliged to seek it out and involve themselves, a different dynamic. Dynamic entry (usually SWAT) is a whole 'nuther thing too. Not to mention cops usually have backup present or on the way when the SHTF.
G.
I have to wonder:
If "none of the above" has such a strong showing, why are each of these 'truths' (or a varianth thereof) so often seen posted by the anti-gun side?
Because it's an opinion poll and utterly unscientific?
No, that doesnt really answer the question.Because it's an opinion poll and utterly unscientific?
The average cop is probably more of all those things than the average citizen, mostly due to the fact that they all go through extensive firearm training while the average citizen doesn't. There's also probably something to the fact that in situations where guns are being used, police officers have a different set of interests than do private citizens.
To clarify, I was referring to the "average citizen" who probably doesn't have a gun at all or has only had the most minimal training. I don't doubt that there are many private citizens who are far more responsible with their weapons than many cops.
Cleveland County First Assistant District Attorney David
Brockman said the proposed sentence is comparable to what prosecutors would offer in a negligent homicide case involving a vehicular accident. “If it’s an appropriate resolution for Joe Smith on the street,” he said, “it’s an appropriate resolution for these officers."
So you're saying the Cleveland DA is a liar?
I have to wonder:
If "none of the above" has such a strong showing, why are each of these 'truths' (or a varianth thereof) so often seen posted by the anti-gun side?
No, that doesnt really answer the question.
If "A cop is better trained, competent, has better judgment and is more stable than an ordinary citizen " has such a strong showing, why is "none of the above" so often seen posted by the pro-gun side?
Actually no -- I am asking why, If "none of the above" has such a strong showing, are each of these 'truths' (or a varianth thereof) so often seen posted by the anti-gun side?All right. You are asking why "none of the above" is a common answer to your poll, disagreeing with the other options. My response: people have different opinions and will express them.
The average cop is probably more of all those things than the average citizen, mostly due to the fact that they all go through extensive firearm training while the average citizen doesn't. There's also probably something to the fact that in situations where guns are being used, police officers have a different set of interests than do private citizens.
While both may share that interest, the cop is also interested in following standard police procedure in order to keep his job and ensure that should a shooting be necessary, it will comply with the rules and regulations of his job. These rules are not always in alignment with what a civilian might do.
Anecdotal evidence is worse than no evidence.
Actually no -- I am asking why, If "none of the above" has such a strong showing, are each of these 'truths' (or a varianth thereof) so often seen posted by the anti-gun side?
That is, if they are so obviously not true, why do they keep getting repeated?
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?