• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Video Shows Officer Shooting Unarmed Black Man in South Carolina

Status
Not open for further replies.
csbrown28 said:
I'll say again, what about the misses that outnumber the hits by 2:1, what if they hit innocent bystanders? The rational you're using for HP's is exactly the opposite when dealing with projectiles that don't hit a suspect first.
Click to expand...

And what # of those misses did hit bystanders? And how many weapon discharges happened inside or towards buildings or cars where the HPs would indeed save innocent lives?

I remember that one incident outside the Empire State Building a few yrs ago...that was outside and like 9 bystanders were hit :doh One does pray that's an aberration but I dont know. Cops do miss alot. IMO the Empire State incident was a training problem, not a shooting problem. But HPs help protect anyone with some sort of barrier between the cops and them.
 

Anecdotal, but yea, I know lots of cops, including my uncle-in-law who is chief of Police in Bowling Green VA. Of the cops I know (friends and family) they all say the same thing. A lot of cops don't practice, and even more don't practice under stress. Shooting a paper target at 30' and shotting a person who's trying to kill you is much, much different. Training in high stress environments is a must and is one of the reasons cops do such bizarre things when they are under stress.

Kinda like being able to throw a football 50 yards does not make one a good quarterback.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
And again, this has already been debated.
No impact injury sustained contributed to his not being able to breath.
This was already shown.
Click to expand...

What are you referring to? Who and what proved the coroner wrong?

Wrong.
This has already been debated and you are far from reality.
Click to expand...

I must say, it is horribly boring to debate you and reminds me why I ignored you in the first place. You give no substance. You declare someone as "WRONG!" with no backing. *Yawn*


If it is an image of his injuries, you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Yes. Injuries delivered by the officers.


Your position is lame, and just shows you are incapable of understanding of the circumstance involved.
Click to expand...

Once again, *YAWN*
 
csbrown28 said:
I'm not saying that I'm necessarily right. perhaps cops should keep both FMJ's and HP's, maybe HP's save lives as they are more likely to be stopped by walls, car doors ect....I'm just saying, this isn't a slam dunk issue.
Click to expand...

Most issues are not black and white, as much as people on Internet forums and politicians would like to believe they are.

Most require a balance of weighing all the factors and then making the best decision. IMO that's how they chose HPs.
 

A fair and excellent question. Its a shame the government doesn't keep these kinds of statistics so we could objectively decide which is the better bullet.
 
csbrown28 said:
No I'm saying that wounds caused by FMJ's are less devastating, which is why we don't use them in war.
Click to expand...

csbrown28 said:
From a warfare point of view, a wounded soldier who is incapacitated is better than a dead soldier as the wounded require men and resources to care for.
Click to expand...

I've read this before. Not sure I buy that it's still relevant today, at least to the extent it was in the past. Esp. against non-regimented and formal military fighters like in the ME. (with less medic support)
 
disneydude said:
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the reason why Politifact issues more "pants on fire" to Republicans than Democrats is because maybe....just maybe.....Republicans tend to tell more lies?
Click to expand...


I am sure according to your true beliefs, that it must be true. as neither a republican or a democrat, I can tell you it seems about the same to me, surely not "9 times" in either direction.


I'm sure that you probably wouldn't give that any consideration and would dismiss anything that doesn't fit your right-wing world view.
Click to expand...

you "the right wingerz r teh lairz"

me "seems from my libertarian viewpoint the repulicans and democrats lie about the same, and often"


but hey, 9 times man republicans must lie 9 times as much. Are you for real? /facepalm


Sorry...but politifact calls it and disses on left-wing as well as right-wing. You can dismiss them all you want it doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...

I gave you the evidence, if you want to suggest that because they have "fact" in thier name that makes it so, there is nothing I can do to change your naivety on the matter.


Your sig is funny.
 
Geoist said:
Someone was obviously yanking your chain.
Click to expand...



No, I am serious, almost what 30 years ago, 98% on the test, was told flat out I wasn't black or a woman, so "sorry"....


Dinkins expanded the plan after that as well.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
No, I am serious, almost what 30 years ago, 98% on the test, was told flat out I wasn't black or a woman, so "sorry"....


Dinkins expanded the plan after that as well.
Click to expand...

Very true. At that time I worked for a large company and was told that we white guys would be slowed down in terms of career advancement in favor of minorities and blacks. I resigned and went into business for myself. Best move I ever made.
 

It is a 'what goes around, comes around' type of deal. The left was blaming Bush because he was not directly over-seeing the night-crew at Abu Ghraib. And the s*%t they are serving at school lunches is can be directly blamed on the Mooch.
 
flogger said:
Probably just another gun nut where the use of firearms is envied admired and fetishised at any and every opportunity

This is a peculiarly American phenomenon
Click to expand...

Less a gun nut and more of a "cops never do anything bad" nut...
 
flogger said:
Probably just another gun nut where the use of firearms is envied admired and fetishised at any and every opportunity

This is a peculiarly American phenomenon
Click to expand...




That's dumb... We gun owners for the vast majority of us, are for strong police reform and cringe at things like this video.

It is wrong on so many levels.
 

Then I hope he fights it and loses.
 

What angers me most is that he tried (as least that was how it looks to me) to pervert the course of justice by moving the taser to make his story of having to defend himself with lethal force legally acceptable. Luckily he was being filmed so his dishonest behavior was documented for all of us to see.
 
Just send this sucker to Ferguson as a cop with a cap gun. Let's see how he does.
 


You gave "evidence"? Hardly. An op-ed piece written by a well known right-winger who wrote for the national review is hardly "evidence". Be that as it may....I've heard the same rhetoric from people on all sides of the spectrum. I, absolutely, am left-wing. I don't try to attempt to hide my biases by adopting labels to somehow try to make it seem as if I have no bias, like some try to do. I also recognize that there is left-wing propaganda and there is right-wing propaganda. But to try to pidgoen-hole politifact as a biased liberal shill is a joke. I don't always agree with politifact, but they are one of the most credible sites out there. Sorry.
 

Just to point out the flaws in the research..

First.. they researched selected the articles..
Secondly.. Politifact decides what stories they wish to do...

So the fact that they do about the same republican vs democrat is meaningless.. If they have a liberal bias.. they could simply print republican stories that were "pants on fire".. to show that republicans were false.. and they could choose democrat stories that "were true".. in order to show democrats were more truthful.
 
Any cop that pulls people over because their middle brake light is out is just looking to fill a ticket quota.
 
beefheart said:
Any cop that pulls people over because their middle brake light is out is just looking to fill a ticket quota.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Courtesy. I've been pulled for it and didn't get a ticket. Was quite happy. It IS a road hazard. Just like driving without 2 headlights.
 
stonewall50 said:
I disagree. Courtesy. I've been pulled for it and didn't get a ticket. Was quite happy. It IS a road hazard. Just like driving without 2 headlights.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Third brake lights are relatively new. We survived without them. Cop just looking for a reason to write a ticket.
 
beefheart said:
No it isn't. Third brake lights are relatively new. We survived without them. Cop just looking for a reason to write a ticket.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Required on all vehicles after 1986. Why? Because it increases visibility from the rear. Sure. It is minor. But it is important.
 
cAPSLOCK said:
Then I hope he fights it and loses.
Click to expand...

So do I, but with everything going against him he'd do himself a lot of good if he pleas out. If someone is on his Jury, and sees that video, PLUS adds in all his lies, there's no way he's walking. He should just plea to a reduced sentence and get it over with.
 
stonewall50 said:
Sure it is. Required on all vehicles after 1986. Why? Because it increases visibility from the rear. Sure. It is minor. But it is important.
Click to expand...

And it's the law. It has to be there so it should be there. Now if someone could fix the light on the spot then maybe I would be willing to let the driver get off with a warning but that is all down to the police officer and whether he believes the light just broke. Because it is everybody's duty to check the lights regularly to make sure this kind of a thing does not happen.

I make it a habit to stop and inform people if one of their lights is broken. Even if I have to drive to that person on a parking lot and it's costing me some time. I would like it if people warned me my light is broken so I could do something about it and avoid causing a hazard/getting a ticket.
 
stonewall50 said:
Sure it is. Required on all vehicles after 1986. Why? Because it increases visibility from the rear. Sure. It is minor. But it is important.
Click to expand...

Very minor, just a convenient excuse an officer can use. Not important, the other two lights worked.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…