Second shooting in Fergusson kills a 25 year old

[Murdoch]

If your attacking someone with a gun, and you have a knife, your clearly intent on killing/causing bodily harm, and you get what's coming to you.

 

Normally this is where decent training is used. Neutralising the threat should be the role of armed police, showing restraint is necessary if it's ever gonna work effectively.

 

But we're talking about 'Murica. So 'normally' doesn't really apply, because it's a special case.

[Trik'Stari]

He's got some real skill in doing that. And only incites violence.

 

Show up in a doughnut costume then?

He'd have likely tried to eat me.

 

Still not as bad as the time the P.E. Teacher overheard me say "those who can't do, teach, those who can't teach, teach gym class" lol, his fat ass wouldn't speak to me for the rest of the year.

 

 

Normally this is where decent training is used. Neutralising the threat should be the role of armed police, showing restraint is necessary if it's ever gonna work effectively.

 

But we're talking about 'Murica. So 'normally' doesn't really apply, because it's a special case.

This sounds like suicide by cop, they shot him when he was 3 to four feet away, ignoring verbal commands to surrender. He gets the darwin award.

[Builder]

If you're talking about the Martin case it's a fun fact to know that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head in to concrete repeatedly right before he was shot.

That's actually not proven to be true. Eyewitnesses are divided. Furthermore, there is absolutely zero chance that Trayvon would have been shot if Zimmerman had not gotten out of the car. There is also zero chance that he would have been shot, and even less chance that Zimmerman would have gotten out of the car if he did not have a gun.

[Trik'Stari]

That's actually not proven to be true. Eyewitnesses are divided. Furthermore, there is absolutely zero chance that Trayvon would have been shot if Zimmerman had not gotten out of the car. There is also zero chance that he would have been shot, and even less chance that Zimmerman would have gotten out of the car if he did not have a gun.

1. He was not ordered by a police officer to remain in the car, and thus had every right to get out. (a 911 operator is not a deputised law officer and thus cannot give orders to civillians like an actual law enforcment officer can)

2. Not to mention if you look at the crime scene photo's of zimmermans face at the scene, he was beaten to a bloody pulp

3. The autopsy outright stated that the victim was standing above zimmerman when he was shot.

 

All he had to do was stop and say "hey, why are you following me?" or run home and called the police (which is what I would do, better to escape the situation than confront it) and said "hey some weird guy was following me, can yall come out here and check this out?". But no, as far as we know, he hid behind a bush, and ambushed zimmerman thinking him to be some "faggot ass white creeper" or something along those lines, according to the girl that was on the phone with him at the time.

[AlwaysFSX]

That's actually not proven to be true. Eyewitnesses are divided. Furthermore, there is absolutely zero chance that Trayvon would have been shot if Zimmerman had not gotten out of the car. There is also zero chance that he would have been shot, and even less chance that Zimmerman would have gotten out of the car if he did not have a gun.

Group one:

He attacked the cop

 

Group two:

He walked away from the cop, then got shot.

 

Few things wrong with that. Usually the statements made that are false, are only done by one person. In a racially tense subject like this, people will lie because of racism. They will say that someone of their own race did nothing wrong just to make the other person guilty.

 

Second, how does someone only have bullet wounds in the front? That means that the guy did not turn around and walk away as "eye-witnesses" have stated.

 

 

 

Trayvon had no business being in that neighborhood because it was no where near or along the path to where he said he was going. And neighborhood watch is to keep troublemakers out of the area. Martin was a punk of a kid that has gotten in trouble more times than I have fingers. No wonder he picked a fight with Zimmerman.

[Murdoch]

This sounds like suicide by cop, they shot him when he was 3 to four feet away, ignoring verbal commands to surrender. He gets the darwin award.

 

Yeah. I know nothing about this specific case. I was talking more generally.

 

Armed Police in the UK, are specifically trained, and generally a response unit. I've seen them show extreme restraint to not use lethal force, even when fully justified to do so. They made mistakes in the past, which caused significant political unrest, so I think there's clear directive to not use lethal force. But they are highly trained, well equipped, and their use of force to incapacitate is precise and swift.

 

It's ofc easier to implement something like that, with a population which generally doesn't have access to firearms.

[Trik'Stari]

Yeah. I know nothing about this specific case. I was talking more generally.

 

Armed Police in the UK, are specifically trained, and generally a response unit. I've seen them show extreme restraint to not use lethal force, even when fully justified to do so. They made mistakes in the past, which caused significant political unrest, so I think there's clear directive to not use lethal force. But they are highly trained, well equipped, and their use of force to incapacitate is precise and swift.

 

It's ofc easier to implement something like that, with a population which generally doesn't have access to firearms.

-and as a result are incapable of defending themselves from a person who has illegally obtained a firearm, whilst waiting for the overworked police force.

 

When all you have are seconds, the police are just minutes away.

 

This guy deserved to be shot and killed. He did it to himself as far as I am concerned. Would be no different than if he had stuck the knife into an electrical outlet.

[Builder]

Trayvon had no business being in that neighborhood because it was no where near or along the path to where he said he was going. And neighborhood watch is to keep troublemakers out of the area. Martin was a punk of a kid that has gotten in trouble more times than I have fingers. No wonder he picked a fight with Zimmerman.

I don't want to argue with you over this. It's pretty clear that bias is getting in the way so it's time to stop.

[thebennyboy]

Seems like it's not just civilians that need to have more gun control. Needs to be so much more tighter like it is here in the UK, that's not to say we haven't had cases like this but it does seem to be far more common in the US. My questions would be:

 

If he had his hands up to surrender, why was he shot?

If he aggressively moved towards police, why did they not just tazer him? 

 

Surely having a criminal alive will give more justice to his victims than just shooting him dead?

[Trik'Stari]

Seems like it's not just civilians that need to have more gun control. Needs to be so much more tighter like it is here in the UK, that's not to say we haven't had cases like this but it does seem to be far more common in the US. My questions would be:

 

If he had his hands up to surrender, why was he shot?

If he aggressively moved towards police, why did they not just tazer him? 

1. He wasn't surrendering (the one in the OP).

2. Any number of reasons. They might have suspected that he was on drugs, which can counter a tazer (tazers don't work on someone on meth or muscle relaxers)

 

We don't need more gun control, we need more shootings of criminals. I personally love living in a place where I can defend myself, and don't have to wait for the police to save my life like you do in the UK.

[thebennyboy]

1. He wasn't surrendering (the one in the OP).

2. Any number of reasons. They might have suspected that he was on drugs, which can counter a tazer (tazers don't work on someone on meth or muscle relaxers)

 

We don't need more gun control, we need more shootings of criminals. I personally love living in a place where I can defend myself, and don't have to wait for the police to save my life like you do in the UK.

 

We don't need to defend ourselves against GUN crime as it is many times less likely we would be shot, this is due to us having EXTREMELY tight gun controls. More guns = more gun crime. It's a self-replicating problem, more guns is NEVER the answer. I have provided a quote to prove my point. And you say more guns is better? How WRONG you are.

 

I quote from: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

 

By these figures, you are just over 9 TIMES more likely to be shot in the US.

 

 

% of homicides by firearm

 

United States - 60%

England and Wales - 6.6%

 

Number of guns per 100 people

 

United States - 88.8

England and Wales - 6.2

 

[Murdoch]

-and as a result are incapable of defending themselves from a person who has illegally obtained a firearm, whilst waiting for the overworked police force.

 

When all you have are seconds, the police are just minutes away.

 

This guy deserved to be shot and killed. He did it to himself as far as I am concerned. Would be no different than if he had stuck the knife into an electrical outlet.

 

Yepp that's the problem with a response style unit, the time it takes for them to be at the scene. Especially when unarmed police are told to hold back till they arrive. But gun crime is the UK is pretty rare, so it's better that, than having all police armed at all times. That just increases the risk that insufficiently trained police would shoot more people, it would be a disproportionate response to the risk, imo.

[Mooshi]

Guys, this isn't a matter of gun control, this is a matter of holding a weapon up to an officer and refusing to put it down. I am fairly certain if the officer did taze, accusations of racism and frivolous lawsuits would have been the end result.

 

For non Americans, this might come as a shock but if you shoot to injure someone breaking into your house and spared their life, they can and will win a lawsuit against you. We have no choice in this country but to shoot to kill in order to avoid a mockery of the courts.

[Trik'Stari]

We don't need to defend ourselves against GUN crime as it is many times less likely we would be shot, this is due to us having EXTREMELY tight gun controls. More guns = more gun crime. It's a self-replicating problem, more guns is NEVER the answer.

Yeah, coming from a country where people aren't allowed to own guns, I am going to assume you know nothing at all about guns, and gun ownership, thus invalidating your opinion to me. Tell me, what would you do if someone broke into your house with a knife intent on killing/raping you/yourfamily? I know you certainly wouldn't be able to shoot them in self defense, and that if you did indeed defend yourself you would likely end up being prosecuted for assault. Your countries laws make no sense, you are all dependent upon others for protection as a result. And again, it's been proven that anti gun laws do not prevent criminals from getting access to firearms, it makes it more difficult, but ultimately it harms the innocent more than the criminals.

[Kerplex]

Shall i chime in? Considering i am more qualified to do so than anyone else replying in this thread Or do i sit back with some popcorn?

[Real_PhillBert]

Shall i chime in? Considering i am more qualified to do so than anyone else replying in this thread Or do i sit back with some popcorn?

Screw it I'll bite, Why are you more qualified than everyone else?

[Trik'Stari]

We don't need to defend ourselves against GUN crime as it is many times less likely we would be shot, this is due to us having EXTREMELY tight gun controls. More guns = more gun crime. It's a self-replicating problem, more guns is NEVER the answer. I have provided a quote to prove my point. And you say more guns is better? How WRONG you are.

 

I quote from: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

 

By these figures, you are just over 9 TIMES more likely to be shot in the US.

The simple fact is, you are less able to defend yourselves, and more likely to be prosecuted for doing so, in your country.

 

Shall i chime in? Considering i am more qualified to do so than anyone else replying in this thread Or do i sit back with some popcorn?

 

Screw it I'll bite, Why are you more qualified than everyone else?

^seconded

[thebennyboy]

Yeah, coming from a country where people aren't allowed to own guns, I am going to assume you know nothing at all about guns, and gun ownership, thus invalidating your opinion to me. Tell me, what would you do if someone broke into your house with a knife intent on killing/raping you/yourfamily? I know you certainly wouldn't be able to shoot them in self defense, and that if you did indeed defend yourself you would likely end up being prosecuted for assault. Your countries laws make no sense, you are all dependent upon others for protection as a result. And again, it's been proven that anti gun laws do not prevent criminals from getting access to firearms, it makes it more difficult, but ultimately it harms the innocent more than the criminals.

 

Yes, coming from a country where you 9 TIMES less likely to be shot than in the US. Besides the fact if you bothered to learn proper self-defence, you would know how to properly disarm someone and incapacitate them. Unlike a large percentage of Americans who are too cowardly to properly stand up to someone and would rather just hide behind the barrel of a gun.

[Kerplex]

Screw it I'll bite, Why are you more qualified than everyone else?

Take at look what my occupation is.

[thebennyboy]

The simple fact is, you are less able to defend yourselves, and more likely to be prosecuted for doing so, in your country.

 

 

^seconded

 

We are able to defend ourselves without fear of prosecution. So you are also wrong on that account. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/self_defence/

[Trik'Stari]

Yes, coming from a country where you 9 TIMES less likely to be shot than in the US. Besides the fact if you bothered to learn proper self-defence, you would know how to properly disarm someone and incapacitate them. Unlike a large percentage of Americans who are too cowardly to properly stand up to someone and would rather just hide behind the barrel of a gun.

Insult = automatic troll = automatic invalid response = automatic ignored

 

Your country is oppressed. You know nothing about actual gun ownership. Enjoy being raped/stabbed whilst waiting for the police to come help you.

 

Take at look what my occupation is.

They have crime in Canada? *JOKE*

[Real_PhillBert]

Yes, coming from a country where you 9 TIMES less likely to be shot than in the US. Besides the fact if you bothered to learn proper self-defence, you would know how to properly disarm someone and incapacitate them. Unlike a large percentage of Americans who are too cowardly to properly stand up to someone and would rather just hide behind the barrel of a gun.

Im sorry but this post makes me laugh.

 

In a place where you admit that you are 9 times more likely to be assaulted by someone with a gun than the UK, you still feel like people who are trying to defend themselves with guns are foolish. If you seriously believe that you can go toe to toe against a criminal with a gun while you have nothing but your fists? That seems very foolish to me.

[thebennyboy]

Insult = automatic troll = automatic invalid response.

 

Your country is oppressed. You know nothing about actual gun ownership. Enjoy being raped/stabbed whilst waiting for the police to come help you.

 

They have crime in Canada? *JOKE*

 

We don't need to know anything about gun ownership, as it is far less of a problem here.

 

EDIT: Probably not gonna argue any further, considering most of what i'm arguing is either not being read correctly or is not read at all. Provided stats to backup my point, you however have proved NOTHING.

[Real_PhillBert]

Take at look what my occupation is.

Cool, Canadian law enforcement. What exactly make you feel like you are more qualified to discuss this than an American Engineer?

 

If you were American law enforcement I would yield, but your not. 

[Trik'Stari]

Im sorry but this post makes me laugh.

 

In a place where you admit that you are 9 times more likely to be assaulted by someone with a gun than the UK, you still feel like people who are trying to defend themselves with guns are foolish. If you seriously believe that you can go toe to toe against a criminal with a gun while you have nothing but your fists? That seems very foolish to me.

^advantage Phillbert.

 

Funny how people from the UK, who generally have no real world experience with guns, are so very quick to dismiss others for wanting an equalizer to defend themselves with. The simple fact is, if someone breaks into my house with a knife, hears me cock my shotgun, they are going to brown their pants and run 90% of the time, the other 10% they are going to get shot. Most of the time you wont even need to use it.

 

But no, lets outlaw them based on the fact that "Their dangerous and can hurtz peoplezz!!!!!!!" which is a statement that can be applied to every single object on the planet.