I believe the term is 'bounty'. He's black on the outside, but white on the inside.
And yet it's apparently the US police that are the racist ones...
police killing black man in New Jersey
- Thread starter Ilikeitblackplease
- Start date
I believe the term is 'bounty'. He's black on the outside, but white on the inside.
And yet it's apparently the US police that are the racist ones...
I don't see what race has to do with it, white and black people in the car and amongst the cops. I've lived in the US and the willingness to grab guns is disgraceful among both the public and police. I love many things about the country but deplore their blindspot with guns.
You're wrong as far as the UK is concerned, they are trained to shoot to stop.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 3,225
- Location
- Stoke-on-Trent
Incorrect there is and never have been such a thing as shoot to stop.
You aim for the largest mass which is generally the chest. Whether they survive is luck of the draw.
But then there wouldn't be any 'Story' to report...
We have a shoot to "remove the threat" policy. Other than in the case of suspected suicide bombers where it's shoot to kill without warning;
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kratos
Problem is if it's got to the stage shots are fired removing the threat usually ends in death.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kratos
Problem is if it's got to the stage shots are fired removing the threat usually ends in death.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 5,575
Police officers shoot a man who did not comply with instructions and also possessed at least one gun that the officer knew of? A person who was known to the Police officers and who has resisted arrest before.
True, there may be a case to answer for the use of deadly force if it turns out it wasn't warranted, but none of us were there in that moment and none of us know all of the facts, so we really should not be pointing fingers
I do think it is irresponsible of the press to turn it into a race issue though, but I suppose they got to sell as much as they can, right?
True, there may be a case to answer for the use of deadly force if it turns out it wasn't warranted, but none of us were there in that moment and none of us know all of the facts, so we really should not be pointing fingers
I do think it is irresponsible of the press to turn it into a race issue though, but I suppose they got to sell as much as they can, right?
It is always shoot to stop as far as UK police are concerned.
Good thing for all of us that you'll presumably never, ever be in that situation then. Your entire post is rubbish.
The policy is very clearly called "shoot to stop", in that the purpose of discharging a firearm is intended to stop - and not necessarily to kill - the target. Obviously in the application of lethal force death can and sometimes does occur as a result, but the actual intention of using that level of force is not to kill which is why AFOs are trained to assess each shot they take and to administer emergency first aid as soon as the threat is stopped.
More people survive being shot by UK police than die from it. Only one person was shot and killed by armed police last year.
If the black guy had stuck both hands out of the window like the white guy instead of trying to be a tough guy, there wouldn't have been a problem.
There are just as many videos like this of the person in the stopped car shooting at the police officer.
There are just as many videos like this of the person in the stopped car shooting at the police officer.
I just watched the video and I'm not sure, given the state of the U.S. and the amount of guns, what the cop was meant to do. The passenger didn't do as told and died whearas the driver did do as told and lived. Not rocket science.
I'm not saying cops in America are not unknown to be trigger happy but video evidence should solve any dispute in most cases.
I'm not saying cops in America are not unknown to be trigger happy but video evidence should solve any dispute in most cases.
yep perfectly still very slow, and only do what your told.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
I don't oppose gun ownership, but this argument is pretty weak. The majority of people who own a gun would not fight, because most people would rather live under a dictatorship than die in freedom. That has always been the case and always will be the case.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,525
- Location
- Woking
You know what reduces gun crime? Reducing the number of guns...
I think that it's fantastic that we live under a government who don't deem guns for the police to be a necessity. The only reason why we can get away with this is because the average citizen cannot carry a gun around at all times.
If citizens could carry, then we'd need police with guns.