Stupid people are talking in public again.

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
Women's Gender and Sexuality Studies?
Jesus.

Yea. I dated one of those. Once. For 9 years. It took years afterwards to get my testosterone back in line. I had to binge watch about a decades worth of UFC.

How did you endure it?

originally posted by: dr1234

originally posted by: rollanotherone

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
Women's Gender and Sexuality Studies?
Jesus.

Yea. I dated one of those. Once. For 9 years. It took years afterwards to get my testosterone back in line. I had to binge watch about a decades worth of UFC.

How did you endure it?

Lots and lots of video games. Lots of herbage and booze. And I never hung around her and her friends.

a reply to: Jahari

Well there is a lot to take into account in that "situation" that you have presented, one of the major facts what is the person doing to not comply, is he threatening the officers with death or bystanders at all?

But back to the thread at hand...

Just that lethal force itself is unjust. In this case imo it was handled appropriately by the young officer. However I can agree that in certain situations lethal force isnt warranted and rules of engagement should have nonlethal options in place before deadly force should be used as a last resort.

Lethal force is already used as a last resort, most police departments around the nation carry pepperspray/mace, batons and tasers with them. I can respect your opinion that you think non-lethal munitions and tactics should be used more often, but I am sorry until you are placed in a life or death scenario you are just "back seat driving" for lack of the better words. If a officer deems that there is no danger to the public or themselves by the suspect and non-lethal is an option they will try and use that first, they will try to deescalate the situation. But if that officer deems that their life or the life of a innocent bystander is in jeopardy then that is when they will use lethal force. Now I understand a small percentage of officers have the wrong intention in mind, and that is the type of officer that gets portrayed in the news. You rarely ever hear about the police officer that saved someone life because they made the decision to take another life.

"lethal force cannot bring justice. "

She is absolutely right; lethal force cannot bring justice .... so it's a good thing "justice" was not the goal of this lethal force. "Protection" was the goal of this lethal force.

Everything is so crazy these days this doesn't surprise me at all. Would love to see these protesters with a butcher knife swung at them. Pleading for a cop standing by to shoot him only to get the response I'm sorry guys we lost that right cause of you.

originally posted by: caf1550
a reply to: Jahari

Well there is a lot to take into account in that "situation" that you have presented, one of the major facts what is the person doing to not comply, is he threatening the officers with death or bystanders at all?

But back to the thread at hand...

Just that lethal force itself is unjust. In this case imo it was handled appropriately by the young officer. However I can agree that in certain situations lethal force isnt warranted and rules of engagement should have nonlethal options in place before deadly force should be used as a last resort.

Lethal force is already used as a last resort, most police departments around the nation carry pepperspray/mace, batons and tasers with them. I can respect your opinion that you think non-lethal munitions and tactics should be used more often, but I am sorry until you are placed in a life or death scenario you are just "back seat driving" for lack of the better words. If a officer deems that there is no danger to the public or themselves by the suspect and non-lethal is an option they will try and use that first, they will try to deescalate the situation. But if that officer deems that their life or the life of a innocent bystander is in jeopardy then that is when they will use lethal force. Now I understand a small percentage of officers have the wrong intention in mind, and that is the type of officer that gets portrayed in the news. You rarely ever hear about the police officer that saved someone life because they made the decision to take another life.

Well im speaking of personal experience. 10 years in the marine corps 97-07 ...3rd battalion 8th marines out NC...mos 0311...so i know about it first hand and no the police do not adhere to the proper rules of engagement when trying to disarm a situation. They come to end the situation. Most people that get gunned down are already surrounded and the area is established. This is where lethal force becomes too much. When you use it to make your job easier. Of all the nonlethals you named not one mention of flash bangs, bean bags etc. Just hand to hand nonlethals that most mall cops use. So until "YOU" are in a situation where you need to make life or death decisions dont quote some ramblings in some book youve read. Police the situation. Respectfully.

originally posted by: Jahari

originally posted by: caf1550
a reply to: Jahari

Well there is a lot to take into account in that "situation" that you have presented, one of the major facts what is the person doing to not comply, is he threatening the officers with death or bystanders at all?

But back to the thread at hand...

Just that lethal force itself is unjust. In this case imo it was handled appropriately by the young officer. However I can agree that in certain situations lethal force isnt warranted and rules of engagement should have nonlethal options in place before deadly force should be used as a last resort.

Lethal force is already used as a last resort, most police departments around the nation carry pepperspray/mace, batons and tasers with them. I can respect your opinion that you think non-lethal munitions and tactics should be used more often, but I am sorry until you are placed in a life or death scenario you are just "back seat driving" for lack of the better words. If a officer deems that there is no danger to the public or themselves by the suspect and non-lethal is an option they will try and use that first, they will try to deescalate the situation. But if that officer deems that their life or the life of a innocent bystander is in jeopardy then that is when they will use lethal force. Now I understand a small percentage of officers have the wrong intention in mind, and that is the type of officer that gets portrayed in the news. You rarely ever hear about the police officer that saved someone life because they made the decision to take another life.

Well im speaking of personal experience. 10 years in the marine corps 97-07 ...3rd battalion 8th marines out NC...mos 0311...so i know about it first hand and no the police do not adhere to the proper rules of engagement when trying to disarm a situation. They come to end the situation. Most people that get gunned down are already surrounded and the area is established. This is where lethal force becomes too much. When you use it to make your job easier. Of all the nonlethals you named not one mention of flash bangs, bean bags etc. Just hand to hand nonlethals that most mall cops use. So until "YOU" are in a situation where you need to make life or death decisions dont quote some ramblings in some book youve read. Police the situation. Respectfully.

Ok, I can agree a lot of situations it's unwarranted and used too quickly, but here? Drop the #er like. a rabid dog. Any Muslim jihadist running around with a knife (maybe packing) and who had just used his vehicle as a weapon of war is a serious #ing threat and should be dealt with accordingly, shoot first ask questions later. My honest opinion.

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
Women's Gender and Sexuality Studies?
Jesus.

SO what kind of job do you get with that degree?

At least with an underwater basket weaving degree you get a basket at the end, but...

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: annoyedpharmacist

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
Women's Gender and Sexuality Studies?
Jesus.

Tons of jobs out there with that degree

*rolls eyes*

Researchers, writers and teachers. It often leads to getting a masters in psychology, social work or sociology.

So basically it leads to getting a higher fluff degree.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
these idiots get quoted in the news-because the physics students are too busy

LOL
Was WHY to busy reading all books for class nad all my research to go to protest and other stuff.

(Not to exclude working full time to pay for it and eat.)

I know this is going to blow the minds of certain individuals in this thread, but the police is there to "protect and serve" not just serve. The protect portion means to protect civilians from criminal intent. It's sad this needs spelled out. Maybe that woman should go get another useless degree on interpreting a dictionary.

Universities are profit schools, they will invent a course if they think it will bring in money, that is their sole objective...

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
Women's Gender and Sexuality Studies?
Jesus.

That equates to a degree in "Social Justice" and upon completion, you get to claim the title "Warrior". Now you see why a few here are trying to prop up this degree path, it's their heritage.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: ItCameFromOuterSpace
Women's Gender and Sexuality Studies?
Jesus.

That equates to a degree in "Social Justice" and upon completion, you get to claim the title "Warrior". Now you see why a few here are trying to prop up this degree path, it's their heritage.

And the end goal is to work themselves out of a job. It's true.

Oh clear case of Police brutality!!

Yeah right...

To quote Dirty Harry

The Mayor: Callahan... I don't want any more trouble like you had last year in the Fillmore district. You understand? That's my policy.

Harry Callahan: Yeah, well, when an adult male is chasing a female with intent to commit rape, I shoot the bastard - that's my policy.

The Mayor: Intent? How'd you establish that?

Harry Callahan: When a naked man is chasing a woman through a dark alley with a butcher knife and a hard on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross.

[leaves]

The Mayor: I think he's got a point.

Clearly a lady who supports his actions and needs to keep her trap shut...

a reply to: DBCowboy

This comes as little surprise to me. Some people should not be allowed to breed!

Lethal force ALWAYS brings justice in smoking gun crime.

Don't attack the messenger, after all there is an immense amount of material to sift through before you are even able to establish that there are 2 genders and many people don't have the native intellect to even get their brains around that.

a reply to: Jahari

So you are a Marine as well, I did 4 years 07-11 2nd CEB so I as well as you have first hand experinace in life or death situations, and I currently work as a LEO so again I'm not quoting ramblings from some book I'm going off of my first hand experaince from being in my line of work for 5 going on 6 years now. You talk of flashbangs like every patrol officer carries them with us but that sir is a complete fallacy, however as a patrol officer I do have a beanbag shotgun, taser and OC spray on my person or in my cruiser...I would much rather use one of those three mentioned items in a situation where I was using less then lethal over a flashbang any day...especially if there were innocent people around. I'm also disagreeing with you when you say the police don't adhere to rules of engagement...can you show me an instance that you have seen first hand where they did not ?

originally posted by: caf1550
a reply to: Jahari

So you are a Marine as well, I did 4 years 07-11 2nd CEB so I as well as you have first hand experinace in life or death situations, and I currently work as a LEO so again I'm not quoting ramblings from some book I'm going off of my first hand experaince from being in my line of work for 5 going on 6 years now. You talk of flashbangs like every patrol officer carries them with us but that sir is a complete fallacy, however as a patrol officer I do have a beanbag shotgun, taser and OC spray on my person or in my cruiser...I would much rather use one of those three mentioned items in a situation where I was using less then lethal over a flashbang any day...especially if there were innocent people around. I'm also disagreeing with you when you say the police don't adhere to rules of engagement...can you show me an instance that you have seen first hand where they did not ?

Semper fi devil pup!!!