Could you pull the trigger?

a reply to: JBurns

A quick second to see the small gun frame against a tiny kid...meaning its most likely a bb gun or toy...I doubt its a real 22 Winchester or something...she's holding it level as though not heavy.

I'd prob shoot her foot...if I absolutely had to

a reply to: Shamrock6

The poster said there's a difference between a 12 year old and a 16 year old in terms of maturity, and I agree with that poster. You said that you don't agree with that. It should have ended there, but you kept on... talking about another acting as if they're on a moral high ground in comparison others (likely yourself). The person simply was trying to say that they refuse to kill a child, and you flip them into trying to act on a moral high ground? The difference between a 12 year old shooter and a 16 year old shooter was dredged up by you, and you show patterns of shutting down debate by not addressing the full spectrum of what you prefer to address. People don't enjoy one sided debate.

This isn't a detainment, and people don't have to follow your prejudices in debate like they do the laws. Are there any other ATS laws we should know about, or maybe some aspects of the spectrum that you wish to ignore? Nobody in this realm needs to ask your permission if they are free to go.


To noncents... thank you for thinking through your heart before your logic. I can't wait for ego to be removed from society, and you are way beyond the law of averages in terms of empathy. I am sorry that ego is trying to draw such a distinct judgement over what was a very simple base of a statement. Good for you for not falling victim to the retarded mind sets of the ego splitting hairs. I wish I were able to type ''never mind" so simply and walk away like you did. Maybe one day I will cease to enjoy calling a spade that doesn't think or know they're a spade a spade. Until then, we're going to get pulled over, instructed of our flaws, and attempted to be swayed by frat members with badges.

a reply to: Blaine91555
Good question. I'm glad we can actually talk about this civilly. Cheers for that!

I think non-lethal weaponry exists that can do the job of stopping a target without killing them. Adrenaline is a beast though so, yeah, there is that to consider. I think it can be done though, there's some brutal non-lethal stuff out there.

And I know it can be viewed as unfair for a police officer to loose their job for taking the life of another. But doing that affects people in a way that, I personally belive, requires serious therapy and I don't think that can really do it's job with the officer still policing.

Shamrock said it best, "When you start intentionally killing people, you become a killer".

a reply to: CynConcepts

Trust... trust is the primary reason for altercations during traffic stops. Seriously, police seemingly view and treat people as subjects rather than human beings while citizens seemingly view and treat police as if they're nervous Nellie's that are approaching a guilty subject that needs to prove their innocence.

Police can't fish for additional crimes beyond the scope of initial detainment without causing a further distrust with their customer base. Police do it anyway, and more times then not its at the direction of a superior officer. People aren't as stupid as they act, and police should be more responsible to the sensitive nature of the police/citizen relationship. If police continue to fish for crimes beyond the scope of initial detainment, then we will continue to see the rise of divide as well... it's the law of attraction at work here, nothing more and nothing less.

Who knows what the healing measures are fully, but we could start by working on trust building. Police used to do a good job about connecting to their community, but fewer and fewer police members are policing their home towns these days... the police have been partially militarized, and stare down the citizens they patrol as suspected victims before they'd smile and ask some personal information about their own customer base. I'm not saying to trust all others... I'm just of the belief that a smile and genuine care for other humans (suspected criminals or not) is to be used as a tactic before police training. Policing crimes should be a secondary function of community healing.

Instead of sweeping streets of crime, maybe police officers should spend the first 5 years of service escorting school children to various learning activities throughout the city? They'd know their client base much better, the client base would grow up with them being a staple to their youth, and they would coexist in ways that build the community more cohesively... with a restored trust to law officiating. Whatever the measure taken is, it must rebuild the trust between law enforcement officials and citizens.

a reply to: JBurns

I think the problem with all of this comes from the language of the law concerning it..

The law is worded something like

“The officer can use deadly force whenever he reasonably feels threatened..”

Well how do you ever prove how someone feels?!?

You cannot..

To the topic, I think the officer should have to verify a weapon before firing.

That’s all I ask, which they still refuse to do..

I also think almost all of these cases where they claim the suspect charged the cop unarmed, are likely lies.. espeacially when they claim the person was shot, and then stil charging..

I’m not saying it has never ever happened.. , but it has to be super rare as any thinking person knows that’s a death sentence.

a reply to: ttobban

I said there’s no difference between a 12 year old and a 16 year old in regard to maturity? Can you quote me?

I flipped it into a moral high ground issue? I’m pretty sure the moral high ground was raised when that member said anybody who would kill a kid was a bad person. I’m fairly confident that telling somebody they’re a bad person because they’d prefer to make it home to their own family rather than let somebody kill them is making it a moral high ground issue.

You’re free to not engage with me if you don’t like what I have to say. My “prejudice” for preferring to discuss points I’ve made rather than things you’ve made up and are pretending I said is something I freely own up to. And I’m free to disengage with you at any point I care to, for whatever reason I care to. Nobody is forcing you to hit that reply button, just like nobody is forcing me to defend things you claim I said when I didn’t.

So I don’t.

a reply to: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Noncents
a reply to: CynConcepts
Call me stupid if you want. That's awfully decent of you.

Nope, I couldn't kill a kid. I'm honestly sorry to hear that you would.

Sincerely, I can't find where the person said that another person was a bad person for being willing to shoot a child. Is this something else you dredged up from nowhere, or am I not able to find it due to internal conflict? All I read, is where the poster expresses concern for hearing that a person would shoot a child. You jumped in along the way, through your Memphis story in about a 16 year old that is essentially an adult... making it look like a 16 year old is comparable to the little girl displayed in the training video. Then, you follow it up with repeated attempts to wonder why your questions are being ignored???

Come on... get a grip and come back down to Earth. The posters bail on debate with you, because apples apparently aren't apples in your world. What's the point of stopping a debate to go off topic to discuss the difference between a 12 year old's and a 16 year old's crime? What's the point of stretching it even further into being upset for not having your questions answered? There is no valid reason to appease you in debate... you operate from a one sided approach.

Are we free to leave the constraints of your one sided views officer Shamrock?

a reply to: Shamrock6

Well, first to properly debate with your stance, we must find where the poster said another person is a bad person for being willing to shot... written verbatim, and not just assumed by you. At the least, the poster didn't say 'bad person' verbatim prior to your complaining about not being met with your incessant whining about not debating what you'd like to debate. You're making it a moral high ground issue, and it's why the poster ran for the hills.

I stated before, and I will state it again... I enjoy calling spades a spade. If you want to judge others while writing yourself in to be exempt from scrutiny is laughable.

If you're feeling butt hurt because you'd be willing to kill a child for a paycheck, then I feel that's an internal conflict that isn't able to be resolved in an ATS forum. There's nothing wrong with a person feeling as if you're a bad person for deciding the fate of another's life for a paycheck, and you are owed absolutely zero/nothing/nada in terms of respect, care, or off topic debate for choosing one side or another. Then again, we have to even find where that person said that another person is a bad person to begin with... and not just the implied version.

Can you see how good you are at avoiding debate??? You can't even get through a few statements without getting upset by the content of the talking points. People are treating your debate like a traffic stop... just sitting through the whining and complaining until you go back to doughnut duty.

I'm going to try to the take 2 swings at steering debate off topic then shut down debate when it is not successful... give your methods a swing for the fences. Wait, no I won't... I don't care to shut down debate for being butt hurt. Maybe you can detain threads for 24 hours because you're mad at them and not scared of them???

Boohoo... you're taking your debate and you're going home!!!

a reply to: Noncents

I don't think there is anything that we can't discuss civilly. It's easier to communicate if we take a moment to understand others views.

I see where you are coming from and a non-lethal option is most certainly a good thing. However I think it's right to meet force with equal force. Someone far gone enough to shoot at a cop, is about as dangerous of a person to society as exists. They already made the choice to die and only they are responsible if they do.

I'm not sure shooting someone to defend others or yourself is in the category of intentionally killing people. I think that applies to the bad guy.

Thanks for explaining.

Let me apologize up front in case I offend anyone with my post.

I'm not an LEO so I cannot offer an opinion of that side of things, but I do want to make a point about killing.

A firearm is just as deadly in any hand capable of using it. It doesn't matter if that hand is 12 or 112.

That being said anyone who claims that "there is no difference in killing a kid or killing an adult in self defense" has probably done neither.

Anyone that has used deadly force against an adult has asked themselves at least once if it was completely justified.

When deadly force is used against a child that question can come up daily, if not hourly, for years (or decades) after the event.

When deadly force is used against an adult the major question we ask ourselves is "what was that person thinking", when it involves a child the question is always "what could I have done differently".

That is the major difference in the use of deadly force when it is applied to adults or children (especially in a person of any moral character) and it is a question of how one assigns blame.

So, there is a significant difference between the two. Though it may not play a part in the first situation an individual finds him/her self in where deadly force is required, it WILL play a part in every situation that follows.

Or, maybe it won't. This rants just my .02

originally posted by: Noncents


Shamrock said it best, "When you start intentionally killing people, you become a killer".

It's very important to understand the difference between the sheep, the sheepdog, and the wolves.

Especially, if one is choosing to be one and to muzzle another.

a reply to: ttobban

Then you didn’t look very hard.

Good people don’t kill kids.

I’m not sure how else to explain it to you, guy. You’re more than welcome to not talk to me any time you care to stop. I think you’re pretty confused about things. You seem to take my lack of interest in defending things I haven’t said and my unwillingness to chase ever moving goalposts as somehow me being upset. Maybe you like feeling like you’ve upset somebody or something? Who knows. Your fixation with me is entertaining though at least.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm still looking for a link that indicates where a member said that 'good people don't kill kids' or 'only bad people kill kids?' Can you please link the person and quote in this thread, so I can find resolve with the fact that you aren't continuously creating your own debate terms and limits. I am not debating with you... I'm just pointing out a full on pot/kettle scenario here.

Please Detective Shamrock... link me the quote that I am blind to see. Please... not some words with a quote around it... the actual quote please. Are you getting messages that the rest of us aren't? How long are you going to go on and on making this thread about you? I can understand that I am a confusing individual, but the more you ramble about self serving ideals, the more you feed my points.

Anyhoo... link or it didn't happen.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: pheonix358

I’ve offered my opinion on that several times. You’re welcome to look for it.

I looked and just found answers similar to the one you gave me.

I don't do circle jerks well.

It was a simple question.

P

While everyone else is bickering about all manner of other things, let's get back to the OP's question...

Could you do it???

Bottom line...deadly force is deadly force. Period.

Deadly force can only be met with deadly force in return. Period.

Sadly, the minute the girl pointed the gun with intent to kill, I'd have fired on her with deadly force (if I had a clear shot). ...and kept firing until the threat stopped. Period.

The rules are...never point a firearm at something you don't intend to kill. When a firearm is pointed at someone you have to believe the person pointing it has intent to kill the person they're pointing it at. Sorry, but that's just how it is. As sad and callous as it may seem, never shoot to wound, shoot to kill. Always. Period.

Sorry. I hate to say this, but it's reality.

edit...and just to be clear, I'd probably regret the outcome for the rest of my life, living in guilt and sorrow, but it wouldn't change what I would do in the moment when deadly force was presented.

a reply to: Blaine91555
In a world where we have amazing non-lethal weaponry I do not feel there is any reason for a police officer to take the life of another person. To determine if a person should forfeit their lives for their crimes is the duty of the court system and not the police. They are not to be the judge, jury and executioner.

I think I agree about self-defense and intentional killing. IF, and that's a big if, an actual attack has been made to defend oneself from. Pre-emptive defense doesn't fly with me, not from police, they're trained not to do that. Regular people I can understand it from a little more though. A little. I don't think A police officer shouldn't be allowed to kill people because they feel threatened.

This whole thing has me thinking... Once upon a time we (not you and I but the general we) had conversations about how much force, if any, was acceptable for police to use. Now we're talking about if it's acceptable for them to kill children.

Through this thread I've determined my stance on that. For now, maybe just today, maybe indefinitely, I don't see that changing. No, it's not all right.

"Killing is killing whether done for duty, profit or fun" - Richard Ramirez

There's no moral high ground here. None.

A firearm is just as deadly in a 10 year old's hands as it is in a 70 year old's hands. Makes exactly zero difference who's holding it.

I wouldn't want to shoot the girl, but if she had shot someone already and was aiming at me, I would definitely shoot her. I have shot deer and animals that were of no harm to me. If needed, I could kill someone who was a threat to my family, including myself. I might need a psychiatrist after that though.

I would not try to put myself in a position where that kind of thing would come up. I would not want to be a cop. If someone broke into my house and was armed, they would get shot after I made sure it was not one of my kids. Girl or not. I would not wait for them to shoot first, but I would try to make sure I was seeing a real gun.

originally posted by: Noncents
a reply to: Blaine91555
In a world where we have amazing non-lethal weaponry I do not feel there is any reason for a police officer to take the life of another person. To determine if a person should forfeit their lives for their crimes is the duty of the court system and not the police. They are not to be the judge, jury and executioner.

And I assume you'd feel this same way if that firearm was pointed at YOU...right? Or, is it just that you're not an LEO so you're allowed to sit on the couch and arm-chair quarterback??? And who gave you this right?

I think I agree about self-defense and intentional killing. IF, and that's a big if, an actual attack has been made to defend oneself from. Pre-emptive defense doesn't fly with me, not from police, they're trained not to do that. Regular people I can understand it from a little more though. A little. I don't think A police officer shouldn't be allowed to kill people because they feel threatened.

Okay, but in the example posted in the OP this wasn't the case. The young girl straight up killed an officer in plain view. No need to make up some other straw man. That's what happened. And...for all you know she might have killed 5 more people before she stopped (or ran out of ammo)...unless someone else stopped her first.

This whole thing has me thinking... Once upon a time we (not you and I but the general we) had conversations about how much force, if any, was acceptable for police to use. Now we're talking about if it's acceptable for them to kill children.

Children have nothing to do with it. Deadly force is deadly force. It matters not who is the one with the firearm. This isn't about killing children (well it is, but I'll get to that in a minute). This is about responding to a life and death threat. This particular threat (the one in the OP) was specifically constructed to highlight just such a conundrum...one where a child is involved. Age doesn't matter when there are firearms involved.

Through this thread I've determined my stance on that. For now, maybe just today, maybe indefinitely, I don't see that changing. No, it's not all right.

"Killing is killing whether done for duty, profit or fun" - Richard Ramirez

Fair enough...then next time you get held at gunpoint (which I pray never happens)...don't call the police. Why? Because you'll be upset no matter the outcome!

There will be no "winning" on this thread, the lines of disagreement are clear.

I only hope people can see the hypocrisy of some of the things they say. Know, if you take a passive stance then you should expect an equally passive stance in return...when YOU need help. It's not about justice, justice is for the courts; it's about stopping a threat from perpetrating further harm.

Is law enforcement always right? Absolutely NOT! Are they always justified in their actions? Absolutely NOT! Should offenders be prosecuted? Absolutely, to the FULLEST extent of the law! Has this always happened? No, seldom (unfortunately), but none of this changes the facts presented in the OP regarding the girl. None of it!

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Yeah, Blain and I were, I think, on our own level of conversation and off-topic. You're absolutely right that things I said had nothing to do with the OP.

In a nutshell. I don't ask for anyone to agree with me. You are absolutely correct that if the gun were pointed at me I would probably be killed before I took a shot at a kid.

You are right in that this is about responding to a life or death threat. My stance is, I would rather loose my life than take that of another person. I know, terrible. I've been told. But I'm not a cop. If I were, I probably still wouldn't be able to fire on a kid. I understand threat and all that, I really do. But I don't think I have it in me to do it.

If I could call the police while being held at gunpoint I would. It's the rational thing to do. That doesn't mean I have to support the police killing the guy. I can support them putting him on the ground and arresting him alive so he can have a trial. Like they're supposed to do.