It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

All 9 people injured in Friday's shooting near the Empire State Building were wounded by Police

page: 4
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 



I have had a gun pointed at me. More than once, and I have never lost control.

That's pretty frightening. Under what circumstances? A dead man on the ground? The shooter there and aiming at you? A crowded street with more potential victims? Did you open fire? Did all your shots hit the target?

Nothing I've seen so far indicates that the police lost control. Did they miss their target? Yes, but it seems that it was richocets and shrapel which caused the injuries. That tells me that none were in the line of fire.

edit on 8/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


The problem isn't the use force but the fallout from it. The entire point being that these are people trained to assess, justify and execute it.


I gotta stop right here and disagree with this totalitarian ideology.

The use of force IS the problem. That's the problem with the alleged killer and with the overzealous police.

"assess, justify and execute it."
Is that a fancy way to say "The police are suppose to be judge, jury, and executioner."?
It's very similar.

These are some frightening developments in society indeed.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Is that a fancy way to say "The police are suppose to be judge, jury, and executioner."?

How about "The police were protecting themselves when threatened with deadly force by the perpetrator of a murder."



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


As I said, more than once and yes, once there was a dead body involved. However, in this case the police had not even seen the body at that time. It was around the corner. They were acting solely on the word of a construction worker who had followed the man and called for help (good on him, by the way! Give THAT man a medal!). They were not in the middle of a firefight, however much some people try to portray it as such.

Why are you making excuses? These are supposedly professionals. I expect them to act professionally, or they need to find other employment. I watched the video of the shooting. These two LEOs fired their weapons 16 times on an occupied sidewalk, AND MISSED at least 6 times! Three of those misses hit innocent bystanders and six other citizens were injured by shrapnel of one type or another. The man wasn't running around screaming and yelling and threatening everyone. He wasn't firing his weapon indiscriminately. One LEO seemed to me to be firing as he back-pedaled away (directly into said bystanders). I don't expect perfection, but I expect more than this.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Is that a fancy way to say "The police are suppose to be judge, jury, and executioner."?

How about "The police were protecting themselves when threatened with deadly force by the perpetrator of a murder."


Interesting concept.
That would put you in the Kantian Ethics camp it would seem. At least in this one instance.

My statement was however more in juxtaposition of this theory of ethics, and was more akin to the utilitarianist approach.

Although I don't always agree with any one theory, as obviously any individuals own understanding or inclinations may be slightly different.

Everyone should read some John Stuart Mill also.

Normative Ethics is a fun subject sometimes, but also frustrating and challenging other times.
edit on 25-8-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


The man wasn't running around screaming and yelling and threatening everyone. He wasn't firing his weapon indiscriminately.
He drew a weapon at close range. Is that not sufficient call for the use of deadly force? Were they supposed to wait for him to open fire?



I don't expect perfection, but I expect more than this.

Maybe your expectations are too high. The police are, after all, human.

edit on 8/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


That would put you in the Kantian Ethics camp it would seem. At least in this one instance.

No. It would put me in the camp of self preservation.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Montana
 


The man wasn't running around screaming and yelling and threatening everyone. He wasn't firing his weapon indiscriminately.
He drew a weapon. Is that not sufficient call for the use of deadly force? Were they supposed to wait for him to open fire?



I don't expect perfection, but I expect more than this.

Maybe your expectations are too high. The police are, after all, human.

edit on 8/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Maybe there is a middle ground?

Could we agree that perhaps force was justified if the suspect did indeed make threatening gestures with a weapon, but also explore the possibility that they may have overused that force and went a little overboard?

Justified on one hand initially, but quickly sliding into "overkill" territory, "excessive killing", "An excess of what is necessary or appropriate for a particular end" according to the dictionary.

But then again, it really doesn't matter what you or I think. It's up to the individuals who were injured to press charges if they personally choose to do so. Many of them probably will not press charges, but may receive some type of out of court settlements for financial compensation.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Did he "draw his weapon" on them, or was the weapon he was holding uncovered when he held his hands out? That's what it seemed like to me when I saw the video, but I wasn't there and the video isn't the clearest. However, the police DID issue a statement saying that at no time did he attempt to shoot at the officers, so......

Are my expectations unreasonable? Maybe, I suppose. But why shouldn't I expect much more from LEOs who are given the power of life and death over we the people? Indeed I have to ask why don't you? These aren't any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street, these are supposedly trained LEOs!



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I think they should have drawn their weapons,identify themselves while taking careful aim,then accurately respond to the perp with appropiate action.
Was this even attempted?



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


That would put you in the Kantian Ethics camp it would seem. At least in this one instance.

No. It would put me in the camp of self preservation.


That doesn't make sense.
Unless you are suggesting that police lives > civilian lives, which is also illogical because their job is to protect civilians, not sacrifice half a dozen of them to potentially protect "more", which is indeterminate.

Put yourself in the innocent bystanders shoes.
Is that self-preservation? No..it's getting shot randomly out of nowhere.

You have to take into consideration multiple relative frames of reference.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Could we agree that perhaps force was justified if the suspect did indeed make threatening gestures with a weapon, but also explore the possibility that they may have overused that force and went a little overboard?

Pulling a weapon is a "threatening gesture".


Many of them probably will not press charges, but may receive some type of out of court settlements for financial compensation.

I'm sure that will be the case.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


That doesn't make sense.
Unless you are suggesting that police lives > civilian lives, which is also illogical because their job is to protect civilians, not sacrifice half a dozen of them to potentially protect "more", which is indeterminate.

Are you suggesting that the police should have waited to see what someone who had just shot a man and just pulled out a gun was going to do next?



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


All this proves is that two officers need to go back to gun training. Nice try, though.

Wait...no it wasn't.

/TOA



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage


Many of them probably will not press charges, but may receive some type of out of court settlements for financial compensation.

I'm sure that will be the case.


Yeah, so I guess it doesn't even matter if we agree or disagree.

If we really cared we would go lobby the legislators on this specific issue I suppose, that is if we wanted to change anything.

As far as I am aware, nothing will be done unless the victims press charges or sue the department. Which really isn't anyone's call except those concerned. That is my understanding of the law at least.

I suppose groups could form that would lobby to increase funding for training or add new regulations or whatever, but it remains to be seen what will eventuate.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
But, I thought having more guns at a scene of a shooting would keep people safe???

These are trained police officers...and even they can't control their gunfire in broad daylight. Can you imagine if 5-10 people were armed in Aurora inside a smokey dark movie theater???

Some people want you to believe that if other people were armed, they would have taken down the shooter with one clean shot and been the hero...I think this pretty much proves them wrong.


If one has never been in a street gunfight, they have absolutely no right to criticize the police who are standing in the line of fire returning fire. Yes, police are trained. No one is trained to stand and receive fire and fire back. I have been there.

If there were armed citizens there, they may have been able to shoot the criminal from a different direction or angle. It happens more than you read about in the anti-gun press. NY has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. No wonder there weren't any armed CCW civilians.
edit on 25-8-2012 by Nite_wing because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WeRpeons
 

Right. You have a gun pointed at you and you're going to pull out a taser.
Good luck with that. Do you know what the range of a taser is?

So easy to say the cops blew it. How many of you have had a gun pointed at you? Maybe you think they should have waited for him to open fire?

edit on 8/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)


How do you pronounce your name? Is it "faggie"?
jk
You're right though, in the heat of the moment, nerves are a huge factor.
Peace



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


I agree with you. No one stands in the middle of a fire fight.

The only problem is that in this case, there WAS NO FIREFIGHT. The man never fired on the officers. The police even confirmed that the man never attempted to fire on them. This was not a case of stopping a crazed man shooting at innocent bystanders. This is a case of LEOs becoming crazed and shooting into innocent bystanders while killing a man they had heard might have committed a murder. They did not know he had murdered, they had not even seen a body. They had not chased the man down. He wasn't even running.

There is a difference.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Somehow you expect the insanity and the encroaching darkness descending on the planet not to affect the police. But really, why shouldn't it? They're human too.



posted on Aug, 25 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


It should also be mentioned that some LEOs do not train all that in-depth with their weapons. The ones that do tend to be part of special task forces, i.e. SWAT.

A good amount in the civilian sector have significantly more experience, marksmanship, and time spent on the range than some LEOs. I feel that should only very, very rarely be the case.

The best course of action, IMO, is to increase education and experience for every gun owner, but especially for people like law enforcement (for what should be obvious reasons). Perhaps make it mandatory for even the lowest ranking LEOs to do things like compete in the USPSA/IDPA. Make it mandatory to do training with things like simunition as well, to better prepare even the lowest ranking LEOs for actual engagements.

And just increase gun safety and awareness across the board. "Self preservation" or not, this type of thing should be looked into and we should attempt to learn how to avoid it. Realistic solutions should be enacted to prevent the likelihood of it happening in the future. I feel that doing things like just yelling "ban guns!" or "cops are killers!" will lead to inaction across the board instead of actually addressing the issue.




top topics



 
32
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join