Passerby shoots, kills motorist assaulting deputy after traffic stop

a reply to: Shamrock6

My point is that the round will still land somewhere, which puts everybody else at risk because now instead of shooting at a person, you've let a round off to land wherever it lands.

As I said before, warning shots are mandatory here and used often. The risk of that landing bullet killing or hurting someone is infinitely small, especially when fired straight up, and can easily be dismissed against the risk of actually killing someone by shooting at them.

Which you would have understood if you had a modicum of firearms knowledge.

I've done the courses and did actually get my private licence while I was in the army. I know what the law states about it. Both yours and ours.

I'm glad you finally got around to reading the article, even if you continue to miss the point that I made by posting it: your cops are being told to be more aggressive. Literally nothing else you've posted about it has any bearing on the situation.

Sigh... I'll break it down for you so you might learn to avoid this in future:

My quote:

If you don't believe me, do a quick google search, there's plenty of news articles citing criminals being apprehended after being shot in the leg in Belgium and the Netherlands. There's even video of such an arrest after the bombings in Brussels this year.

Your quote:

ETA - It's funny that you use the Dutch police as an example, seeing as they've been encouraging their command to be more aggressive when it comes to using force.
www.statewatch.org...

For easy reading I'll quote the title and top part of the article here:

Analysis
Netherlands: Increased use of firearms by Dutch police
Kees Hudig
Police in the Netherlands are increasingly drawing, and using, their firearms. This practice is being actively encouraged by police chiefs and the development has not been substantially criticised in the media. Other forms of police abuse are also on the rise. Since many police monitoring groups have ceased to function, there has been little public outcry at the situation.
Police officers are being encouraged to use their weapons more often, the national newspaper De Volkskrant reports. [1] Raad van Korpschefs, a spokesperson for the council of Police Chiefs, is quoted by the newspaper as saying: “in the past we were reluctant with violence. Nowadays we say: be quicker in drawing your gun and show it as a menace, fire a warning shot if necessary...If that does not produce the necessary effect, you [may] shoot at the legs if needs be.” According to De Volkskrant this is part of a developing trend in which police are being instructed “to act more decisively.”

Now, nowhere in this article does it state that police are instructed to "be more agressive". These are YOUR words, not the article's words. I was advocating for warning shots and shooting legs and it's exactly that which is being encouraged per the article.

The car chase doesn't have anything to do with the shooting. The cop getting his ass kicked has everything to do with the shooting. Ergo, the car chase is not germane to the discussion of the shooting.

You really don't see it, let me rephrase then: "A cop getting his ass kicked can only happen in America, got you."

I know it's a common tactic to take the argument all over the map to avoid the actual subject of lethal force being justified, but it's an old, tired shtick.

I think you're the one that's all over the place.


I stated twice that without any other knowlege than the OP and article my take on this case is thus.
It's the disdain for a life that gets me. I understand there's more crime and violence across the big pond, but that should not be an excuse to lower moral standards by normal folk.

a reply to: uncommitted

There's a pretty widely and generally accepted definition of cold-blooded murder, and it's one of premeditation or callous disregard.

The unarmed man had several alternatives: he could've not ran. He could've not dragged the deputy from his vehicle. He could've not commenced beating the deputy. He could've stopped beating the deputy after he started beating him. He could've stopped beating the deputy after being warned multiple times by an armed citizen.

Stop trying to pretend some idle citizen was executed with a single shot to the temple without any provocation.

a reply to: Balans

At least you can admit there's a risk when shooting straight up in the air. Weird that you dismiss it, seeing as a cursory search shows any number of people killed by "warning shots" fired into the air, as well as celebratory gunfire.

I'm not talking about the law, I'm talking about ballistics. What goes up must come down. So, since you still seem incapable of grasping that, I'd still question your knowledge.

Police in the Netherlands are increasingly drawing, and using, their firearms. This practice is being actively encouraged by police chiefs and the development has not been substantially criticised in the media. Other forms of police abuse are also on the rise. Since many police monitoring groups have ceased to function, there has been little public outcry at the situation.

Perhaps before being all dramatic and attempting to "educate" me, you should make sure you actually know what the hell you're talking about. that's literally the first paragraph in the article I linked to. Sigh all you like, perhaps the lack of oxygenated blood is why your reading comprehension is so wildly off.

No, I don't see the need to compare apples and oranges. Nor do I see the need so substitute results from your oranges to oranges comparison for our apples to apples comparison, which is what you're attempting to do.

It's nothing more than your opinion that there's a disdain for human life involved here. The deceased had multiple opportunities to stop the activity that lead to him being killed. He chose to ignore all of them. Your expectation that a person get into a fistfight with somebody who's already kicking the # out of a cop is, to be blunt, asinine.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I did try to explain...

I won't take anymore of your time, I need to feed some drama to my oxygen-deprived brains who've apparently forgotten they were advocating fistfights.

Have a nice day !

a reply to: Balans

You too guy!

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Instead of the passer by killing the person, why do you think he didn't try to physically restrain him? Don't you think that would have been doing the right thing?

And risk having his own arse beat too? SOmetimes the right thing to do is the easiest and shooting the jerk was the right call. I am weak muscular speaking. I coudnt restrain a girl much less a man. Its why I dont fight fair if i have to.

Oh, I know exactly what you mean, and when you say it could have been the right call I completely agree with you and never once have I suggested otherwise. It was the term 'hero' that I questioned in this circumstance with the facts at hand, I think I know exactly why that's getting me flack from some in this thread.

Im gonna quote Deadpool movie colossus here."4 or 5 moments is all it takes to be a hero. Yeah if i had to call it anything id say he took a heroic action,but he isnt a hero.

You know just the other day I was saying to myself, "the police aren't bloodthirsty enough. They should shoot more people. I want to live in a police state in fear for my life."

"What a travesty! The police don't shoot and kill people any more! Can't we go back to the good old days where police would shoot and kill more people in days than other coutnries do in years?"

"Back when the police would shoot at us and kill us, people would point out that the police were shooting and killing people, which made them feel sad . Now they don't shoot and kill people any more, what a horrible waste!"

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: uncommitted

There's a pretty widely and generally accepted definition of cold-blooded murder, and it's one of premeditation or callous disregard.

The unarmed man had several alternatives: he could've not ran. He could've not dragged the deputy from his vehicle. He could've not commenced beating the deputy. He could've stopped beating the deputy after he started beating him. He could've stopped beating the deputy after being warned multiple times by an armed citizen.

Stop trying to pretend some idle citizen was executed with a single shot to the temple without any provocation.

So why don't you keep making things up? Where did I say single shot to the temple? Why just come up with a lie?

originally posted by: yuppa
Im gonna quote Deadpool movie colossus here."4 or 5 moments is all it takes to be a hero. Yeah if i had to call it anything id say he took a heroic action,but he isnt a hero.

Hero is one of those words that's tossed around a lot. I'm not sure what it actually means, tbh. I read Stephen King say once that a hero is someone who has incurable cancer and goes to work at a job he hates to feed his family anyway and doesn't let them know is a hero. I'd agree.

In this case, the guy did what was right, if all the info is correct. He's pretty brave for taking that step beyond and actually plugging someone for what he thought was right. That's not as easy as you'd think. It would have been a lot more straightforward to just stay in the car and let it go. But he didn't, and he didn't SO much, I'm sure he violated his conscience to save the cop.

I have no doubt he went through the same things other people do in that case. Hopefully, it's the last time he has to do this.

eta: Just to say, it's a pretty horrific thing the first time, unless maybe you're a whackjob or a sociopath. I can't imagine it was easy for the guy.

IGuess the perp wasnt black. Cause it hardly made the news. Must have been white on white violence. Umm yeah. Dude got what was coming to him.

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall
a reply to: Vasa Croe

100 bucks the perp was a democrat, the passer by was a republican and the cop just signed up for MMA lessons.

Top marks for humor.
Second line