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.
originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: infolurker
You said it yourself the Cops are deathly afraid so much so that they shoot first ask questions later, now does this mean the Police should be disbanded and de-funded ?
No of course not , Unfortunately we need the police so what needs to be done is some serious re-training and some serious vetting before hiring someone to be an Armed Police Officer.
If your that scared to be shot or die then you do not need to be a Police officer end of story.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: chr0naut
You would propose destroying the 2nd Amendment enumerated Rights of Americans and you would do so while demonstrating why most of us are beyond pleased that you're not an American.
originally posted by: queenofswords
There are common protocols that should be followed when you have a weapon and a law enforcement officer approaches. People should learn them. Cops deserve respect and they should expect every law-abiding citizen that carries a weapon to follow certain protocols. If you don't know them, learn them if you're going to carry. This is for your own protection and also that of the police officer. Common respect.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
once you knew for a fact it was police officers knocking on your door
Hearing "Open up, it's the police!" at your door isn't "knowing for a fact" in any way these days.
Yeah maybe... but I’m pretty sure he realized it was in fact the police after he opened the door.
But then he still decided it’d be a good idea to reach for his weapon.
The pistol was in his hand when he opened the door, he was reaching to put it and himself on the ground...
originally posted by: Xtrozero
originally posted by: chr0naut
Also, a chain on the door would have allowed him to answer and respond to whomever is outside without exposing his family to a potential malefactor and he would also have had time to identify that they were the police.
I'm 6'5" 280 what is that chain going to do? lol I just kicked in your chained door and I'm coming at you with a hammer what are you going to do?
The reactions of those cops is what I been saying over and over...its got nothing to do with BLM, it is how cops should initiate the proper level of force to begin with and they need to deescalate once the situation has changed.
How about this... Police...guy answers the door... Police! put the gun down... The guy puts the gun on the ground and the cops say..come forward step away from the gun...the guy does it then the cops can secure the gun and then deescalate down to asking questions...at the end the cops hand the gun back to the guy and move on.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Bombs are armaments, too. The 2nd says nothing about "guns" specifically. Yet you would draw a distinction there which is not in the actual legislation.
In 1780 following the Gordon Riots in London, Cramer and Olson write, Lord Richmond protested certain actions taken by the king to disarm citizens, speaking of “the constitutional right of Protestant subjects to keep and bear arms for their own defense.
Among their historical evidence is a law written in England during the reign of King Henry VIII making it unlawful for any Welsh resident to “bring or bear, or cause to be brought or borne to the same Sessions or Court, or to any place within the distance of two Miles from the same Sessions or Court, nor to any Town, Church, Fair, Market, or other Congregation . . . nor in the Highways in affray of the King’s Peace, or the King’s liege People, any Bill, Long-bow, Cross-bow, Hand-gun, Sword, Staff, Dagger, Halberd, Morespike, Spear, or any other manner of Weapon . . . .”
Ditto for the arming of the general populace. The 2nd is clearly only about militia having the right to armament to oppose potential tyranny.
originally posted by: chr0naut
If it was clear that it was more than a threat, I would probably have grabbed you by the hair or ears (or even your mouth or eye sockets) while simultaneously kicking you in the knees/shins.
I would utilize your forward body movement to ensure your face hit the ground with maximum force - Akkido style.
Then I might remove the hammer and utilize it to incapacitate you and prevent you from retaliating - I could break your fingers and toes. Then you couldn't walk, use your fists, or grab me (depends on the weight of the hammer).
There's also a door which I could use to repeatedly slam against you, too. It depends entirely on the situation.
These cops did not do anything to de-escalate anything. They murdered a guy when they were supposed to be defending and saving lives.
Throw the book at them, and train the other ones better.
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
once you knew for a fact it was police officers knocking on your door
Hearing "Open up, it's the police!" at your door isn't "knowing for a fact" in any way these days.
Yeah maybe... but I’m pretty sure he realized it was in fact the police after he opened the door.
But then he still decided it’d be a good idea to reach for his weapon.
The pistol was in his hand when he opened the door, he was reaching to put it and himself on the ground...
Damn, admittedly I totally missed that.
But still, I think it only helps to validate my original opinion... What kind of idiot would answer the door all aggressively like that, gun in hand, when it was obviously just someone complaining about the noise.
originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: VictorVonDoom
You ought to have to walk in the shoes of a law enforcement officer for a few months. Sure, there are probably some bad apples, but to paint cops with the broad brush you just painted them with is vile.
Literally, they deal with dregs of society. If you think that description is "racist" or any other "ist" you want to put on it, it matters not. It is the truth. Society is full of low-lifes.
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
The proper legal term for it is "home carry" and if you google the term you'll find that an awful lot of the self defense trainers advocate the practice in this country.
originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
The proper legal term for it is "home carry" and if you google the term you'll find that an awful lot of the self defense trainers advocate the practice in this country.
Yeah well, if your self defense trainer advocated
you to handle a similar situation in the same manner, may I suggest you get a new self defense trainer.
Considering how it worked out for this bloke.