America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 38,741 comments
  • 1,662,234 views
What the Supreme Court has to do with what a retired detective's opinion on what police should be, I don't know.

And just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn't mean that I or anyone must agree, or that it is how it should be.

An opinion of a retired LEO means nothing in regards to actual modern day police tactics and protocol. Moral obligation is one's own obligation. Constitutional obligation are the key words. As someone myself who took an oath to the Constitution, I realized the importance of carrying a firearm at a very young age. It's a big responsibility. The decision to use lethal force has to happen extremely quickly. There is no time to debate the pros and cons. It must happen fast. Self justification is really all you have. Under stress or duress, whatever you want to call it, your human mind will make the decision and the actions that follow. It's easy to judge from a 3rd party perspective. I make no excuses for Police. I'm not happy with the direction this Country is going in with Police militarization. The fact still still stands that the Supreme Court has decided that LE have no Constitutional obligation to protect anyone.

Some of you have unrealistic ideas of Police standards. One would imagine a Police Officer is highly trained in self defense, making quick decisions without stress or fear, highly trained in marksmanship etc. Forgetting that human beings are all inherently wired the same way. Police officers do fear for their lives like any Joe Blow would. Most Police are not as highly trained as the movies would suggest. Stop glorifying the job.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Provided that their life is in danger, and the only option is to be killed or to kill...
You should be damned sure they made the right call before just giving them the benefit of the doubt.

What type of toys are we talking about here? Stuffed bears, stuffed black bears if you prefer that, jack in the box, a portable game, or are we talking about toy guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns?

Anyone can shoot a 12 yo kid if they have a gun, but why? You leave out so much to your own examples to justify a point which undeniably cannot be answered without the whole picture.
I forgot the hyperlink. It was in Cleveland. The boy had a toy gun without an orange tip. The person who called police notified them that it was most likely a toy gun.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/boy-carrying-toy-gun-dies-shot-cleveland-police/story?id=27115640


Of course, a toy gun also got a man shot in a Walmart in Dayton Ohio. A toy gun he picked up off the shelf at that Walmart.

Ohio is an open-carry state. I can legally walk down the street with a gun in Ohio if I want to. Police should never have reacted the way they did to what had a high likelihood of a gentleman doing nothing illegal.


The fact still still stands that the Supreme Court has decided that LE have no Constitutional obligation to protect anyone.
And I still disagree with that decision. I do not accept that law is just or right. Law has created or allowed plenty of injustices in this country. Remaining silent when you believe you see one will only lead you down a bad road.

When police shootings go in the opposite direction of actual violent crime you should want to know why. You should begin questioning the justness of those increased killings.

Stop glorifying the job.
Trust me. I have. I no longer feel that I can blindly trust a guy just because he is wearing a uniform.
 
Provided that their life is in danger, and the only option is to be killed or to kill...
Or even if it isn't, if someone is 12 and apparently doing something entirely legal for an 18 year old to do, posing no public danger of any kind and, as it later turns out, is carrying a toy anyway and no-one was ever in any danger of any kind. They can kill you then too.

So it turns out that the police can shoot to kill if they think you might be a threat based on no other information, like if you actually are one. I've no idea when extrajudicial execution became an acceptable norm. Look out, it's coming right for us...


Police are supposed to protect rights. They're supposed to be the barrier between citizens and criminals and they're supposed to put themselves in harm's way to protect the former from the latter. Sometimes that means dying to do it, rather than taking the chance and executing an innocent civilian.
 
And I still disagree with that decision. I do not accept that law is just or right. Law has created or allowed plenty of injustices in this country. Remaining silent when you believe you see one will only lead you down a bad road.

When police shootings go in the opposite direction of actual violent crime you should want to know why. You should begin questioning the justness of those increased killings.


Trust me. I have. I no longer feel that I can blindly trust a guy just because he is wearing a uniform.

Believe me I agree with you here. Rarely are police held accountable for their actions. There isn't even a debate there. I just don't feel that way about this particular case.
 
Swagger897
What type of toys are we talking about here? Stuffed bears, stuffed black bears if you prefer that, jack in the box, a portable game, or are we talking about toy guns, airsoft guns, paintball guns?
He ignores the fact that the officer told the boy to freeze and the boy instead reached for the toy gun in his pants.

Ask him why he refused the order just as Brown refused to get down.
Because he doesn't care to give any thought to why a gun is pulled in the first place. To him, cops should be given non lethal weapons & asked to protect a society that has a constitutional right to lethal weapons. Laughable notion that only gives criminals more ammunition. Pointless to debate any further just as before because he'll continue to ignore anything that paints an officer in a justifiable right.
 
Or even if it isn't, if someone is 12 and apparently doing something entirely legal for an 18 year old to do, posing no public danger of any kind and, as it later turns out, is carrying a toy anyway and no-one was ever in any danger of any kind. They can kill you then too.

So it turns out that the police can shoot to kill if they think you might be a threat based on no other information, like if you actually are one. I've no idea when extrajudicial execution became an acceptable norm. Look out, it's coming right for us...


Police are supposed to protect rights. They're supposed to be the barrier between citizens and criminals and they're supposed to put themselves in harm's way to protect the former from the latter. Sometimes that means dying to do it, rather than taking the chance and executing an innocent civilian.
He ignores the fact that the officer told the boy to freeze and the boy instead reached for the toy gun in his pants.

Ask him why he refused the order just as Brown refused to get down.
Because he doesn't care to give any thought to why a gun is pulled in the first place. To him, cops should be given non lethal weapons & asked to protect a society that has a constitutional right to lethal weapons. Laughable notion that only gives criminals more ammunition. Pointless to debate any further just as before because he'll continue to ignore anything that paints an officer in a justifiable right.
Lot of these shootings, it's hard for me to say anything without actually being present to witness it for myself. Of course, you know what they say about eyewitnesses, I may still get it wrong.

I take it that you guys are referring to the shooting of the 12-year-old in Cleveland? I saw the pic of the handgun from the Google News link, and it looked convincingly real, at least from the photo. I think by law, bb guns & airsoft are supposed to have bright orange muzzle? In a country where firearm ownership is allowed, it's a pretty sensible law, at least in regards to public safety.

When I migrated to the U.S., I was twelve. I believe it was right after arriving here, my mom(my only translator at the time) warned me about dealing with the police. This actually contradicts with my previous statement made long ago, I think in the "Guns" thread, I made a claim that while living in the U.S., I didn't notice guns, wasn't worried about guns, never even thought about guns, until I started getting into the hobby myself.

Anyway, when I got here, I was warned that in the U.S., you don't make any threatening movements in the presence of police. This included sticking hand in the pocket, reaching for the wallet, etc. Talk about a culture shock, but I understood it.

Sorry I've been so long-winded, but I thought it was interesting that I was also twelve when I learned what not to do in front of the American police.
Have a great day everyone :)
I hope we were able to give you a different perspective on America, even if slightly. Have a good one.
 
What would be the difference if a man was carrying a fake mortar without a noticeable sign it was fake? What if he was running towards you? What if some called the police that a man has a mortar, not sure fake or not, and then pulls it out when the cop tells him to freeze? What happens when the man doesn't freeze, or in this case, move to the sidewalk? What happens when the man decides to assault the officer, and reach for the officer's gun?

What happens?

You get shot, and continue to until you listen or die.

Edit:

Oh, also, he is nearly twice the size of you...
 
Last edited:
Here is a link with the video. Unfortunately, the boy is behind the police cruiser from the camera and so a lot isn't visible. The cruiser shows up just after the 7:00 mark. The car looks to still be moving when the first officer opens his door and the boy is on the ground in about two seconds of the door opening.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/11/cleveland_police_officer_shot_1.html


So, watch it for yourselves and decide if you think the 12-year-old boy got what he deserved.
 
Last edited:
That is one choppy footage, but no, judging solely by what I see, it did not look like the police had enough time to give the kid a proper command, nor enough time for the kid to react, or obey, accordingly.

Way the cop car pulled up so close & so suddenly, and on the lawn, I do seriously question what was going through the minds of those police officers.
This is what happens when you are 5 minutes from leaving work for a long weekend.
You gotta finish strong, man!
 
So, watch it for yourselves and decide if you think the 12-year-old boy got what he deserved.

This is almost the same as the guy who was shot in the toy store. Police come and the so called criminal goes down. Doesn't seem like there was any warning given. Or they gave it but then start shooting half a second later.

And why the hell would you pull up so close to the guy with the 'gun'?
 
While I agree that police often overstep their bounds and go above the law, mainly when it comes to how they drive on public roads, I don't think the officer who shot Michael Brown is guilty of that. The officer that shot the 12 year old boy might have jumped the gun a tad quickly, however all I've seen is a grainy video that shows an officer fired a shot approximately 2 seconds after showing up on the scene. With more facts it would be easier to determine whether or not the 12 year old brought it on himself or not. One article I've read stated that the airsoft gun didn't have an orange tip on it, while another said it did, so I'm not really sure what to believe there. Also I wonder why a 12 year old would be by himself in a park with an airsoft gun in the the first place. I feel like the parents should have been involved to some degree or at least whoever thought it was a good idea to give a 12 year old an airsoft gun.

But what perplexes me more than any of this is how does burning down a city, looting businesses, and flipping over cars make your message hold any weight at all. All I see these "protesters" are, are hooligans looking for an excuse to cause destruction.
 
But what perplexes me more than any of this is how does burning down a city, looting businesses, and flipping over cars make your message hold any weight at all. All I see these "protesters" are, are hooligans looking for an excuse to cause destruction.

The same as any other protest. The instigators are people who are there for the protest and looting. They probably don't give a crap about what happened.
 
"Protesters": people who actually care about what's going on in the area.

Hooligans:
looking for an excuse to cause destruction.

Stop mashing those two together. They both have different agendas. What you're seeing behind the monitor or TV is what the media wants you to see. They're focusing on the looting to take away the power that the true protesters have. They want people to freak out about Ferguson so that they can keep their revenue going through views.

It's easier to pool the protesters and looters together than to actually look into what's actually happening. That's what I'm seeing from what you posted.
 
Stop mashing those two together. They both have different agendas. What you're seeing behind the monitor or TV is what the media wants you to see. They're focusing on the looting to take away the power that the true protesters have. They want people to freak out about Ferguson so that they can keep their revenue going through views.

It's easier to pool the protesters and looters together than to actually look into what's actually happening. That's what I'm seeing from what you posted.

That's not what I'm going for. I used quotes around protesters because I'm using that term loosely. From what I can tell those who actually believe that the cops were wrong and that Brown was innocent, while peaceful protesting, have blinders on. No one who assaults a store clerk, steals merchandise, and more than likely threatened police isn't a good person and isn't shouldn't be made the poster child for "police brutality".
 
fact-fiction.jpg

"6 to 10 feet away" "Hands weren't up" "Dang if that kid didn't start running right at the cop like a football player".

Man, Wilson did a good job buying off his witnesses to repeat what he originally said.[/sarcasm]
 
Last edited:
I hope we were able to give you a different perspective on America, even if slightly. Have a good one.
HA! not even the slightest bit. But I have nothing I against you or anyone on this website. No hatred or anything at all. You guys seem cool, we just have different opinions and I respect that.. My dislike for America is not because of the media. I've been visiting the country since I was two years old up until 19(im 20 now), I've been to most of the states. I just don't like it there and I don't think I wanna go back :/. I like travelling and IMO America has nothing special to offer me. Nice mountains tho. To Dubai it is :)
 
I'm curious how he ran at the cop and got 6-10 feet away before the cop started shooting at him and still "pummelled" him.
 
Didn't Brown pummel the officer, go away and then charge back at him? Without being there on the grand jury to view the evidence and testimony it's somewhat difficult to keep track of the chain of events what with all the conflicting reports from various news outlets and nobodies.
 
How many feet? Police has been lying from day1 (claiming the entire scene was only about 35 feet).


image2_%281%29.JPG


The distance between Darren Wilson's SUV and Michael Brown's body was at least 120 feet. I can "understand" that "Hulk Hogan" is big but not that big that he would look "scary" and a threat 120 feet away.


more on this topic here
 
Last edited:
How many feet? Police has been lying from day1 (claiming the entire scene was only about 35 feet).


image2_%281%29.JPG


The distance between Darren Wilson's SUV and Michael Brown's body was at least 120 feet. I can "understand" that "Hulk Hogan" is big but not that big that he would look "scary" and a threat 120 feet away.


more on this topic here
Don't question the police. Their testimony is the only one that matters.
 
I'm curious how he ran at the cop and got 6-10 feet away before the cop started shooting at him and still "pummelled" him.

He pummeled the cop in the car; tried to grab his gun. Gun goes off, irc hits Brown. Brown tries to flee. Officer pursues. Brown accosts officer again, despite officer repeatedly commanding Brown to surrender. Officer opens fire at 6 foot range.
 
@McLaren

Now share Darren Wilson's contradictions please.
From before the testimony, to speaking in front of the grand jury, to the following interview, his story hasn't changed. 6 witnesses testified to what he said. The other side had witnesses who said he surrendered, one said he got down on his knees & hands up, another admitted she wasn't even there. Some then said, "Well, maybe he did have his hands like this".

All these witnesses claiming Wilson shot a surrendering Brown, yet why are the accounts of what happened so different between them? When you have someone come forth & admit to lying, or 1 claim, "Well maybe", how much credibility do the rest of these people have?
 
Last edited:
If 6 shots seems a lot, we have to take into account that Brown was moving, and it's not easy to hit a moving target. And the parents are going through a hard time, but they are so ignorant and blame the officer who was simply trying to defend himself from a threat. That goddamn stepfather started the whole violent protest using profane language. "Burn this ***** down", yeah that's what he said. And then they deny it in an interview with CNN. C'mon, at least take responsibility.
 

Latest Posts

Back