Mr45ACP
Regular Member
There is NEVER a need for police officers in the lawful performance of their duties to be shot.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
What gun was used in the ferguson shooting
- Thread starter Firearms Iinstuctor
- Start date
There is NEVER a need for police officers in the lawful performance of their duties to be shot.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
There is never a need for ANY lawful person to get shot!
325rto
Regular Member
40mm - thats a fairly good size round. We used to shoot those out of grenade launchers.
FreeInAZ
Regular Member
thedudejdog
New member
The alleged suspect is saying he fired his gun in a self defense situation. Unfortunately he didn't make sure what was behind his target and also made bad shots.
It makes me wonder what would the outcome have been if he accidentally shot two protestors instead of two cops?
Even in self defense you are responsible for where each bullet lands.
It was just a random chance these guys got hit and also randomly they happened to be cops. (According to the alleged suspect)
It makes me wonder what would the outcome have been if he accidentally shot two protestors instead of two cops?
Even in self defense you are responsible for where each bullet lands.
It was just a random chance these guys got hit and also randomly they happened to be cops. (According to the alleged suspect)
Mr45ACP
Regular Member
Just happened to hit 2 cops standing across the street from the protesters. Not buying that. Doubt a jury will either.
Cite to a counter-argument? All we can do is take the guy's word for it at this point unless we were there and witnessed the shooting. If it was a politically motivated shooting something tells me the guy would be taking more credit and pushing an agenda...
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Not necessarily, in many states if a shot misses and hits an innocent, as in a police shooting the criminal can be charged with the outcome of that shooting.
utbagpiper
Banned
No, we can apply Occam's razor and other logic to see if his word makes any sense. For example, are there any witnesses to back up his account of having any justification to fire a gun in self defense when he did? What are the odds some supposed assailant between him and cops was actually threatening him with loss of life or limb with a couple of cops standing how many feet behind the supposed assailant?
And there is a difference between "politically motivated" by someone who wants to take credit and someone who just wants to kill someone he hates without bearing the consequences if he gets caught.
Or, maybe the next time someone burns a cross on the lawn or ties a noose in the tree of a black family we should take the perpetrator's word for it that he didn't actually intend to commit a hate crime, it was just a silly prank, and he had no idea that his neighbors of 3 years were actually black. 'Cause you know, we weren't actually there to witness his conduct.
Charles
thedudejdog
New member
Either way, until the dust settles I think the police were a little premature saying "they were targeted just for being cops" what if it was an accident?
What if someone else would have accidentally been hit? Don't think there would've been a huge manhunt in that case. It would've been more like "well uhh we're looking but we've got the station to stand in front of so manpower is tight"
What if someone else would have accidentally been hit? Don't think there would've been a huge manhunt in that case. It would've been more like "well uhh we're looking but we've got the station to stand in front of so manpower is tight"
Don't see a "huge manhunt" - they walked over, found shell casings and received details which lead them to the shooter.
The officers were there for the purpose of stopping/quelling a potential disturbance. Your unneeded sarcasm is noted.
1245A Defender
Regular Member
Huh,,,
What an odd apparently, but not quite, double post!
Unneeded sarcasm,,, take note.
What an odd apparently, but not quite, double post!
Unneeded sarcasm,,, take note.
Fixed it. Computer hicupped - didn't show first message sent.
OC for ME
Regular Member
The cops being hit is a civil action, nothing more. the two first degree assault charges are not warranted. Cops are permitted to shoot innocents while defending themselves, or attempting to neutralize a serious threat...(cough) NYPD (cough) and that was a civil action.
Cops have claimed that they were defending themselves and that claim rested solely on their own word and was accepted, lacking any evidence to the contrary. If there is no evidence to contradict the claim by the perp that he was defending himself then let him walk and sue him.
Or, is this situation different...
Cops have claimed that they were defending themselves and that claim rested solely on their own word and was accepted, lacking any evidence to the contrary. If there is no evidence to contradict the claim by the perp that he was defending himself then let him walk and sue him.
Or, is this situation different...