Bullshit, that's the scum who should be dispatched quickly, efficiently and inexpensively. The problem being the cops don't know which is scum, so constitutional guarantees and blah, blah, blah... BUT, if they'd blown him away the world would be ahead.

Wow.

Maybe the world would be ahead without him in it. But I think society is ahead when we have a functioning legal system.

fuuuuuuuuck.

No. Wrong.

Tell me this: How should he be shot? Two in the chest and one in the head? Should the shot(s) be fatal? Or should he just be wounded? Should he be lightly wounded or severely wounded? I'd like to hear your plan.

I believe since the situation was resolved without anyone being shot, that that was a good solution. Wherever possible, the least amount of force required to restore order or ensure the safety of the officer and the people in the area, including the suspect, is the best choice. NOT shooting him is less than SHOOTING him, and since WAS successful, is proof positive that he SHOULD NOT have been shot.

Fuck your circular logic, he is scum and a blight on society. Unfortunately the cops can't tell that, and the courts are controlled by lawyers.

Country of law? Bullshit, they twist the law, and it's intent, to suit their whims. They're supported by private jailers, who's only interest is bleeding the taxpayers for every dime they can.

Like the asshole in San Francisco who has to get to a pretrial hearing for auto theft, so he steals a fucking car. Rehabilitation? Not a fucking chance.

This is true. Shooting someone should only be done when the situation warrants the use of lethal force, with the goal of immediately incapacitating that person, and the realization that the person will likely die as a result.

This has no basis in reality. It's only for television and movies. In this country, no modern law enforcement agency, no branch of the military, no private security firm and no credible civilian concealed carry or personal defense course teaches their personnel to shoot other than to immediately totally incapacitate with the expectation that they will have to kill to accomplish that. Courts here don't accept the premise that it's appropriate to shoot in a situation that requires less than lethal force. That's what less than lethal weapons are for. Shooting lethal weapons to disarm or disable rather than to immediately totally incapacitate constitutes excessive use of force and is prosecuted. If the person shot dies, it's manslaughter. We don't even shoot fleeing felons just to "wing" them anymore without coming under intense scrutiny.

With all the variables encountered under the stress of an actual confrontation, very few people in this world have the skill to shoot to disarm or disable without running a significant risk of unintentionally killing their target or hitting innocent bystanders. Even the best counterterrorist operators who drill day in and day out in live fire exercises can't guarantee that circumstances beyond their control won't arise to alter a situation requiring less than lethal force resulting in an unintentional kill if they were shooting at someone under those circumstances. Here, no one is supposed to shoot unless the situation warrants killing and when that situation arises they're trained to shoot to kill. If the person shot in such a situation survives, they're just lucky the variables in their situation worked out in their favor to that extent.

Just sayin'.

If he ain't dead, he will find a scumbag lawyer to sue you.

While you're at it, tell me why we shouldn't execute fuckers like this.
Try to imagine the hell he put those people through and tell me you think he shouldn't die. :mad2:

Well, I'm opposed to capital punishment, so I have no problem saying that he shouldn't die for his crimes. But he's the worst kind of person there is and he belongs in prison.

W0W ... :eyebrow:

Maybe you didn't see the incident where Ferguson cops did exactly that with a guy who had a knife and was standing nowhere near them or anyone else. He didn't drop the knife so they killed him.

No attempt to use less than lethal force.

Because it's too expensive. No point wasting even more money on this guy.
Same with Wall Street executives, the water poisoners in West Virginia, etc., etc., etc.

I did see that glatt, but you are tainting EVERY officer in Ferguson with that statement. Do you think that type of crap doesn't happen all the time in virtually every major city in the country? What about the many incidents in NM? For example, the man who was shot in the desert earlier this year.

Based on the news out of Ferguson, I think it's fair to paint them all with the same brush. It's a systemic problem there.

And that homeless guy in NM is an even worse example.

I was holding up the news story I posted as the way cops should be doing it. It's possible to be a good cop.

The police in Ferguson seem to have drawn a line between themselves and the rest of the population. And they seem far more interested in playing commando than in policing.

I doubt they are representative of police generally in the states.