If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Bay News 9)   A naked woman in Florida walking around the road holding a cross eventually goes home... Just kidding. She eventually gets shot and killed by the cops after some passersby take a few cell phone pics   (baynews9.com) divider line 340
    More: Florida, Hernando County Sheriff's Office, cross  
•       •       •

30461 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Oct 2012 at 9:45 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



340 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-21 08:04:10 PM
And this is why cops should not be allowed near guns.
 
2012-10-21 08:59:22 PM
Klan meeting.
Over zealous cops.
Done.
 
2012-10-21 09:00:01 PM
This is so clearly her own fault for not being armed. Once again, if everyone had been armed this situation would have never happened. Why do people need to make things so complicated?
 
2012-10-21 09:15:57 PM
Did she attack them with a cross?
 
2012-10-21 09:20:55 PM
Florida is a banana republic in all but name.
 
2012-10-21 09:28:47 PM
img2.bdbphotos.com

RIP
 
2012-10-21 09:29:42 PM
Were the cops Jewish?
 
2012-10-21 09:32:42 PM
Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.
 
2012-10-21 09:48:09 PM

GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.


this
 
2012-10-21 09:49:07 PM
FTFA: "She was literally walking down the road straight at us," Collins said. "So, we pulled up alongside of her, and at that point I looked out the window and I asked her, I said, 'Are you alright?' And she said, 'Yeah, but I'm a little bit confused.'"
Collins said the woman then walked away into the wooded area, and they snapped the photos of her. They said they took the photos, thinking that no one would believe them without photographic evidence that they had seen the woman.


Thank god neither of you two sh#tbags thought to help a confused, naked woman walking off into the woods, or she might still be alive today. Good on you for getting those cell pics, though. Very helpful.
 
2012-10-21 09:49:33 PM
David Simpson, who described himself as Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought "the end times were near." He said she had attended Bible study earlier in the week.

/See? there was your mistake right there...she was farking nuts to begin with, and "obviously" the drugs she was on made her totally lose whatever mind she had left. I'm just glad nobody else got hurt.
 
2012-10-21 09:50:34 PM

EatenTheSun: Were the cops Jewish?


No, Vampires.
 
2012-10-21 09:50:45 PM

vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this


/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.
 
2012-10-21 09:51:27 PM
Fail subby...even TFA says she pointed a gun at them. Should the cops ask people if the gun works or not before protecting themselves?

But hey, this is Fark. Why let facts get in the way of your cop hate.

/meow
 
2012-10-21 09:51:47 PM

EatenTheSun: Were the cops Jewish?


Speaking of which, have you heard about the new Jewish cop car?

Not only does the car stop on a dime, it picks it up.




www.badabingpizzaraleigh.com
 
2012-10-21 09:51:53 PM

Barfmaker: This is so clearly her own fault for not being armed. Once again, if everyone had been armed this situation would have never happened. Why do people need to make things so complicated?


She was armed; her boyfriend reported that she put the cross down and grabbed an antique shot gun with 1 bullet, and that is what the cops saw her carrying.

I feel bad for everyone involved, and wish this had been handled differently, but the gun she was carrying puts a different spin on this story than if it were a cross.

Of course the article doesn't mention the gun till the very end.
 
2012-10-21 09:52:00 PM

GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.


The cross was a weapon to them.
 
2012-10-21 09:52:17 PM
god damn the cops
 
2012-10-21 09:52:38 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.


They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.
 
2012-10-21 09:52:40 PM
That is one of the weirdest stories I've ever seen.

A woman is walking around naked in the woods carrying a cross and is seen by two men...who apparently don't think this is odd enough to alert the authorities, although they do take a few pictures.

The woman's boyfriend knows she is wandering around in the woods and knows she has a gun, which looks like a gun and although he knows it doesn't fire, he doesn't bother telling the authorities that his girlfriend is a) crazy as a loon and b) is carrying a weapon that doesn't fire so c) if you see her, please don't kill her.

A couple OFF-DUTY cops are hanging around in these same woods and see this same crazy lady who shows up, acts crazy, then leaves and comes back. A short time later, she's dead.

I have this feeling there's a big part of the story missing, that it involves the two men who "just happened" to take a couple pictures conveniently proving they didn't kill this woman--see? see? here's our pictures to prove it!--and the boyfriend who "just happened" to let her roam around with a conveniently non-firing gun. We'll see how it plays out in weeks to come.
 
2012-10-21 09:52:51 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.


Right, the naked woman who was previously holding a cross and completely non-violent a short time before she was shot suddenly stole a gun.

If you are dumb enough to believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
 
2012-10-21 09:52:55 PM
Eh, I side with the cops.

That cross could have been a dagger. And, they did find a replica pistol.

The family probably tampered with the scene to make it look like the crazy wasn't trying to attack the cops to ensure a future lawsuit.
 
2012-10-21 09:53:28 PM
All you cop haters should relax. Maybe she was scratching her butt and the cops thought she was going for a concealed gun.
 
2012-10-21 09:54:06 PM
Was she hot?
 
2012-10-21 09:56:11 PM

vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this is stupid


presumably what you meant
 
2012-10-21 09:56:34 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.


/yes...they could have..if 1. they were ON DUTY with them available, and 2. had a chance to get to them before she opened fire. They were off duty, but with their service weapons. Im sure they don't just carry tasers and bean bags around with them all the time....facepalms
 
2012-10-21 09:56:53 PM
I was hoping that the headline was an overzealous lie. Maybe she was tazed and the subby lied (subbies never lie, right?) and she was tazed and confused...

/just wow
 
2012-10-21 09:56:55 PM

GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.


And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.
 
2012-10-21 09:57:26 PM
I guess she was right about the end being near.
 
2012-10-21 09:57:26 PM
guns do not kill people, police do!
 
2012-10-21 09:58:23 PM

Gyrfalcon: That is one of the weirdest stories I've ever seen.

A woman is walking around naked in the woods carrying a cross and is seen by two men...who apparently don't think this is odd enough to alert the authorities, although they do take a few pictures.

The woman's boyfriend knows she is wandering around in the woods and knows she has a gun, which looks like a gun and although he knows it doesn't fire, he doesn't bother telling the authorities that his girlfriend is a) crazy as a loon and b) is carrying a weapon that doesn't fire so c) if you see her, please don't kill her.

A couple OFF-DUTY cops are hanging around in these same woods and see this same crazy lady who shows up, acts crazy, then leaves and comes back. A short time later, she's dead.

I have this feeling there's a big part of the story missing, that it involves the two men who "just happened" to take a couple pictures conveniently proving they didn't kill this woman--see? see? here's our pictures to prove it!--and the boyfriend who "just happened" to let her roam around with a conveniently non-firing gun. We'll see how it plays out in weeks to come.


This all smells fake. They happen upon a naked woman in some kind of mental issue and just leave her there? Really? That's standard procedure?

Bullshiat. There's something going on, and the cops are covering up something.
 
2012-10-21 09:59:07 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.


It does say they were off duty, so likely not carrying beanbag guns or tasers. Of course, why the off duty cops were carrying regular firearms in the middle of the woods is another good question.
 
2012-10-21 09:59:23 PM

rattchett: All you cop haters should relax. Maybe she was scratching her butt and the cops thought she was going for a concealed gun.


And breasts are very easy to confuse as bazookas or hand grenades, depending on size, shape, color and whether or not they're natural or fake. And even if that wasn't the case, but it was cold outside, imagine the damage a woman could do with her erect nipples.
 
2012-10-21 10:01:23 PM

GAT_00: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

Right, the naked woman who was previously holding a cross and completely non-violent a short time before she was shot suddenly stole a gun.

If you are dumb enough to believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.


The article states at the end that her boyfriend was the one that said she stole the gun from him.

Who am I not supposed to believe?
 
2012-10-21 10:01:23 PM

fusillade762: [img2.bdbphotos.com image 453x356]

RIP


i291.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-21 10:01:33 PM

zato_ichi: Eh, I side with the cops.

That cross could have been a dagger. And, they did find a replica pistol.

The family probably tampered with the scene to make it look like the crazy wasn't trying to attack the cops to ensure a future lawsuit.


It wasn't a replica, it was an antique gun.

Not sure if the cops did anything wrong here, but somebody farked up. Probably the douchebags who saw a naked woman wandering around rambling about the end times and just took pictures rather than reporting her.
 
2012-10-21 10:01:35 PM
sleep lack

Was she hot?

She was hole-y
 
2012-10-21 10:01:37 PM

Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.


I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.
 
2012-10-21 10:01:54 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.

It does say they were off duty, so likely not carrying beanbag guns or tasers. Of course, why the off duty cops were carrying regular firearms in the middle of the woods is another good question.


/In most departments (as in my department) you are expected to carry pretty much at all times. As you are never officially (not a police officer) even when off duty, you are expected to react to criminal or dangerous situations, and take whatever measures necessary. That means you carry your sidearm and your badge.
 
2012-10-21 10:02:04 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.

It does say they were off duty, so likely not carrying beanbag guns or tasers. Of course, why the off duty cops were carrying regular firearms in the middle of the woods is another good question.


To state the obvious....

They are closeted homosexuals, perusing the forest for anonymous gay sex partners who use the area as a local cruise spot. When you're a homo, looking for a man on man bareback forest fark and suddenly all you see are boobs and hips racing towards you -- what do you do? Duh! You wipe the cum off your lips and mustache, whip out your pistol and fire on that biatch.
 
2012-10-21 10:02:55 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.


Deadly force is deadly force. Either the suspect has means, opportunity, and intent and the cops shouldn't take on extra risk, or they don't and a gun shouldn't be used.

I hate police brutality but I wouldn't ask a cop to bring bean bags to a gun fight.
 
2012-10-21 10:02:57 PM

Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: "She was literally walking down the road straight at us," Collins said. "So, we pulled up alongside of her, and at that point I looked out the window and I asked her, I said, 'Are you alright?' And she said, 'Yeah, but I'm a little bit confused.'"
Collins said the woman then walked away into the wooded area, and they snapped the photos of her. They said they took the photos, thinking that no one would believe them without photographic evidence that they had seen the woman.

Thank god neither of you two sh#tbags thought to help a confused, naked woman walking off into the woods, or she might still be alive today. Good on you for getting those cell pics, though. Very helpful.


Yeah, they should have called the cops.
 
2012-10-21 10:03:14 PM

MrHappyRotter: TuteTibiImperes: Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.

It does say they were off duty, so likely not carrying beanbag guns or tasers. Of course, why the off duty cops were carrying regular firearms in the middle of the woods is another good question.

To state the obvious....

They are closeted homosexuals, perusing the forest for anonymous gay sex partners who use the area as a local cruise spot. When you're a homo, looking for a man on man bareback forest fark and suddenly all you see are boobs and hips racing towards you -- what do you do? Duh! You wipe the cum off your lips and mustache, whip out your pistol and fire on that biatch.


/wonders how you know that the parks are hang outs for gays looking for bootie? Steps back slowly...
 
2012-10-21 10:03:24 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.


like abolitionists who freed slaves. Stupid criminals wanting the law to change. Why don't people understand your nuance?
 
2012-10-21 10:04:29 PM
She held the cross up and made a circle like this and said, 'Antichrist, Antichrist, this meeting is over,'

Well there you go, you can't just end a meeting with the Antichrist like that.
 
2012-10-21 10:04:42 PM

skullkrusher: GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.

like abolitionists who freed slaves. Stupid criminals wanting the law to change. Why don't people understand your nuance?


Ah yes, comparing yourself to a slave because you want to fire up a bong. Real good argument there. I'm totally convinced.
 
2012-10-21 10:04:47 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.


Yeah, throwing people into jail for longer sentences than murderers and rapists get because they smelled sort of like pot makes far more sense.
 
2012-10-21 10:04:57 PM

cepson: Barricaded Gunman: FTFA: "She was literally walking down the road straight at us," Collins said. "So, we pulled up alongside of her, and at that point I looked out the window and I asked her, I said, 'Are you alright?' And she said, 'Yeah, but I'm a little bit confused.'"
Collins said the woman then walked away into the wooded area, and they snapped the photos of her. They said they took the photos, thinking that no one would believe them without photographic evidence that they had seen the woman.

Thank god neither of you two sh#tbags thought to help a confused, naked woman walking off into the woods, or she might still be alive today. Good on you for getting those cell pics, though. Very helpful.

Yeah, they should have called the cops.


/My thoughts too...i would have approached her, (if she wasn't armed at the time) and talked to her until help arrived. If they had time to snap a pic or two..they had time to call law enforcement, but no...they looked at it more of entertainment, than doing something right.
 
2012-10-21 10:05:03 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: This all smells fake. They happen upon a naked woman in some kind of mental issue and just leave her there? Really? That's standard procedure?


What kind of "gathering" was it? And why, upon seeing the crazy nekkid woman in the woods the first time when she was armed only with the cross did the off duty cop not call for an on duty cop and medical but instead left the area to go get his service weapon, during which time she went and got herself a non-functioning weapon? And they met up again and the cops shot her?

The freakin' Blair Witch Project made more sense than this story.
 
2012-10-21 10:05:06 PM
Looks like she may have been carrying an antique pistol that didn't fire. That's a better story than she was carrying a cross. Yeah, that's the ticket.

David Simpson, who described himself as Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought "the end times were near." He said she had attended Bible study earlier in the week.

Simpson said deputies found the cross that Collins and Eylward said Swanson had been carrying inside his home after the shooting. Simpson said the investigators told him she had left the cross in his home and taken his antique gun.

The gun is what Simpson said the off-duty officers saw her wielding when they opened fire. Simpson said the gun is very old, that it holds one bullet and that it doesn't fire.

Simpson said deputies had him identify Swanson's body and the antique gun on Sunday.

Deputies have not confirmed that Swanson was holding the antique gun at the time of the shooting.
 
2012-10-21 10:05:07 PM
the article stated she was armed
and nutso!
 
2012-10-21 10:05:50 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.


Right, because only criminals want the War on Drugs to end, not rational people who realize that having the largest prison population on the planet and treating addicts like felons is a massive drain on our society and is leading to all sorts of ill effects.

What a dumbass.
 
2012-10-21 10:05:58 PM

Smackledorfer: Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.

Deadly force is deadly force. Either the suspect has means, opportunity, and intent and the cops shouldn't take on extra risk, or they don't and a gun shouldn't be used.

I hate police brutality but I wouldn't ask a cop to bring bean bags to a gun fight.


They've done that plenty of times before. Batter the person with the bean bags until they're down and disarmed.
 
2012-10-21 10:06:11 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: David Simpson, who described himself as Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought "the end times were near." He said she had attended Bible study earlier in the week.

/See? there was your mistake right there...she was farking nuts to begin with, and "obviously" the drugs she was on made her totally lose whatever mind she had left. I'm just glad nobody else got hurt.


Don't forget the catalyst of nutcracker religion.
 
2012-10-21 10:06:38 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: Gyrfalcon: That is one of the weirdest stories I've ever seen.

A woman is walking around naked in the woods carrying a cross and is seen by two men...who apparently don't think this is odd enough to alert the authorities, although they do take a few pictures.

The woman's boyfriend knows she is wandering around in the woods and knows she has a gun, which looks like a gun and although he knows it doesn't fire, he doesn't bother telling the authorities that his girlfriend is a) crazy as a loon and b) is carrying a weapon that doesn't fire so c) if you see her, please don't kill her.

A couple OFF-DUTY cops are hanging around in these same woods and see this same crazy lady who shows up, acts crazy, then leaves and comes back. A short time later, she's dead.

I have this feeling there's a big part of the story missing, that it involves the two men who "just happened" to take a couple pictures conveniently proving they didn't kill this woman--see? see? here's our pictures to prove it!--and the boyfriend who "just happened" to let her roam around with a conveniently non-firing gun. We'll see how it plays out in weeks to come.

This all smells fake. They happen upon a naked woman in some kind of mental issue and just leave her there? Really? That's standard procedure?

Bullshiat. There's something going on, and the cops are covering up something.


Yeah, everyone's stories stink. The boyfriend's, the two men's, and the cops. I mean, I can see any one story MAYBE being true, if that was all that happened...but all together, they're rotten. You don't see a woman wandering around naked in the forest, click a couple pics with your cellphone, and go on about your business, and then when she turns up dead just happen to think "Hey, maybe that was that dame we saw the other day! Think we should tell someone?" Did they rape her? Is that what made her go back to her boyfriend's and get the gun?

A woman suddenly bursting into a Bible study group or a revival meeting with a gun could by itself warrant a shooting, and it might just be a coincidence that a couple cops were there--it happens. So then it becomes odd that the cops had already had contact with this woman and hadn't said "Gee, maybe we should tell someone." You know, like most people would if psychos were roaming the woods. (Unless it's one of those woods like in slasher flicks where everyone is crazy and nobody really notices anymore) (In which case, make sure you don't break down anywhere near this town or you'll be eaten)

Somebody knows something. This will probably turn up on "48 Hours" or something in a year or two.
 
2012-10-21 10:06:59 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.


Jesus Christ on a nude woman's cross... don't you people read?

They were off-duty. Meaning, no Tasers, no batons.

GAT_00: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

Right, the naked woman who was previously holding a cross and completely non-violent a short time before she was shot suddenly stole a gun.

If you are dumb enough to believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.


You too.

The boyfriend identified the gun as one she'd removed from his house.

FARK is fun. Sadly, at times, FARK is also very predictable.


/ English, motherfarkers, do yall speak it?
 
2012-10-21 10:07:39 PM
RTFA again.

Deputies have not confirmed that Swanson was holding the antique gun at the time of the shooting.

I wonder if the officers said she was holding the gun after they heard that she had allegedly stolen it.
 
2012-10-21 10:08:35 PM

Sure are a lot of people here that are unhappy with police potentially abusing their authority to harm or even kill civilians.

I'll wait patiently while you guys stop the pointless complaining on Fark, and go do something to change that.

Oh, wait, no, you can't. You can't do anything about that. Cops have power, you don't. Hmm.

Well, I guess there is only one other option:

ts3.mm.bing.net

Deal with it.
 
2012-10-21 10:08:41 PM
Good god you cop haters are pathetic. You're only allowed to shoot after she kills one of you!
 
2012-10-21 10:08:41 PM
Deputies have not confirmed that Swanson was holding the antique gun at the time of the shooting.

Since she was naked if she wasn't holding it then where.... ewwwwwww.
 
2012-10-21 10:09:13 PM

GAT_00: skullkrusher: GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.

like abolitionists who freed slaves. Stupid criminals wanting the law to change. Why don't people understand your nuance?

Ah yes, comparing yourself to a slave because you want to fire up a bong. Real good argument there. I'm totally convinced.


why are you missing my nuance? Your argument is that criminals want laws changed and you refuse to change laws for criminals. Abolitionists freed slaves - they were criminals. So now you want to add whatever GAT_00's subjective feelings about the law into the mix? Tell ya what, you draw up a list of laws that are bad and that should change and why you feel the criminals who break those laws are in the right and we'll just follow your lead, ok?
 
2012-10-21 10:10:12 PM

FF Mac: Should the cops ask people if the gun works or not before protecting themselves?


Nobody else in this story who saw the woman that night felt the need to "protect themselves". Something's not right about this story.

BTW, yes they should figure out if a gun is loaded or operational before opening fire. Maybe if cops exchanged a few words with their victims first, there wouldn't be so many people shot reaching for their cell phone. A little pause to ask the person wtf is up would probably save a lot of lives.
 
2012-10-21 10:11:32 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.


So the laws must continue to be so harsh that drugs are a gold mine for smugglers and criminal orgs, who are now willing to kill to both profit and avoid prison, and it is all ok because fark those pothead criminals trying to get laws changed?

You speak of nuance but it is you who lacks the ability to handle the complex. You whine about cops constantly; asking them to risk more to satisfy your principle that potheads shouldn't get what they want.

It would be funny if it weren't sad.
 
2012-10-21 10:11:39 PM

Mr. Chainsaw: RTFA again.

Deputies have not confirmed that Swanson was holding the antique gun at the time of the shooting.

I wonder if the officers said she was holding the gun after they heard that she had allegedly stolen it.


why else would 2 guys shoot a naked stranger in the woods? She was naked, if she'd stolen the gun where was it if she wasn't holding it?
 
2012-10-21 10:12:39 PM

skullkrusher: why are you missing my nuance?


No, you're a mental reject who compared yourself to an abolitionist. You've hurt your own argument better than I ever have by saying perhaps the most nonsensical thing you could have.

CK2005: Good god you cop haters are pathetic. You're only allowed to shoot after she kills one of you!


She walked up to them. I'm around 99% sure she was within taser range if they weren't lying about that.
 
2012-10-21 10:12:57 PM

RandomCommenter: Barfmaker: This is so clearly her own fault for not being armed. Once again, if everyone had been armed this situation would have never happened. Why do people need to make things so complicated?

She was armed; her boyfriend reported that she put the cross down and grabbed an antique shot gun with 1 bullet, and that is what the cops saw her carrying.

I feel bad for everyone involved, and wish this had been handled differently, but the gun she was carrying puts a different spin on this story than if it were a cross.

Of course the article doesn't mention the gun till the very end.



That is an updated version of the article. The version I read (and posted in reference to) did not identify the weapon that the officers saw - I presumed it was the cross,


/Antichrist, Antichrist - this thread is over!
 
2012-10-21 10:13:08 PM

skullkrusher: Mr. Chainsaw: RTFA again.

Deputies have not confirmed that Swanson was holding the antique gun at the time of the shooting.

I wonder if the officers said she was holding the gun after they heard that she had allegedly stolen it.

why else would 2 guys shoot a naked stranger in the woods? She was naked, if she'd stolen the gun where was it if she wasn't holding it?


Maybe there was a strap on it.
 
2012-10-21 10:13:28 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.


EH??

You don't think the narcotraficantes are supremely alarmed by the spectre of legalization? Major cartels=politicians=banks=DEA?

Can I suggest a little visit to history (know what that is?), like around the time of Prohibition?

Rise of organized crime, which continued its majestic business progression through the war and into heroin times?

Not to mention the DEA, which (like the useless tits-on-a-boar-hog TSA and HS) would be looking for part-time work as a security guard at Walmart.
 
2012-10-21 10:13:30 PM
when you are attending group therapy in a locked mental health hospital ward they emphasize the importance of proper behavior in public. because the police will neither know or care that you are not properly medicated, are suffering a breakdown or are simply having a horrible mental health day. you, as a mental health patient, are told that you have to present yourself in a presentable and non-threatening manner. i don't understand how you are supposed to look and act like everything is just fine when you are in bits and pieces, but that's what they tell you.
 
2012-10-21 10:14:00 PM

Smackledorfer: asking them to risk more to satisfy your principle that potheads shouldn't get what they want.


By everyone's arguments ever, potheads are not violent. What is the risk in arresting someone stoned?
 
2012-10-21 10:15:02 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.


I can appreciate that. But what about when the people in question are normal, everyday law-abiding people, except for the one specific law in question that they're lobbying to change? Or non-marijuana users that support decriminalization / legalization?

It seems obvious that the repeal of *any* law would be supported by the people who are currently criminalized by that law, so is there *any* path on your flowchart that would lead you to support the repeal of *any* law?
 
2012-10-21 10:15:05 PM

GAT_00: She walked up to them. I'm around 99% sure she was within taser range if they weren't lying about that.


and tasers are always 100% effective, great when someone is brandishing a firearm at you.
 
2012-10-21 10:15:23 PM

namegoeshere: Guntram Shatterhand: This all smells fake. They happen upon a naked woman in some kind of mental issue and just leave her there? Really? That's standard procedure?

What kind of "gathering" was it? And why, upon seeing the crazy nekkid woman in the woods the first time when she was armed only with the cross did the off duty cop not call for an on duty cop and medical but instead left the area to go get his service weapon, during which time she went and got herself a non-functioning weapon? And they met up again and the cops shot her?

The freakin' Blair Witch Project made more sense than this story.


Okay, my bad: the off duty cop didn't leave and get his gun. She did. But I still ask:

Why when a naked crazy woman interrupted their gathering, whatever the hell it was, didn't they call for on duty cops and medical?
 
2012-10-21 10:17:00 PM
FTA - Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought "the end times were near."

She was right.
 
2012-10-21 10:19:18 PM
What I find interesting in all the speculation about a story that doesn't seem to add up, is that nobody has put forth "crappy reporter" as an option.

/just sayin
 
2012-10-21 10:19:29 PM
She's coming right for us!
up-ship.com

/BLAM
/RIP poor troubled Lady
 
2012-10-21 10:19:40 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: GAT_00: She walked up to them. I'm around 99% sure she was within taser range if they weren't lying about that.

and tasers are always 100% effective, great when someone is brandishing a firearm at you.


Especially if you are off duty and don't have a taser.

I find fault with the cops for not calling the appropriate people (like the ones who might have a tazer on them, or some good meds or something) as soon as a naked crazy woman made her first appearance. Bad cops for that.

I can't really fault them for shooting her if she waved a gun at them.They didn't have any less-lethal tools at their disposal.
 
2012-10-21 10:21:04 PM
The government wants to hire and put more cops on the street.
Stimulus, meant to do good things like shooting mentally confused naked women.....who may or may not have an antique.

Atta' boy cops.
 
2012-10-21 10:21:24 PM

ScottRiqui: GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.

I can appreciate that. But what about when the people in question are normal, everyday law-abiding people, except for the one specific law in question that they're lobbying to change? Or non-marijuana users that support decriminalization / legalization?

It seems obvious that the repeal of *any* law would be supported by the people who are currently criminalized by that law, so is there *any* path on your flowchart that would lead you to support the repeal of *any* law?


Oh it's more than possible. But you have got to keep the stoners away from the rallies. The single worst argument for legalization is a bunch of stoned morons yelling about how pot should be legal.
 
2012-10-21 10:22:12 PM
Religious fanatics, talk of "end times", getting nekkid for Jebus, trigger happy yahoos with badges. Yup, all fine traditions of the American South.

/Time for the North to secede
 
2012-10-21 10:22:39 PM
It happened in Florida...that probably says a lot more about the situation than anything else.
 
2012-10-21 10:24:03 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: and tasers are always 100% effective, great when someone is brandishing a firearm at you.


Cops are idiots and ironically the least capable of handling a situation like this. I would bet a paycheck (a real one, not a $600 cop paycheck), that they both screamed contradictory orders at her until she did something that scared one of them. "Why did you shoot her?" "I thought you were going to shoot her!" "I thought you were going to shoot her!"

In the dark, in the woods, naked lady, off duty, DO NOT SHOOT NAKED LADY. Meanwhile these two bozos are soaking up sympathy at the moment for being "forced" to shoot a naked lady and how sad that is for them. What a couple of pussies!
 
2012-10-21 10:24:10 PM
It was the best of times, it was the end of times
 
2012-10-21 10:24:55 PM

KrispyKritter: when you are attending group therapy in a locked mental health hospital ward they emphasize the importance of proper behavior in public. because the police will neither know or care that you are not properly medicated, are suffering a breakdown or are simply having a horrible mental health day. you, as a mental health patient, are told that you have to present yourself in a presentable and non-threatening manner. i don't understand how you are supposed to look and act like everything is just fine when you are in bits and pieces, but that's what they tell you.


There is, or should be, a learning curve on both sides. Crazy people should learn or at least understand that the cops do not realize what they are facing is a mentally ill person having problems; cops should learn or at least understand that what they are facing is not just a crackhead being defiant. And to be fair to both sides, things have gotten (marginally) better than they used to be.

What needs to happen, of course, is that mentally ill people need to understand AND be able to get help BEFORE they are in "bits and pieces" as you say; they need to have both the insight and the ability to get their meds adjusted or therapy, or their housing taken care of or whatever stressors are causing their breakdowns BEFORE it reaches the level of seeing space aliens landing in Dealey Plaza. Police, on their side, need to realize that just because a person doesn't react instantly when they scream "GET ON THE GROUND NOW!!!!!" does not mean that that person is going to kill them in the next second, but may simply need more time to process the statement, or may need a better explanation of what is required. Assessing police for combat shock might be in order as well--mentally ill people aren't the only ones experiencing life stressors nowadays.
 
2012-10-21 10:24:56 PM

EatenTheSun: Were the cops Jewish?


collider.com

"Jew cops? Where??"
 
2012-10-21 10:24:56 PM
If cops were held to the same standards that physicians were when they killed someone, this country would be better off.
 
2012-10-21 10:27:38 PM
What the hell, Fark?

Another Christian is dead. I figured this would be cause for celebration. I thought you wanted all of them to die...
 
2012-10-21 10:27:55 PM
It's usually not a good idea to start waving guns around, antique or no.
 
2012-10-21 10:27:56 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: asking them to risk more to satisfy your principle that potheads shouldn't get what they want.

By everyone's arguments ever, potheads are not violent. What is the risk in arresting someone stoned?


You obviously have strong opinions on the subject, so perhaps you've answered this question in the past - how do you rationalize a society where alcohol is legal (subject to restrictions) and marijuana isn't? I can't help but think that if the practice of drinking alcohol had never begun, and it were suddenly introduced tomorrow, that it would/should be treated the same way we're currently treating marijuana. Does alcohol enjoy the protection it does for any reason other than longevity/tradition?
 
2012-10-21 10:28:21 PM

mccallcl: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: and tasers are always 100% effective, great when someone is brandishing a firearm at you.

Cops are idiots and ironically the least capable of handling a situation like this. I would bet a paycheck (a real one, not a $600 cop paycheck), that they both screamed contradictory orders at her until she did something that scared one of them. "Why did you shoot her?" "I thought you were going to shoot her!" "I thought you were going to shoot her!"

In the dark, in the woods, naked lady, off duty, DO NOT SHOOT NAKED LADY. Meanwhile these two bozos are soaking up sympathy at the moment for being "forced" to shoot a naked lady and how sad that is for them. What a couple of pussies!


/ 1/10..you're trying too hard.
 
2012-10-21 10:28:22 PM

mccallcl: FF Mac: Should the cops ask people if the gun works or not before protecting themselves?

Nobody else in this story who saw the woman that night felt the need to "protect themselves". Something's not right about this story.

BTW, yes they should figure out if a gun is loaded or operational before opening fire. Maybe if cops exchanged a few words with their victims first, there wouldn't be so many people shot reaching for their cell phone. A little pause to ask the person wtf is up would probably save a lot of lives.


Please tell me how you're supposed to tell from any amount of distance that a gun is loaded and operational.
 
2012-10-21 10:29:10 PM

Britney Spear's Speculum: If cops were held to the same standards that physicians were when they killed someone, this country would be better off.


Uh. I fail to see the logic. Sometimes police have to kill people. There is no situation where a doctor has to kill someone.

/Kevorkian notwithstanding
 
2012-10-21 10:29:21 PM

WhippingBoy: Hurr...


Thanks for contributing.
 
2012-10-21 10:29:28 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00:

Nothing you've yet to say has disproved my view of you as an ignorant tool

 
2012-10-21 10:29:35 PM

powerplantgirl: mccallcl: FF Mac: Should the cops ask people if the gun works or not before protecting themselves?

Nobody else in this story who saw the woman that night felt the need to "protect themselves". Something's not right about this story.

BTW, yes they should figure out if a gun is loaded or operational before opening fire. Maybe if cops exchanged a few words with their victims first, there wouldn't be so many people shot reaching for their cell phone. A little pause to ask the person wtf is up would probably save a lot of lives.

Please tell me how you're supposed to tell from any amount of distance that a gun is loaded and operational.


It's a troll, he has no answer to that.
 
2012-10-21 10:29:40 PM
So this report suggests that Xtians have in fact NOT stopped seeking martyrdom? Hmm?

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2012/10/chr i stian_martyrdom_when_did_christians_stop_trying_to_die_for_god.html
 
2012-10-21 10:30:04 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.


I find it fascinating that you say "put her down", like one would for an animal.
 
2012-10-21 10:30:12 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: asking them to risk more to satisfy your principle that potheads shouldn't get what they want.

By everyone's arguments ever, potheads are not violent. What is the risk in arresting someone stoned?


I assumed you were referring to not changing drug laws because you didn't want to let criminals get what they want. To whom were you referring?
 
2012-10-21 10:30:26 PM

GAT_00: No, you're a mental reject who compared yourself to an abolitionist. You've hurt your own argument better than I ever have by saying perhaps the most nonsensical thing you could have.


hehe, sorry buddy, but no. You said you don't favor changing rules because criminals want them to change. I am just pointing out that this is not an absolute stance and you really just don't favor changing drug laws because you agree with them - it has nothing to do with whether criminals want the law changed. I don't do drugs and I want to see our drug policies undergo a massive overhaul because they are immoral, unfair and draconian. My argument isn't hurt by pointing out how you're an inconsistent jackhole
 
2012-10-21 10:30:50 PM

WhippingBoy: What the hell, Fark?

Another Christian is dead. I figured this would be cause for celebration. I thought you wanted all of them to die...


I thought Christians want everyone to die, horribly, if possible.
 
2012-10-21 10:31:27 PM
The police: Keeping the public safe from naked women since the 11th century.
 
2012-10-21 10:31:59 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.

/yes...they could have..if 1. they were ON DUTY with them available, and 2. had a chance to get to them before she opened fire. They were off duty, but with their service weapons. Im sure they don't just carry tasers and bean bags around with them all the time....facepalms


Right, because we wouldn't want officers to be able to not kill people while off duty. Brave, brave officers who bravely gunned down a naked woman holding a cross. Brave, brave police officers. Those two cellphone guys are lucky they got out of there alive, what with her having a dangerous cross and all. She could have blessed them! So glad the brave police officers bravely gunned down a naked crazy chick. So brave.
 
2012-10-21 10:32:16 PM

davidphogan: skullkrusher: Mr. Chainsaw: RTFA again.

Deputies have not confirmed that Swanson was holding the antique gun at the time of the shooting.

I wonder if the officers said she was holding the gun after they heard that she had allegedly stolen it.

why else would 2 guys shoot a naked stranger in the woods? She was naked, if she'd stolen the gun where was it if she wasn't holding it?

Maybe there was a strap on it.


vagina holster
 
2012-10-21 10:32:27 PM

Snarfangel: The police: Keeping the public safe from naked women since the 11th century.


Murder by Numbers, 1, 2, 3...
 
2012-10-21 10:32:46 PM

Snarfangel: The police: Keeping the public safe from naked women since the 11th century.


She have a gun, but it's not like she's dressed or anything. Relax, fellas.
 
2012-10-21 10:32:56 PM

Amos Quito: And this is why cops should not be allowed near guns.


Didn't anyone RTFA?

It's the cops' fault that she was wielding a gun? When the cops are overzealous, I'm one of the first people to shout about it (case and point, the kid that allegedly shot himself while handcuffed in the back of a squad car).

Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.
 
2012-10-21 10:33:35 PM
I accidentally the "may" in that post.
 
2012-10-21 10:33:43 PM

GAT_00: But you have got to keep the stoners away from the rallies.


There shouldn't even be any rallies. Where were the rallies calling for an invasion of Iraq? Bush crammed that trillion dollar dick up our asses like a BOSS with no support from stoners, jocks, dweebs, spazzes, band nerds, cheerleaders, AP kids, or even the preps. We need a GW Bush of doing drugs.
 
2012-10-21 10:34:09 PM

GRCooper: What I find interesting in all the speculation about a story that doesn't seem to add up, is that nobody has put forth "crappy reporter" as an option.

/just sayin


It doesn't matter either way. The average farker knows in his/her heart of hearts who is at fault without knowing the details. Any detail against such conclusion is a lie, perpetrated by that group of bad people.

That is what it means to be a farker.
 
2012-10-21 10:34:31 PM

phrawgh: WhippingBoy: What the hell, Fark?

Another Christian is dead. I figured this would be cause for celebration. I thought you wanted all of them to die...

I thought Christians want everyone to die, horribly, if possible.


no, you're confusing them with those poor tormented atheists who once heard "Silent Night" in a mall and are now scarred for life...
 
2012-10-21 10:34:47 PM
So, no pepper spray? Or were the cops vampires?
 
2012-10-21 10:34:54 PM

untaken_name: Right, because we wouldn't want officers to be able to not kill people while off duty. Brave, brave officers who bravely gunned down a naked woman holding a cross.


Incorrect.
 
2012-10-21 10:35:02 PM

slayer199: Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.


You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.
 
2012-10-21 10:35:29 PM
😒
 
2012-10-21 10:35:35 PM

Another Government Employee: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

The cross was a weapon to them.


As was the garlic and holy water.
 
2012-10-21 10:36:24 PM

Relatively Obscure: untaken_name: Right, because we wouldn't want officers to be able to not kill people while off duty. Brave, brave officers who bravely gunned down a naked woman holding a cross.

Incorrect.


We have pictures of her holding a cross. We have cops saying she was holding a gun. Cops are more likely to lie than pictures, although it's true that pictures can be misinterpreted. I believe the pictures. You believe whatever you want.
 
2012-10-21 10:38:03 PM

untaken_name: You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.


They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.

I'm not going to defend cops that abuse power by beating non-violent individuals, killing the pet pooch or shooting unarmed individuals. I will defend them when the person is armed and crazy.
 
2012-10-21 10:38:33 PM

untaken_name: Right, because we wouldn't want officers to be able to not kill people while off duty. Brave, brave officers who bravely gunned down a naked woman holding a cross. Brave, brave police officers. Those two cellphone guys are lucky they got out of there alive, what with her having a dangerous cross and all. She could have blessed them! So glad the brave police officers bravely gunned down a naked crazy chick. So brave.


They didn't shoot the naked lady with the cross. They let her leave and go to her boyfriend's house. She left the cross there and came back with a gun. They shot the naked lady with the gun.

Like I said, they made a large mistake when they let her leave the first time without calling for help. She is dead because of that choice. But when they shot her, she was armed.

And when the cell phone guys met her, she was naked with a cross, not yet naked with a gun.
 
2012-10-21 10:38:37 PM

untaken_name: slayer199: Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.

You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.


funny, if this were a civilian who shot a deranged person with a gun, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Of course, a civilian would likely just run away if that were at all possible while a cop is required to stand his ground and take care of the situation. Unfortunately, in this case a mentally ill woman who was no danger was killed but there was no way for the cops to know her gun did not fire. I don't think taking the "risk" that it was a replica is the sort of risk we should be asking police officers to take
 
2012-10-21 10:39:15 PM
This sounds like it could be the plot for the next M. Night Shyamalan movie. Short of aliens, magic or lying, it doesn't make sense.
 
2012-10-21 10:40:07 PM

untaken_name: Relatively Obscure: untaken_name: Right, because we wouldn't want officers to be able to not kill people while off duty. Brave, brave officers who bravely gunned down a naked woman holding a cross.

Incorrect.

We have pictures of her holding a cross. We have cops saying she was holding a gun. Cops are more likely to lie than pictures, although it's true that pictures can be misinterpreted. I believe the pictures. You believe whatever you want.


I didn't say she didn't have a cross at some point in the day. From TFA, though, it doesn't appear that she had said cross when the confrontation took place. Rather, that cross was located at the residence from which the gun was taken.
 
2012-10-21 10:40:35 PM

untaken_name: slayer199: Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.

You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.


/yes.i agree all the police everywhere should let the suspect shoot first, it's only fair ...rolls eyes.
 
2012-10-21 10:41:40 PM
There have been way too many mass-murders by crazy white people in the past decade to expect cops to just hold fire when someone acting crazy suddenly shows up with a gun and starts aiming it.

I have a couple psychotic twigs on my family tree, and I would hope the cops would not try to stop and reason with them if they got hold of guns. Because I know, from some traumatic experiences, that nothing short of force would stop them from firing at the cops and bystanders given an opportunity.
 
2012-10-21 10:41:41 PM

skullkrusher: Of course, a civilian would likely just run away if that were at all possible while a cop is required to stand his ground and take care of the situation.


I don't think they are, but otherwise (to the rest of the post), yeah.
 
2012-10-21 10:42:02 PM

ScottRiqui: GAT_00: Smackledorfer: asking them to risk more to satisfy your principle that potheads shouldn't get what they want.

By everyone's arguments ever, potheads are not violent. What is the risk in arresting someone stoned?

You obviously have strong opinions on the subject, so perhaps you've answered this question in the past - how do you rationalize a society where alcohol is legal (subject to restrictions) and marijuana isn't? I can't help but think that if the practice of drinking alcohol had never begun, and it were suddenly introduced tomorrow, that it would/should be treated the same way we're currently treating marijuana. Does alcohol enjoy the protection it does for any reason other than longevity/tradition?


You ever drink the water in Mexico? Now imagine that kind of water existing for most of the history of humanity.
 
2012-10-21 10:42:51 PM

untaken_name: slayer199: Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.

You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.


I'm as vocal as the next guy when cops overstep the bounds, but there's no sane world where someone can point a gun at a cop (or refuse to drop one when ordered to do so) and the blame falls on the cops when they get shot. In a situation like that, the police are literally a fraction of a second away from potentially being killed, and there's no amount of pay that should make them accept that risk.
 
2012-10-21 10:43:39 PM

GAT_00: ScottRiqui: GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.

I can appreciate that. But what about when the people in question are normal, everyday law-abiding people, except for the one specific law in question that they're lobbying to change? Or non-marijuana users that support decriminalization / legalization?

It seems obvious that the repeal of *any* law would be supported by the people who are currently criminalized by that law, so is there *any* path on your flowchart that would lead you to support the repeal of *any* law?

Oh it's more than possible. But you have got to keep the stoners away from the rallies. The single worst argument for legalization is a bunch of stoned morons yelling about how pot should be legal.


But it is totally worth more deaths if it means preventing the stoners from winning, right?

I mean, thatis what's important right?
 
2012-10-21 10:43:41 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.


FTFA They were off-duty. In addition, not every police department uses either of those. The jurisdiction I'm in won't issue the tasers because they would have to switch pepper spray to a more expensive, water-based brand.

Gyrfalcon: That is one of the weirdest stories I've ever seen.

A woman is walking around naked in the woods carrying a cross and is seen by two men...who apparently don't think this is odd enough to alert the authorities, although they do take a few pictures.

The woman's boyfriend knows she is wandering around in the woods and knows she has a gun, which looks like a gun and although he knows it doesn't fire, he doesn't bother telling the authorities that his girlfriend is a) crazy as a loon and b) is carrying a weapon that doesn't fire so c) if you see her, please don't kill her.

A couple OFF-DUTY cops are hanging around in these same woods and see this same crazy lady who shows up, acts crazy, then leaves and comes back. A short time later, she's dead.

I have this feeling there's a big part of the story missing, that it involves the two men who "just happened" to take a couple pictures conveniently proving they didn't kill this woman--see? see? here's our pictures to prove it!--and the boyfriend who "just happened" to let her roam around with a conveniently non-firing gun. We'll see how it plays out in weeks to come.


I have a feeling that there's a lot more to this story that the article left out.
 
2012-10-21 10:44:06 PM

Smackledorfer: GRCooper: What I find interesting in all the speculation about a story that doesn't seem to add up, is that nobody has put forth "crappy reporter" as an option.

/just sayin

It doesn't matter either way. The average farker knows in his/her heart of hearts who is at fault without knowing the details. Any detail against such conclusion is a lie, perpetrated by that group of bad people.

That is what it means to be a farker.


I know. Forgive my lucidity; I'm sober tonight.
 
2012-10-21 10:44:40 PM

Gyrfalcon: KrispyKritter: when you are attending group therapy in a locked mental health hospital ward they emphasize the importance of proper behavior in public. because the police will neither know or care that you are not properly medicated, are suffering a breakdown or are simply having a horrible mental health day. you, as a mental health patient, are told that you have to present yourself in a presentable and non-threatening manner. i don't understand how you are supposed to look and act like everything is just fine when you are in bits and pieces, but that's what they tell you.

There is, or should be, a learning curve on both sides. Crazy people should learn or at least understand that the cops do not realize what they are facing is a mentally ill person having problems; cops should learn or at least understand that what they are facing is not just a crackhead being defiant. And to be fair to both sides, things have gotten (marginally) better than they used to be.

What needs to happen, of course, is that mentally ill people need to understand AND be able to get help BEFORE they are in "bits and pieces" as you say; they need to have both the insight and the ability to get their meds adjusted or therapy, or their housing taken care of or whatever stressors are causing their breakdowns BEFORE it reaches the level of seeing space aliens landing in Dealey Plaza. Police, on their side, need to realize that just because a person doesn't react instantly when they scream "GET ON THE GROUND NOW!!!!!" does not mean that that person is going to kill them in the next second, but may simply need more time to process the statement, or may need a better explanation of what is required. Assessing police for combat shock might be in order as well--mentally ill people aren't the only ones experiencing life stressors nowadays.


============

Right, but this here is the US of Murica. When a person goes mental.....like when someone over 19 years of age believes the US government should be based on the "philosophy" of Ayn Rand, for example......they generally are too far gone to hold down a job. Of course not having a job guarantees they don't have medical insurance, and rightly so, because if people who are unemployed due to mental illness had access to some kind of universal health care to treat said mental illness, that would be like commie-socialism. So because we don't have any commie-socialism, the mental illness of these people continues to fester until their lives spiral out of control and they begin studying the economic theories of Friedrich von Hayek. At this point they are only a step away from believing in Jebus, magic underpants, and rapture. Like I said before, no true "free market" country will pay for medical treatment for such an individual, because of the commie-socialism thing, but it's not commie-socialism to hire millions of nitwits, give them badges and lots and lots of bullets to kill people who are crazy for Jebus.

USA! USA! USA! FARK YEAH!
 
2012-10-21 10:44:48 PM

slayer199: They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.


That's why they should shoot BACK. That's taking risks. Shooting first, that's avoiding risks. I guess any time police see anything out of the ordinary, they should just shoot first and ask question later. Oh, right, they won't do the asking questions later part.
 
2012-10-21 10:46:02 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: untaken_name: slayer199: Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.

You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.

/yes.i agree all the police everywhere should let the suspect shoot first, it's only fair ...rolls eyes.


No, they should just shoot anyone any time they feel that there could, possibly, in some world, be some sort of danger. That's much better value for the danger pay they get.
 
2012-10-21 10:46:10 PM
Man, just reading this thread so far, coupled with the shiatstorm the Spa shooter became earlier, makes me want a few shots of something strong and stiff.

And I don't even drink.

/farked up situations, both of them
//wanted to be a police officer - decided against it because I feel that I'm not ready to handle those pressures
///did I mention that this situation was farked up?
 
2012-10-21 10:46:12 PM

untaken_name: Right, because we wouldn't want officers to be able to not kill people while off duty. Brave, brave officers who bravely gunned down a naked woman holding a cross. Brave, brave police officers. Those two cellphone guys are lucky they got out of there alive, what with her having a dangerous cross and all. She could have blessed them! So glad the brave police officers bravely gunned down a naked crazy chick. So brave.


Strawman Hyperbole is fun, isn't it?

www.troll.me
 
2012-10-21 10:46:23 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: David Simpson, who described himself as Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought "the end times were near." He said she had attended Bible study earlier in the week.

/See? there was your mistake right there...she was farking nuts to begin with


This. It always amazes me when people show signs of obvious mental illness, but because they've included religious themes into their crazy people act like it's totally okay and they're just 'extra religious'. Many people get away with being totally out to farking lunch for years because they believe god, the devil or an angel is talking to them instead of aliens or the CIA.
 
2012-10-21 10:47:07 PM

GRCooper: Smackledorfer: GRCooper: What I find interesting in all the speculation about a story that doesn't seem to add up, is that nobody has put forth "crappy reporter" as an option.

/just sayin

It doesn't matter either way. The average farker knows in his/her heart of hearts who is at fault without knowing the details. Any detail against such conclusion is a lie, perpetrated by that group of bad people.

That is what it means to be a farker.

I know. Forgive my lucidity; I'm sober tonight.


All is forgiven.
 
2012-10-21 10:47:39 PM

untaken_name: slayer199: They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.

That's why they should shoot BACK. That's taking risks. Shooting first, that's avoiding risks. I guess any time police see anything out of the ordinary, they should just shoot first and ask question later. Oh, right, they won't do the asking questions later part.


"They've got a gun!"
"Woah, slow down there, rookie. It's not like they've pulled the trigger or anything. This could be nothin'."
*BLAM*
"Oh. Okay. Well, sometimes it's not nothin'. Hey, can we get another rookie over here, please?"
 
2012-10-21 10:48:30 PM

ScottRiqui: GAT_00: Smackledorfer: asking them to risk more to satisfy your principle that potheads shouldn't get what they want.

By everyone's arguments ever, potheads are not violent. What is the risk in arresting someone stoned?

You obviously have strong opinions on the subject, so perhaps you've answered this question in the past - how do you rationalize a society where alcohol is legal (subject to restrictions) and marijuana isn't? I can't help but think that if the practice of drinking alcohol had never begun, and it were suddenly introduced tomorrow, that it would/should be treated the same way we're currently treating marijuana. Does alcohol enjoy the protection it does for any reason other than longevity/tradition?


Basically, I see no real reason to change the status quo. I wouldn't argue to decriminalize alcohol, but I wouldn't argue to criminalize it either. If pot was legal, I wouldn't argue to criminalize it. I have no problem with the people who don't use pot who want it legalized, but best I can tell, that is a small minority of the legalization supporters. What I argue from is I see no reason to listen to someone who is committing a criminal act tell me why they shouldn't be treated as a criminal. You wouldn't listen to a robber tell you why robbery should be legal because they don't want to go to jail. You don't listen to a speeder who says there shouldn't be speed limits because they don't want to pay the fine. It's stupid.

And I have no problem with the penalties being reduced, drastically even. It is stupid that possession carries heavier sentence than it has any right too. So change the penalties. But you still have to watch the above. And be careful about the arguments you make. There is no rights violations when it comes to drug use, like the guy upthread with the abolition argument.
 
2012-10-21 10:49:37 PM

untaken_name: slayer199: They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.

That's why they should shoot BACK. That's taking risks. Shooting first, that's avoiding risks. I guess any time police see anything out of the ordinary, they should just shoot first and ask question later. Oh, right, they won't do the asking questions later part.


An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?
 
2012-10-21 10:50:25 PM

ambercat: Bit'O'Gristle: David Simpson, who described himself as Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought "the end times were near." He said she had attended Bible study earlier in the week.

/See? there was your mistake right there...she was farking nuts to begin with

This. It always amazes me when people show signs of obvious mental illness, but because they've included religious themes into their crazy people act like it's totally okay and they're just 'extra religious'. Many people get away with being totally out to farking lunch for years because they believe god, the devil or an angel is talking to them instead of aliens or the CIA.


Those creeps in the CIA got to you too, huh?

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-21 10:50:36 PM
murder
 
2012-10-21 10:50:44 PM

ScottRiqui: untaken_name: slayer199: They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.

That's why they should shoot BACK. That's taking risks. Shooting first, that's avoiding risks. I guess any time police see anything out of the ordinary, they should just shoot first and ask question later. Oh, right, they won't do the asking questions later part.

An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?


Preferrably at a bystander.
 
2012-10-21 10:51:03 PM

Keizer_Ghidorah: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

They couldn't use the tasers and bean bags? They're usually so quick to whip those out every chance they get.


Was she blind? Cause they're only allowed to use those against blind people.
 
2012-10-21 10:51:18 PM
Bad cops and religious nuts. Too bad only one died.
 
2012-10-21 10:51:28 PM

ScottRiqui: untaken_name: slayer199: Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.

You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.

I'm as vocal as the next guy when cops overstep the bounds, but there's no sane world where someone can point a gun at a cop (or refuse to drop one when ordered to do so) and the blame falls on the cops when they get shot. In a situation like that, the police are literally a fraction of a second away from potentially being killed, and there's no amount of pay that should make them accept that risk.


The risk was all in their heads. They should at least verify that there is actual risk. THAT IS WHY THEY GET PAID. We hear all the time that cops put their lives on the line, except that any time there's any possibility that they might actually have to, they just start blasting away instead. How do we know she even pointed anything at them? We take their word. At least if she had actually fired (which she COULD NOT do since the gun doesn't fire), they would have the proof that there was actually enough danger to excuse taking someone's life. In this case, they had a naked crazy lady who may or may not have had a non-functioning gun. Man, I've had a gun pointed at me, and while unpleasant, I somehow managed to survive the incident, and even without killing anyone. I wasn't even getting paid for it. Just because there's a gun within 20 feet of an officer, that doesn't excuse the officer shooting someone.
 
2012-10-21 10:52:03 PM

BronyMedic: Strawman Hyperbole is fun, isn't it?


You tell me. That's your bailiwick.
 
2012-10-21 10:52:18 PM

Relatively Obscure: skullkrusher: Of course, a civilian would likely just run away if that were at all possible while a cop is required to stand his ground and take care of the situation.

I don't think they are, but otherwise (to the rest of the post), yeah.


TFA is terrible and there are certainly cases where police use inappropriate force but it just doesn't sound like this is one of those cases. A crazy person is just as capable of pulling a trigger as a sane one. You threaten someone with a weapon, whether it can fire or not, you're probably gonna be shot. In this case it just seems as if it was a tragic turn of events for a woman with clear mental issues
 
2012-10-21 10:52:37 PM

ScottRiqui: untaken_name: slayer199: They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.

That's why they should shoot BACK. That's taking risks. Shooting first, that's avoiding risks. I guess any time police see anything out of the ordinary, they should just shoot first and ask question later. Oh, right, they won't do the asking questions later part.

An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?


Yes, he is advocating that. That is a position he's taken in past cop threads, even if it wasn't about questionable circumstances.

untaken_name is also one of the farkers, I believe, who thinks that a cop should just shoot the gun out of their hand, or wrestle it away rather than killing someone. After all, that's what they're paid to do.
 
2012-10-21 10:52:48 PM

Amos Quito: And this is why cops should not be allowed near guns.


She came at them with a gun.

You come at me with a gun, I'm allowed to shoot you as a private citizen if I should have a legal fire arm. Cops? They're obligated to carry a weapon. Aproaching them while armed and of unclear intention is suicide. I suspect that's what this lady's endgame was.
 
2012-10-21 10:52:52 PM

skullkrusher: TFA is terrible and there are certainly cases where police use inappropriate force but it just doesn't sound like this is one of those cases.


Agreed.
 
2012-10-21 10:53:20 PM

ScottRiqui: An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?


What, you mean people should have to prove that they are actually a threat, not just perceived to be one in the paranoid mind of a cop? Gee, what a strange concept.
 
2012-10-21 10:54:03 PM

untaken_name: You tell me. That's your bailiwick


I'm not the one who's made a lot of posts on hyperbolic sarcasm about all cops, buddy, by this event. Or who's advocated that someone shoot a cop before they are shot themselves.

And 1690 called. They want their language back, buddy.
 
2012-10-21 10:54:45 PM

BronyMedic: Yes, he is advocating that. That is a position he's taken in past cop threads, even if it wasn't about questionable circumstances.

untaken_name is also one of the farkers, I believe, who thinks that a cop should just shoot the gun out of their hand, or wrestle it away rather than killing someone. After all, that's what they're paid to do.


Right. Just shoot the crazy naked chicks and 10 year olds with waterguns because maybe, in some scenario that hasn't ever actually happened, they *could* maybe take a shot at a cop. We can't have cops being put in danger - taking risks isn't in the job description.
 
2012-10-21 10:55:05 PM

untaken_name: What, you mean people should have to prove that they are actually a threat, not just perceived to be one in the paranoid mind of a cop? Gee, what a strange concept.


So what you're saying is that a cop should be shot or stabbed before they fire upon an armed suspect who's brandishing a weapon at them?
 
2012-10-21 10:55:20 PM

BronyMedic: untaken_name: You tell me. That's your bailiwick

I'm not the one who's made a lot of posts on hyperbolic sarcasm about all cops, buddy, by this event. Or who's advocated that someone shoot a cop before they are shot themselves.

And 1690 called. They want their language back, buddy.


I'm not your buddy, friend.
 
2012-10-21 10:55:26 PM

untaken_name: ScottRiqui: An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?

What, you mean people should have to prove that they are actually a threat, not just perceived to be one in the paranoid mind of a cop? Gee, what a strange concept.


You have gotten so many bites it's quite impressive
 
2012-10-21 10:55:55 PM

BronyMedic: untaken_name: What, you mean people should have to prove that they are actually a threat, not just perceived to be one in the paranoid mind of a cop? Gee, what a strange concept.

So what you're saying is that a cop should be shot or stabbed before they fire upon an armed suspect who's brandishing a weapon at them?


No, they should shoot anyone who makes any kind of motion, in case they're going for a hidden gun.
 
2012-10-21 10:57:00 PM

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: untaken_name: ScottRiqui: An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?

What, you mean people should have to prove that they are actually a threat, not just perceived to be one in the paranoid mind of a cop? Gee, what a strange concept.

You have gotten so many bites it's quite impressive


He's good.
 
2012-10-21 10:57:07 PM

untaken_name: BronyMedic: untaken_name: What, you mean people should have to prove that they are actually a threat, not just perceived to be one in the paranoid mind of a cop? Gee, what a strange concept.

So what you're saying is that a cop should be shot or stabbed before they fire upon an armed suspect who's brandishing a weapon at them?

No, they should shoot anyone who makes any kind of motion, in case they're going for a hidden gun.


i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-10-21 10:57:58 PM
PRO TIP: Use the nightstick on the unarmed

media1.gameinformer.com
 
2012-10-21 10:58:01 PM
David Simpson, who described himself as Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought "the end times were near."

And she was right.
 
2012-10-21 10:58:05 PM

GAT_00: What I argue from is I see no reason to listen to someone who is committing a criminal act tell me why they shouldn't be treated as a criminal. You wouldn't listen to a robber tell you why robbery should be legal because they don't want to go to jail. You don't listen to a speeder who says there shouldn't be speed limits because they don't want to pay the fine. It's stupid.


Again, I can see where you're coming from. But it goes without saying that anyone who is currently criminalized by a particular law is going to support the repeal/reform of that law. As such, I don't think it's any kind of a valid test for whether or not the law should be changed. Taken by itself, it's certainly not sufficient reason NOT to consider changing the law.

If a wide, flat stretch of highway has a ridiculously-low speed limit, do you ignore the arguments from hundreds of motorists who have received speeding tickets on that stretch of road? If you ignore them on principle just because they're speeders, you can never proceed to a rational discourse of whether or not the speed limit is in fact too low.
 
2012-10-21 10:58:08 PM
This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

www.thenerdlist.com
 
2012-10-21 10:58:16 PM
Have the Mormons baptized her yet?
 
2012-10-21 10:58:25 PM

doglover: SirDigbyChickenCaesar: untaken_name: ScottRiqui: An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?

What, you mean people should have to prove that they are actually a threat, not just perceived to be one in the paranoid mind of a cop? Gee, what a strange concept.

You have gotten so many bites it's quite impressive

He's good.


If he had this much enthusiasm at work he might get moved up to fries one day
 
2012-10-21 10:58:29 PM
Farking cops.

/poor naked lady
 
2012-10-21 10:59:07 PM

FF Mac: Fail subby...even TFA says she pointed a gun at them. Should the cops ask people if the gun works or not before protecting themselves?

But hey, this is Fark. Why let facts get in the way of your cop hate.

/meow


um the article says "Deputies have not confirmed that Swanson was holding the antique gun at the time of the shooting".....thanks for reading.
 
2012-10-21 11:00:33 PM

phrawgh: Have the Mormons baptized her yet?


She hasn't been dead a year, Snarky McSnarktroll.
 
2012-10-21 11:01:45 PM

untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]


This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

www.gunblast.com

www.theboxotruth.com

www.shootersforum.com
 
2012-10-21 11:02:16 PM

ISO15693: phrawgh: Have the Mormons baptized her yet?

She hasn't been dead a year, Snarky McSnarktroll.


Why the wait?
 
2012-10-21 11:02:28 PM
*sigh*
 
2012-10-21 11:03:21 PM

GAT_00: ScottRiqui: GAT_00: Smackledorfer: asking them to risk more to satisfy your principle that potheads shouldn't get what they want.

By everyone's arguments ever, potheads are not violent. What is the risk in arresting someone stoned?

You obviously have strong opinions on the subject, so perhaps you've answered this question in the past - how do you rationalize a society where alcohol is legal (subject to restrictions) and marijuana isn't? I can't help but think that if the practice of drinking alcohol had never begun, and it were suddenly introduced tomorrow, that it would/should be treated the same way we're currently treating marijuana. Does alcohol enjoy the protection it does for any reason other than longevity/tradition?

Basically, I see no real reason to change the status quo. I wouldn't argue to decriminalize alcohol, but I wouldn't argue to criminalize it either. If pot was legal, I wouldn't argue to criminalize it. I have no problem with the people who don't use pot who want it legalized, but best I can tell, that is a small minority of the legalization supporters. What I argue from is I see no reason to listen to someone who is committing a criminal act tell me why they shouldn't be treated as a criminal. You wouldn't listen to a robber tell you why robbery should be legal because they don't want to go to jail. You don't listen to a speeder who says there shouldn't be speed limits because they don't want to pay the fine. It's stupid.

And I have no problem with the penalties being reduced, drastically even. It is stupid that possession carries heavier sentence than it has any right too. So change the penalties. But you still have to watch the above. And be careful about the arguments you make. There is no rights violations when it comes to drug use, like the guy upthread with the abolition argument.


That is quite the hard line approach for a cop hater.

You cannot find goodness in the pothead, but the cops should pause when a gun is pointed at them and take the time to break out the beanbags.

Strange dichotomy. So basically you are a hardline authoritarian (criminals are criminal) but hate those who enforce your laws?

How do you feel about immigration (which yes, has plenty of criminal statutes)? Surely we cannot change immigration laws at the behest of those who have broken them? In fact, like those filthy hippies, immigration must be fully enforced until the illegals stop having an opinion.

You really show your true self in these threads.
 
2012-10-21 11:03:31 PM

ISO15693: phrawgh: Have the Mormons baptized her yet?

She hasn't been dead a year, Snarky McSnarktroll.


Since when has death ever stopped them from converting someone to their religion?
 
2012-10-21 11:04:15 PM

ScottRiqui: If a wide, flat stretch of highway has a ridiculously-low speed limit, do you ignore the arguments from hundreds of motorists who have received speeding tickets on that stretch of road? If you ignore them on principle just because they're speeders, you can never proceed to a rational discourse of whether or not the speed limit is in fact too low.


I speed all the time. I expect to get a ticket if I'm caught. I don't think that I'm somehow exempt from the law because I don't like it and I don't expect to get out of a ticket if I get one. Actually, I stay much closer to the limit if I'm not familiar with the roads, but if it's an area I know I'll go the speed I want.

And I'm not going to argue that speed limits should be tossed because I know that's hypocritical.
 
2012-10-21 11:05:07 PM

phrawgh: ISO15693: phrawgh: Have the Mormons baptized her yet?

She hasn't been dead a year, Snarky McSnarktroll.

Why the wait?


To see if anyone cares.
 
2012-10-21 11:05:21 PM

untaken_name: ScottRiqui: An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?

What, you mean people should have to prove that they are actually a threat, not just perceived to be one in the paranoid mind of a cop? Gee, what a strange concept.


I'm not sure what you're trying to do here but if it is anything aside from "trolling for lulz" you're failing pretty hard. However, if it IS "trolling for lulz" then my hat's off to you. Keep up the good work
 
2012-10-21 11:05:53 PM
Why not help her the first time they met? Did they laugh their asses off at the crazy biatch with the cross? Did she return with a gun , crazy, pissed, and an actual threat?
 
2012-10-21 11:06:56 PM

wellreadneck: Why not help her the first time they met? Did they laugh their asses off at the crazy biatch with the cross? Did she return with a gun , crazy, pissed, and an actual threat?


Helping her would violate her First Amendment right to the freedom of religion, Sir.

Why are you a red communist?
 
2012-10-21 11:07:45 PM
ya know if cops had pursued a policy of shooting bare naked ladies historically, we could have been saved from some very catchy, very annoying Canadian pop
 
2012-10-21 11:08:26 PM
The important thing here is that the man who had a restraining order and had an order to turn in his weapons was ignored, but the naked woman was shot to death.

Because gun laws are worthless, unless you are the police, and can shoot anyone you want.

Link

Clearly, the answer is we have more people carrying guns. Isn't that ALWAYS the answer?
 
2012-10-21 11:09:14 PM

skullkrusher: ya know if cops had pursued a policy of shooting bare naked ladies historically, we could have been saved from some very catchy, very annoying Canadian pop


images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-21 11:09:46 PM
Subby's headline twists around what actually led up to her being shot, one being that she re-appeared with a weapon (not that it should be an excuse for cops to blast everyone away. Don't they train on the firing range?)
 
2012-10-21 11:12:27 PM

sleep lack: Was she hot?


dunno but I'm sure she is cold now.

/1 ticket
 
2012-10-21 11:12:28 PM

phrawgh: ISO15693: phrawgh: Have the Mormons baptized her yet?

She hasn't been dead a year, Snarky McSnarktroll.

Why the wait?


The Mormon rituals are a bastardized version of the Masonic rituals. They take a bit of time to practice and get proficient in. It's not just the old guys doing the work, you have to make sure the young guys learn the ritual as well.

/need to study the G Lecture some more
 
2012-10-21 11:13:39 PM

BronyMedic: untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]

This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

[www.theboxotruth.com image 540x404]

[www.shootersforum.com image 512x404]


???
 
2012-10-21 11:14:39 PM

GAT_00: ScottRiqui: If a wide, flat stretch of highway has a ridiculously-low speed limit, do you ignore the arguments from hundreds of motorists who have received speeding tickets on that stretch of road? If you ignore them on principle just because they're speeders, you can never proceed to a rational discourse of whether or not the speed limit is in fact too low.

I speed all the time. I expect to get a ticket if I'm caught. I don't think that I'm somehow exempt from the law because I don't like it and I don't expect to get out of a ticket if I get one. Actually, I stay much closer to the limit if I'm not familiar with the roads, but if it's an area I know I'll go the speed I want.

And I'm not going to argue that speed limits should be tossed because I know that's hypocritical.


So, only those without experience with a subject matter should be consulted on the validity of a law concerning said subject?

You realize there are both areas without speed limits and areas where pot is legal, right?
 
2012-10-21 11:15:02 PM

powerplantgirl: Please tell me how you're supposed to tell from any amount of distance that a gun is loaded and operational.


In that same situation, because I don't have a gun or a badge on me when I get drunk in the woods at night, I would call more people, get some lights on the scene, get some medical and psychiatric help, try to talk it out, piss my pants, cast Magic Missle, whatever not-gun-using options were at my disposal. I would figure that she's been assaulted, in a car wreck, or escaped from a hospital or mental ward and needs my help. Whatever I noticed in her hand would be secondary because I don't approach every situation looking for a threat to my pussy-ass life. Not that I'm not a pussy, I just can't shoot people with impunity so it changes my tactics a little bit. I probably wouldn't leave her wandering around and go somewhere else to get a gun, because another gun is not what the situation calls for. Less guns is the desired effect here.

SirDigbyChickenCaesar: It's a troll, he has no answer to that.


You're mom's a farking troll. They did not properly assess the threat and killed a woman who, as it turns out, was only a danger to herself. These cops made a mistake out of cowardice and thoughtlessness. That mistake resulted in the death of a person. Usually somebody goes in front of a judge when that happens.
 
2012-10-21 11:16:03 PM

GAT_00: ScottRiqui: If a wide, flat stretch of highway has a ridiculously-low speed limit, do you ignore the arguments from hundreds of motorists who have received speeding tickets on that stretch of road? If you ignore them on principle just because they're speeders, you can never proceed to a rational discourse of whether or not the speed limit is in fact too low.

I speed all the time. I expect to get a ticket if I'm caught. I don't think that I'm somehow exempt from the law because I don't like it and I don't expect to get out of a ticket if I get one. Actually, I stay much closer to the limit if I'm not familiar with the roads, but if it's an area I know I'll go the speed I want.

And I'm not going to argue that speed limits should be tossed because I know that's hypocritical.


But do you agree with my point that the fact that people currently criminalized by a law support its repeal/reform says absolutely nothing one way or the other as to whether the law needs to be re-examined?

From your posts, it sounds to me that your biggest argument against legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana is that you don't like most of the people who want it legalized/decriminalized.
 
2012-10-21 11:17:47 PM
Zimmerman is automatically president.
 
2012-10-21 11:18:53 PM
Way to mislead you miserable jerkwad. Neighbor interviewed said she dropped the cross and got a gun which she was waving around when the police shot her.
 
2012-10-21 11:19:16 PM
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
 
2012-10-21 11:20:19 PM

slayer199: Amos Quito: And this is why cops should not be allowed near guns.

Didn't anyone RTFA?

It's the cops' fault that she was wielding a gun? When the cops are overzealous, I'm one of the first people to shout about it (case and point, the kid that allegedly shot himself while handcuffed in the back of a squad car).

Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.



As I said in a subsequent post, the article you see now has been MODIFIED. There was no mention of the woman having a GUN in the original, they only said that she had earlier been carrying a CROSS, and that she had "threatened" the cops with an unidentified weapon - which I assumed must have been the cross.

Make sense?
 
2012-10-21 11:22:07 PM

BronyMedic: untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]

This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

[www.theboxotruth.com image 540x404]

[www.shootersforum.com image 512x404]


Let me guess, you have a lot free time you fill with shooting guns. Life well spent, tard.
 
2012-10-21 11:22:17 PM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.


Nuance, huh? Your attitude would have prevented the first Prohibition from being repealed. It would have prevented laws against miscegenation from being overturned. It would have prevented almost all civilized advances in our justice system.

Get a clue. Some laws are simply bad, and should be overturned even if "criminals" want themoverturned. If you still have trouble with this concept, consider that certain criminals, such as powerful and ruthless drug lords, would really hate to see the drug war ended. Someone who actually understood the concept of nuance would perhaps consider whether it's better for society if drug users or drug lords are unhappy .
 
2012-10-21 11:24:37 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]

This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

[www.theboxotruth.com image 540x404]

[www.shootersforum.com image 512x404]

Let me guess, you have a lot free time you fill with shooting guns. Life well spent, tard.


fc01.deviantart.net

Actually, I haven't shot a gun since basic training. But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.
 
2012-10-21 11:25:35 PM

skinink: Subby's headline twists around what actually led up to her being shot, one being that she re-appeared with a weapon (not that it should be an excuse for cops to blast everyone away. Don't they train on the firing range?)


I'll need to here it from the a non cop that the buck naked lady suddenly procured a gun and brandished it.
 
2012-10-21 11:25:52 PM

mccallcl: powerplantgirl: Please tell me how you're supposed to tell from any amount of distance that a gun is loaded and operational.

In that same situation, because I don't have a gun or a badge on me when I get drunk in the woods at night, I would call more people, get some lights on the scene, get some medical and psychiatric help, try to talk it out, piss my pants, cast Magic Missle, whatever not-gun-using options were at my disposal. I would figure that she's been assaulted, in a car wreck, or escaped from a hospital or mental ward and needs my help. Whatever I noticed in her hand would be secondary because I don't approach every situation looking for a threat to my pussy-ass life. Not that I'm not a pussy, I just can't shoot people with impunity so it changes my tactics a little bit. I probably wouldn't leave her wandering around and go somewhere else to get a gun, because another gun is not what the situation calls for. Less guns is the desired effect here..


SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUP!! YER RUINING MY FANTASY OF BEING A HERO WITH MY DICKGUN!!!!
 
2012-10-21 11:26:09 PM

ScottRiqui: From your posts, it sounds to me that your biggest argument against legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana is that you don't like most of the people who want it legalized/decriminalized.


Pretty much. And I do think it needs to be examined, but as long as stuff like 4/20 day still happens, that won't get anywhere. And besides, there are so many better things to spend limited political capital on.
 
2012-10-21 11:26:16 PM

Fissile: Gyrfalcon: KrispyKritter: when you are attending group therapy in a locked mental health hospital ward they emphasize the importance of proper behavior in public. because the police will neither know or care that you are not properly medicated, are suffering a breakdown or are simply having a horrible mental health day. you, as a mental health patient, are told that you have to present yourself in a presentable and non-threatening manner. i don't understand how you are supposed to look and act like everything is just fine when you are in bits and pieces, but that's what they tell you.

There is, or should be, a learning curve on both sides. Crazy people should learn or at least understand that the cops do not realize what they are facing is a mentally ill person having problems; cops should learn or at least understand that what they are facing is not just a crackhead being defiant. And to be fair to both sides, things have gotten (marginally) better than they used to be.

What needs to happen, of course, is that mentally ill people need to understand AND be able to get help BEFORE they are in "bits and pieces" as you say; they need to have both the insight and the ability to get their meds adjusted or therapy, or their housing taken care of or whatever stressors are causing their breakdowns BEFORE it reaches the level of seeing space aliens landing in Dealey Plaza. Police, on their side, need to realize that just because a person doesn't react instantly when they scream "GET ON THE GROUND NOW!!!!!" does not mean that that person is going to kill them in the next second, but may simply need more time to process the statement, or may need a better explanation of what is required. Assessing police for combat shock might be in order as well--mentally ill people aren't the only ones experiencing life stressors nowadays.

============

Right, but this here is the US of Murica. When a person goes mental.....like when someone over 19 years of age believes the US governmen ...


i think Gyrfalcon makes some good points. You do too. I've noticed there are people who need adult supervision and/or mental health treatment assistance. And there is no one to call to get it for them. If their immediate family does not take the responsibility to see them through the ordeal, or if the family has tried in the past and hit brick walls, those people are almost doomed to bad times ahead.

There are a lot of damaged people in the hick town where I live. I see daywalkers all over the place. People that either walk around all day because they have nothing to do or no where to go, or they walk very far distances to the grocery store for 1 or 2 items as a way to get out of the house and kill the day. There are others who have a few dollars from inheritance, etcetera, and even though they are on a handful of prescriptions they are driving a car.

We don't have enough people looking out for other people. I don't know how other countries help or treat their mentally ill. The huge warehouses we used to have where everyone was just locked up or sedated isn't the answer. But we do need facilities and we need to have people working there and looking out for and helping these people.

Now that the Boomers are retiring America is going to need a shiatload of senior citizen centers too. Are these needs being addressed by our government? I doubt it. They don't take care of many mentally ill, homeless or veterans right now. I don't expect they will provide help for senior citizens in the future.
 
2012-10-21 11:27:11 PM

Anastacya: I was hoping that the headline was an overzealous lie. Maybe she was tazed and the subby lied (subbies never lie, right?) and she was tazed and confused...

/just wow


I do not make overzealous lies... Unless they're kind of funny and this story wasn't funny... I live about an hour away from where this happened.
 
2012-10-21 11:27:13 PM

untaken_name: BronyMedic: untaken_name: What, you mean people should have to prove that they are actually a threat, not just perceived to be one in the paranoid mind of a cop? Gee, what a strange concept.

So what you're saying is that a cop should be shot or stabbed before they fire upon an armed suspect who's brandishing a weapon at them?

No, they should shoot anyone who makes any kind of motion, in case they're going for a hidden gun.


Even for your usual trolly self, you're wavering wildly from position to position here. You'd do Mitt Romney proud, for the stance you've taken here; you've flip-flopped like a jumping bean on a red-hot skillet. So what exactly IS your position here? You want a suspect to prove they are in fact a threat by doing what exactly? You want the police to wait exactly how long before taking action, and what kind of action? I think we can all agree that waiting till an innocent bystander actually dies is probably too long; but you're saying that if the suspect is merely "brandishing" a weapon, they'd be taking action far too soon.

It would be nice if all cops were such pinpoint sharpshooters they could wait till the suspect actually took up the initial pull on the trigger before they shot him (and didn't have to worry about cadaveric reflex tightening his grip on the trigger); but nobody's that good a shot, of course. And it might be better if there were no crazy people who didn't burst into theaters or public gatherings and just start spraying bullets, so cops had the option to carefully weigh each situation and perhaps talk the suspect down before they opened fire; but alas, such is no longer the case and often police don't have the luxury of waiting to see if a gun-wielding individual is just bluffing. Oftentimes, they must assume that person + gun = lots of dead bodies and have to remove person from equation as quickly as possible, since removing gun usually isn't an alternative.

In either case, pretending that somehow there is a third option between "taking action at first sign of threat" and "taking action only after threat has been verified" merely creates controversy where none exists. Person + gun must = threat in today's world. Sorry, it's the world we live in.
 
2012-10-21 11:30:14 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: mccallcl: powerplantgirl: Please tell me how you're supposed to tell from any amount of distance that a gun is loaded and operational.

In that same situation, because I don't have a gun or a badge on me when I get drunk in the woods at night, I would call more people, get some lights on the scene, get some medical and psychiatric help, try to talk it out, piss my pants, cast Magic Missle, whatever not-gun-using options were at my disposal. I would figure that she's been assaulted, in a car wreck, or escaped from a hospital or mental ward and needs my help. Whatever I noticed in her hand would be secondary because I don't approach every situation looking for a threat to my pussy-ass life. Not that I'm not a pussy, I just can't shoot people with impunity so it changes my tactics a little bit. I probably wouldn't leave her wandering around and go somewhere else to get a gun, because another gun is not what the situation calls for. Less guns is the desired effect here..

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUP!! YER RUINING MY FANTASY OF BEING A HERO WITH MY DICKGUN!!!!


*raises hand*

I have a question. What is it with people who are against guns/sport cars/the like and male genitalia?
 
2012-10-21 11:30:15 PM

mccallcl: I would call more people, get some lights on the scene, get some medical and psychiatric help, try to talk it out, piss my pants, cast Magic Missle, whatever not-gun-using options were at my disposal.


Which is not going to be anywhere in the line of fire if the person in question is pointing a gun at the cops. They'd only come into the scene after the person either drops the gun, or is made to drop it through lead poisoning.

You honestly expect someone to run at someone who has a gun and stab them through the shoulder with a syrenge full of haldol? Real life doesn't work like the movies, Kid.

mccallcl: You're mom's a farking troll. They did not properly assess the threat and killed a woman who, as it turns out, was only a danger to herself. These cops made a mistake out of cowardice and thoughtlessness. That mistake resulted in the death of a person. Usually somebody goes in front of a judge when that happens.


I seriously hope you're trolling on this. Do you actually think that someone pointing a gun at the cops is only a threat to themselves? If so, you're the most nieve person I've ever met. Even someone who's seeking to suicide-by-cop is a threat to anyone as long as they get their way.

people.virginia.edu
 
2012-10-21 11:30:23 PM

BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]

This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

[www.theboxotruth.com image 540x404]

[www.shootersforum.com image 512x404]

Let me guess, you have a lot free time you fill with shooting guns. Life well spent, tard.

[fc01.deviantart.net image 522x451]

Actually, I haven't shot a gun since basic training. But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.


Soooo, you obsess about guns but don't even shoot them, somehow that makes you...even sadder.
 
2012-10-21 11:32:14 PM

GAT_00: ScottRiqui: If a wide, flat stretch of highway has a ridiculously-low speed limit, do you ignore the arguments from hundreds of motorists who have received speeding tickets on that stretch of road? If you ignore them on principle just because they're speeders, you can never proceed to a rational discourse of whether or not the speed limit is in fact too low.

I speed all the time. I expect to get a ticket if I'm caught. I don't think that I'm somehow exempt from the law because I don't like it and I don't expect to get out of a ticket if I get one. Actually, I stay much closer to the limit if I'm not familiar with the roads, but if it's an area I know I'll go the speed I want.

And I'm not going to argue that speed limits should be tossed because I know that's hypocritical.


So a pothead who obeys traffic laws can call for their repeal, and a speeder like gat can call for a continuance of prohibition, but neither has the standing to call for an end to the other law?

What makes your dangerous driving arse fit to tell society about any laws at all? What difference does it make which law a man breaks vs. which he fights against.
 
2012-10-21 11:33:00 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]

This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

[www.theboxotruth.com image 540x404]

[www.shootersforum.com image 512x404]

Let me guess, you have a lot free time you fill with shooting guns. Life well spent, tard.

[fc01.deviantart.net image 522x451]

Actually, I haven't shot a gun since basic training. But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

Soooo, you obsess about guns but don't even shoot them, somehow that makes you...even sadder.


Where have I stated I obsess about guns?

I recognize the weapon in that picture from Fallout: New Vegas. That somehow makes someone obsessed about guns?

Apparantly being able to execute a five second google image search makes someone sad.

I brought someone back from the dead today. What have you done with your spare time?
 
2012-10-21 11:34:05 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]

This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

[www.theboxotruth.com image 540x404]

[www.shootersforum.com image 512x404]

Let me guess, you have a lot free time you fill with shooting guns. Life well spent, tard.

[fc01.deviantart.net image 522x451]

Actually, I haven't shot a gun since basic training. But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

Soooo, you obsess about guns but don't even shoot them, somehow that makes you...even sadder.


He's a paramedic, last I checked.

In that line of work, it probably helps to know just what kind of damage gunshot wounds can do. So there's that.

/There's also the possibility you're a farking idiot
 
2012-10-21 11:34:27 PM
"She held the cross up and made a circle like this and said, 'Antichrist, Antichrist, this meeting is over,'" Eylward said. "And as she did that she stopped, turned around and walked back."

I had a roommate who did stuff like this, except not quite so Jesusy (she had a problem with dirt and would carry toilet paper around.) She was schizophrenic. Sometimes she was fine and then she'd just unravel. You never felt like she was dangerous, but it was kind of creepy. Especially when she came in your room in the middle of the night or something.
 
2012-10-21 11:35:01 PM
www.baynews9.com
bigfoot-sasquatch.yolasite.com
 
2012-10-21 11:35:23 PM

Clutch2013: Serious Post on Serious Thread: mccallcl: powerplantgirl: Please tell me how you're supposed to tell from any amount of distance that a gun is loaded and operational.

In that same situation, because I don't have a gun or a badge on me when I get drunk in the woods at night, I would call more people, get some lights on the scene, get some medical and psychiatric help, try to talk it out, piss my pants, cast Magic Missle, whatever not-gun-using options were at my disposal. I would figure that she's been assaulted, in a car wreck, or escaped from a hospital or mental ward and needs my help. Whatever I noticed in her hand would be secondary because I don't approach every situation looking for a threat to my pussy-ass life. Not that I'm not a pussy, I just can't shoot people with impunity so it changes my tactics a little bit. I probably wouldn't leave her wandering around and go somewhere else to get a gun, because another gun is not what the situation calls for. Less guns is the desired effect here..

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUP!! YER RUINING MY FANTASY OF BEING A HERO WITH MY DICKGUN!!!!

*raises hand*

I have a question. What is it with people who are against define themselves with guns/sport cars/the like and male genitalia?
 
2012-10-21 11:36:36 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Clutch2013: Serious Post on Serious Thread: mccallcl: powerplantgirl: Please tell me how you're supposed to tell from any amount of distance that a gun is loaded and operational.

In that same situation, because I don't have a gun or a badge on me when I get drunk in the woods at night, I would call more people, get some lights on the scene, get some medical and psychiatric help, try to talk it out, piss my pants, cast Magic Missle, whatever not-gun-using options were at my disposal. I would figure that she's been assaulted, in a car wreck, or escaped from a hospital or mental ward and needs my help. Whatever I noticed in her hand would be secondary because I don't approach every situation looking for a threat to my pussy-ass life. Not that I'm not a pussy, I just can't shoot people with impunity so it changes my tactics a little bit. I probably wouldn't leave her wandering around and go somewhere else to get a gun, because another gun is not what the situation calls for. Less guns is the desired effect here..

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUP!! YER RUINING MY FANTASY OF BEING A HERO WITH MY DICKGUN!!!!

*raises hand*

I have a question. What is it with people who are against define themselves with guns/sport cars/the like and male genitalia?


Dear God! People enjoy things that I don't enjoy. I must overreact immediately!

images.sodahead.com
 
2012-10-21 11:36:39 PM

GAT_00: ScottRiqui: From your posts, it sounds to me that your biggest argument against legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana is that you don't like most of the people who want it legalized/decriminalized.

Pretty much. And I do think it needs to be examined, but as long as stuff like 4/20 day still happens, that won't get anywhere. And besides, there are so many better things to spend limited political capital on.


I respect your position, but before dismissing the issue out-of-hand as being unworthy of effort, I'd like to see a comprehensive study of how legalization would affect our prison and jail population, both directly by virtue of the users not being incarcerated, as well as the second- and third-order effects from the criminal structure surrounding marijuana growth and distribution being dismantled.
 
2012-10-21 11:41:13 PM
I want a dick gun....
 
2012-10-21 11:41:58 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: Clutch2013: Serious Post on Serious Thread: mccallcl: powerplantgirl: Please tell me how you're supposed to tell from any amount of distance that a gun is loaded and operational.

In that same situation, because I don't have a gun or a badge on me when I get drunk in the woods at night, I would call more people, get some lights on the scene, get some medical and psychiatric help, try to talk it out, piss my pants, cast Magic Missle, whatever not-gun-using options were at my disposal. I would figure that she's been assaulted, in a car wreck, or escaped from a hospital or mental ward and needs my help. Whatever I noticed in her hand would be secondary because I don't approach every situation looking for a threat to my pussy-ass life. Not that I'm not a pussy, I just can't shoot people with impunity so it changes my tactics a little bit. I probably wouldn't leave her wandering around and go somewhere else to get a gun, because another gun is not what the situation calls for. Less guns is the desired effect here..

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUP!! YER RUINING MY FANTASY OF BEING A HERO WITH MY DICKGUN!!!!

*raises hand*

I have a question. What is it with people who are against define themselves with guns/sport cars/the like and male genitalia?


I know you're a troll, but seriously. Speak for yourself, at least. Why is it, always, if someone gets a new Corvette or buys a new shotgun or dresses well or has a decent amount of money or anything like that, they're "compensating for something"?
 
2012-10-21 11:43:38 PM

doglover: I want a dick gun....


Try Etsy. I hear they have all sorts of things for the discerning connesour of wierd crap.
 
2012-10-21 11:43:55 PM
Gangbangs Gone Bad.
 
2012-10-21 11:44:13 PM

BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]

This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

[www.theboxotruth.com image 540x404]

[www.shootersforum.com image 512x404]

Let me guess, you have a lot free time you fill with shooting guns. Life well spent, tard.

[fc01.deviantart.net image 522x451]

Actually, I haven't shot a gun since basic training. But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

Soooo, you obsess about guns but don't even shoot them, somehow that makes you...even sadder.

Where have I stated I obsess about guns?

I recognize the weapon in that picture from Fallout: New Vegas. That somehow makes someone obsessed about guns?

Apparantly being able to execute a five second google image search makes someone sad.

I brought someone back from the dead today. What have you done with your spare time?


I made a totally awesome omelet from quail eggs and smoked ham. You did say "spare time" right? Not "paid for time" right?

Clutch2013: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]

This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

[www.theboxotruth.com image 540x404]

[www.shootersforum.com image 512x404]

Let me guess, you have a lot free time you fill with shooting guns. Life well spent, tard.

[fc01.deviantart.net image 522x451]

Actually, I haven't shot a gun since basic training. But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

Soooo, you obsess about guns but don't even shoot them, somehow that makes you...even sadder.

He's a paramedic, last I checked.

In that line of work, it probably helps to know just what kind of damage gunshot wounds can do. So there's that.

/There's also the possibility you're a farking idiot


You're so cute with that dick in yr mouth!
 
2012-10-21 11:45:40 PM

KrispyKritter: Fissile: Gyrfalcon: KrispyKritter: i think Gyrfalcon makes some good points. You do too. I've noticed there are people who need adult supervision and/or mental health treatment assistance. And there is no one to call to get it for them. If their immediate family does not take the responsibility to see them through the ordeal, or if the family has tried in the past and hit brick walls, those people are almost doomed to bad times ahead.

There are a lot of damaged people in the hick town where I live. I see daywalkers all over the place. People that either walk around all day because they have nothing to do or no where to go, or they walk very far distances to the grocery store for 1 or 2 items as a way to get out of the house and kill the day. There are others who have a few dollars from inheritance, etcetera, and even though they are on a handful of prescriptions they are driving a car.

We don't have enough people looking out for other people. I don't know how other countries help or treat their mentally ill. The huge warehouses we used to have where everyone was just locked up or sedated isn't the answer. But we do need facilities and we need to have people working there and looking out for and helping these people.

Now that the Boomers are retiring America is going to need a shiatload of senior citizen centers too. Are these needs being addressed by our government? I doubt it. They don't take care of many mentally ill, homeless or veterans right now. I don't expect they will provide help for senior citizens in the future.


=============

The problem is that here in the US of Murica, health insurance is linked to employment, and this is why the mentally ill end up in a Catch-22. When people start losing their grip on reality, they generally become unable to hold down a job, at which time they lose their health insuracne. Without health insurance they can't get treatment for their mental illness that would allow them to reenter society, so their mental state goes from bad to worse until they do something that attracts the attention of the badge-thugs. The ass-clowns in blue only have one tool, a hammer, so they see everything as a nail. In this case the result is a dead naked woman.

It's time for the US to go to single payer health insurance and universal access to health care irrespective of employment status.
 
2012-10-21 11:46:31 PM

AbbeySomeone: Klan meeting.
Over zealous cops.
Done.


davidphogan: Did she attack them with a cross?


GAT_00: Bit'O'Gristle: vudukungfu: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

this

/try rtfa, it says she stole a gun from a man, and that's what she was holding when the officers were forced to put her down.

Right, the naked woman who was previously holding a cross and completely non-violent a short time before she was shot suddenly stole a gun.

If you are dumb enough to believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.


Is reading the article really that difficult?

FTFA:
David Simpson, who described himself as Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought "the end times were near." He said she had attended Bible study earlier in the week.

Simpson said deputies found the cross that Collins and Eylward said Swanson had been carrying inside his home after the shooting. Simpson said the investigators told him she had left the cross in his home and taken his antique gun.

The gun is what Simpson said the off-duty officers saw her wielding when they opened fire.


There. How hard was that?
 
2012-10-21 11:46:39 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: I made a totally awesome omelet from quail eggs and smoked ham. You did say "spare time" right? Not "paid for time" right?


Vollys don't get paid for their time. Nice try, though.
 
2012-10-21 11:47:23 PM

Clutch2013: Serious Post on Serious Thread: Clutch2013: Serious Post on Serious Thread: mccallcl: powerplantgirl: Please tell me how you're supposed to tell from any amount of distance that a gun is loaded and operational.

In that same situation, because I don't have a gun or a badge on me when I get drunk in the woods at night, I would call more people, get some lights on the scene, get some medical and psychiatric help, try to talk it out, piss my pants, cast Magic Missle, whatever not-gun-using options were at my disposal. I would figure that she's been assaulted, in a car wreck, or escaped from a hospital or mental ward and needs my help. Whatever I noticed in her hand would be secondary because I don't approach every situation looking for a threat to my pussy-ass life. Not that I'm not a pussy, I just can't shoot people with impunity so it changes my tactics a little bit. I probably wouldn't leave her wandering around and go somewhere else to get a gun, because another gun is not what the situation calls for. Less guns is the desired effect here..

SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUP!! YER RUINING MY FANTASY OF BEING A HERO WITH MY DICKGUN!!!!

*raises hand*

I have a question. What is it with people who are against define themselves with guns/sport cars/the like and male genitalia?

I know you're a troll, but seriously. Speak for yourself, at least. Why is it, always, if someone gets a new Corvette or buys a new shotgun or dresses well or has a decent amount of money or anything like that, they're "compensating for something"?


It makes me feel better about not having any nice things.

Them. I meant them.
 
2012-10-21 11:48:42 PM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]

This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

[www.theboxotruth.com image 540x404]

[www.shootersforum.com image 512x404]

Let me guess, you have a lot free time you fill with shooting guns. Life well spent, tard.

[fc01.deviantart.net image 522x451]

Actually, I haven't shot a gun since basic training. But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

Soooo, you obsess about guns but don't even shoot them, somehow that makes you...even sadder.

Where have I stated I obsess about guns?

I recognize the weapon in that picture from Fallout: New Vegas. That somehow makes someone obsessed about guns?

Apparantly being able to execute a five second google image search makes someone sad.

I brought someone back from the dead today. What have you done with your spare time?

I made a totally awesome omelet from quail eggs and smoked ham. You did say "spare time" right? Not "paid for time" right?

Clutch2013: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]

This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

[www.theboxotruth.com image 540x404]

[www.shootersforum.com image 512x404]

Let me guess, you have a lot free time you fill with shooting guns. Life well spent, tard.

[fc01.deviantart.net image 522x451]

Actually, I haven't shot a gun since basic training. But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

Soooo, you obsess about guns but don't even shoot them, somehow that makes you...even sadder.

He's a paramedic, last I checked.

In that line of work, it probably helps to know just what kind of damage gunshot wounds can do. So there's that.

/There's also the possibility you're a farking idiot

You're so cute with that dick in yr mouth!


...So...I'm not getting a straight answer, am I?
 
2012-10-21 11:48:54 PM
biatch had a gun.

Not a fan of trigger happy cops, but

I don't care if you're pointing a Desert Eagle at me or a flintlock from 1650, both can put a hole in my head and I'm not going to react well (not that I ever actually carry, despite my permit)
 
2012-10-21 11:49:18 PM

untaken_name: ScottRiqui: An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?

What, you mean people should have to prove that they are actually a threat, not just perceived to be one in the paranoid mind of a cop? Gee, what a strange concept.


What, you mean terrorists should have to prove that they are actually a threat, not just perceived to be one in the paranoid mind of a President?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/index.html
"[Clinton] said he authorized the CIA to kill bin Laden and overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan after the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000, but the action was never carried out [...] because U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies refused to certify that bin Laden was behind the bombing."
 
2012-10-21 11:49:41 PM

BronyMedic: But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.


And a car driven into your house will kill your family, but we don't shoot every naked asshole we find in a car, do we? We wait for the car to be started, moving, and headed straight towards the house, because otherwise we might just be shooting some Zulu Wars historical re-enactor driving on her way to throw her fake gun down a well. Guns are dangerous, but they are readily available here in the US and often carried around in the woods. You don't get to shoot every person you see with a gun, so neither should cops.
 
2012-10-21 11:51:53 PM

BronyMedic: You honestly expect someone to run at someone who has a gun and stab them through the shoulder with a syrenge full of haldol? Real life doesn't work like the movies, Kid.


i talked down a dude who was packing (and pointing) heat. apartment common lawn full of people smoking and drinking of an evening; he had been beaten with a metal chair by a guy and i just walked up to him and told him there were elderly people and other innocents amongst us who could be hurt accidentally.

(i was half drunk, and my elderly friend filled me in on the details the next day)
/csb
 
2012-10-21 11:52:05 PM

Anastacya: Anastacya: I was hoping that the headline was an overzealous lie. Maybe she was tazed and the subby lied (subbies never lie, right?) and she was tazed and confused...

/just wow


Been tazed and confused for so long it's not true
 
2012-10-21 11:52:55 PM
(i also don't expect a cop to take a bullet before defusing a situation...Dad was a cop)
 
2012-10-21 11:55:58 PM

ewitz: Anastacya: I was hoping that the headline was an overzealous lie. Maybe she was tazed and the subby lied (subbies never lie, right?) and she was tazed and confused...

/just wow

I do not make overzealous lies... Unless they're kind of funny and this story wasn't funny... I live about an hour away from where this happened.


I agree. I am sorry if my comment didn't clarify that point. I was most certainly not calling you a liar. My comment was more from the disbelief of the entire situation.
 
2012-10-21 11:56:08 PM

mccallcl: BronyMedic: But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

And a car driven into your house will kill your family, but we don't shoot every naked asshole we find in a car, do we? We wait for the car to be started, moving, and headed straight towards the house, because otherwise we might just be shooting some Zulu Wars historical re-enactor driving on her way to throw her fake gun down a well. Guns are dangerous, but they are readily available here in the US and often carried around in the woods. You don't get to shoot every person you see with a gun, so neither should cops.


...None of what you said just now made any sense. None of it. At all. Zero. Zip. Bubkes. I'd respond intelligently, but my brain still hurts from the reboot your word salad just forced on me. For one thing, if you know that someone's aiming a car at your house with murderous intent AND you let them get as far as starting it, then you've already farked up. And...

...nope, just tried to consider the rest of that mess and I'm rebooting again.

/ow
 
2012-10-21 11:56:50 PM

MurphyMurphy: biatch had a gun.

Not a fan of trigger happy cops, but

I don't care if you're pointing a Desert Eagle at me or a flintlock from 1650, both can put a hole in my head and I'm not going to react well (not that I ever actually carry, despite my permit)


What if they were harrasing the naked lady and didn't disclose that they were cops?
 
2012-10-21 11:57:30 PM

mccallcl: BronyMedic: But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

And a car driven into your house will kill your family, but we don't shoot every naked asshole we find in a car, do we? We wait for the car to be started, moving, and headed straight towards the house, because otherwise we might just be shooting some Zulu Wars historical re-enactor driving on her way to throw her fake gun down a well.


I want you to say something with me.

Real life does not work like Hollywood.

Say that with me nice and slow. Wait a moment before typing a rebutal. Let that thought permiate through your brain for a second, and override the wishful thinking you demonstrate.

In addition, your argument is a fallicious comparison. If you are naked, in a car, and driving with the intent of running someone over, that is very damn well a justified reason for the use of deadly force. Someone who's ran a car through a house is no longer a threat.

mccallcl: Guns are dangerous, but they are readily available here in the US and often carried around in the woods. You don't get to shoot every person you see with a gun, so neither should cops.


So what you're saying is a flint lock or percussion lock pistol can't kill someone? Because if so, hundreds of thousands of people who died in the time before the use of cartridges in weapons might beg to differ on that.

If someone pulls a gun on me, Tennessee state law states that I have no duty to retreat, and I can shoot them dead on the spot out of fear of my life. If you draw a gun on the cops, and you make any intention known that you're going to go active, they could empty two magazines a piece into you and it'd be kosher.

It'd be nice if everyone was Arnold Schwarzenegger in Last Action Hero and could simply wrestle a gun away, but that's no real life.
 
2012-10-21 11:58:27 PM

BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: I made a totally awesome omelet from quail eggs and smoked ham. You did say "spare time" right? Not "paid for time" right?

Vollys don't get paid for their time. Nice try, though.


Damn dude, if you're an interwebs Lazarus motherfarker you should at least get paid! I mean hell, I walked on water today, but only after I got cash $50 in hand. Sucker!
 
2012-10-21 11:59:24 PM

ras django: (i also don't expect a cop to take a bullet before defusing a situation...Dad was a cop)


My dad was a cop. He thinks shooting this woman and killing her, ESPECIALLY after multiple people didn't see her as a threat, is one of those "will cover this shiat up because we are cops" things.

This is a tragic loss of life. The cops involved will twist it how they like. This is, after all, America. If you aren't rich, you deserve it.
 
2012-10-21 11:59:39 PM

mccallcl: BronyMedic: But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

And a car driven into your house will kill your family, but we don't shoot every naked asshole we find in a car, do we? We wait for the car to be started, moving, and headed straight towards the house, because otherwise we might just be shooting some Zulu Wars historical re-enactor driving on her way to throw her fake gun down a well. Guns are dangerous, but they are readily available here in the US and often carried around in the woods. You don't get to shoot every person you see with a gun, so neither should cops.


Actually, if they're hostile, they don't need to have a gun.
 
2012-10-22 12:03:50 AM
Can we stop calling them "The Police" and start calling them "Roving Government Death Squads"?
 
2012-10-22 12:04:27 AM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: I made a totally awesome omelet from quail eggs and smoked ham. You did say "spare time" right? Not "paid for time" right?

Vollys don't get paid for their time. Nice try, though.

Damn dude, if you're an interwebs Lazarus motherfarker you should at least get paid! I mean hell, I walked on water today, but only after I got cash $50 in hand. Sucker!


Behold. The holy spirit!
 
2012-10-22 12:04:39 AM

mediablitz: ras django: (i also don't expect a cop to take a bullet before defusing a situation...Dad was a cop)

My dad was a cop. He thinks shooting this woman and killing her, ESPECIALLY after multiple people didn't see her as a threat, is one of those "will cover this shiat up because we are cops" things.

This is a tragic loss of life. The cops involved will twist it how they like. This is, after all, America. If you aren't rich, you deserve it.


To be fair, those two people (Collins and Eylward) saw her before she went to her boyfriend's house and traded the cross for a gun.
 
2012-10-22 12:05:07 AM

doglover: mccallcl: BronyMedic: But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

And a car driven into your house will kill your family, but we don't shoot every naked asshole we find in a car, do we? We wait for the car to be started, moving, and headed straight towards the house, because otherwise we might just be shooting some Zulu Wars historical re-enactor driving on her way to throw her fake gun down a well. Guns are dangerous, but they are readily available here in the US and often carried around in the woods. You don't get to shoot every person you see with a gun, so neither should cops.

Actually, if they're hostile, they don't need to have a gun.


The American mindset on display. You deserve to be shot.

It's truly amazing to me what the right wing has managed to accomplish in 30 years. You have no right to privacy. You have no rights period. You are lucky you have a job and should bow down and be thankful.

We aren't far from being China, thanks to the sycophants in this country. Give it 15-20 years...
 
2012-10-22 12:05:29 AM

nmemkha: Can we stop calling them "The Police" and start calling them "Roving Government Death Squads"?


Because various groups of people from various countries in Europe and the Middle East might have a problem with that catagorization?
 
2012-10-22 12:05:44 AM
Clutch2013: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: untaken_name: This is what cops perceive as a threat deserving of deadly force:

[www.thenerdlist.com image 480x360]

This is what an idiot thinks is a water pistol.

[www.gunblast.com image 640x480]

[www.theboxotruth.com image 540x404]

[www.shootersforum.com image 512x404]

Let me guess, you have a lot free time you fill with shooting guns. Life well spent, tard.

[fc01.deviantart.net image 522x451]

Actually, I haven't shot a gun since basic training. But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

Soooo, you obsess about guns but don't even shoot them, somehow that makes you...even sadder.

He's a paramedic, last I checked.

In that line of work, it probably helps to know just what kind of damage gunshot wounds can do. So there's that.

/There's also the possibility you're a farking idiot

You're so cute with that dick in yr mouth!

...So...I'm not getting a straight answer, am I?



You want a straight answer? DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN DICKGUN

All the way down.
 
2012-10-22 12:06:18 AM

mediablitz: The American mindset on display. You deserve to be shot.


No, no. We pay cops to get beaten within an inch of their life, or get stabbed.

It's totally in their job descriptions.
 
2012-10-22 12:06:52 AM

ScottRiqui: mediablitz: ras django: (i also don't expect a cop to take a bullet before defusing a situation...Dad was a cop)

My dad was a cop. He thinks shooting this woman and killing her, ESPECIALLY after multiple people didn't see her as a threat, is one of those "will cover this shiat up because we are cops" things.

This is a tragic loss of life. The cops involved will twist it how they like. This is, after all, America. If you aren't rich, you deserve it.

To be fair, those two people (Collins and Eylward) saw her before she went to her boyfriend's house and traded the cross for a gun.


It is still "shoot first, ask questions later" regarding a mentally ill person. Simple as that.
 
2012-10-22 12:08:47 AM

mediablitz: ScottRiqui: mediablitz: ras django: (i also don't expect a cop to take a bullet before defusing a situation...Dad was a cop)

My dad was a cop. He thinks shooting this woman and killing her, ESPECIALLY after multiple people didn't see her as a threat, is one of those "will cover this shiat up because we are cops" things.

This is a tragic loss of life. The cops involved will twist it how they like. This is, after all, America. If you aren't rich, you deserve it.

To be fair, those two people (Collins and Eylward) saw her before she went to her boyfriend's house and traded the cross for a gun.

It is still "shoot first, ask questions later" regarding a mentally ill person. Simple as that.


Please quote where that is a listed policy, or educational practice, of any department in the United States.

people.virginia.edu

In fact, the move towards training officers in crisis intervention and mental health emergencies in general across the United States would seem to contradict your claim, wouldn't it?
 
2012-10-22 12:09:00 AM

BronyMedic: mediablitz: The American mindset on display. You deserve to be shot.

No, no. We pay cops to get beaten within an inch of their life, or get stabbed.

It's totally in their job descriptions.



Yes. This naked, mentally ill woman was going to beat them within an inch of their life.

You can't even make a farking relevant argument, you are so far in the bag for getting you ass kicked for any reason. My dad's partners thank you for being a willing participant.
 
2012-10-22 12:10:11 AM
Amos Quito

And this is why cops should not be allowed near guns.

Well, I have no problem with them being in front of them.
[ firing-squad.jpg ]
 
2012-10-22 12:11:19 AM

BronyMedic: nmemkha: Can we stop calling them "The Police" and start calling them "Roving Government Death Squads"?

Because various groups of people from various countries in Europe and the Middle East might have a problem with that catagorization?


I admit my comment is hyperbole, but if the shoe fits? Police in other parts of the world are violent corrupt thugs. I guess it was hubris to think we could avoid the spread of such corruption and abuse of power indefinitely.
 
2012-10-22 12:11:52 AM

BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: BronyMedic: Serious Post on Serious Thread: I made a totally awesome omelet from quail eggs and smoked ham. You did say "spare time" right? Not "paid for time" right?

Vollys don't get paid for their time. Nice try, though.

Damn dude, if you're an interwebs Lazarus motherfarker you should at least get paid! I mean hell, I walked on water today, but only after I got cash $50 in hand. Sucker!

Behold. The holy spirit!


HOLY SHIAT! YR NICK CAGE? I LOVED you in Raising Arizona and Leaving Las Vegas, but what the hell was up with Face Off and Ghost Rider. Not cool man, not cool at all.
 
2012-10-22 12:12:12 AM

BronyMedic: Please quote where that is a listed policy, or educational practice, of any department in the United States.


Seriously? That is how far up the police's ass you are? You are pretending there is no grey area that is traversed daily? No laws on the books that make it simple for you to be arrested when "needed"? No "stop resisting" errors that are prevalent?

You think posting a meme makes it all okay? A funny picture? THAT is your answer?

I have a dad who is a retired cop. He LAUGHS at how you defend the indefensible. No. they won't let you suck their cock...
 
2012-10-22 12:13:43 AM

mediablitz: Yes. This naked, mentally ill woman was going to beat them within an inch of their life.


No. She's just going to point an "antique pistol" at them. Totally the same thing.

I've had my ass kicked by a schizophrenic patient before. It's not fun. I've also been one of thirteen people to wrestle down someone my size who was on PCP.

Each of these situations are completely different than the one you are commenting on. Any type of non-violent mediation goes out the window when a weapon comes out.

mediablitz: You can't even make a farking relevant argument, you are so far in the bag for getting you ass kicked for any reason. My dad's partners thank you for being a willing participant.


I'm sorry, relevant arguments? You're the one claiming that the cops are trained to shoot the mentally ill.

mediablitz: It is still "shoot first, ask questions later" regarding a mentally ill person. Simple as that


You don't like it when people point out your wrong, do you?
 
2012-10-22 12:14:22 AM

Fissile: The problem is that here in the US of Murica, health insurance is linked to employment, and this is why the mentally ill end up in a Catch-22. When people start losing their grip on reality, they generally become unable to hold down a job, at which time they lose their health insuracne. Without health insurance they can't get treatment for their mental illness that would allow them to reenter society, so their mental state goes from bad to worse until they do something that attracts the attention of the badge-thugs. The ass-clowns in blue only have one tool, a hammer, so they see everything as a nail. In this case the result is a dead naked woman.

It's time for the US to go to single payer health insurance and universal access to health care irrespective of employment status.


You're assuming that what you call a "problem" actually is one. What if things are that way because the people running things want them that way? The work ethic stands intact, police retain their power, mentally ill people stay a dangerous, "other" group, and no more taxes go to the common good than already do. Win-win for everybody but the expendables.
 
2012-10-22 12:15:03 AM
cdn.uproxx.com
 
2012-10-22 12:18:25 AM

mediablitz: doglover: mccallcl: BronyMedic: But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

And a car driven into your house will kill your family, but we don't shoot every naked asshole we find in a car, do we? We wait for the car to be started, moving, and headed straight towards the house, because otherwise we might just be shooting some Zulu Wars historical re-enactor driving on her way to throw her fake gun down a well. Guns are dangerous, but they are readily available here in the US and often carried around in the woods. You don't get to shoot every person you see with a gun, so neither should cops.

Actually, if they're hostile, they don't need to have a gun.

The American mindset on display. You deserve to be shot.

It's truly amazing to me what the right wing has managed to accomplish in 30 years. You have no right to privacy. You have no rights period. You are lucky you have a job and should bow down and be thankful.

We aren't far from being China, thanks to the sycophants in this country. Give it 15-20 years...


Last 30 years?

This is America motherfarker. Our heroes are one and all men who stood their ground against other men with weapons. Not always in war. Not always in honor. Not always waiting to be shot at before shooting.

You've got no moral obligation to wait to be attacked before defending yourself. If someone is presending a threat, you end it. If it means shooting them, so be it. We have an explicit right to bear arms.
 
2012-10-22 12:18:33 AM

mediablitz: Seriously? That is how far up the police's ass you are? You are pretending there is no grey area that is traversed daily? No laws on the books that make it simple for you to be arrested when "needed"? No "stop resisting" errors that are prevalent?


Answer the question. You made the claim that the cops are taught to shoot mentally ill first, ask questions later. Prove your statement, or look like an idiot who's making straw man arguments.

I mean, you have proof of that, right? Even anecdotal proof? Because I've got the same proof that they're not. Oh, and the fact that no where in the United States will you find "mentally ill" as a justification to shoot someone.

mediablitz: I have a dad who is a retired cop. No. they won't let you suck their cock...


I don't care who your dad is, or who's cock he sucks. (Seriously, you're going to drag homophobia into this? Look, it's cool if your dad is gay.) If you're going to make claims, be ready to back them up.

mediablitz: He LAUGHS at how you defend the indefensible


Funny how I'm not defending anything. You're welcome to point out where I've defended someone being shot for being mentally ill. I'm pointing out the stupidity of your claim.
 
2012-10-22 12:20:51 AM

doglover: I want a dick gun....

 

Dude, I can't stop laughing.
 
2012-10-22 12:21:30 AM

BronyMedic: Real life does not work like Hollywood.


Somebody should have told the cops that I guess. There's no way in Hell a crazy lady with a broken gun is going to shoot anybody. It's not a movie, she's as likely to not have cocked it as she is to have done so. That rifle would take forever to raise and fire, it was probably too heavy for her to even look down the sight. I bet it looked absurd.

Oh, also, as it turns out, it was broken, so yeah, completely harmless.

Clutch2013: None of what you said just now made any sense.


The point is, it's dangerous out there. You don't get to shoot everything that's dangerous, no matter how dangerous it is. You only get to shoot things when you have to. Her threatening to kill them would have been enough for me, but the article doesn't say that, so they didn't have to shoot her. So they shouldn't have. There, does that make sense?
 
2012-10-22 12:22:45 AM

trainershark: [www.baynews9.com image 850x478]
[bigfoot-sasquatch.yolasite.com image 400x573]


/i laffed
//just one more reason I'm going to hell
 
2012-10-22 12:25:57 AM

doglover: mediablitz: doglover: mccallcl: BronyMedic: But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

And a car driven into your house will kill your family, but we don't shoot every naked asshole we find in a car, do we? We wait for the car to be started, moving, and headed straight towards the house, because otherwise we might just be shooting some Zulu Wars historical re-enactor driving on her way to throw her fake gun down a well. Guns are dangerous, but they are readily available here in the US and often carried around in the woods. You don't get to shoot every person you see with a gun, so neither should cops.

Actually, if they're hostile, they don't need to have a gun.

The American mindset on display. You deserve to be shot.

It's truly amazing to me what the right wing has managed to accomplish in 30 years. You have no right to privacy. You have no rights period. You are lucky you have a job and should bow down and be thankful.

We aren't far from being China, thanks to the sycophants in this country. Give it 15-20 years...

Last 30 years?

This is America motherfarker. Our heroes are one and all men who stood their ground against other men with weapons. Not always in war. Not always in honor. Not always waiting to be shot at before shooting.

You've got no moral obligation to wait to be attacked before defending yourself. If someone is presending a threat, you end it. If it means shooting them, so be it. We have an explicit right to bear arms.


I just laughed so hard I spontaneously ejaculated.

/I didn't even know that was possible
//can I pre-maturely-spontaneously-ejaculate?
///is that possible???
 
2012-10-22 12:26:45 AM

mccallcl: Somebody should have told the cops that I guess. There's no way in Hell a crazy lady with a broken gun is going to shoot anybody. It's not a movie, she's as likely to not have cocked it as she is to have done so. That rifle would take forever to raise and fire, it was probably too heavy for her to even look down the sight. I bet it looked absurd.

Oh, also, as it turns out, it was broken, so yeah, completely harmless.


Phew. I'm glad we got it out of the way that the cops used their psychic powers to determine someone pointing a gun at them had a broken gun. Clearly this is a clear-cut case of murder and abuse of authority the...

What's that? Psychic powers don't exist?

Oh, well then I'm glad that someone ran outside of the house screaming that the gun was not functional.

What? They didn't?

The issue all boils down to the fact that the cops had a mentally unstable individual who had what seemed to be a lethal weapon, with no indications of being non-functional, pointed at them. And yes, flintlocks/percussion locks can kill you. If their story holds to be true. In that event, if the person made a hostile action or demonstrated intent towards the cops, then shooting her is justified.

mccallcl: You don't get to shoot everything that's dangerous, no matter how dangerous it is. You only get to shoot things when you have to.


Uh, I don't think you understand the dynamic here.

You pull gun on cops and make like you're going to shoot them, you get shot. It doesn't matter if it's an airsoft gun that lacks an orange cap.

The cops are under no moral, ethical, or legal requirement to take a slug before they drop you. That's the way the world works. Wishful thinking doesn't change things.

mccallcl: but the article doesn't say that, so they didn't have to shoot her. So they shouldn't have.


pictures.mastermarf.com
 
2012-10-22 12:28:02 AM

ambercat: This sounds like it could be the plot for the next M. Night Shyamalan movie. Short of aliens, magic or lying, it doesn't make sense.


Touche
 
2012-10-22 12:28:54 AM

Serious Post on Serious Thread: doglover: mediablitz: doglover: mccallcl: BronyMedic: But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

And a car driven into your house will kill your family, but we don't shoot every naked asshole we find in a car, do we? We wait for the car to be started, moving, and headed straight towards the house, because otherwise we might just be shooting some Zulu Wars historical re-enactor driving on her way to throw her fake gun down a well. Guns are dangerous, but they are readily available here in the US and often carried around in the woods. You don't get to shoot every person you see with a gun, so neither should cops.

Actually, if they're hostile, they don't need to have a gun.

The American mindset on display. You deserve to be shot.

It's truly amazing to me what the right wing has managed to accomplish in 30 years. You have no right to privacy. You have no rights period. You are lucky you have a job and should bow down and be thankful.

We aren't far from being China, thanks to the sycophants in this country. Give it 15-20 years...

Last 30 years?

This is America motherfarker. Our heroes are one and all men who stood their ground against other men with weapons. Not always in war. Not always in honor. Not always waiting to be shot at before shooting.

You've got no moral obligation to wait to be attacked before defending yourself. If someone is presending a threat, you end it. If it means shooting them, so be it. We have an explicit right to bear arms.

I just laughed so hard I spontaneously ejaculated.

/I didn't even know that was possible
//can I pre-maturely-spontaneously-ejaculate?
///is that possible???


Can you do that? Can you explode twice?
 
2012-10-22 12:31:05 AM

mccallcl: Oh, also, as it turns out, it was broken, so yeah, completely harmless.


Oh, it turns out those explosives in that van outside the Federal Reserve were fakes, so that means Mr. Nafis should have never been arrested, right?
 
2012-10-22 12:31:15 AM

doglover: Can you do that? Can you explode twice?


I see what you did there.
 
2012-10-22 12:33:34 AM

Anastacya: ewitz: Anastacya: I was hoping that the headline was an overzealous lie. Maybe she was tazed and the subby lied (subbies never lie, right?) and she was tazed and confused...

/just wow

I do not make overzealous lies... Unless they're kind of funny and this story wasn't funny... I live about an hour away from where this happened.

I agree. I am sorry if my comment didn't clarify that point. I was most certainly not calling you a liar. My comment was more from the disbelief of the entire situation.


You don't need to be sorry. The morons who took the pictures and drove off leaving a confused naked lady and the officer(s) who shot her... They should all be sorry...
 
2012-10-22 12:34:04 AM

doglover: Serious Post on Serious Thread: doglover: mediablitz: doglover: mccallcl: BronyMedic: But it doesn't take an idiot to understand that a .45-70 Goverment shot from a lever action rifle will punch a hole the size of a fist through someone.

And a car driven into your house will kill your family, but we don't shoot every naked asshole we find in a car, do we? We wait for the car to be started, moving, and headed straight towards the house, because otherwise we might just be shooting some Zulu Wars historical re-enactor driving on her way to throw her fake gun down a well. Guns are dangerous, but they are readily available here in the US and often carried around in the woods. You don't get to shoot every person you see with a gun, so neither should cops.

Actually, if they're hostile, they don't need to have a gun.

The American mindset on display. You deserve to be shot.

It's truly amazing to me what the right wing has managed to accomplish in 30 years. You have no right to privacy. You have no rights period. You are lucky you have a job and should bow down and be thankful.

We aren't far from being China, thanks to the sycophants in this country. Give it 15-20 years...

Last 30 years?

This is America motherfarker. Our heroes are one and all men who stood their ground against other men with weapons. Not always in war. Not always in honor. Not always waiting to be shot at before shooting.

You've got no moral obligation to wait to be attacked before defending yourself. If someone is presending a threat, you end it. If it means shooting them, so be it. We have an explicit right to bear arms.

I just laughed so hard I spontaneously ejaculated.

/I didn't even know that was possible
//can I pre-maturely-spontaneously-ejaculate?
///is that possible???

Can you do that? Can you explode twice?


You just have to presend it.
 
2012-10-22 12:34:29 AM

BronyMedic: doglover: Can you do that? Can you explode twice?

I see what you did there.


It was a doozy.
 
2012-10-22 12:42:53 AM

mccallcl: Somebody should have told the cops that I guess. There's no way in Hell a crazy lady with a broken gun is going to shoot anybody. It's not a movie, she's as likely to not have cocked it as she is to have done so. That rifle would take forever to raise and fire, it was probably too heavy for her to even look down the sight. I bet it looked absurd.



Rifles aren't *that* heavy, even for women. And how do you know where it was pointing when the cops shot her? You make it sound like she walked out from behind a tree with the rifle over her shoulder and the cops just lit her up on general principle.
 
2012-10-22 12:47:28 AM

GAT_00: ScottRiqui: If a wide, flat stretch of highway has a ridiculously-low speed limit, do you ignore the arguments from hundreds of motorists who have received speeding tickets on that stretch of road? If you ignore them on principle just because they're speeders, you can never proceed to a rational discourse of whether or not the speed limit is in fact too low.

I speed all the time. I expect to get a ticket if I'm caught. I don't think that I'm somehow exempt from the law because I don't like it and I don't expect to get out of a ticket if I get one. Actually, I stay much closer to the limit if I'm not familiar with the roads, but if it's an area I know I'll go the speed I want.

And I'm not going to argue that speed limits should be tossed because I know that's hypocritical.


Why would that be hypocritical? Hypocritical would be if you argue that the speed limits should be enforced for other people.
 
2012-10-22 12:50:26 AM

BronyMedic: The issue all boils down to the fact that the cops had a mentally unstable individual who had what seemed to be a lethal weapon, with no indications of being non-functional, pointed at them.


Do we have anyone saying they saw her pointing it at the cops? All I read was that a guy said another guy said to him that she was holding it. These kinds of details matter, because a person has been shot to death. Having gun != instantly shot. Having a gun alone does not make you a threat, you have to threaten someone.

Especially if it's broken. I don't care if they couldn't tell, not my problem. Have a trial and then we'll see who couldn't tell what. You seem to think they had no other choice. I don't think you have near enough information to know that, but I have enough to know she wasn't a threat.

She certainly wasn't a threat to the other cop that joined in on the shooting, what's his excuse? Nerves?

BronyMedic: You pull gun on cops and make like you're going to shoot them, you get shot.


The article doesn't say that, either. Where did a naked lady "pull a gun" from? We've got "brandishing", "wielding", basically she was holding what one guy says the cops said to him looked like the gun that was missing. A couple of drunk cops and some weird boyfriend character. Not buying it. Bring it to trial.
 
2012-10-22 12:53:41 AM

ewitz: Anastacya: ewitz: Anastacya: I was hoping that the headline was an overzealous lie. Maybe she was tazed and the subby lied (subbies never lie, right?) and she was tazed and confused...

/just wow

I do not make overzealous lies... Unless they're kind of funny and this story wasn't funny... I live about an hour away from where this happened.

I agree. I am sorry if my comment didn't clarify that point. I was most certainly not calling you a liar. My comment was more from the disbelief of the entire situation.

You don't need to be sorry. The morons who took the pictures and drove off leaving a confused naked lady and the officer(s) who shot her... They should all be sorry...


It is sad when there is a tragedy, with the advent of smart phones and CCT, people seem to be more concerned with taking photos of their sexual conquests, oh "Oh I'd hit that!!", BEFORE rendering aid. Gotta love the human condition.
 
2012-10-22 12:54:59 AM

i upped my meds-up yours: Fissile: The problem is that here in the US of Murica, health insurance is linked to employment, and this is why the mentally ill end up in a Catch-22. When people start losing their grip on reality, they generally become unable to hold down a job, at which time they lose their health insuracne. Without health insurance they can't get treatment for their mental illness that would allow them to reenter society, so their mental state goes from bad to worse until they do something that attracts the attention of the badge-thugs. The ass-clowns in blue only have one tool, a hammer, so they see everything as a nail. In this case the result is a dead naked woman.

It's time for the US to go to single payer health insurance and universal access to health care irrespective of employment status.

You're assuming that what you call a "problem" actually is one. What if things are that way because the people running things want them that way? The work ethic stands intact, police retain their power, mentally ill people stay a dangerous, "other" group, and no more taxes go to the common good than already do. Win-win for everybody but the expendables.


===================

You're probably right, but it's too depressing to believe.
 
2012-10-22 12:56:29 AM
"David Simpson, who described himself as Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought 'the end times were near.'"

Pretty much, yeah, I guess so.
 
2012-10-22 12:59:26 AM
static.gigwise.com

lh4.googleusercontent.com

Oh Alanis, we hardly knew ye.

/I know someone already did this joke.
//I'm not RTFT since none of you can figure out how to trim your farking posts.
 
2012-10-22 01:01:16 AM

TheTurtle: "David Simpson, who described himself as Swanson's boyfriend, said she was very religious and that she thought 'the end times were near.'"

Pretty much, yeah, I guess so.


Isn't it funny how religious nuts (knowingly or unknowingly) find ways to fulfill the silly prophesies they believe in?
 
2012-10-22 01:01:39 AM

the ha ha guy: Oh, it turns out those explosives in that van outside the Federal Reserve were fakes, so that means Mr. Nafis should have never been arrested, right?


Ha ha, arresting her is what I have been arguing they should have done the whole time. Thanks for paying attention, numbnuts.

ScottRiqui: Rifles aren't *that* heavy, even for women.


10 lbs is pretty heavy to fire without leaning on something, even for men, and you wouldn't expect to hit anything.

ScottRiqui: And how do you know where it was pointing when the cops shot her?


Nobody said she was pointing the gun at them, so I have to assume she wasn't. Along with everything else no one has said she was doing, like threatening to kill them, aiming it at them, cocking it in front of them, or anything else threatening. So, we know she wasn't actually a threat (broken gun) and there's no info in the article that says she even seemed like a threat. Just having a gun is not enough, unless you are a huge pussy and have never seen a gun before.
 
2012-10-22 01:05:18 AM

mccallcl: Ha ha, arresting her is what I have been arguing they should have done the whole time. Thanks for paying attention, numbnuts.


FTFA: They were off duty.

Two cops fatally shoot naked woman.

This article from 3 hours ago states she had been using LSD, and was waving a gun around. For all she knew, if this were the case, she was playing super mario brothers, and the cops were the goombas.

mccallcl: 10 lbs is pretty heavy to fire without leaning on something, even for men, and you wouldn't expect to hit anything.


i.ytimg.com

That's an 8 year old shooting a 50 caliber rifle.

3.bp.blogspot.com

That's a 17 year old girl who shot a deer with a .58 cal musket.

Please, admit you're just trolling at this point?
 
2012-10-22 01:05:55 AM

cryinoutloud: //I'm not RTFT since none of you can figure out how to trim your farking posts.


♪♫♫♪♫ Th-hi-hi-hi-sssss. ♪♫♫♪♫
 
2012-10-22 01:18:05 AM

mccallcl: Nobody said she was pointing the gun at them, so I have to assume she wasn't. Along with everything else no one has said she was doing, like threatening to kill them, aiming it at them, cocking it in front of them, or anything else threatening. So, we know she wasn't actually a threat (broken gun) and there's no info in the article that says she even seemed like a threat. Just having a gun is not enough, unless you are a huge pussy and have never seen a gun before.


Based on an initial sketchy article, assuming that she wasn't pointing the gun at them is just as irresponsible as assuming she was. And no, a ten-pound rifle is not overly cumbersome for a woman, regardless of what you think. If it was in her hands, it could be brought to bear in less than a second.

As for knowing that she wasn't actually a threat, you have the benefit of hindsight (knowing that the gun was non-functional). The cops couldn't reasonably be expected to know that.
 
2012-10-22 01:34:44 AM

ewitz: Anastacya: ewitz: Anastacya: I was hoping that the headline was an overzealous lie. Maybe she was tazed and the subby lied (subbies never lie, right?) and she was tazed and confused...

/just wow

I do not make overzealous lies... Unless they're kind of funny and this story wasn't funny... I live about an hour away from where this happened.

I agree. I am sorry if my comment didn't clarify that point. I was most certainly not calling you a liar. My comment was more from the disbelief of the entire situation.

You don't need to be sorry. The morons who took the pictures and drove off leaving a confused naked lady and the officer(s) who shot her... They should all be sorry...


Everyone is so anxious to blame the cops on this one, they've forgotten the two douchebags who saw the woman first, took a couple pictures, and drove away; apparently thinking a crazed naked woman wandering along the road was no big deal and nobody else needed to know about it. Like, you know, the ON DUTY cops who could have come and taken the woman down less-lethally than their off-duty buddies over at the "gathering" who didn't have such options.

I still have this uneasy feeling that the two guys who "took a couple pictures" are a lot more involved in this whole mess than they're letting on. I find it very strange that they never bothered to tell anyone they'd encountered her until AFTER she was dead. Each time I consider that, it seems stranger. You meet a naked woman preaching the end of the world out in the woods, take a few quick cellphone pics...and make sure you never mention it to a soul until you learn she was shot to death by a couple off-duty cops later that day? WTF? I'm sorry, but even in Florida, it just can't be that common to encounter a naked female prophet of God.

They did something to her. I hope the coroner does a rape kit on her.
 
2012-10-22 01:35:55 AM

Gyrfalcon: They did something to her. I hope the coroner does a rape kit on her.


Other news articles are reporting she'd been hitting the stamps, if you catch my drift.
 
2012-10-22 01:38:04 AM

BronyMedic: FTFA: They were off duty.


This is a non-sequitor. Police can arrest anyone at any time.

BronyMedic: That's an 8 year old shooting a 50 caliber rifle.


Another non-sequitor

BronyMedic: That's a 17 year old girl who shot a deer with a .58 cal musket.


And another.

I don't care what you think, I'm going to assume that a crazy naked lady with a gun standing there in the dark is not going to be able to shoot me, because I've shot a gun before and I wouldn't be able to hit shiat like that. Neither would you and neither would anyone, including the ladies in those pictures. Pretending you don't know that is weak.

ScottRiqui: Based on an initial sketchy article, assuming that she wasn't pointing the gun at them is just as irresponsible as assuming she was. And no, a ten-pound rifle is not overly cumbersome for a woman, regardless of what you think. If it was in her hands, it could be brought to bear in less than a second.


No, because we assume that unless we hear otherwise, something didn't happen or we can sit here all day and make shiat up. Everything that's not in the story, including whether or not the cops raped her corpse, is purely speculation and therefore stupid to talk about, unless you make it funny somehow.

I don't care what "could" happen, I live in real America, where things are either likely or unlikely. How likely is it do you think that those cops would have gotten shot if it were a real gun? I think not very. You are saying "very"? Is that right?
 
2012-10-22 01:38:54 AM

BronyMedic: This article from 3 hours ago states she had been using LSD


Not to be harsh, but now who's not reading the articles?

FTFA:

Police said 18-year-old Gil Collar had taken LSD

Different shot dead naked person. And he was unarmed. 

Also:

Lieutenant Cinda Moore, a spokeswoman for the Hernando sheriff's office, said in an email late Saturday that she could not immediately identify the woman or disclose the weapon she was carrying.

Funny that the other article had that info.
 
2012-10-22 01:39:17 AM

ScottRiqui: untaken_name: slayer199: They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.

That's why they should shoot BACK. That's taking risks. Shooting first, that's avoiding risks. I guess any time police see anything out of the ordinary, they should just shoot first and ask question later. Oh, right, they won't do the asking questions later part.

An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?


I seem to remember an article posted here a few months back about how many rounds US police fire at suspects compared to other countries. I believe last year that police in Germany fired a whopping 86 rounds (with more than half being warning shots), which was contrasted with US police firing that many rounds at ONE suspect. I think the point that most "anti-police" people here are making is that police are waaay too trigger happy in the US, not that they should not defend themselves.
 
2012-10-22 01:44:21 AM

ghostwind: I think the point that most "anti-police" people here are making is that police are waaay too trigger happy in the US, not that they should not defend themselves.


Are logical reason arguments even allowed on Fark anymore?
 
2012-10-22 01:47:07 AM

mccallcl: I don't care what "could" happen, I live in real America, where things are either likely or unlikely. How likely is it do you think that those cops would have gotten shot if it were a real gun? I think not very. You are saying "very"? Is that right?


I'm acknowledging that, depending on the range, the officers would have been reasonable in believing that they were potentially less than a second and a few pounds' worth of trigger pull from being shot.

And I don't agree with your belief that if it wasn't mentioned in the vague, sketchy article, that it didn't happen. Hell, the article has already been updated at least once since it was greenlit. I'm sure that the investigation was still ongoing and statements were still being taken long after the article was published. So, I still think it's irresponsible for you to assert that she wasn't threatening the cops just because the article didn't say she was.
 
2012-10-22 01:49:21 AM
America has more people and more guns than Germany. Better to compare America with countries with lotsa guns and gun violence, like Mexico. We look awesome by comparison.
 
2012-10-22 01:50:40 AM

ScottRiqui: I'm acknowledging that, depending on the range, the officers would have been reasonable in believing that they were potentially less than a second and a few pounds' worth of trigger pull from being shot.


And when I say that, I'm not implying that her simply having a gun in her hand would be immediate justification for the cops to shoot her. We have to consider the totality of the circumstances - did she or didn't she point the gun at them during the encounter? Did the police order her to drop the gun? If so, how did she respond? Did she say anything?
 
2012-10-22 01:57:14 AM

ghostwind: ScottRiqui: untaken_name: slayer199: They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.

That's why they should shoot BACK. That's taking risks. Shooting first, that's avoiding risks. I guess any time police see anything out of the ordinary, they should just shoot first and ask question later. Oh, right, they won't do the asking questions later part.

An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?

I seem to remember an article posted here a few months back about how many rounds US police fire at suspects compared to other countries. I believe last year that police in Germany fired a whopping 86 rounds (with more than half being warning shots), which was contrasted with US police firing that many rounds at ONE suspect. I think the point that most "anti-police" people here are making is that police are waaay too trigger happy in the US, not that they should not defend themselves.


Differences in training make it impossible to compare. Right off the bat, I can tell you that cops in the US are specifically trained NOT to fire warning shots, so already we can't compare US cops and German cops. For instance, I also know that many US cops are specifically trained to empty their magazines, once they begin firing, but I don't know if that is true of German cops. If they are trained to fire only one round and then reassess, for example, then there IS no valid comparison.

Now, one reason that US cops do seem to fire so many rounds is because of the fact that they are trained--like soldiers--to empty the magazine. Assuming four cops are shooting x 16 rounds per magazine, that's going to be 64 rounds expended on one suspect. A very good argument can be made that in all but the worst active-shooter situations (such as Columbine) this is overkill. However, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has recommended retraining cops to fire only one shot if there is more than one officer present and then reassessing. Perhaps someone needs to.
 
2012-10-22 02:06:33 AM

untaken_name: slayer199: They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.

That's why they should shoot BACK. That's taking risks. Shooting first, that's avoiding risks. I guess any time police see anything out of the ordinary, they should just shoot first and ask question later. Oh, right, they won't do the asking questions later part.


Uh, no. Someone has a gun, raises a gun and/or refuses to drop it, shooting them is an appropriate response to that threat.

There's plenty of cases of police abusing their power, defending a nut job with a gun ain't one of them. Of course, you'd probably be happier if the cop ended up shot and killed like this guy.

Apparently you've never heard of suicide by cop.
 
2012-10-22 02:09:36 AM

phrawgh: Snarfangel: The police: Keeping the public safe from naked women since the 11th century.

Murder by Numbers, 1, 2, 3...


I like that song.
 
2012-10-22 02:11:17 AM

doglover: America has more people and more guns than Germany. Better to compare America with countries with lotsa guns and gun violence, like Mexico. We look awesome by comparison.


i19.photobucket.com

"No, Saddam is just part of the problem, if Saddam invested more in the p*ssy infrastructure of Iraq than he did in his farking ghey ass army, then this country would be no more farked up than say, Mexico."
 
2012-10-22 02:21:11 AM
One more conservative Christian down. Lot's more to go. Maybe Obama will win in Florida after all.
 
2012-10-22 02:35:57 AM

Gyrfalcon:
I still have this uneasy feeling that the two guys who "took a couple pictures" are a lot more involved in this whole mess than they're letting on. I find it very strange that they never bothered to tell anyone they'd encountered her until AFTER she was dead. Each time I consider that, it seems stranger. You meet a naked woman preaching the end of the world out in the woods, take a few quick cellphone pics...and make sure you never mention it to a soul until you learn she was shot to death by a couple off-duty cops later that day? WTF? I'm sorry, but even in Florida, it just can't be that common to encounter a naked female prophet of God.

They did something to her. I hope the coroner does a rape kit on her.


I would not be surprised if it turns out that they did something to her. If it does, given the timeline, it seems likely that whatever it was they did contributed to a mental state that made her think getting a gun was a good idea. If that is the case, it will be interesting to see if they can be charged for anything beyond raping/molesting her, if that's what they did.
 
2012-10-22 03:07:53 AM

mccallcl: This is a non-sequitor. Police can arrest anyone at any time.


Yeah. Not exactly true. That depends on the state and even jurisdiction the police officer is in, and what they are doing at the time. An off-duty police officer only has the same power to arrest in this case as a civilian does executing a citizens arrest, and many departments discourage it.

mccallcl: Another non-sequitor


mccallcl: And another.


Photographic evidence which directly disproves your claim that a woman could not accurately shoot a ten pound rifle is a non-sequitor?

Damn. I wish I could throw out evidence I was blatently wrong like that. Here's some more evidence you're full of crap.

3.bp.blogspot.com

www.brooklynmuseum.org

i.dailymail.co.uk

mccallcl: I don't care what you think, I'm going to assume that a crazy naked lady with a gun standing there in the dark is not going to be able to shoot me, because I've shot a gun before and I wouldn't be able to hit shiat like that. Neither would you and neither would anyone, including the ladies in those pictures. Pretending you don't know that is weak.


i.huffpost.com

Begs to differ. He found it quite easy to shoot people while crazy and in the dark.

4.bp.blogspot.com

This guy didn't seem to have a problem with it either.

You seem to think the fact that she might not hit anyone matters. It doesn't. Again, the cops don't have to have someone take a slug, and neither does a homeowner, before they shoot someone brandishing a gun at them.

It's not my fault that your anecdote and ignorance isn't reality. I guess more wishful thinking on your part.

mccallcl: I don't care what "could" happen, I live in real America, where things are either likely or unlikely. How likely is it do you think that those cops would have gotten shot if it were a real gun? I think not very. You are saying "very"? Is that right?


No. Everyone here is saying you have no clue what you're talking about, and it's made painfully obvious by the conjecture and wishful thinking you demonstrate in regards to justification of lethal force. There's a big difference.

Stop watching movies and educate yourself.
 
2012-10-22 03:19:53 AM

BronyMedic: Stop watching movies and educate yourself.


According to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office, Hernando detective Rocky Howard, 31, and Tampa police officer William Mechler, 26, were off-duty and attending the gathering when the woman showed up and approached them, acting irrationally.

What's the gathering?
 
2012-10-22 03:21:58 AM

Boojum2k: ghostwind: I think the point that most "anti-police" people here are making is that police are waaay too trigger happy in the US, not that they should not defend themselves.

Are logical reason arguments even allowed on Fark anymore?


25.media.tumblr.com

Gyrfalcon: ghostwind: ScottRiqui: untaken_name: slayer199: They're paid to take risks, not get killed. It's a shiatty job and I know it firsthand.

That's why they should shoot BACK. That's taking risks. Shooting first, that's avoiding risks. I guess any time police see anything out of the ordinary, they should just shoot first and ask question later. Oh, right, they won't do the asking questions later part.

An armed suspect goes way beyond the pale of simply "something out of the ordinary". Are you seriously advocating for a policy of waiting for an armed, erratic, uncooperative suspect to take the first shot?

I seem to remember an article posted here a few months back about how many rounds US police fire at suspects compared to other countries. I believe last year that police in Germany fired a whopping 86 rounds (with more than half being warning shots), which was contrasted with US police firing that many rounds at ONE suspect. I think the point that most "anti-police" people here are making is that police are waaay too trigger happy in the US, not that they should not defend themselves.

Differences in training make it impossible to compare. Right off the bat, I can tell you that cops in the US are specifically trained NOT to fire warning shots, so already we can't compare US cops and German cops. For instance, I also know that many US cops are specifically trained to empty their magazines, once they begin firing, but I don't know if that is true of German cops. If they are trained to fire only one round and then reassess, for example, then there IS no valid comparison.

Now, one reason that US cops do seem to fire so many rounds is because of the fact that they are trained--like soldiers--to empty the magazine. Assuming four cops are shooting x 16 rounds per magazine, that's going to be 64 rounds expended on one suspect. A very good argument can be made that in all but the worst active-shooter situations (such as Columbine) this is overkill. However, to the best of m ...

 

Don'tcha think that maybe there should be some retraining done? Emptying 14 clips into a suspect will not always solve the problem... But to be fair, this article doesn't include all of the details, like whether this woman actually pointed the gun at these officers, or the kind of threat this woman posed to them beyond being in posession of a handgun.
 
2012-10-22 03:27:34 AM

ghostwind: Emptying 14 clips into a suspect will not always solve the problem


When did we start arming cops with WW2 era rifles?
 
2012-10-22 03:42:09 AM
Honda came out with the NC700. You can get it with a manual clutch, or with a paddle shifter (actually little switches activated with fingers on your left hand) which has the option to go full auto transmission. My left foot would go insane.
www.ridethewildwind.co.uk
 
2012-10-22 03:42:45 AM
Wrong thread never mind.
 
2012-10-22 06:01:27 AM
As usual, BronyMedic is being ridiculous.

Yea, this naked woman in Florida was just like an IDF soldier, or some random stock photo of "attractive girl with big gun". That's some hard proof, son.

False equivocation is false.

Also, Brony. That should be enough.

/Brony and Cruisertwelve have a secret swinging thing going on. We all know it.
//Remember, he's a badass because he deal with schizophrenics and people who do drugs, unlike Farkers who actually live the experience outside of work, and deal with the cops when they aren't their adjunct team.
 
2012-10-22 06:04:20 AM
Bravo red one ranger, naked woman with cross taken out.
lh6.ggpht.com

Continue shopping citizens.
 
2012-10-22 06:31:50 AM

RockofAges: As usual, BronyMedic is being ridiculous.


Really? You don't read the thread, and you come in claiming I'm being ridiculous towards someone who's being deliberately obtuse and making appeals from incredulity?

RockofAges: Yea, this naked woman in Florida was just like an IDF soldier, or some random stock photo of "attractive girl with big gun". That's some hard proof, son.


I'm sorry, you must be new here. I'll chalk up your stupidity to that. This was the claim:

mccallcl: 10 lbs is pretty heavy to fire without leaning on something, even for men, and you wouldn't expect to hit anything.


img74.imageshack.us

That goes for both of you, by the way.

And that photo wasn't a "IDF Soldier". The first one was a 1922 Collegate Shooting Team. Those weapons are M1903s. The one holding the M40 was a US Airforce servicewoman. The others were taken from field hunting blogs.

The fact is that claiming a woman can't shoot a ten pound rifle accurately is not only sexism and gender discrimination, but blatently wrong.

RockofAges: False equivocation is false.


Would you like to point out what was the false equivilency, since you seem to be the expert in it? If some random 17 year old girl weighing 100lbs wet can drop a buffalo using a scoped 300 Magnum, then his argument is flawed from the start.

RockofAges: /Brony and Cruisertwelve have a secret swinging thing going on. We all know it.


Oh boy, this again. So I'm Crusiertwelve, right?

RockofAges: //Remember, he's a badass because he deal with schizophrenics and people who do drugs, unlike Farkers who actually live the experience outside of work, and deal with the cops when they aren't their adjunct team.


Funny. I never claimed to be a badass. I've only claimed to know what I'm talking about when it comes to dealing with the mentally ill in the field.

I forgot. I'm only treated like a human being because I work with them. Everyone else gets the Gestapo Nazi Treatment. Oh, how could I be so blind! They came for me and there was no one left!

img155.imageshack.us
 
2012-10-22 06:36:01 AM

BronyMedic: RockofAges: As usual, BronyMedic is being ridiculous.

Really? You don't read the thread, and you come in claiming I'm being ridiculous towards someone who's being deliberately obtuse and making appeals from incredulity?

RockofAges: Yea, this naked woman in Florida was just like an IDF soldier, or some random stock photo of "attractive girl with big gun". That's some hard proof, son.

I'm sorry, you must be new here. I'll chalk up your stupidity to that. This was the claim:

mccallcl: 10 lbs is pretty heavy to fire without leaning on something, even for men, and you wouldn't expect to hit anything.

[img74.imageshack.us image 500x75]

That goes for both of you, by the way.

And that photo wasn't a "IDF Soldier". The first one was a 1922 Collegate Shooting Team. Those weapons are M1903s. The one holding the M40 was a US Airforce servicewoman. The others were taken from field hunting blogs.

The fact is that claiming a woman can't shoot a ten pound rifle accurately is not only sexism and gender discrimination, but blatently wrong.

RockofAges: False equivocation is false.

Would you like to point out what was the false equivilency, since you seem to be the expert in it? If some random 17 year old girl weighing 100lbs wet can drop a buffalo using a scoped 300 Magnum, then his argument is flawed from the start.

RockofAges: /Brony and Cruisertwelve have a secret swinging thing going on. We all know it.

Oh boy, this again. So I'm Crusiertwelve, right?

RockofAges: //Remember, he's a badass because he deal with schizophrenics and people who do drugs, unlike Farkers who actually live the experience outside of work, and deal with the cops when they aren't their adjunct team.

Funny. I never claimed to be a badass. I've only claimed to know what I'm talking about when it comes to dealing with the mentally ill in the field.

I forgot. I'm only treated like a human being because I work with them. Everyone else gets the Gestapo Nazi Treatment. Oh, how could I be so blind! The ...


No, you're not Cruisertwelve, you're just an arrogant know-nothing with an inflated sense of his own education and intelligence.

Case in point: Being too obtuse to recognize the general association and thrust of an argument, rather nitpicking semantics.

Bottom line for those who can't read between them: A 42 year old, random private citizen, wandering naked and confused, fresh off an LSD dose, is not exactly a contender for "rifleman of the year", particularly when "wielding" (read: holding awkwardly) an antique weapon which doesn't fire in the first place.

Not exactly a champion shot.

nice attempt to distract the point via obfuscation and nice little images.

/plus Brony. So there's that. Instant zero cred.
 
2012-10-22 06:48:22 AM

RockofAges: No, you're not Cruisertwelve, you're just an arrogant know-nothing with an inflated sense of his own education and intelligence.


That's okay. I love you, and so does Jesus. That's what really matters in the end. :)

s12.postimage.org

RockofAges: Bottom line for those who can't read between them: A 42 year old, random private citizen, wandering naked and confused, fresh off an LSD dose, is not exactly a contender for "rifleman of the year", particularly when "wielding" (read: holding awkwardly) an antique weapon which doesn't fire in the first place.


I've already addressed the magic psychic powers you expect people to have. They don't exist. If you can demonstrate they do, James Randi would be happy to give you a million dollars.

Which, guess what. Doesn't matter, at all. That's right. It means zero, bumkis, zilch, nada, zip.

There's no law or ethical requirement in the United States, nor any jury in it, who's going to indict anyone, who shoots a person waving a gun in their face on their own property, uninvited, and there's no requirement to judge whether that weapon was loaded and capable of functioning or not.

The fact of the matter is that these two were not serving in the capacity of police officers. They were off-duty, at a private residence. They were not called to the residence. If the story they are telling is proven to be true, then while it's incredibly unfortunate that this woman died, it's perfectly legal for them to have done what they did.

RockofAges: Not exactly a champion shot.


Please point out in US Federal and State law, or local statute, where the use of lethal force by a concealed carry holder or law enforcement officer must be preceeded by them being accurately struck by a firing weapon?

RockofAges: nice attempt to distract the point via obfuscation and nice little images.

/plus Brony. So there's that. Instant zero cred.


people.virginia.edu
people.virginia.edu

Now who's being ridiculous. It's funny you're exhibiting the exact same behavior you scold others on.
 
2012-10-22 07:07:58 AM

StoPPeRmobile: BronyMedic: Stop watching movies and educate yourself.

According to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office, Hernando detective Rocky Howard, 31, and Tampa police officer William Mechler, 26, were off-duty and attending the gathering when the woman showed up and approached them, acting irrationally.

What's the gathering?


Magic, The Gathering

/I don't know.
//It is strange wording, in both stories.
 
2012-10-22 07:10:35 AM

PastaFazoole: StoPPeRmobile: BronyMedic: Stop watching movies and educate yourself.

According to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office, Hernando detective Rocky Howard, 31, and Tampa police officer William Mechler, 26, were off-duty and attending the gathering when the woman showed up and approached them, acting irrationally.

What's the gathering?

Magic, The Gathering

/I don't know.
//It is strange wording, in both stories.


Maybe they mean The Gathering, the 2003 smash box office Horror flic.
 
2012-10-22 07:15:05 AM

relcec: skinink: Subby's headline twists around what actually led up to her being shot, one being that she re-appeared with a weapon (not that it should be an excuse for cops to blast everyone away. Don't they train on the firing range?)

I'll need to here it from the a non cop that the buck naked lady suddenly procured a gun and brandished it.


The boyfriend identified the gun at the scene as being his. The cross was in his house. As far as brandishing it, that was the only way for her to have had it at the scene. I'm willing to bet she didn't have it stuffed up her butt...
 
2012-10-22 07:22:47 AM

BronyMedic: PastaFazoole: StoPPeRmobile: BronyMedic: Stop watching movies and educate yourself.

According to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office, Hernando detective Rocky Howard, 31, and Tampa police officer William Mechler, 26, were off-duty and attending the gathering when the woman showed up and approached them, acting irrationally.

What's the gathering?

Magic, The Gathering

/I don't know.
//It is strange wording, in both stories.

Maybe they mean The Gathering, the 2003 smash box office Horror flic.


The Juggling of the Gatheros?
 
2012-10-22 07:45:28 AM

mccallcl: The article doesn't say that, either. Where did a naked lady "pull a gun" from? We've got "brandishing", "wielding", basically she was holding what one guy says the cops said to him looked like the gun that was missing. A couple of drunk cops and some weird boyfriend character. Not buying it. Bring it to trial.


It was the gun that was missing. He identified it as such. It was at the scene with the dead woman. She was the only one who could have brought it there.

If the cops shot her unarmed and then planted a weapon to cover it up, it wouldn't have been the non-functioning, single shot antique gun from her boyfriend's house where she had just come from. How could it possibly have been?
 
2012-10-22 08:10:47 AM
You know, whenever there is acutal evidence of police brutality I am right with everyone calling for fair prosecution. (I am not however anywhere near you nutters calling for the murder of all LEO's. You whackadoodles are on your own with that.) I do think the cops screwed up here by not calling it in the first time she showed up nekkid and crazy. Doing so would likely have saved her life. Bad on them.

But holy smokes the mental gymnastics you guys are playing at to make this shooting a bad one! They should have examined the weapon first to make sure it no longer fired. She couldn't possibly have raised the gun, as weak and feminine as her crazy self was. And my favorite: The police shot her unarmed, then somehow knew that there was an antique non firing gun in the home of her boyfriend and that she had just been there so they secretly snuck over there and planted the cross and took the gun (having used their psychic cop powers to deduce where it was kept) without being seen by the boyfriend, then snuck back to the scene and planted the gun on the dead naked lady.

Look for one minute past your blind cop hate and imagine if this was not two off duty cops, but a family in the woods. Crazy lady shows up ranting with a gun. The guy shoots her. Are your still going to be on about how he should have pulled a tazer out of his ass, or assumed she couldn't hit the broad side of a barn? Or asked her pretty please to have a good look at the weapon before he shot her to make sure it worked?

If you point a gun at a cop, or any other armed person, you are very likely going to be shot. Don't like it? Don't point guns at people.

Police misconduct and the coverup of such is a problem in this country, and it must be addressed. But just like the "Hurr durr kill all cops" nutters, YOU'RE NOT HELPING.
 
2012-10-22 08:12:48 AM

doglover: BronyMedic: PastaFazoole: StoPPeRmobile: BronyMedic: Stop watching movies and educate yourself.

According to the Hernando County Sheriff's Office, Hernando detective Rocky Howard, 31, and Tampa police officer William Mechler, 26, were off-duty and attending the gathering when the woman showed up and approached them, acting irrationally.

What's the gathering?

Magic, The Gathering

/I don't know.
//It is strange wording, in both stories.

Maybe they mean The Gathering, the 2003 smash box office Horror flic.

The Juggling of the Gatheros?


They're all immortals - they thought naked lady was the Kurgan.
 
2012-10-22 09:09:28 AM
Just read the article-

Did anyone else read in the subtext that she was killed because of her religious beliefs?

You know, "end times" coming and all that?
 
2012-10-22 09:10:47 AM

Leeds: Did anyone else read in the subtext that she was killed because of her religious beliefs?

You know, "end times" coming and all that?


Those Obama is not the antichrist creeps got to you too, huh?

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-22 09:25:06 AM
"End of the world" Interesting.. it would seem that hers came earlier than mine at least.

Each generation seems convinced it'll be the last generation due to one thing or another... That doesn't certify 'crazy.'

"She showed up at the gathering, left, and then returned with a weapon." The other article says she actually approached the officers, and acted irrationally. It also noted that she wasn't invited to the party.

Seems a shame that the naked woman would be at 'the gathering' and not receive some sort of assistance from the officers. Perhaps the fact she was naked, uninvited, and irrational, wasn't something out-of-place at this particular gathering?
 
2012-10-22 09:55:33 AM

expobill: the article stated she was armed
and nutso!


More importantly, she was NAKED.

The Community will not tolerate that kind of behavior.
 
2012-10-22 10:10:22 AM
Even when I am unarmed, I don't usually feel threatened by a naked woman, let alone one carrying a cross. I thought that was a symbol of some religion that has something like thou shalt not kill involved some how.
 
2012-10-22 10:12:05 AM

GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.


Didn't being gay used to be a crime?
 
2012-10-22 10:19:43 AM

immrlizard: Even when I am unarmed, I don't usually feel threatened by a naked woman, let alone one carrying a cross. I thought that was a symbol of some religion that has something like thou shalt not kill involved some how.


What about if instead of a cross, she had a gun? Would you feel threatened then?
 
2012-10-22 10:36:57 AM

namegoeshere: immrlizard: Even when I am unarmed, I don't usually feel threatened by a naked woman, let alone one carrying a cross. I thought that was a symbol of some religion that has something like thou shalt not kill involved some how.

What about if instead of a cross, she had a gun? Would you feel threatened then?


I think most sane people would have left the wooded area's, the gathering, at the first sign of the nutter.
 
2012-10-22 10:46:14 AM

namegoeshere: The boyfriend identified the gun at the scene as being his. The cross was in his house. As far as brandishing it, that was the only way for her to have had it at the scene. I'm willing to bet she didn't have it stuffed up her butt...


Carrying=! brandishing.
 
2012-10-22 12:10:13 PM
Look out! She's coming right for us!
 
2012-10-22 12:14:54 PM
Before making a judgment, consider the fact that the woman was actually armed:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/naked-woman-shot-by-off-duty-fla-co p s-armed-and-irrational-female-dead-83717/
 
2012-10-22 12:57:16 PM

GAT_00: ScottRiqui: From your posts, it sounds to me that your biggest argument against legalizing/decriminalizing marijuana is that you don't like most of the people who want it legalized/decriminalized.

Pretty much. And I do think it needs to be examined, but as long as stuff like 4/20 day still happens, that won't get anywhere. And besides, there are so many better things to spend limited political capital on.


Cool, so you're an idiot who would rather let sick people suffer than let hippies have any fun. Got it.
 
2012-10-22 01:14:52 PM

Big_Fat_Liar: GAT_00: Smackledorfer: GAT_00: Proving yet again that you should never trust the cops side of the story. It's always a lie.

And yet you support the drug war that has directly resulted in more crime and more risk for cops, leading them deeper into militarization.

I don't care what the penalties are. I just refuse to change laws because criminals want the laws to change. It's this thing called nuance that so many people are completely unable to get.

Didn't being gay used to be a crime?


Good point. Apparently he also forgot about prohibition of alcohol and what a wonderful success that was.

Interesting...that GAT who supposedly supports individual liberty is against legalizing marijuana. I guess I shouldn't be surprised at GAT by now. Not only is he very left, he's left-authoritarian...which probably puts him firmly in the Communist bloc.
 
2012-10-22 01:49:05 PM

ScottRiqui: And I don't agree with your belief that if it wasn't mentioned in the vague, sketchy article, that it didn't happen.


I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying that talking about it is speculation, which is something I'm not willing to argue about today. What I can argue about is how I feel about the things we do know, which is that these cops are pussies and they shot too soon, to save their own asses, which they successfully did. The result is that they shot an unarmed woman on accident. And that's the most positive view of the story we can conceive. It only goes downhill from there as we examine with the sketchy-ass details that are provided second- and even third-hand by parties with a vested interest in reducing their culpability.

BronyMedic: The fact is that claiming a woman can't shoot a ten pound rifle accurately is not only sexism and gender discrimination, but blatently wrong.


I never said that, I said it was unlikely that she'd be worth a shiat. That is enough for me to not shoot her down like a dog, because I need to know that someone is probably going to try to kill me not just capable of killing me before I shoot them. I guess that's what makes me different than cops, and I suspect it's because I would have to go on trial if I shot her and also would probably feel bad. These bros are going to get a weeks' vacation and farking sympathy cards for "having no choice but to shoot her", which is a notion thoroughly discredited already several times upthread, and should be obvious to anyone who has ever left their home.

I also made it clear that I wouldn't expect myself to be able to hit jack squat (even though I used to hunt varmint all the time back in the day) in those circumstances, and anyone but a green beret would probably miss at point blank range naked standing straight up with an antique rifle in the dark in the farking forest all jacked up on goofballs. The fact that her upper-body is weaker is something I would have left out completely if I had known you'd fixate on it and jack off all over the thread about it.

The point is that it would have been possible or even reasonable to assess that lady as a low threat and act accordingly (i.e. not shoot her until she did something threatening). Instead, the cops applied "better safe than sorry" which is at the root of all the pro-cop arguments in here, except "safe" means she's dead and "sorry" means she gets a shot off with a 1/1000 chance of hitting anything. I like to think that "sorry" is what we ended up with here and "safe" is not my concern when it comes to drunk cops waving guns around in the woods. Didn't seem to be on their mind or they would have GTFO, so why should I fret over it?

I've been to places where a crazy person had a gun. Somehow no one died. Does that make me worse than these cops or better? I think better. I see you disagree. That's cool, we have different values for human life, not everyone can be friends. Post a picture about it, nerd.

namegoeshere: It was the gun that was missing. He identified it as such. It was at the scene with the dead woman.


It doesn't say the gun was found at the scene. In fact, the interview with the bf says that the cops (not him) told him they found found the cross at his house, so they were in his house. So, not only do we not know if the gun was found at the scene, but we know for certain that the cops were in his house while he was not watching, so we have to take their word on all of it, and not even their word, but what the bf says their word is.

Since, thanks to you authoritarians, all the cops have to prove is that they had reason to believe the gun was working, not that it was particularly dangerous or that she was a real threat, anything resembling a gun would be fine for their purposes. They could have whittled something out of a tree branch, but the fact that homeboy had an old gun laying around saved some whittlin' time.

When we find out more about the "gathering", the woman's toxicology report, the cops' relationship with her before the shooting, the distances she supposedly walked around naked with a 10 lb rifle and how long that took, where the f this boyfriend was the whole time, and the rest of the details, I would bet a cop's dream paycheck (one of mine) that the story is bullshiat.

But it doesn't have to be. Even on its face it tells the story of a couple of pussy-ass pussies, shooting ladies instead of taking a moment to contain their cowardice and save a woman's life when she was clearly in need of help. These are bad cops and this was clearly a bad shooting.
 
2012-10-22 01:59:03 PM

Tman144: Cool, so you're an idiot who would rather let sick people suffer than let hippies have any fun. Got it.


It's his gimmick at house parties

/no one likes your stupid farking gimmick, go back inside
 
2012-10-22 02:29:31 PM

mccallcl: It doesn't say the gun was found at the scene. In fact, the interview with the bf says that the cops (not him) told him they found found the cross at his house, so they were in his house. So, not only do we not know if the gun was found at the scene, but we know for certain that the cops were in his house while he was not watching, so we have to take their word on all of it, and not even their word, but what the bf says their word is.


So instead of tossing down an actual functioning small handgun (which would have made a hell of a lot more sense if they were faking a scene, and would remove the claim that they should somehow have known the gun was non functional) they, having foreknowledge of this gun, steal to support their made up story this awkward, non-functioning weapon? And think to remove the cross from the original scene?

That makes no sense.

Oh, and you say you're not willing to engage in speculation, yet you are speculating that the gun was an antique rifle when TFA only says antique gun. It could have been a very light, single shot pistol.

So you won't speculate except to speculate that the cops shot an unarmed woman and then stole an antique rifle from her boyfriend's house and used it to fake a scene to justify the shooting.
 
2012-10-22 02:52:14 PM

namegoeshere: So instead of tossing down an actual functioning small handgun (which would have made a hell of a lot more sense if they were faking a scene, and would remove the claim that they should somehow have known the gun was non functional) they, having foreknowledge of this gun, steal to support their made up story this awkward, non-functioning weapon? And think to remove the cross from the original scene?


Right, so instead of tossing down a gun they found that she could have possibly had access to, they were supposed to drop, what? Their service pistol? Something from the evidence locker? How would they explain how she had it? Remember, they're lying in this scenario, so unlike reality, they have to craft an explanation, it won't be born out by facts.

Think to remove the cross from the original scene? Where does it say there was anything at the scene? All it says is that they told the bf they found the cross at his place. They could have made up the story at any time after the shooting, we don't even know what the story they made up even was. If I were them, I'd go to her place, the bf's place, and everywhere in between to see if I could find something like a gun, then claim that was what she was holding when I shot her. That plan would take 30 seconds to conceive and could be executed by all the conspirators in parallel. Cop 1 heads to the bf's house with the cross and gets lucky when he finds a gun-like item there.

Because people instantly stop asking questions as soon as the cop says they were scared, a working gun or a fake one would function the same for this story. No need to get fancy.

I'm happy to speculate if we're both speculating and it's interesting to talk about, but not if I have to accept your speculation as fact. You can make whatever world you want for me to have to argue in, and that's not fun or fair for me.
 
2012-10-22 03:17:39 PM

BronyMedic: If some random 17 year old girl weighing 100lbs wet can drop a buffalo using a scoped 300 Magnum, then his argument is flawed from the start.


Sure, if my argument was that it's impossible for her to have shot the cops, which it's not. It's that it's unlikely, which it is. Sorry if your life experience has taught you differently, but those pictures seem to be coming from the internet, so I I'm not sure you have the life experience necessary to form an opinion on this. Accuracy varies wildly with circumstances, and the circumstances this lady was in were about the worst. Could the cops not see that, like how you can't? Let me help: All possible outcomes in any permutation of reality are not what we use to base our decisions on. When I cross the street, it's totally possible that the car coming is not going to stop at the red light, but I have to live my life like a reasonable person, so I walk anyway. I am taking my life into my hands at this moment I suppose, but it's probably not a serious risk, so I don't shoot out the tires on the oncoming car just to "play it safe", because that's not actually safe, it's unsafe to everyone around me and I don't think I deserve a guarantee of safety at the expense of people's lives.

Maybe I don't have awesome cop self esteem, I don't know. Maybe I am trained to avoid danger by removing myself from its vicinity, not by applying violence to it. In my experience, applying violence to a situation actually makes it more dangerous, but I have never shot some lady in the dark to save my hide, so what do I know, right?
 
2012-10-22 03:18:49 PM
anyone have the nudes?
 
2012-10-22 03:19:34 PM

mccallcl: namegoeshere: So instead of tossing down an actual functioning small handgun (which would have made a hell of a lot more sense if they were faking a scene, and would remove the claim that they should somehow have known the gun was non functional) they, having foreknowledge of this gun, steal to support their made up story this awkward, non-functioning weapon? And think to remove the cross from the original scene?

Right, so instead of tossing down a gun they found that she could have possibly had access to, they were supposed to drop, what? Their service pistol? Something from the evidence locker? How would they explain how she had it? Remember, they're lying in this scenario, so unlike reality, they have to craft an explanation, it won't be born out by facts.

Think to remove the cross from the original scene? Where does it say there was anything at the scene? All it says is that they told the bf they found the cross at his place. They could have made up the story at any time after the shooting, we don't even know what the story they made up even was. If I were them, I'd go to her place, the bf's place, and everywhere in between to see if I could find something like a gun, then claim that was what she was holding when I shot her. That plan would take 30 seconds to conceive and could be executed by all the conspirators in parallel. Cop 1 heads to the bf's house with the cross and gets lucky when he finds a gun-like item there.

Because people instantly stop asking questions as soon as the cop says they were scared, a working gun or a fake one would function the same for this story. No need to get fancy.

I'm happy to speculate if we're both speculating and it's interesting to talk about, but not if I have to accept your speculation as fact. You can make whatever world you want for me to have to argue in, and that's not fun or fair for me.


I am amused as to how hard you are bending over backwards to make this a case of murder. We get it. You hate all cops. But those are some intense mental contortions even for you.
 
2012-10-22 03:47:25 PM

namegoeshere: mccallcl: namegoeshere: So instead of tossing down an actual functioning small handgun (which would have made a hell of a lot more sense if they were faking a scene, and would remove the claim that they should somehow have known the gun was non functional) they, having foreknowledge of this gun, steal to support their made up story this awkward, non-functioning weapon? And think to remove the cross from the original scene?

Right, so instead of tossing down a gun they found that she could have possibly had access to, they were supposed to drop, what? Their service pistol? Something from the evidence locker? How would they explain how she had it? Remember, they're lying in this scenario, so unlike reality, they have to craft an explanation, it won't be born out by facts.

Think to remove the cross from the original scene? Where does it say there was anything at the scene? All it says is that they told the bf they found the cross at his place. They could have made up the story at any time after the shooting, we don't even know what the story they made up even was. If I were them, I'd go to her place, the bf's place, and everywhere in between to see if I could find something like a gun, then claim that was what she was holding when I shot her. That plan would take 30 seconds to conceive and could be executed by all the conspirators in parallel. Cop 1 heads to the bf's house with the cross and gets lucky when he finds a gun-like item there.

Because people instantly stop asking questions as soon as the cop says they were scared, a working gun or a fake one would function the same for this story. No need to get fancy.

I'm happy to speculate if we're both speculating and it's interesting to talk about, but not if I have to accept your speculation as fact. You can make whatever world you want for me to have to argue in, and that's not fun or fair for me.

I am amused as to how hard you are bending over backwards to make this a case of murder. We get it. You hate all cops. ...


Nobody can be that dense...at this point I'm assuming he's trolling.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Trollface.svg/200 p x-Trollface.svg.png
 
2012-10-22 03:49:23 PM

Salmon: anyone have the nudes?


From before or from after she was shot and killed?
 
2012-10-22 04:12:18 PM

namegoeshere: We get it.


Apparently you don't get it. It would be irresponsible to assume anything I'm saying about the whole "planting a broken gun" idea is true, it's just me speculating wildly in response to someone asking me a specific question, the answer to which requires me to speculate. So, for you and the mouse in your pocket, I am not accusing these cops of murder, I am accusing them of cowardice.

namegoeshere: But those are some intense mental contortions even for you.


You're either stupid or acting stupid.
 
2012-10-22 07:01:50 PM
For about the hundreth time - she was not waving a cross around and chatting with the cops, she was a farking nut job waving a gun around. In the future please read the article and not just the headline.
 
2012-10-22 11:16:14 PM

untaken_name: ScottRiqui: untaken_name: slayer199: Yes, she was crazy. But she also went home and picked up a gun. At that point there's no way for the cops to know it couldn't fire. I supposed farkers would be happier if cops get shot in these situations.

You'd almost think they were getting paid to take risks that people who aren't getting paid shouldn't take. But, of course, we know that isn't true. The Supreme Court said so. Better they gun down innocent dogs, innocent people, and crazy people than they endure any risk. Better a thousand civilians dead than one cop inconvenienced.

I'm as vocal as the next guy when cops overstep the bounds, but there's no sane world where someone can point a gun at a cop (or refuse to drop one when ordered to do so) and the blame falls on the cops when they get shot. In a situation like that, the police are literally a fraction of a second away from potentially being killed, and there's no amount of pay that should make them accept that risk.

The risk was all in their heads. They should at least verify that there is actual risk. THAT IS WHY THEY GET PAID. We hear all the time that cops put their lives on the line, except that any time there's any possibility that they might actually have to, they just start blasting away instead. How do we know she even pointed anything at them? We take their word. At least if she had actually fired (which she COULD NOT do since the gun doesn't fire), they would have the proof that there was actually enough danger to excuse taking someone's life. In this case, they had a naked crazy lady who may or may not have had a non-functioning gun. Man, I've had a gun pointed at me, and while unpleasant, I somehow managed to survive the incident, and even without killing anyone. I wasn't even getting paid for it. Just because there's a gun within 20 feet of an officer, that doesn't excuse the officer shooting someone.

 
2012-10-23 12:31:28 AM

mccallcl: BronyMedic: If some random 17 year old girl weighing 100lbs wet can drop a buffalo using a scoped 300 Magnum, then his argument is flawed from the start.

Sure, if my argument was that it's impossible for her to have shot the cops, which it's not. It's that it's unlikely, which it is. Sorry if your life experience has taught you differently, but those pictures seem to be coming from the internet, so I I'm not sure you have the life experience necessary to form an opinion on this. Accuracy varies wildly with circumstances, and the circumstances this lady was in were about the worst. Could the cops not see that, like how you can't? Let me help: All possible outcomes in any permutation of reality are not what we use to base our decisions on. When I cross the street, it's totally possible that the car coming is not going to stop at the red light, but I have to live my life like a reasonable person, so I walk anyway. I am taking my life into my hands at this moment I suppose, but it's probably not a serious risk, so I don't shoot out the tires on the oncoming car just to "play it safe", because that's not actually safe, it's unsafe to everyone around me and I don't think I deserve a guarantee of safety at the expense of people's lives.

Maybe I don't have awesome cop self esteem, I don't know. Maybe I am trained to avoid danger by removing myself from its vicinity, not by applying violence to it. In my experience, applying violence to a situation actually makes it more dangerous, but I have never shot some lady in the dark to save my hide, so what do I know, right?


Eh, if I was staring down anyone with a gun, I would like a bigger assurance than that (s)he would "probably" miss me.
 
2012-10-23 11:45:40 AM
Allowing cops to kill people indiscriminately without punishment is what leads to this kind of thing.
 
2012-10-23 03:21:12 PM

ParaHandy: Allowing cops to kill people indiscriminately without punishment is what leads to this kind of thing.


And when has anyone done that? Oh yeah, I forgot. This is fantasy land.

/POST is not a License to Kill.

blog.robotforest.com
 
2012-10-23 03:46:01 PM

BronyMedic: ParaHandy: Allowing cops to kill people indiscriminately without punishment is what leads to this kind of thing.

And when has anyone done that? Oh yeah, I forgot. This is fantasy land.

/POST is not a License to Kill.

[blog.robotforest.com image 360x240]


Then you are fortunate enough to not know anyone who was murdered by roid-raging cops. I do/did.

And truth be told, I wish I was still as naive as you seem to be.
 
Displayed 340 of 340 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report