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 338
    More: Florida, Hernando County Sheriff's Office, cross  
•       •       •

30470 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Oct 2012 at 9:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 338 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report