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  
•       •       •

30464 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»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 06:04:20 AM
Bravo red one ranger, naked woman with cross taken out.
lh6.ggpht.com

Continue shopping citizens.
 
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 »






Report