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.

(The Atlantic Wire)   The MBTA Transit Police officer that was shot by the Boston terrorists was actually shot by other cops. Oops   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 229
    More: Followup, friendly fire  
•       •       •

15785 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 May 2013 at 1:27 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-07 05:50:35 PM  

insano: kim jong-un: insano: Aarontology: Huh. I wasn't aware of that you can be charged for when someone else shoots someone.

Fascinating.

If you and a partner are robbing a store and your partner shoots and kills the clerk, guess what? You are on the hook for murder, even if you are only the getaway driver. If you start a shootout on a busy street and the cops shoot innocent civilians, guess what? You are at fault because you started the shootout. You created the dangerous situation. That is how the law does and should work.

No. It means the cops have no incentive to avoid innocent casualties if the blame is deferred. Blame must be shared at a minimum.

The police wouldn't need to be firing in the first place if the perpetrator had not created the dangerous situation. This is the gist of 'but-for' reasoning. The police (regardless of their good/poor marksmanship) would not have fired their weapons near a civilian but for the perpetrator endangering the lives of police officers.


How about that incident when they were trying to find that ex-cop-now-cop-killer and the police shot up an SUV with some lady and her mom in the front seat. They took about 60 shots at an innocent pair of people who resemble nothing like the fugitive or his car.

Or when they shot up Amadou Diallo (sp?) with 40+ shots, only 11 hit? Or that vid capture on YouTube of about 6 police officers shooting circular firing squad style at a car, emptying their mags into the car but the car just drove on?
 
2013-05-07 05:56:31 PM  

dericwater: How about that incident when they were trying to find that ex-cop-now-cop-killer and the police shot up an SUV with some lady and her mom in the front seat. They took about 60 shots at an innocent pair of people who resemble nothing like the fugitive or his car.

Or when they shot up Amadou Diallo (sp?) with 40+ shots, only 11 hit? Or that vid capture on YouTube of about 6 police officers shooting circular firing squad style at a car, emptying their mags into the car but the car just drove on?



such a tragic accident...
 
2013-05-07 05:59:59 PM  
TFA's author could have constructed better sentences by shaking Scrabble tiles in  a box and spilling them on a table.
 
2013-05-07 06:40:54 PM  

LasersHurt: You just made up some shiat unrelated to the thread to feel threatened about, then defend? Good job. You can stop helping now.


Getting shot by other cops and not the criminal (as per the fark summary/description) is known as "Crossfire".  so i don't know how much more related you can get.
 
2013-05-07 06:47:49 PM  

ongbok: dericwater: There's a report out that in 2011, in all of Germany, police officers shot a total of 85 bullets. About half of them were just warning shots. Only 15 or so were at intended targets and they succeeded in putting them down (not necessarily killing them).

I would like to see this report because just from the bold portion it is bullshiat. You always shoot to hit your target in the body and never fire warning shots because a bullet has to stop somewhere, and if you are not firing at your target it can very well hit an innocent bystander.


That's bullshiat.

It's perfectly safe to fire a warning shot, just fire into soft ground.
 
2013-05-07 06:52:17 PM  

DarkVader: That's bullshiat.

It's perfectly safe to fire a warning shot, just fire into soft ground.


To hell with that. If you're feeling threatened enough to pull a gun and fire a shot, you're threatened enough to put the shot through the guy's chest. If you don't feel in that much danger, don't even draw.
 
2013-05-07 06:53:18 PM  

FilmBELOH20: JK47  However, given the fact that cops were already engaging the terrorists, gun wielding bystanders, no matter how well-intentioned, won't be helpful and could make a chaotic situation much more confusing than it already is.

Did you see the video that was taken that night?  You know, the one from about 30 ft. away directly above the shooters in a much better vantage point than any cop could dream of having?  Because I know several people with deer rifles - hell I know several people with compound bows - that have taken that shot successfully every fall since they were about twelve years old.  But yeah, let's disarm civilians because all cops have remarkable marksmanship skills and never miss.


Sadly none of the Avengers does not lives in Watertown.
 
2013-05-07 06:55:43 PM  

dericwater: insano: Aarontology: Huh. I wasn't aware of that you can be charged for when someone else shoots someone.

Fascinating.

If you and a partner are robbing a store and your partner shoots and kills the clerk, guess what? You are on the hook for murder, even if you are only the getaway driver. If you start a shootout on a busy street and the cops shoot innocent civilians, guess what? You are at fault because you started the shootout. You created the dangerous situation. That is how the law does and should work.

I don't like how that law works. People should be responsible for their shooting. Responsibility should be instilled on the person who pulls the trigger.


So if I'm a cop you'd want me working in that crazy ass situation with the understanding that if I miss I just might get the chair? Ok. Makes sense
 
2013-05-07 06:57:36 PM  

ideamaster: LasersHurt: You just made up some shiat unrelated to the thread to feel threatened about, then defend? Good job. You can stop helping now.

Getting shot by other cops and not the criminal (as per the fark summary/description) is known as "Crossfire".  so i don't know how much more related you can get.


Careful, you might get caught up in it.
 
2013-05-07 07:01:34 PM  
The real answer is that we should un-invent guns and then invent actual rainbow sharting unicorns and me with a 12" cock and good looks.
 
2013-05-07 07:03:24 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: DarkVader: That's bullshiat.

It's perfectly safe to fire a warning shot, just fire into soft ground.

To hell with that. If you're feeling threatened enough to pull a gun and fire a shot, you're threatened enough to put the shot through the guy's chest. If you don't feel in that much danger, don't even draw.


No.

There are cases where you would be justified firing a warning shot.  For example, guy with a knife, 100 yards away, running toward you.  He's not an immediate threat to your life, but he's going to be very soon if nothing changes.  You're not sure he sees that you have a gun.  Do you...  a.  take aim and prepare to kill him when he gets in range, or b.  fire a warning shot into the ground in an attempt to discourage him from coming closer.  You might be legally justified with a, but why take the chance when everybody may walk away with b?  If the warning shot doesn't work, you can still proceed to shoot him.
 
2013-05-07 07:07:02 PM  

DarkVader: Noticeably F.A.T.: DarkVader: That's bullshiat.

It's perfectly safe to fire a warning shot, just fire into soft ground.

To hell with that. If you're feeling threatened enough to pull a gun and fire a shot, you're threatened enough to put the shot through the guy's chest. If you don't feel in that much danger, don't even draw.

No.

There are cases where you would be justified firing a warning shot.  For example, guy with a knife, 100 yards away, running toward you.  He's not an immediate threat to your life, but he's going to be very soon if nothing changes.  You're not sure he sees that you have a gun.  Do you...  a.  take aim and prepare to kill him when he gets in range, or b.  fire a warning shot into the ground in an attempt to discourage him from coming closer.  You might be legally justified with a, but why take the chance when everybody may walk away with b?  If the warning shot doesn't work, you can still proceed to shoot him.


Made me think of Austin Powers and the steam roller scene.
 
2013-05-07 07:51:27 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: So if I'm a cop you'd want me working in that crazy ass situation with the understanding that if I miss I just might get the chair?


Rather than a situation when you can fire as and how and when and at what you like, knowing that if you injure or kill someone it doesn't matter because someone else will get the blame? Yes, I think some personal consequences would be a good idea.
 
2013-05-07 07:53:06 PM  

lewismarktwo: Careful, you might get caught up in it.


Nah. I avoid crowds.  LA/Boston are good for vacations and a quick holiday.  Not on major events activities where people lose their minds.
 
2013-05-07 07:55:35 PM  

DarkVader: Do you... a. take aim and prepare to kill him when he gets in range,


Either c) Attempt to evade, or if that's not possible for some reason I go with a., while warning him with my voice, not a random deadly projectile.
 
2013-05-07 08:12:47 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: DarkVader: That's bullshiat.

It's perfectly safe to fire a warning shot, just fire into soft ground.

To hell with that. If you're feeling threatened enough to pull a gun and fire a shot, you're threatened enough to put the shot through the guy's chest. If you don't feel in that much danger, don't even draw.




This is what many do not understand.
 
2013-05-07 08:15:40 PM  

DarwiOdrade: This proves it was a false-flag, inside job by the US government, right?


No, but it does prove reporting is biased and partial in favor of the Blue Line.  And that cops will say whatever they can get away with saying.
 
2013-05-07 08:31:33 PM  

orbister: Waxing_Chewbacca: So if I'm a cop you'd want me working in that crazy ass situation with the understanding that if I miss I just might get the chair?

Rather than a situation when you can fire as and how and when and at what you like, knowing that if you injure or kill someone it doesn't matter because someone else will get the blame? Yes, I think some personal consequences would be a good idea.


Now, now, there *are* consequences: Paid Administrative Leave, desk duty, yada-yada...
 
2013-05-07 08:35:54 PM  

Dr Dreidel: // oooooh, the city canceled classes and most businesses closed - voluntarily - for the day


I take it you didn't see any of the many surviving videos online, then?
 
2013-05-07 08:47:21 PM  

ideamaster: lewismarktwo: Careful, you might get caught up in it.

Nah. I avoid crowds.  LA/Boston are good for vacations and a quick holiday.  Not on major events activities where people lose their minds.


i41.tinypic.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCwn1NTK-50 sfw
 
2013-05-07 08:51:12 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: dericwater: insano: Aarontology: Huh. I wasn't aware of that you can be charged for when someone else shoots someone.

Fascinating.

If you and a partner are robbing a store and your partner shoots and kills the clerk, guess what? You are on the hook for murder, even if you are only the getaway driver. If you start a shootout on a busy street and the cops shoot innocent civilians, guess what? You are at fault because you started the shootout. You created the dangerous situation. That is how the law does and should work.

I don't like how that law works. People should be responsible for their shooting. Responsibility should be instilled on the person who pulls the trigger.

So if I'm a cop you'd want me working in that crazy ass situation with the understanding that if I miss I just might get the chair? Ok. Makes sense


So don't pull your gun, and if you do, don't miss.  BTW, I'm not or capital punishment, and certainly, an accidental killing wouldn't warrant the chair. That's a rather hyperbolic penalty for what occurred. I would say, if an officer took out the gun and shot, he should be reassigned to a desk job and asked to resign. Depending on the circumstances, he could be tried for wanton negligence.
 
2013-05-07 08:56:02 PM  

Theaetetus: Additionally, one cop killing another cop isn't felony murder in some states that require agency or the killing to be in furtherance of the crime. It is in other states where any proximately caused death counts.


Traffic deaths involving a responding officer have been charged as felony murder.

I seem to recall a case where an overweight officer had a heart attack while responding to something like a burglary call and it was charged as felony murder.  I won't be likely to find a citation quickly, though.
 
2013-05-07 09:35:21 PM  

Waxing_Chewbacca: dericwater: insano: Aarontology: Huh. I wasn't aware of that you can be charged for when someone else shoots someone.

Fascinating.

If you and a partner are robbing a store and your partner shoots and kills the clerk, guess what? You are on the hook for murder, even if you are only the getaway driver. If you start a shootout on a busy street and the cops shoot innocent civilians, guess what? You are at fault because you started the shootout. You created the dangerous situation. That is how the law does and should work.

I don't like how that law works. People should be responsible for their shooting. Responsibility should be instilled on the person who pulls the trigger.

So if I'm a cop you'd want me working in that crazy ass situation with the understanding that if I miss I just might get the chair? Ok. Makes sense


No. You can have a work hearing and when (presumably, in your hypothetical) it's shown that you shot the innocent person in error but were within your rights to be shooting and doing your best, you escape punishment, but are still responsible for shooting the guy, by accident.

But the criminal doesn't need to take responsibility for your error.
 
2013-05-07 10:11:54 PM  
Theaetetus:

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 850x546]What the FBI individually tagging multiple "beetle holes" of varying calibers in the center of mass of the boat may look like.

These photos of the boat need to be matched up with the scene from  "Idiocracy" where the car gets shot up.
 
2013-05-07 11:50:33 PM  

DarkVader: Noticeably F.A.T.: DarkVader: That's bullshiat.

It's perfectly safe to fire a warning shot, just fire into soft ground.

To hell with that. If you're feeling threatened enough to pull a gun and fire a shot, you're threatened enough to put the shot through the guy's chest. If you don't feel in that much danger, don't even draw.

No.

There are cases where you would be justified firing a warning shot.  For example, guy with a knife, 100 yards away, running toward you.  He's not an immediate threat to your life, but he's going to be very soon if nothing changes.  You're not sure he sees that you have a gun.  Do you...  a.  take aim and prepare to kill him when he gets in range, or b.  fire a warning shot into the ground in an attempt to discourage him from coming closer.  You might be legally justified with a, but why take the chance when everybody may walk away with b?  If the warning shot doesn't work, you can still proceed to shoot him.


Are you aware that bullets ricochet?
 
2013-05-08 03:41:32 AM  
I don't think all those cops in Boston needs their guns. I think maybe like, half of them maybe should give away their guns.
Whats that, two shootouts they've had where they were the only armed party within the span of two days? Sure, it was a stressed situation; the perfect situation to see whether or not you should be trusted to have a gun in a stressed situation.
 
2013-05-08 07:20:33 AM  

ongbok: dericwater: There's a report out that in 2011, in all of Germany, police officers shot a total of 85 bullets. About half of them were just warning shots. Only 15 or so were at intended targets and they succeeded in putting them down (not necessarily killing them).

I would like to see this report because just from the bold portion it is bullshiat. You always shoot to hit your target in the body and never fire warning shots because a bullet has to stop somewhere, and if you are not firing at your target it can very well hit an innocent bystander.


German law requires warning shots to be fired.  (Can't find citation, worked with german Polizei)
 
2013-05-08 09:16:57 AM  
The thrills of murdering unarmed grannies in their homes at 2am and shooting other people's dogs has finally begun to wear thin. They are turning on their fellow gang members in what we can only pray is an orgy of destruction that will leave none alive.
 
2013-05-08 09:37:50 AM  

DarkVader: There are cases where you would be justified firing a warning shot.  For example, guy with a knife, 100 yards away, running toward you.  He's not an immediate threat to your life, but he's going to be very soon if nothing changes.  You're not sure he sees that you have a gun.  Do you...  a.  take aim and prepare to kill him when he gets in range, or b.  fire a warning shot into the ground in an attempt to discourage him from coming closer.  You might be legally justified with a, but why take the chance when everybody may walk away with b?  If the warning shot doesn't work, you can still proceed to shoot him.


This scenario is as likely as you waking up and finding a midget on the end of the bed, wearing a Chewbacca suit and playing his PSP.
 
Displayed 29 of 229 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report