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
 
2013-05-07 11:57:35 AM
Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.
 
2013-05-07 12:05:09 PM
This got greenlit??
 
2013-05-07 12:10:55 PM

Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.


Yep.  As he should be.
 
2013-05-07 12:13:49 PM

The Muthaship: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

Yep.  As he should be.


Not if he wasn't the one who actually shot the cop, he shouldn't.
 
2013-05-07 12:16:01 PM

Aarontology: The Muthaship: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

Yep.  As he should be.

Not if he wasn't the one who actually shot the cop, he shouldn't.


Felony murder.
 
2013-05-07 12:16:15 PM

Aarontology: The Muthaship: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

Yep.  As he should be.

Not if he wasn't the one who actually shot the cop, he shouldn't.


Wrong.  Felony Murder Rule
 
2013-05-07 12:18:04 PM
Huh. I wasn't aware of that you can be charged for when someone else shoots someone.

Fascinating.
 
2013-05-07 12:20:04 PM

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

Fascinating.


It's sort of a 'but for' reasoning, with some 'reasonably foreseeable consequences' thrown in.
 
2013-05-07 12:29:02 PM

Aarontology: The Muthaship: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

Yep.  As he should be.

Not if he wasn't the one who actually shot the cop, he shouldn't.


They'll be charged with the murder, which they deserve. There wouldn't be a killing if they weren't around.
 
2013-05-07 12:29:53 PM

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.
 
2013-05-07 12:30:36 PM
Same situation if you rob a bank with a partner and the partner kills someone, you too can be charge with murder.  Even if you only robbed the bank.
 
2013-05-07 12:32:12 PM
Man a dollar short and a day late both times.
 
2013-05-07 12:36:50 PM
Thank you modmins :  )
 
2013-05-07 12:36:52 PM
Would I, as a citizen, be immune from the consequences like the cop who shot the other cop, if I happened to be passing by a shootout, decided to use my CCR rights to aid the cops, but accidentally ended up shooting one of them or an innocent bystander?
 
2013-05-07 12:38:55 PM
This proves it was a false-flag, inside job by the US government, right?
 
2013-05-07 12:43:23 PM

The Muthaship: Felony murder.


sentex: Wrong.  Felony Murder Rule



FTFA: "Donahue is doing fine."

I realize that I don't have a GED in Law, but I seem to remember that murder requires a death to occur.
 
2013-05-07 12:45:26 PM

Aarontology: Would I, as a citizen, be immune from the consequences like the cop who shot the other cop, if I happened to be passing by a shootout, decided to use my CCR rights to aid the cops, but accidentally ended up shooting one of them or an innocent bystander?


No, because once Obama takes them away, you'll be liable for felony possession of a scary black assault-style gun and if you wanted to play hero, maybe spend a few months at the Academy first.
 
2013-05-07 12:46:36 PM

doyner: I realize that I don't have a GED in Law, but I seem to remember that murder requires a death to occur.


Correct.  I didn't read the article, but I thought they said in the initial reports that an MIT campus cop got killed.
 
2013-05-07 12:54:32 PM

The Muthaship: doyner: I realize that I don't have a GED in Law, but I seem to remember that murder requires a death to occur.

Correct.  I didn't read the article, but I thought they said in the initial reports that an MIT campus cop got killed.


Even if you didn't rtfa, the headline here is "The MBTA Transit Police officer that was shot by the Boston terrorists was actually shot by other cops. Oops". Kinda a clue there.
 
2013-05-07 12:55:42 PM
So much for "trained professionals."

So. Let's talk about arming teachers again.
 
2013-05-07 12:56:56 PM

Snuffybud: Even if you didn't rtfa, the headline here is "The MBTA Transit Police officer that was shot by the Boston terrorists was actually shot by other cops. Oops". Kinda a clue there.


I just can't put into words how sorry I am about the screw up.  I swear it won't happen again.

Dude is still on the hook for the shooting (that thankfully did not kill the guy) under the same legal logic.
 
2013-05-07 12:59:35 PM

The Muthaship: I just can't put into words how sorry I am about the screw up. I swear it won't happen again.


This just isn't good enough.  You must be punished.
 
2013-05-07 01:05:59 PM
Trained professionals miss, so we should continue arming everyone so we rely on the trained professionals, right?
 
2013-05-07 01:14:35 PM
"A black SUV appeared, and rapid gun fire was focused on the vehicle," Dyson wrote in a statement provided to the Globe, referring to the vehicle Tsarnaev allegedly drove in his escape. "It appeared to me that an individual at the corner [of the street] fell to the ground and had probably been hit in the gunfire."
Dyson's account of the guns-blazing getaway seems to indicate that Donohue was shot while Dzhokhar was fleeing (and running over his brother) and that the gunfire was one-way

So, that's kind of an inferential leap.  He didn't testify as to whether or not the Tsarnaevs were shooting.  TFA is just assuming that because he didn't specify, they must not have been.
 
2013-05-07 01:29:54 PM
is thiscthe one that lost ALL his blood and then was magic'd back to life?
 
2013-05-07 01:30:45 PM
TWO WEEK SUSPENSION!

WITH PAY!
 
2013-05-07 01:31:58 PM
Damn. Boston cops be trigger happy.
 
2013-05-07 01:32:18 PM
Sometimes you can predict which outfit the shooter belongs to.

When you have two LEOs, the outfit who doesn't have random drug tests does the shooting, the one who gets shot has the random drug tests.   Just a coincidence.
 
2013-05-07 01:33:00 PM
I was wondering why a couple of guys said in news reports to be unarmed, which is to say  without guns, would shoot a random university campus cop for no apparent reason.

Now it makes some sense.

Oops! Our bad!

The only way to protect America from terrorists without guns is cops without guns. Arm the police with pressure cookers. They blow up spontaneous all the time, it is true, but apparently they must be added to the list of things that free people with massive arms and ammo stockpiles can not have for their own safety, like shampoo bottles that hold more than 3 oz., and shoes, and box cutters, and nail clippers., and those tiny little screwdrivers that you get in eyeglass repair kits and that look like accessories for Do It Yourself Barbie.
 
2013-05-07 01:34:50 PM
jeez...if he's only been armed, then he wouldn't have gotten shot.
 
2013-05-07 01:35:55 PM
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun shooting another good guy with a gun.
 
2013-05-07 01:36:36 PM

Aarontology: Would I, as a citizen, be immune from the consequences like the cop who shot the other cop, if I happened to be passing by a shootout, decided to use my CCR rights to aid the cops, but accidentally ended up shooting one of them or an innocent bystander?



In general your privilege to exercise deadly force in self defense is limited to situations in which you were the target of force threatening serious or deadly bodily harm.  You can, I believe, exercise this right if someone else would be so privileged (e.g. defending another who is being threatened).  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.
 
2013-05-07 01:36:39 PM

brantgoose: I was wondering why a couple of guys said in news reports to be unarmed, which is to say  without guns, would shoot a random university campus cop for no apparent reason.

Now it makes some sense.

Oops! Our bad!

The only way to protect America from terrorists without guns is cops without guns. Arm the police with pressure cookers. They blow up spontaneous all the time, it is true, but apparently they must be added to the list of things that free people with massive arms and ammo stockpiles can not have for their own safety, like shampoo bottles that hold more than 3 oz., and shoes, and box cutters, and nail clippers., and those tiny little screwdrivers that you get in eyeglass repair kits and that look like accessories for Do It Yourself Barbie.


They DID shoot a "random university campus cop for no apparent reason".  THIS is not THAT cop.
 
2013-05-07 01:36:51 PM
Even when cops "do a great job," you can't count on them to act with integrity or to tell the truth.  Every time the police give a statement, I now automatically assume we'll find out something very different later.
 
2013-05-07 01:37:09 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Trained professionals miss, so we should continue arming everyone so we rely on the trained professionals, right?


A "trained" beat cop who draws his service weapon might as well be a hand grenade, considering their statistical accuracy.

Your average idiot on the street, without even that modicum of required training and range time, is about a hundred times worse.
 
2013-05-07 01:38:00 PM
I thought this was obvious when it was revealed the brothers had one pistol, and all accounts describe hundreds of shots being fired in Watertown.
 
2013-05-07 01:38:15 PM

brantgoose: a couple of guys said in news reports to be unarmed, which is to say without guns


You must be thinking of these guys:

i.huffpost.com
 
2013-05-07 01:38:24 PM
Did the BPD give it the full Tillman treatment telling the family he died a hero instead of by incompetent fratricide, and then destroying all evidence, while also using it for recruiting purposes while blatently lying about it?
 
2013-05-07 01:38:29 PM
the cops did NOT  do a good job!  9000 cops and locking down an entire city looking for a 19 year old kid.  illegal search and seizure
they could have got the dogs after him
 
2013-05-07 01:38:36 PM

Aarontology: Would I, as a citizen, be immune from the consequences like the cop who shot the other cop, if I happened to be passing by a shootout, decided to use my CCR rights to aid the cops, but accidentally ended up shooting one of them or an innocent bystander?


You, as a citizen, would be responsible for the final disposition of every shot you fire. I remember that very clearly from my CCW classes. If one of your rounds killed someone, yes you absolutely would be civilly and criminally liable. I would not think for murder one, but for criminally negligent homicide or something similar.
 
2013-05-07 01:39:36 PM
I bet that kid that went missing shot him.
 
2013-05-07 01:40:02 PM
Umm...he was shot in an exchange of gunfire with them...whether it was friendly fire or not, it was because of the gunfire exchange...

If he gets charged or not, they are still responsible.
 
2013-05-07 01:40:35 PM
i32.photobucket.com
 
2013-05-07 01:40:51 PM
Did he ever return?No he never returnedAnd his fate is still unlearn'dHe may ride forever'neath the streets of BostonHe's the man who never returned
 
2013-05-07 01:43:30 PM

doyner: The Muthaship: I just can't put into words how sorry I am about the screw up. I swear it won't happen again.

This just isn't good enough.  You must be punished.


And there is only one penalty for such a screw up.

We must tie Muthaship down to a bed and spank him!
 
2013-05-07 01:43:35 PM

PC LOAD LETTER: Trained professionals miss, so we should continue arming everyone so we rely on the trained professionals, right?


Trained to do what? Panic, close your eyes, and pull the trigger until the "bang" noise stops happening?
 
2013-05-07 01:44:13 PM

The Muthaship: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

Yep.  As he should be.


Logic, How does it work?
 
2013-05-07 01:44:27 PM

brewswane: the cops did NOT  do a good job!  9000 cops and locking down an entire city looking for a 19 year old kid.  illegal search and seizure
they could have got the dogs after him


WTF kind of lockdown lets citizens leave their homes as they please and requires cops to get consent to enter a house?

// oooooh, the city canceled classes and most businesses closed - voluntarily - for the day
// but that didn't stop people from driving into the office
// source
 
2013-05-07 01:44:54 PM

JK47: Aarontology: Would I, as a citizen, be immune from the consequences like the cop who shot the other cop, if I happened to be passing by a shootout, decided to use my CCR rights to aid the cops, but accidentally ended up shooting one of them or an innocent bystander?


In general your privilege to exercise deadly force in self defense is limited to situations in which you were the target of force threatening serious or deadly bodily harm.  You can, I believe, exercise this right if someone else would be so privileged (e.g. defending another who is being threatened).  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.


Also, let's toss in that fact that the cops are now contending with another unknown person with a gun actively firing. Chances are good that you would end up becoming a target. You end up dividing the attention of the police, perhaps aiding the felons in escaping. At worst, you'll end up dead.
 
2013-05-07 01:45:34 PM

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.


This logic is absurd,  If said innocent civilian wasn't at that place at that time, he or she wouldn't have been shot, so therefore they should also be charged....  This is the logic that the felony murder rule uses.
 
2013-05-07 01:45:47 PM
Glad the Fark legal team has chimed in with the "pulled them out of my butt laws"
 
2013-05-07 01:46:23 PM

Dr Dreidel: brewswane: the cops did NOT  do a good job!  9000 cops and locking down an entire city looking for a 19 year old kid.  illegal search and seizure
they could have got the dogs after him

WTF kind of lockdown lets citizens leave their homes as they please and requires cops to get consent to enter a house?

// oooooh, the city canceled classes and most businesses closed - voluntarily - for the day
// but that didn't stop people from driving into the office
// source


They didn't get consent.  They acted like jack booted thugs barging into peoples homes.
 
2013-05-07 01:46:29 PM
Charlie's wife arrested for throwing a suspicious package onto the train daily at 2:15.
 
2013-05-07 01:46:33 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: PC LOAD LETTER: Trained professionals miss, so we should continue arming everyone so we rely on the trained professionals, right?

Trained to do what? Panic, close your eyes, and pull the trigger until the "bang" noise stops happening?


Evidently...yes.

www.brown-watch.com
 
2013-05-07 01:47:29 PM

OtherLittleGuy: Charlie's wife arrested for throwing a suspicious package onto the train daily at 2:15.


So he never returned?
 
2013-05-07 01:47:39 PM

Warlordtrooper: 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.

This logic is absurd,  If said innocent civilian wasn't at that place at that time, he or she wouldn't have been shot, so therefore they should also be charged....  This is the logic that the felony murder rule uses.


Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you actually not know the difference between "unarmed person being somewhere" and "armed person who starts a firefight"?
 
2013-05-07 01:48:27 PM
The authorities are the only ones we should trust with firearms, because they are by nature more careful and competent in their use.
 
2013-05-07 01:48:39 PM

Warlordtrooper: Dr Dreidel: brewswane: the cops did NOT  do a good job!  9000 cops and locking down an entire city looking for a 19 year old kid.  illegal search and seizure
they could have got the dogs after him

WTF kind of lockdown lets citizens leave their homes as they please and requires cops to get consent to enter a house?

// oooooh, the city canceled classes and most businesses closed - voluntarily - for the day
// but that didn't stop people from driving into the office
// source

They didn't get consent.  They acted like jack booted thugs barging into peoples homes.


In the vast majority of entries, they did. Some few officers did not in a few situations. Learn2complex reality.
 
2013-05-07 01:49:10 PM
He was Pat Tillman-ed.
 
2013-05-07 01:49:57 PM
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

"Hey, Cletus! No matter what, they get charged! Let's light it up, yee-haw!"

 
2013-05-07 01:50:09 PM

Wellon Dowd: The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun shooting another good guy with a gun.


Man, it sure took long enough for someone to post this! When seconds count, Wellon Dowd is minutes away... from his keyboard ;-)

/ long-winded way of saying I was going to post this
 
2013-05-07 01:51:00 PM

doyner: I realize that I don't have a GED in Law, but I seem to remember that murder requires a death to occur.



Remember this guy?  He didn't die of a heart attack while banging a hooker in Cleveland...
media1.policymic.com
 
2013-05-07 01:53:54 PM
Ultimately this is the fault of Obama and the Democrats.  The only way to become better at shooting is to shoot but they refuse to buy the ammo need.  I can hardly wait for Republicans to jump on this
 
2013-05-07 01:55:17 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: Your average idiot on the street, without even that modicum of required training and range time, is about a hundred times worse.


The problem with your theory is that the law abiding citizens who carry tend to actually practice, as opposed to just doing the bare minimum to pass the frighteningly basic tests. A guy who carries has several key differences from the police. They made a decision to carry, and know that requires a lot of responsibility. They like guns, and use them whenever possible. They don't have any guaranteed immunity (even stand your ground laws tend to not be as protective as they are made out to be), so they tend to know the applicable laws, and they also tend to be fairly careful about opening fire. If you look at the statistics between police and average joe when it comes to accuracy, target identification and if a shooting was justified (there's a legal term for that but I'm drawing a blank on it), average joe blows the police out of the water. You can't even chalk that up to police having more contact with criminals, as those are rates of failure not total numbers.

It's really no surprise, if you think about it. If you tell one group of people that if they screw up the slightest amount then they are going to be farked for life, then give another group almost complete immunity for even the largest of failures, which do you think is going to get sloppy?
 
2013-05-07 01:55:32 PM
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.
 
2013-05-07 01:57:14 PM
Lets see,

Hate coworker, mass man hunt, profit?
 
2013-05-07 01:57:31 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: The problem with your theory is that the law abiding citizens who carry tend to actually practice


And your evidence for this is......?
 
2013-05-07 01:57:59 PM

monoski: Glad the Fark legal team has chimed in with the "pulled them out of my butt laws"


It's a case of a little education making someone dangerous. Yes, there is such a thing as the felony murder doctrine. No, it doesn't apply in this case, because the victim is still breathing.
 
2013-05-07 01:58:27 PM

Warlordtrooper: They didn't get consent.  They acted like jack booted thugs barging into peoples homes.


[citation needed]

See, the other guy provided a source. Why didn't you?
 
2013-05-07 01:58:37 PM

doyner: The Muthaship: Felony murder.

sentex: Wrong.  Felony Murder Rule

FTFA: "Donahue is doing fine."

I realize that I don't have a GED in Law, but I seem to remember that murder requires a death to occur.


Ding ding ding!

Yep. I only have a GED in law, but I'm unaware of anything like felony-murder which can be applied here.
 
2013-05-07 01:59:09 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: The problem with your theory is that the law abiding citizens who carry tend to actually practice, as opposed to just doing the bare minimum to pass the frighteningly basic tests.


lol
 
2013-05-07 01:59:18 PM
You can color me unimpressed.  Three hundred outgoing rounds in an attempt to kill a couple of idiots - and they only manage to partially succeed because one kid runs over the other as he drives away.  Throw in shooting your own guy and I'd say that was a pretty big failure overall.  Plus, another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast) that has one unarmed teenager inside, and they still failed to kill him.  That's five hundred bullets spent trying to kill two morons and only managing to kill one by luck.  I am truly amazed they didn't manage to kill any other Boston residents.  This inept, bumbling execution squad behavior we've seen here and with Dorner is really starting to get old.
 
2013-05-07 01:59:25 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: The problem with your theory is that the law abiding citizens who carry tend to actually practice, as opposed to just doing the bare minimum to pass the frighteningly basic tests.


I'ma gonna stop you right here. There is NO WAY that the average gun owner has more training and practice than your average cop. I'm willing to be proven wrong, but you'd have to provide real data to back it up.

Also, gun owners are not "farked for life" for the slightest screw up. A dude shot his goddamned neighbor's kid and there won't be any charges, for example.
 
2013-05-07 02:00:03 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: PC LOAD LETTER: Trained professionals miss, so we should continue arming everyone so we rely on the trained professionals, right?

A "trained" beat cop who draws his service weapon might as well be a hand grenade, considering their statistical accuracy.

Your average idiot on the street, without even that modicum of required training and range time, is about a hundred times worse.


Your "average idiot" who has a CCW spends a lot more time on the range than cops do.

Why is it that in gun control threads the cops are always awesome, but in every other thread they are jackbootedthugpigs who don't contribute a thing to society?
 
2013-05-07 02:01:15 PM

FilmBELOH20: Why is it that in gun control threads the cops are always awesome, but in every other thread they are jackbootedthugpigs who don't contribute a thing to society?


Because you have no sense of subtlety, and assume everything has to be taken to the extreme?
 
2013-05-07 02:01:23 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: If you look at the statistics between police and average joe when it comes to accuracy, target identification and if a shooting was justified (there's a legal term for that but I'm drawing a blank on it), average joe blows the police out of the water.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-05-07 02:03:11 PM

VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)


On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.
 
2013-05-07 02:03:44 PM

FilmBELOH20: 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.



Shooting on a range or firing from concealment while hunting is a bit different than firing a weapon during an unexpected confrontation with an armed assailant.  The deer don't normally pose a threat that would cause you to rush to (and fire from) cover.  These are two vastly different scenarios and comparing them is pointless.

In addition, unless armed civilians have a way of identifying friend from foe, advocating their participation in a confrontation like this is ludicrous.  After all, an innocent Saudi was tackled while (reasonably) running away from the bombing simply because he was an Arab man running away from a bombing.  Similar logic would no doubt be employed if armed civilians decided to pitch in (to say nothing about how police officers will react trying to sort out who is a threat and who is not).
 
2013-05-07 02:03:58 PM

FilmBELOH20: Wolf_Blitzer: PC LOAD LETTER: Trained professionals miss, so we should continue arming everyone so we rely on the trained professionals, right?

A "trained" beat cop who draws his service weapon might as well be a hand grenade, considering their statistical accuracy.

Your average idiot on the street, without even that modicum of required training and range time, is about a hundred times worse.

Your "average idiot" who has a CCW spends a lot more time on the range than cops do.

Why is it that in gun control threads the cops are always awesome, but in every other thread they are jackbootedthugpigs who don't contribute a thing to society?


Schroedinger's Cops
 
2013-05-07 02:04:02 PM

FilmBELOH20: Your "average idiot" who has a CCW spends a lot more time on the range than cops do.

Why is it that in gun control threads the cops are always awesome, but in every other thread they are jackbootedthugpigs who don't contribute a thing to society?


Are they legally required to have that range time? No.

That's like trusting a pilot to fly a plane because he "looks like an alright guy".
 
2013-05-07 02:04:58 PM

doyner: murder requires a death to occur


they did kill that poor unarmed boat
 
2013-05-07 02:05:33 PM

Theaetetus: VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)

On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.


Not to mention 200 rounds fired at an unarmed suspect.
 
2013-05-07 02:05:43 PM

FilmBELOH20: Your "average idiot" who has a CCW spends a lot more time on the range than cops do


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-05-07 02:08:08 PM

The Muthaship: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

Yep.  As he should be.


Aarontology: The Muthaship: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

Yep.  As he should be.

Not if he wasn't the one who actually shot the cop, he shouldn't.


In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter. He can still be changed with attempting to shoot cops. The punishment is most likely the same. If you intentionally shoot at someone, whether you hit them makes less of a difference than whether you kill them or not.

Felony murder logic does not apply here for criminal liability. But it would apply more readily in a civil law context. If the cop were to sue Tsarnaev for the cost of his injuries, Tsarnaev could probably be liable for creating the situation in the first place even though he didn't inflict the injury. I don't do civil law, so I don't even know if such a claim exists (but I am inclined to say it does not).
 
2013-05-07 02:09:04 PM

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

Fascinating.


A while ago two news helicopters crashed while following a car chase and the cops were looking at whether they could add on four charges of Felony Murder.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/07/ne ws _chopper_down.html

I can't find a followup on whether they went through with it or not though.
 
2013-05-07 02:09:13 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: That's like trusting a pilot to fly a plane because he "looks like an alright guy".


Or like handing over the pilot's seat to a kid with 10 yours in MS Flight Simulator...
 
2013-05-07 02:09:20 PM

monoski: Theaetetus: VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)

On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.

Not to mention 200 rounds fired at an unarmed suspect.


That was from the earlier gunfight, the one where Tamerlan Tsarnaev died, where they most definitely were armed.
 
2013-05-07 02:10:10 PM

maddogdelta: Wolf_Blitzer: That's like trusting a pilot to fly a plane because he "looks like an alright guy".

Or like handing over the pilot's seat to a kid with 10 yoursHOURS in MS Flight Simulator...


dammit
 
2013-05-07 02:11:47 PM

99sportster: They DID shoot a "random university campus cop for no apparent reason".  THIS is not THAT cop.


They were trying to steal his gun. After they killed him, they couldn't figure out how to get the gun out of the retention holster.
 
2013-05-07 02:12:31 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Warlordtrooper: They didn't get consent.  They acted like jack booted thugs barging into peoples homes.

[citation needed]

See, the other guy provided a source. Why didn't you?


S/He didn't read the source I provided; what makes you think s/he'd find one of his own?

// from my link: "as far as I can tell, compliance with the shutdown was pretty much entirely voluntary" (says Megan McArdle)
// here's another source - "The lockdown is really voluntary, to be honest with you," says Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School
// find a more concrete source or STFU
// and no, RONPAUL's website is not a "primary source"
 
2013-05-07 02:13:52 PM

LasersHurt: There is NO WAY that the average gun owner has more training and practice than your average cop.


They sure as fark do when it comes to their guns. I've seen the shooting requirements for several forces, and they aren't shiat. There's a hell of a lot more training and practice that police get that practically nobody else gets, but it's not really applicable to what most people need, which is 1) Identify the guy shooting at you 2) Identify the innocent people around the threat 3) Shoot the threat, not the innocents. It doesn't take much to do that, and time and again the police have been proven to be worse at this.

Wolf_Blitzer: imgs.xkcd.com


Nope. It's not hard to find, if you care to find it. I doubt you do, and I'm too lazy today to do it for you.
 
2013-05-07 02:14:47 PM
So therefore we should arm untrained citizens and they will defend everybody and no one except criminals will get hurt.
 
2013-05-07 02:15:00 PM

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.


sentex: Same situation if you rob a bank with a partner and the partner kills someone, you too can be charge with murder.  Even if you only robbed the bank.


So what if I rob a bank, and the bank president gets so upset he kills his wife? Since I created the situation which led to him getting upset, am I on the hook for her murder as well?
 
2013-05-07 02:16:21 PM
Are you guys still eating this stuff up? You all sound fat now. Too bad y'all wouldn't know a duck if you heard it talking or saw it walking, because duck is pretty tasty too.
 
2013-05-07 02:17:27 PM

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.


Also if your partner gets shot and killed you are on the hook for murder.

Aarontology: Would I, as a citizen, be immune from the consequences like the cop who shot the other cop, if I happened to be passing by a shootout, decided to use my CCR rights to aid the cops, but accidentally ended up shooting one of them or an innocent bystander?


No because once you also start shooting the cops are probably going to start shooting at you also and kill you.
 
2013-05-07 02:17:39 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.


That sounds great in theory. But if you take that shot and miss, and it ricochets into the house across the street and kills some poor shmuck hiding in his living room, you have a big problem. Likewise if it bounces and hits a cop sneaking up from the side.

So if someone wants to take it upon themselves and try to help, they better be willing to face a negligent manslaughter charge as well. I honestly can't say whether in this situation that was an acceptable risk from someone to take.
 
2013-05-07 02:18:33 PM

PiperArrow: 99sportster: They DID shoot a "random university campus cop for no apparent reason".  THIS is not THAT cop.

They were trying to steal his gun. After they killed him, they couldn't figure out how to get the gun out of the retention holster.



www.blackhawk.com
Push the tab near the bottom. You're welcome criminals. Now please send me a portion of your future gains in the form of TF subscriptions .
 
2013-05-07 02:19:50 PM

MythDragon: 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.

sentex: Same situation if you rob a bank with a partner and the partner kills someone, you too can be charge with murder.  Even if you only robbed the bank.

So what if I rob a bank, and the bank president gets so upset he kills his wife? Since I created the situation which led to him getting upset, am I on the hook for her murder as well?


Nope: (i) although you're a direct cause, you're not the proximate cause - i.e. it's not a reasonable and foreseeable result of robbing a bank; and (ii) (in many states) felony murder must be a killing done in furtherance of the crime, like killing a guard, cop, or a cashier.
 
2013-05-07 02:20:32 PM

Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.


yep and rightfully charged with Murder One, because if someone dies as a direct consequence of your action while you are in the commission of a Felony, thanks to the Felony Murder Rule, it's exactly the same legally as if you intentionally killed them yourself
 
2013-05-07 02:20:53 PM
It doesn't matter how much time the cops spend on the range.

What matters is how and how often they're trained in the *practical* use of firearms in various situations.

Hearing a gunshot does not mean every officer who hears the bang is to unload his entire stash of ammo in the general direction of the sound. If you don't know what's going on, don't shoot a gun. If you don't have an authorized target, don't shoot a gun. Make it clear who is in command and who authorizes, under what conditions, for multiple officers to open fire.
 
2013-05-07 02:21:16 PM

PiperArrow: 99sportster: They DID shoot a "random university campus cop for no apparent reason".  THIS is not THAT cop.

They were trying to steal his gun. After they killed him, they couldn't figure out how to get the gun out of the retention holster.


I was quoting an earlier statement, and clarifying that THIS was not the university cop (as the other poster stated that they shot for "no apparent reason").  This was a TRANSIT cop. Two different people.  The university cop wasn't killed by friendly fire (as the previous poster had suggested).
 
2013-05-07 02:21:18 PM

Magorn: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

yep and rightfully charged with Murder One, because if someone dies as a direct consequence of your action while you are in the commission of a Felony, thanks to the Felony Murder Rule, it's exactly the same legally as if you intentionally killed them yourself


Someone didn't read the article or the thread. :P
 
2013-05-07 02:21:21 PM

PiperArrow: 99sportster: They DID shoot a "random university campus cop for no apparent reason".  THIS is not THAT cop.

They were trying to steal his gun. After they killed him, they couldn't figure out how to get the gun out of the retention holster.



Also
www.zahal.org
 
2013-05-07 02:21:28 PM
This never would have happened if the cops had more guns.
 
2013-05-07 02:22:17 PM

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.


Hell if you come into a bank with your realtic looking but fake guns drawn and the elderly bank teller drops dead of a heart attack from shock?  Murder One for you.
 
2013-05-07 02:23:20 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: LasersHurt: There is NO WAY that the average gun owner has more training and practice than your average cop.

They sure as fark do when it comes to their guns. I've seen the shooting requirements for several forces, and they aren't shiat.


This does not support your claim. Please show me data on how often the average civilian owner trains, and how they train, compared to the average cop.
 
2013-05-07 02:23:20 PM
Which is exactly why we need a bunch of good guy dip shiats with AR-15s to come running to help stop the bad guys.
 
2013-05-07 02:23:22 PM

MythDragon: 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.

sentex: Same situation if you rob a bank with a partner and the partner kills someone, you too can be charge with murder.  Even if you only robbed the bank.

So what if I rob a bank, and the bank president gets so upset he kills his wife? Since I created the situation which led to him getting upset, am I on the hook for her murder as well?


No. As an example, New York's felony murder statute says that it has to happen "in the course of and in furtherance of the crime or of immediate flight therefrom."
 
2013-05-07 02:24:25 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Wolf_Blitzer: imgs.xkcd.com

Nope. It's not hard to find, if you care to find it. I doubt you do, and I'm too lazy today to do it for you.


So in other words, its from the Department of Rectal Statistics.
 
2013-05-07 02:25:05 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: monoski: Theaetetus: VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)

On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.

Not to mention 200 rounds fired at an unarmed suspect.

That was from the earlier gunfight, the one where Tamerlan Tsarnaev died, where they most definitely were armed.


Look it up, the reports are clear he was pulled from the boat unarmed.  Being armed earlier in the evening does not constitute being armed when arrested.
 
2013-05-07 02:25:08 PM

MythDragon: Push the tab near the bottom. You're welcome criminals. Now please send me a portion of your future gains in the form of TF subscriptions


I'm going to join the USDA's office just to see if I can charge you with felony murder, or at least aiding and abetting.  And I think they also get free beef, so that's an added benefit.
 
2013-05-07 02:25:22 PM

Theaetetus: Magorn: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

yep and rightfully charged with Murder One, because if someone dies as a direct consequence of your action while you are in the commission of a Felony, thanks to the Felony Murder Rule, it's exactly the same legally as if you intentionally killed them yourself

Someone didn't read the article or the thread. :P


very true.  up to speed now
 
2013-05-07 02:26:25 PM

Theaetetus: Nope: (i) although you're a direct cause, you're not the proximate cause - i.e. it's not a reasonable and foreseeable result of robbing a bank;


I wouldn't say that one cop being so incredibly poorly trained as to shoot another cop is "a reasonable and foreseeable result" of... anything. I expect professionals to act like it. I know, silly.

and (ii) (in many states) felony murder must be a killing done in furtherance of the crime, like killing a guard, cop, or a cashier.'

One cop killing another cop doesn't meet that definition.
 
2013-05-07 02:26:57 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Nope. It's not hard to find, if you care to find it. I doubt you do, and I'm too lazy today to do it for you.


actually, you are making the claim, it is your job to provide the source for your information.  Until you do, we will just assume you are a lying piece of shiat with a political agenda.
 
2013-05-07 02:29:29 PM

monoski: Wolf_Blitzer: monoski: Theaetetus: VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)

On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.

Not to mention 200 rounds fired at an unarmed suspect.

That was from the earlier gunfight, the one where Tamerlan Tsarnaev died, where they most definitely were armed.

Look it up, the reports are clear he was pulled from the boat unarmed.  Being armed earlier in the evening does not constitute being armed when arrested.


Yes he was pulled from the boat unarmed, but I haven't read anything credible saying the boat was fired upon when he was apprehended. Just some eyewitness reports of gunshots which were probably the flashbangs the police used. If someone knows otherwise please show me.
 
2013-05-07 02:30:14 PM

fredklein: One cop killing another cop doesn't meet that definition.


Again, I can only use New York as an example but our statute specifically says the murder has to be committed by "another participant" of the crime. So a cop shooting another cop, or even a cop who accidentally kills a civilian, does not trigger the FM rule.
 
2013-05-07 02:33:11 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Hearing a gunshot does not mean every officer who hears the bang is to unload his entire stash of ammo in the general direction of the sound.


And yet that seems to happen with surprising regularity.

Lenny_da_Hog: If you don't know what's going on, don't shoot a gun. If you don't have an authorized target, don't shoot a gun


That's why civilians* tend to have a lower failure rate. They tend to hold their fire longer.

They also tend to not be the one initiating the confrontation. The 'identify the bad guy' game difficulty goes down pretty fast when you're reacting instead of acting. The bad guy is the one shooting at you.
 
2013-05-07 02:34:15 PM

maddogdelta: Until you do, we will just assume you are a lying piece of shiat with a political agenda.


Go for it. I've got about as much invested in this thread as I'm going to, and care about your opinion of me about as much as you care about mine.
 
2013-05-07 02:35:02 PM
Duh. I heard them say it was blue on blue over the scanner that night.
 
2013-05-07 02:36:11 PM

fredklein: Theaetetus: Nope: (i) although you're a direct cause, you're not the proximate cause - i.e. it's not a reasonable and foreseeable result of robbing a bank;

I wouldn't say that one cop being so incredibly poorly trained as to shoot another cop is "a reasonable and foreseeable result" of... anything. I expect professionals to act like it. I know, silly.

and (ii) (in many states) felony murder must be a killing done in furtherance of the crime, like killing a guard, cop, or a cashier.'

One cop killing another cop doesn't meet that definition.


It wasn't what I was asked, which was whether a bank manager shooting his wife would qualify, so take your "not cops derp" objection and shove it.

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.
 
2013-05-07 02:36:52 PM

2wolves: So much for "trained professionals."

So. Let's talk about arming teachers again.


Or teaching Archers.
 
2013-05-07 02:37:48 PM

Wolf_Blitzer: monoski: Wolf_Blitzer: monoski: Theaetetus: VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)

On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.

Not to mention 200 rounds fired at an unarmed suspect.

That was from the earlier gunfight, the one where Tamerlan Tsarnaev died, where they most definitely were armed.

Look it up, the reports are clear he was pulled from the boat unarmed.  Being armed earlier in the evening does not constitute being armed when arrested.

Yes he was pulled from the boat unarmed, but I haven't read anything credible saying the boat was fired upon when he was apprehended. Just some eyewitness reports of gunshots which were probably the flashbangs the police used. If someone knows otherwise please show me.


www.bellenews.com
Those aren't barnacles.
 
2013-05-07 02:38:27 PM

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.


Even better, you are an unarmed lookout while your partner is robbing the store. The clerk grabs your partner's gun and shoots him dead. The clerk has no charges, justifiable self defense. You are charged with, yes, felony murder of your partner in crime.

/not sure if applicable in all, but at least in some states with felony murder laws
 
2013-05-07 02:38:58 PM

Theaetetus: Wolf_Blitzer: monoski: Wolf_Blitzer: monoski: Theaetetus: VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)

On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.

Not to mention 200 rounds fired at an unarmed suspect.

That was from the earlier gunfight, the one where Tamerlan Tsarnaev died, where they most definitely were armed.

Look it up, the reports are clear he was pulled from the boat unarmed.  Being armed earlier in the evening does not constitute being armed when arrested.

Yes he was pulled from the boat unarmed, but I haven't read anything credible saying the boat was fired upon when he was apprehended. Just some eyewitness reports of gunshots which were probably the flashbangs the police used. If someone knows otherwise please show me.

[www.bellenews.com image 634x843]
Those aren't barnacles.


I stand corrected. Cheers!
 
2013-05-07 02:39:43 PM

rcw00: 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.

Even better, you are an unarmed lookout while your partner is robbing the store. The clerk grabs your partner's gun and shoots him dead. The clerk has no charges, justifiable self defense. You are charged with, yes, felony murder of your partner in crime.

/not sure if applicable in all, but at least in some states with felony murder laws


Just some. Some states have narrowed the rule to exclude killings by non-parties or killings made opposing commission of or flight from the crime.
 
2013-05-07 02:40:37 PM

fredklein: One cop killing another cop doesn't meet that definition.


look, whether the entire Boston clusterfark is an example of proud incompetence isn't the point (it was)

the shootout was directly part of the crime(s) committed, and if--hypothetically--Officer Friendly Fire had indeed died, the surviving terror bro should be charged with felony murder

prosecutors do overstep their the letter of the law sometimes (oftenish) when bringing charges, but that would not be the case here

and felony murder statutes don't give police the free reign to just randomly shoot someone deliberately, probably not even recklessly, but negligence...i think that may be on the safe side of the blue line

we could discuss the difference between the letter of the law and its application, and i'm sure somebody will make those points clearly, coherently and thoughtfully in this thread before it closes....
 
2013-05-07 02:40:52 PM

maddogdelta: Wolf_Blitzer: That's like trusting a pilot to fly a plane because he "looks like an alright guy".

Or like handing over the pilot's seat to a kid with 10 yours in MS Flight Simulator...


MS Flight Sim used to count as actual hours at the controls.

It might still.
 
2013-05-07 02:41:10 PM
"There's always a fjord"

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-05-07 02:41:16 PM
From what I have learned from Fark threads about normal citizens and cops:
1) your typical concealed carrier will have way more range time than your typical cop
2) because of more range time, your typical concealed carrier will be a crack shot compared to a cop

Therefore, to prevent innocent people getting hit in a shootout, just get rid of all cops and make it mandatory that every US citizen (that is a non-felon) conceal carry.

/amirite?
 
2013-05-07 02:41:21 PM

Aarontology: Would I, as a citizen, be immune from the consequences like the cop who shot the other cop, if I happened to be passing by a shootout, decided to use my CCR rights to aid the cops, but accidentally ended up shooting one of them or an innocent bystander?


If they ask you to assist, you're probably fine.

If you just whip out a gun during a police shootout, you'll probably be shot.
 
2013-05-07 02:41:41 PM

Cork on Fork: Again, I can only use New York as an example but our statute specifically says the murder has to be committed by "another participant" of the crime. So a cop shooting another cop, or even a cop who accidentally kills a civilian, does not trigger the FM rule.


glad I only had to take the NY bar exam once (and that I don't work criminal law)
 
2013-05-07 02:42:21 PM
 
2013-05-07 02:43:09 PM

Aarontology: Would I, as a citizen, be immune from the consequences like the cop who shot the other cop, if I happened to be passing by a shootout, decided to use my CCR rights to aid the cops, but accidentally ended up shooting one of them or an innocent bystander?


No, those rules are for cops, not little people.
 
2013-05-07 02:45:33 PM

VegasVinnie: You can color me unimpressed.  Three hundred outgoing rounds in an attempt to kill a couple of idiots - and they only manage to partially succeed because one kid runs over the other as he drives away.  Throw in shooting your own guy and I'd say that was a pretty big failure overall.  Plus, another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast) that has one unarmed teenager inside, and they still failed to kill him.  That's five hundred bullets spent trying to kill two morons and only managing to kill one by luck.  I am truly amazed they didn't manage to kill any other Boston residents.  This inept, bumbling execution squad behavior we've seen here and with Dorner is really starting to get old.


Yea, I remember drinking somewhere the night they whole boat thing went down and asking "what the fark are they shooting at, they better have like 10 ten bodies when they're done"... then the kid comes out of the boat. Alive!
 
2013-05-07 02:45:55 PM

PsyLord: From what I have learned from Fark threads about normal citizens and cops:
1) your typical concealed carrier will have way more range time than your typical cop
2) because of more range time, your typical concealed carrier will be a crack shot compared to a cop

Therefore, to prevent innocent people getting hit in a shootout, just get rid of all cops and make it mandatory that every US citizen (that is a non-felon) conceal carry.

/amirite?


I find it amusing that some people think that shooting at a range or shooting beer cans in a field is the same as shooting at an armed suspect that is shooting at you.
 
2013-05-07 02:47:25 PM
Well at least someone in the Boston PD can always get a job with the LAPD if things don't work out.
 
2013-05-07 02:50:03 PM
When will someone invent the butt gun? So you can fire at your enemies while you run away. In situations like those, it's easy to squeeze off a few rounds.
 
2013-05-07 02:50:11 PM

ongbok: PsyLord: From what I have learned from Fark threads about normal citizens and cops:
1) your typical concealed carrier will have way more range time than your typical cop
2) because of more range time, your typical concealed carrier will be a crack shot compared to a cop

Therefore, to prevent innocent people getting hit in a shootout, just get rid of all cops and make it mandatory that every US citizen (that is a non-felon) conceal carry.

/amirite?

I find it amusing that some people think that shooting at a range or shooting beer cans in a field is the same as shooting at an armed suspect that is shooting at you.


At some of the better police and civillian acadamys they actually get real live armed felons and release them onto a 10 acre cityscape that the students have to make it through before graduation.
 
2013-05-07 02:52:08 PM

insano: 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.


So now I want to become a cop and wait for some jackass to pull a knife on me or something, then I'll get to mow down an entire bingo hall full of people and hey - not my fault! :D

Why is it that we can't hold responsible the people who are ACTUALLY responsible?
=Smidge=
 
2013-05-07 02:52:58 PM

doyner: I realize that I don't have a GED in Law


You are awarded that when you begin your Fark account. Along with your GED in medicine, political science, the arts, etc. Just being on Fark makes you an expert on any conceivable subject. Stretch your wings, good Doctor, and soar with the eagles.
 
2013-05-07 02:53:15 PM

Smidge204: insano: 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.

So now I want to become a cop and wait for some jackass to pull a knife on me or something, then I'll get to mow down an entire bingo hall full of people and hey - not my fault! :D

Why is it that we can't hold responsible the people who are ACTUALLY responsible?
=Smidge=


Because that would be personal responsibility.  Can't have that, instead we sue the bars when some jackass drinks too much and kills someone.
 
2013-05-07 02:57:49 PM

Snuffybud: The Muthaship: doyner: I realize that I don't have a GED in Law, but I seem to remember that murder requires a death to occur.

Correct.  I didn't read the article, but I thought they said in the initial reports that an MIT campus cop got killed.

Even if you didn't rtfa, the headline here is "The MBTA Transit Police officer that was shot by the Boston terrorists was actually shot by other cops. Oops". Kinda a clue there.


Now we are expected to at least read the headline before commenting? What is this place turning into??
 
2013-05-07 02:57:57 PM
Uh, let's remember the cops believed the two men had already blown up a couple hundred people, killed several and just finished shooting a university policeman in the face until he died.

I can understand them not following their training to the letter.
 
2013-05-07 03:02:16 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: A guy who carries has several key differences from the police. They made a decision to carry, and know that requires a lot of responsibility.


ROFL.

Oh wait you are serious

Dies of laughter.

/well figuratively, otherwise I wouldn't still be typ
 
2013-05-07 03:03:13 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-07 03:04:39 PM
Finally, someone found a way to shiat on the cops in Boston.
I knew Fark would not stand for praise for any cops.
 
2013-05-07 03:12:25 PM

doyner: The Muthaship: Felony murder.

sentex: Wrong.  Felony Murder Rule


FTFA: "Donahue is doing fine."

I realize that I don't have a GED in Law, but I seem to remember that murder requires a death to occur.


I could be wrong but it seems I read something once about an accomplice dying during the commission of a felony and the surviving felon being charged with the murder of his own accomplice. I think this little coward would be crushed if he were to be charged with his brother's murder.
 
2013-05-07 03:12:35 PM

Begoggle: Finally, someone found a way to shiat on the cops in Boston.
I knew Fark would not stand for praise for any cops.


Yeah. To hell with actually analyzing what happened. We need more infallible heros in uniforms.
 
2013-05-07 03:13:23 PM
static.greatbigcanvas.com

/Somebody missed the memo
 
2013-05-07 03:14:10 PM

brantgoose: I was wondering why a couple of guys said in news reports to be unarmed, which is to say  without guns, would shoot a random university campus cop for no apparent reason.

Now it makes some sense.

Oops! Our bad!

The only way to protect America from terrorists without guns is cops without guns. Arm the police with pressure cookers. They blow up spontaneous all the time, it is true, but apparently they must be added to the list of things that free people with massive arms and ammo stockpiles can not have for their own safety, like shampoo bottles that hold more than 3 oz., and shoes, and box cutters, and nail clippers., and those tiny little screwdrivers that you get in eyeglass repair kits and that look like accessories for Do It Yourself Barbie.


Different cop. And the fleeing suspects were heavily armed. Nothing in this post makes sense.
 
2013-05-07 03:17:07 PM

maddogdelta: doyner:


Remember this guy?  He didn't die of a heart attack while banging a hooker in Cleveland...
[media1.policymic.com image 325x205]


I've seen too many episodes of "Family Guy'.

/shudder.
 
2013-05-07 03:17:40 PM

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.


Sadly it does little to encourage proper marksmanship on the part of the police. They can simply pull an Arab spray and pray and get away with it. I guess thats why there are so many cases of police shooting bystanders...they have zero reason to be accurate.

Armed civilians on the other hand are held to the perfection standard...we had best hit our target, and only our target, because we are on the line for any injuries caused. Case in point the Oregon mall shooting last year...an armed civilian had the shooter in his sights, yet held his fire because of people in the background.
 
2013-05-07 03:20:09 PM

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.
 
2013-05-07 03:24:55 PM
There was an armed robber that someone slipped out the back and called the police on, while said robber was in action at a convenience store.  The nearest police officer was in the process of responding when they ran a red light and t-boned someone.  Two of the people in the car that got hit died.  The armed robber was eventually caught, and charged with two counts of murder.
 
2013-05-07 03:25:03 PM
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).
 
2013-05-07 03:28:58 PM

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.
 
2013-05-07 03:37:36 PM

JK47: Aarontology: Would I, as a citizen, be immune from the consequences like the cop who shot the other cop, if I happened to be passing by a shootout, decided to use my CCR rights to aid the cops, but accidentally ended up shooting one of them or an innocent bystander?


In general your privilege to exercise deadly force in self defense is limited to situations in which you were the target of force threatening serious or deadly bodily harm.  You can, I believe, exercise this right if someone else would be so privileged (e.g. defending another who is being threatened).  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.


Ah, but if the cops start shooting at you after you start shooting the bad guy and manage to hit each other then, who gets charged in that case?
 
2013-05-07 03:38:26 PM
Question is, who shot first?

insidepulse.com
 
2013-05-07 03:38:34 PM
Where is the mainstream media calling about the lack of training where police officers shoot each other or innocent civilians instead of the actual suspect.  Oh, they have a badge so it is okay. *crickets*
 
2013-05-07 03:39:28 PM

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

Fascinating.


Yep. If you commit a crime and someone dies in the course of that crime, even if you just get in a traffic accident or something, guess what? You're charged with murder now.
 
2013-05-07 03:40:03 PM
But what if I fire two shots and one of them goes into orbit and the other strikes a man dead. Then I am found not guilty because of a technicality. Then the guy is found to have been faking his death and the other bullet comes back down and really kills him?
 
2013-05-07 03:41:55 PM
I dunno.

This whole thing just reminds me about even though we want to know what happened RIGHT NOW, as soon as it's occurring, and love to jump to conclusions based on whatever is immediately seen, reported, or guessed, over time (and only over time) do enough facts come out to let us have a more complete picture.

I guess I should chalk it up to human nature.
 
2013-05-07 03:44:58 PM

bongmiester: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 543x294]


"Fire!"
"BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG*
"Did we hit him?"
"WHAT?!
"I SAID, DID WE HIT HIM?!"
"WHAT?"
"HEY, DO YOU GUYS KNOW IF WE HIT HIM?!"
"WHAT?!"

[futurama-friendly-fire-robots.jpg]
 
2013-05-07 03:46:36 PM

ideamaster: Where is the mainstream media calling about the lack of training where police officers shoot each other or innocent civilians instead of the actual suspect.  Oh, they have a badge so it is okay. *crickets*


No amount of training is going to prepare for a situation when you are in a shootout with somebody.
 
2013-05-07 03:47:41 PM

Theaetetus: Wolf_Blitzer: monoski: Wolf_Blitzer: monoski: Theaetetus: VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)

On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.

Not to mention 200 rounds fired at an unarmed suspect.

That was from the earlier gunfight, the one where Tamerlan Tsarnaev died, where they most definitely were armed.

Look it up, the reports are clear he was pulled from the boat unarmed.  Being armed earlier in the evening does not constitute being armed when arrested.

Yes he was pulled from the boat unarmed, but I haven't read anything credible saying the boat was fired upon when he was apprehended. Just some eyewitness reports of gunshots which were probably the flashbangs the police used. If someone knows otherwise please show me.

[www.bellenews.com image 634x843]
Those aren't barnacles.


Asian Longhorn Beatles?
hyg.ipm.illinois.edu
 
2013-05-07 03:50:06 PM

trappedspirit: But what if I fire two shots and one of them goes into orbit and the other strikes a man dead. Then I am found not guilty because of a technicality. Then the guy is found to have been faking his death and the other bullet comes back down and really kills him?


Wasn't that the plot of that Ashley Juggs movie?  Double Impact?
 
2013-05-07 03:50:34 PM
Well amereican's were famous for bombing,shooting their allies in WW2 and WW1 so what's the difference with cops
 
2013-05-07 03:52:23 PM
Just another example of why cops should not have guns.
 
2013-05-07 03:52:47 PM

xria: Noticeably F.A.T.: A guy who carries has several key differences from the police. They made a decision to carry, and know that requires a lot of responsibility.

ROFL.

Oh wait you are serious

Dies of laughter.

/well figuratively, otherwise I wouldn't still be typ


Believe what you want, but the numbers bear me out. Look at how many people carry, and how often they don't kill anyone. If they were as bad as you seem to think, the streets would quite literally be running with blood. I know you want to imagine that 'most everyone with a gun is a slack-jawed moran who can't reholster his weapon without shooting another piece off his already small pud, but if that was true you'd have already been killed.
 
2013-05-07 03:54:07 PM

Aarontology: Would I, as a citizen, be immune from the consequences like the cop who shot the other cop, if I happened to be passing by a shootout, decided to use my CCR rights to aid the cops, but accidentally ended up shooting one of them or an innocent bystander?



What the hell does Creadence Clearwater Revival has to do with this is beyond me.
 
2013-05-07 03:56:57 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: Believe what you want, but the numbers bear me out. Look at how many people carry, and how often they don't kill anyone.


You have not provided any numbers. YOU HAVE NOT BACKED UP YOUR CLAIMS AT ALL.

/the numbers my ass
 
2013-05-07 04:04:13 PM

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.
 
2013-05-07 04:06:07 PM

rwfan: Theaetetus: Wolf_Blitzer: monoski: Wolf_Blitzer: monoski: Theaetetus: VegasVinnie: another 200 rounds shot at a boat (on land and not really moving very fast)

On the contrary... At roughly 41 degrees N, that boat was moving about 785 miles per hour. Frankly, it's impressive that they were able to get off 200 rounds while it was in range.

Not to mention 200 rounds fired at an unarmed suspect.

That was from the earlier gunfight, the one where Tamerlan Tsarnaev died, where they most definitely were armed.

Look it up, the reports are clear he was pulled from the boat unarmed.  Being armed earlier in the evening does not constitute being armed when arrested.

Yes he was pulled from the boat unarmed, but I haven't read anything credible saying the boat was fired upon when he was apprehended. Just some eyewitness reports of gunshots which were probably the flashbangs the police used. If someone knows otherwise please show me.

[www.bellenews.com image 634x843]
Those aren't barnacles.

Asian Longhorn Beatles?
[hyg.ipm.illinois.edu image 550x405]



While it's my understanding the cops did indeed fire that night, what you're seeing in that picture are not bullett holes.  Ditto on the beatles.
 
2013-05-07 04:08:12 PM

Warlordtrooper: They acted like jack booted thugs barging into peoples homes.


And in the end the they got him after the lock down because some citizen went outside and saw some blood on his boat.  So he calls it into the cops and look what he go for being a good citizen.  A shot up boat.  Makes me want to call the cops.
 
2013-05-07 04:09:16 PM

LasersHurt: You have not provided any numbers. YOU HAVE NOT BACKED UP YOUR CLAIMS AT ALL.


Assuming I cared enough to link them, would you believe anything else I gave you, or would you just dismiss the source?

/Citing anything on Fark, especially in a gun thread, is an exercise in futility.
 
2013-05-07 04:10:53 PM

Liinda: I could be wrong but it seems I read something once about an accomplice dying during the commission of a felony and the surviving felon being charged with the murder of his own accomplice. I think this little coward would be crushed if he were to be charged with his brother's murder


That's why they can charge him with felony murder.  He did run over the guy, after all...
 
2013-05-07 04:11:44 PM

LasersHurt: Noticeably F.A.T.: Believe what you want, but the numbers bear me out. Look at how many people carry, and how often they don't kill anyone.

You have not provided any numbers. YOU HAVE NOT BACKED UP YOUR CLAIMS AT ALL.

/the numbers my ass


 The same study concluded that Texas CHL holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime.
 
2013-05-07 04:12:10 PM

R.A.Danny: They'll be charged with the murder, which they deserve. There wouldn't be a killing if they weren't around.


So you have criminal liability for anything the authorities care to do while hunting you down. Fascinating. Have you adopted much else from the penal code of Stalinist Russia?
 
2013-05-07 04:13:42 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: LasersHurt: You have not provided any numbers. YOU HAVE NOT BACKED UP YOUR CLAIMS AT ALL.

Assuming I cared enough to link them, would you believe anything else I gave you, or would you just dismiss the source?

/Citing anything on Fark, especially in a gun thread, is an exercise in futility.


So you've gone from "the numbers clearly show this" to "I have no numbers and have shown nothing, but I'm STILL right!"


R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: Noticeably F.A.T.: Believe what you want, but the numbers bear me out. Look at how many people carry, and how often they don't kill anyone.

You have not provided any numbers. YOU HAVE NOT BACKED UP YOUR CLAIMS AT ALL.

/the numbers my ass

 The same study concluded that Texas CHL holders were always less likely to commit any particular type of crime than the general population, and overall were 13 times less likely to commit any crime.


His claim was that the average civilian gun owner has more training and practice time than the average cop. I've asked him to prove this several times. This has nothing to do with crime rates.
 
2013-05-07 04:15:40 PM

LasersHurt: His claim was that the average civilian gun owner has more training and practice time than the average cop. I've asked him to prove this several times. This has nothing to do with crime rates.


I missed that in this novella and context was no friend of mine.
 
2013-05-07 04:16:06 PM

2 grams: rwfan: Theaetetus:[www.bellenews.com image 634x843]
Those aren't barnacles.

Asian Longhorn Beatles?
[hyg.ipm.illinois.edu image 550x405]

While it's my understanding the cops did indeed fire that night, what you're seeing in that picture are not bullett holes.  Ditto on the beatles.


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.netWhat the FBI individually tagging multiple "beetle holes" of varying calibers in the center of mass of the boat may look like.
 
2013-05-07 04:16:23 PM

R.A.Danny: LasersHurt: His claim was that the average civilian gun owner has more training and practice time than the average cop. I've asked him to prove this several times. This has nothing to do with crime rates.

I missed that in this novella and context was no friend of mine.


Yeah that'll happen, these threads move fast.
 
2013-05-07 04:16:53 PM
Wherever there's a cop shooting a rent-a-cop, I'll be there, too
 
2013-05-07 04:17:45 PM

medius: Cork on Fork: Again, I can only use New York as an example but our statute specifically says the murder has to be committed by "another participant" of the crime. So a cop shooting another cop, or even a cop who accidentally kills a civilian, does not trigger the FM rule.

glad I only had to take the NY bar exam once (and that I don't work criminal law)


After I took that exam I said that pass or fail I was not taking it again. Thankfully I never had to revisit that statement.

And criminal law is where it's at (for me, at least). Never gets boring.
 
2013-05-07 04:19:42 PM
There's a whole lot of legal things going on here, like Habeas corpus, Double Indemnity, Double Jeopardy, Stand Your Ground, and the Magna Carta.
 
2013-05-07 04:34:13 PM

LasersHurt: So you've gone from "the numbers clearly show this" to "I have no numbers and have shown nothing, but I'm STILL right!"


I have numbers. I'm just not bothering to give them to you.
 
2013-05-07 04:40:10 PM

bizzwire: jeez...if he's only been armed, then he wouldn't have gotten shot.


Right-o !   And because he wasn't able to prevent it, nobody should be able to have one!
 
2013-05-07 04:40:46 PM

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.
 
2013-05-07 04:42:00 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: LasersHurt: So you've gone from "the numbers clearly show this" to "I have no numbers and have shown nothing, but I'm STILL right!"

I have numbers. I'm just not bothering to give them to you.


lol
 
2013-05-07 04:43:48 PM

LasersHurt: lol


I'm just as amused.
 
2013-05-07 04:44:03 PM

ongbok: ideamaster: Where is the mainstream media calling about the lack of training where police officers shoot each other or innocent civilians instead of the actual suspect.  Oh, they have a badge so it is okay. *crickets*

No amount of training is going to prepare for a situation when you are in a shootout with somebody.


http://www.opposingviews.com/i/brady-campaign-obama-agrees-on-danger s- of-concealed-carry

"I am not in favor of concealed weapons.  I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations."  -President Obama

So again the government and the media are holding lawful citizens to unbalanced standards.  I blame youtube...
 
2013-05-07 04:45:54 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: LasersHurt: lol

I'm just as amused.


I can't imagine how. But if it makes you happy to just tell people you're right, and you could prove it, but you won't  - you go right ahead, honey.
 
2013-05-07 04:46:37 PM

ideamaster: So again the government and the media are holding lawful citizens to unbalanced standards.


What does anything you've said or has been posted in the thread have to do with Concealed Carry?
 
2013-05-07 04:48:32 PM

LasersHurt: I can't imagine how. But if it makes you happy to just tell people you're right, and you could prove it, but you won't - you go right ahead, honey.


It does kill the time.
 
2013-05-07 05:02:20 PM

LasersHurt: What does anything you've said or has been posted in the thread have to do with Concealed Carry?


Trained police officers shoot innocent civilians/co-workers (Boston, LAPD, etc).   And yet sheeple panic about regular people doing it and cite that as a reason that the general public shouldn't be armed.  You should work on your reading comprehension.
 
2013-05-07 05:03:57 PM

ideamaster: LasersHurt: What does anything you've said or has been posted in the thread have to do with Concealed Carry?

Trained police officers shoot innocent civilians/co-workers (Boston, LAPD, etc).   And yet sheeple panic about regular people doing it and cite that as a reason that the general public shouldn't be armed.  You should work on your reading comprehension.


You just made up some shiat unrelated to the thread to feel threatened about, then defend? Good job. You can stop helping now.
 
2013-05-07 05:21:02 PM

The Muthaship: Aarontology: The Muthaship: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

Yep.  As he should be.

Not if he wasn't the one who actually shot the cop, he shouldn't.

Felony murder.



So, if I get mugged and I happen to be armed, I can shoot whoever I want and the mugger takes the heat?  Sweet...
 
2013-05-07 05:24:29 PM

2 grams: Ditto on the beatles.


blogs-images.forbes.com

#1 with a bullet/'appiness is a warm gun
 
2013-05-07 05:41:33 PM

The Muthaship: Aarontology: The Muthaship: Aarontology: Don't worry. They'll still be charged with shooting that cop.

Yep.  As he should be.

Not if he wasn't the one who actually shot the cop, he shouldn't.

Felony murder.



Ummm, murder?  The cop survived.  If a plane crashes on the border between the U.S. and Canada, where do you bury the survivors?
 
2013-05-07 05:46:15 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.


Here you go: LINK.
 
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 229 of 229 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report