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.

(Opposing Views)   Forget for a moment that this cop fired 41 times at an unarmed man sitting in a pickup truck that was stuck between two police cars. Let's consider for a moment the fact that 38 of those shots missed   (opposingviews.com) divider line 313
    More: Scary, Officer Tuter, patrol cars, Dallas County  
•       •       •

12543 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Nov 2013 at 10:31 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-14 12:48:57 AM

Frederf: EVERY time a cop says "he rammed me" or "he tried to run me over" it's because the person was trying to escape and the officer placed himself or his car in the way and/or deliberately caused the incident. Their cars are huge and they do not pay for them. It's the oldest trick to arrange the situation to accuse said person of "attacking a police officer" which bears extraordinary punishment and excuses any reaction.


Did you see the recent thread in which the cop killed a guy at the termination of a pursuit? The video starts with the driver stopping, then deliberately backing into the cop.

And doesn't it make sense that a person being pursued by the police would ram a police car if that is the only means of escaping? If the cop car wasn't in the way, the guy would just drive off. The cops don't block the guy's escape route as an excuse to kill him, they block his escape route to prevent him from escaping.

Yeah, cops that jump in front of a fleeing vehicle are creating the danger to themselves and that's inexcusable. However, it does not justify being intentionally run over by the bad guy.
 
2013-11-14 01:58:42 AM

Marcus Aurelius: Put cameras on every last one of them.


You'll end up with more cops in prison than black people.
 
2013-11-14 02:02:14 AM

Slaves2Darkness: Yes, yes it seems like a lot of bullets missed, except when you factor in he was using a pistol, was jumped up on adrenaline, and the guy had partial cover.

Anybody who has never fired a gun, much less a pistol, in a life or death situation where your adrenaline is making your heart want to come out of your chest and your hands are shaky would say that 41 round with 38 missing is bad marksmanship.


First off a car door is concealment not cover. It's not going to stop a bullet. Second, a moran who freaks out and starts wildly firing bullets all over the place in a populated area is exactly the type of person you want patrolling your neighborhood, right? Third, military training is the last thing cops need. A cop's primary training should be in how to de-escalate situations not how to best lay down covering fire.
 
2013-11-14 08:20:26 AM

Perpetuous Procrastination: Madbassist1: Perpetuous Procrastination: Yeah, I replied to the wrong person above - sue me.

You're still wrong about the legal definition of premeditation, intent, and murder.

Really?

with malice aforethought - originally carried its everyday meaning - a deliberate and premeditated (prior intent) killing of another motivated by ill will. Murder necessarily required that an appreciable time pass between the formation and execution of the intent to kill. The courts broadened the scope of murder by eliminating the requirement of actual premeditation and deliberation as well as true malice. All that was required for malice aforethought to exist is that the perpetrator act with one of the four states of mind that constitutes "malice."
The four states of mind recognized as constituting "malice" are:
1. Intent to kill
2. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or
4. Intent to commit a dangerous felony

Under state of mind (i), intent to kill, the deadly weapon rule applies. Thus, if the defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon or instrument against the victim, such use authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill.


I'm gonna have to disagree with you on this one, champ.

And you'd still be wrong. I find it highly amusing you're unable to comprehend not only the contextual difference between what you're quoting and what you're arguing in regards to the case at hand, but also failing to recognize the applicable part of the above definition (wherever the fark you pulled it from).

For the final time, since you're either intentionally being obtuse or you're just outright ignorant of criminal statutes: the intent to kill someone does not necessarily indicate premeditation. You can keep arguing until you're blue in the face that reloading a gun somehow, miraculously, defying all logic, common sense, and reasonable underst ...


You're a farking idiot, aren't you?Let me bold (once again, you moron) the important part. I even made it big for you (also again). farking nincompoop.
 
2013-11-14 12:25:43 PM

Shaddup: Aside from your law-breaking bretheren, you're the main reason the general public distrusts your ilk. We know the law and our rights better than those trusted to uphold/defend them.


So ridiculously true that it's downright pathetic.  On all points you made there.
 
2013-11-14 01:10:28 PM
Shaddup:  YOU stated with cop-like certainty that ANY MURDER charge be accompanied by the act of being premeditated otherwise it's manslaughter.

That's not what I said. That's how you intentionally misinterpreted what I said so you could support your misbelief that cops are stupid and evil. That's how most of these cop threads I post in usually end, and why I rarely take part in them any more. If you can't have a rational, honest discussion I see no sense in responding to you again. Good day sir.
 
2013-11-14 01:23:25 PM

CruiserTwelve: Murder requires premeditation.

 
2013-11-14 03:11:18 PM

Shaddup: YOU stated with cop-like certainty that ANY MURDER charge be accompanied by the act of being premeditated otherwise it's manslaughter. You're farking wrong. WAY WRONG.


CruiserTwelve: That's not what I said. That's how you intentionally misinterpreted what I said so you could support your misbelief that cops are stupid and evil


Gecko Gingrich: CruiserTwelve: Murder requires premeditation.


ZING!

Must be more of that special selective imagination/memory that cops have...
 
2013-11-14 03:26:51 PM

CruiserTwelve: That's not what I said.


You do realize that we can all read what you said, don't you?

/what a farking idiot.
 
2013-11-14 06:43:29 PM

JuggleGeek: You do realize that we can all read what you said, don't you?

/what a farking idiot.


I was speaking in generalities because different states have different elements in their statutory definition of murder. Shaddup chose to define my general statement in a very specific manner, which is quite obviously not how it was intended. Yes, in general, murder requires a higher level of intent than manslaughter. That's why they have different statutes to cover the different levels of intent. Murder generally requires some specific intent while manslaughter requires only general intent or even negligence. Obviously some states define this differently in their statutes, which is why I was speaking generally. Those that are unable or unwilling to understand these legal nuances might define my response as "YOU stated with cop-like certainty that ANY MURDER charge be accompanied by the act of being premeditated otherwise it's manslaughter." That's a misinterpretation, likely intentional in this case, of what I said.

This is what happens at the end of every one of these threads. I make a statement, people intentionally misinterpret it and go on a rant about how stupid cops are. I understand that some people can't hold an intelligent, rational discussion when cops are involved, so I learned long ago to stop posting in these threads. Once in awhile I fall into the trap again. Fortunately I'm capable of learning from my mistakes.

I've always been more than happy to engage others in intelligent discourse. When you, or others, decide to join me in such discourse I'll be glad to oblige you. However, this childish "gotcha" kind of conversation is pointless to both sides.
 
2013-11-14 06:46:54 PM

CruiserTwelve: I was speaking in generalities because blah, blah, blah...


I am willing to concede that you may have *meant* to say something else, as long as you are willing to concede that you didn't.
 
2013-11-14 07:30:35 PM

CruiserTwelve: That's how most of these cop threads I post in usually end, and why I rarely take part in them any more. If you can't have a rational, honest discussion I see no sense in responding to you again. Good day sir.


What a great excuse to weasel out of the conversation when the heat is on.
 
2013-11-14 08:56:49 PM

CruiserTwelve: Frederf: EVERY time a cop says "he rammed me" or "he tried to run me over" it's because the person was trying to escape and the officer placed himself or his car in the way and/or deliberately caused the incident. Their cars are huge and they do not pay for them. It's the oldest trick to arrange the situation to accuse said person of "attacking a police officer" which bears extraordinary punishment and excuses any reaction.

Did you see the recent thread in which the cop killed a guy at the termination of a pursuit? The video starts with the driver stopping, then deliberately backing into the cop.

And doesn't it make sense that a person being pursued by the police would ram a police car if that is the only means of escaping? If the cop car wasn't in the way, the guy would just drive off. The cops don't block the guy's escape route as an excuse to kill him, they block his escape route to prevent him from escaping.

Yeah, cops that jump in front of a fleeing vehicle are creating the danger to themselves and that's inexcusable. However, it does not justify being intentionally run over by the bad guy.


I'm not talking about what happens. I'm talking about the intent the police ascribe to the subject in hindsight. Police pursuits happen quickly and the "box in you in" maneuver happens so fast that escaping person happens to collide or come close to collision while intending to escape.

Police falsely report the intention as one of direct attack on the police. It's disingenuous when police claim that the subject intended to collide as an attack on police as a primary motivation.
 
Displayed 13 of 313 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report