Its already been well established the cop's were justified I support them 110%    

 

 

 pointless to keep saying they weren't

 

 

Love how the anti supporter's keep seeing/ making shit up ( really bdaly to )  in the video to sway support to their side   2 examples 1.) never stuck his hands out the window to surrender 2.)  they never shot at him till he was at the back of the car clearly not listening to th ecop's as he was still an active and hostile threat not knowing his intent or action's etc they cop's were fully justified

 

Investgation will reveal so

 

 

 

 

Totally, you are from a different place with different rules, and a much different situation. Its like growing up with your parents liking a football team, and you follow suite. It's how people are raised and where they grow up. I can understand and respect that. Here, there is just to much crime involving violence and firearms to disarm our police now. Like you said, for as long as you can remember cops weren't armed, here its the opposite, since our founding our police have been armed, so changing either for your country or mine wouldnt make much sense. I see where its hard for you to see the justification of that shooting, as I find it hard to believe you guys get through with no guns in your everyday patrol officers. So i understand where your coming from.

 

I have a new found respect for you now. Simply because we now understand each other's views. I apologise for losing my head, so to speak, on previous pages.

Its already been well established the cop's were justified I support them 110%    

 

 

 pointless to keep saying they weren't

Claiming it won't make it so. Coming from the person who literally said that it was justified because of "facts and events" (which is actually the precise ABSENCE of an argument), you might want to start reconsidering your authoritative "this conversation is over, we all agree" sum-ups. They're wrong.

EDIT: How do you know he was being shot at as soon as the vehicle crashed? That looked pretty much like they only started to shooting him after he got out of the car.

If you look closely when he exits the car, you can see impacts on the door and on the hood of the car. This is often seen in many other chases that end in gunfire.

Its already been well established the cop's were justified I support them 110%

 

 

Love how the anti supporter's keep seeing/ making shit up ( really bdaly to )  in the video to sway support to their side   2 examples 1.) never stuck his hands out the window to surrender 2.)  they never shot at him till he was at the back of the car clearly not listening to th ecop's as he was still an active and hostile threat not knowing his intent or action's etc they cop's were fully justified

 

Investgation will reveal so

No, it hasn't been established. That's what you're claiming, despite failing to show any sort of proof.

 

I like how you all keep repeating the same lie. "He ran away from the police immediately after exiting his car," despite slowly walking towards the police at the back of his car, the exact opposite direction he would go if he attempted to run.

 

Anyways, regarding what you are claiming 1)Both hands were stuck out just before getting out of car. 2)This is when you can see bullet impacts on the door and the hood of the car.

 

And really? You're telling me that the police are going to investigate themselves and clear themselves of any wrongdoing, completely because what they say is the absolute truth and they would never lie to make themselves look better? Say it ain't so!

I just do not agree with the fact that regular police officers are allowed to carry guns. I am from Scotland and I was raised in a country where guns are a BIG NO. So while I cannot morally justify this in the slightest I do understand that it was a split second judgement, in my opinion, the wrong one. I heard something recently that the London Metropolitan Police Service shoot, on average, 2 live bullets a year (out-with the training grounds) so you can probably see why I do not agree with this as Britain has a low gun crime figure, compared to other countries. 

 

I do understand that America is facing a huge gun problem and evasive actions must be taken but I believe that if the Police cannot show, I am hesitant in using this word, maturity, then America will continue to face the gun problem. 

 

To have the authority to carry a gun in the British Police, you must have been in the Police Service for at least 4 years I believe and had an exemplary record. You are put through psychological tests and you are put through a vigorous 10 week training program which tests your every ability with a gun. Many officers who start the course eventually leave the training program as the simply cannot handle holding a firearm and possibly having to take a life. When a firearm officer in Britain fires his gun, he/she will have to justify every little detail of that shot. Example:

 Say you are a firearm officer and you  have been called in to help clear a plane that was taken over by terrorists and all passengers have been taken out of the area. You are slowly advancing up the aisle when you are confronted by and armed terrorist who starts firing at you with a pistol. He misses you with every shot and he starts to run away, you fire two shots at him. One hits him and the other hits a storage cupboard going through the thin wall. Now you have justify the shot which hit the terrorist. In court, they may see that he was running away and a shot should not be fired as he is not a threat to you, a taser shot would have sufficed. Now the shot that went through the cupboard may have hit someone who decided to take up an early hiding position and you may have just killed an unarmed civilian. Every little detail would be criticised in court very harshly.

So can you see why I may not agree with this now?

 

 

 

An armed society is a free society.

 

I carry a gun every day. I am not a police officer.

 

When I'm at work, I carry a handgun. When I'm out shopping, I carry a handgun. When I'm at home, I carry a handgun. I am never unarmed.

 

Any attempt to harm me or my loved ones will be met with immediate and swift deadly force. Any attempt to gain unauthorized entry to my home or vehicle will be met with immediate and swift deadly force.

 

Our nation is a lot different from yours. More civilians in my state carry guns daily than you have armed police officers. Our police officers get shot simply for being police officers, and you suggest that we disarm them?

 

 

 

 

If you look closely when he exits the car, you can see impacts on the door and on the hood of the car. This is often seen in many other chases that end in gunfire.

No, it hasn't been established. That's what you're claiming, despite failing to show any sort of proof.

 

I like how you all keep repeating the same lie. "He ran away from the police immediately after exiting his car," despite slowly walking towards the police at the back of his car, the exact opposite direction he would go if he attempted to run.

 

Anyways, regarding what you are claiming 1)Both hands were stuck out just before getting out of car. 2)This is when you can see bullet impacts on the door and the hood of the car.

 

And really? You're telling me that the police are going to investigate themselves and clear themselves of any wrongdoing, completely because what they say is the absolute truth and they would never lie to make themselves look better? Say it ain't so!

 In my opinion, the shooting was justified. As I said in my previous post, he posed a danger to officers and the public simply due to the fact that he's driving at an insane speed through city streets and endangering the lives of the public (traffic, pedestrians, ect). The man could have been drunk, a mentally ill person, a psychopath, angry rampage, which the cops would have to take into consideration with how aggressive this man is driving. I believe they felt that even after he crashed his car, he still posed  a severe threat to the public and themselves, so they took him down. Do i believe the shooting was justified? Absolutely. Do I believe it could have been handled differently? Absolutely. 

 In my opinion, the shooting was justified. As I said in my previous post, he posed a danger to officers and the public simply due to the fact that he's driving at an insane speed through city streets and endangering the lives of the public (traffic, pedestrians, ect). The man could have been drunk, a mentally ill person, a psychopath, angry rampage, which the cops would have to take into consideration with how aggressive this man is driving. I believe they felt that even after he crashed his car, he still posed  a severe threat to the public and themselves, so they took him down. Do i believe the shooting was justified? Absolutely. Do I believe it could have been handled differently? Absolutely. 

As I have pointed out on every page, when he left his car, he willingly gave up his weapon. The police knew he was drunk, because suspicion of DUI was what the initial traffic stop was for. Having just crashed into a vehicle at a high rate of speed, he would've been thinking less straight. In his mind, he probably thought he was giving up by slowly walking towards police with both hands visible. Despite the police not knowing his intentions, no danger was posed at the time of the shooting that warranted lethal force.

An armed society is a free society.

 

I carry a gun every day. I am not a police officer.

 

When I'm at work, I carry a handgun. When I'm out shopping, I carry a handgun. When I'm at home, I carry a handgun. I am never unarmed.

 

Any attempt to harm me or my loved ones will be met with immediate and swift deadly force. Any attempt to gain unauthorized entry to my home or vehicle will be met with immediate and swift deadly force.

 

Our nation is a lot different from yours. More civilians in my state carry guns daily than you have armed police officers. Our police officers get shot simply for being police officers, and you suggest that we disarm them?

That is something I just don't get. Why would you want to carry a gun? Are you that paranoid? It just confuses me, obviously I could never understand why you would want to because I don't know what crazy shit happens over there.

 

I am not suggesting the complete disarmament of the police force, it just baffles me that every time that there is a school shooting or something of the sort nothing is put in place to stop these such as tighter gun laws. 

 In my opinion, the shooting was justified. As I said in my previous post, he posed a danger to officers and the public simply due to the fact that he's driving at an insane speed through city streets and endangering the lives of the public (traffic, pedestrians, ect).  

But could a simple arrest not suffice for these officers rather than possibly killing him? You say he posed a danger, as has already been said many times, he was out his car. The damage was already done and I just don't see that shooting him was the right choice.

That is something I just don't get. Why would you want to carry a gun? Are you that paranoid? It just confuses me, obviously I could never understand why you would want to because I don't know what crazy shit happens over there.

 

I am not suggesting the complete disarmament of the police force, it just baffles me that every time that there is a school shooting or something of the sort nothing is put in place to stop these such as tighter gun laws. 

But could a simple arrest not suffice for these officers rather than possibly killing him? You say he posed a danger, as has already been said many times, he was out his car. The damage was already done and I just don't see that shooting him was the right choice.

 

Nothing put in place? I'm sorry, I just cannot grasp your line of thinking.

 

What's been put in place is the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

What needs to be done is let teachers carry guns.

 

Schools are generally "gun free zones," meaning that average people are not allowed to carry weapons in them.

 

List all the major shootings in the US over the last few decades. You'll find that almost all, if not ALL of them disallow the carrying of firearms. Tell me where the problem is.

 

A little sticker on the window that says, "No Guns Allowed" will not stop a child murderer from murdering children. The knowledge that any adult in that building may be carrying a firearm will stop him 99% of the time.

 

Why do I carry a gun? I've open carried since 19. Why? Because I want to go home every day. Shit happens, and I like to plan ahead. I may never need it, and I never hope to, but it's always there. I don't live in a bad area, and I don't visit them. I just prefer to be a watchdog, and not a sheep.

 

Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your home? A medical kit? If so, why? Are you paranoid?

 

If you'd like, we can have a private discussion on the topic.

 

In order to keep my post at least slightly relevant to the OP, I think the perp deserved to die, I think the officers were justified in the shooting. I will not speculate on what could have been done, because I wasn't there.

 

 

As I have pointed out on every page, when he left his car, he willingly gave up his weapon. The police knew he was drunk, because suspicion of DUI was what the initial traffic stop was for. Having just crashed into a vehicle at a high rate of speed, he would've been thinking less straight. In his mind, he probably thought he was giving up by slowly walking towards police with both hands visible. Despite the police not knowing his intentions, no danger was posed at the time of the shooting that warranted lethal force.

 

i have watched that video about 12-15 times in HD full screen  and you are  def seeing thing's that are not really there 

 

1.)  never stuck his hands out to surrender,-   what really happened opened his door  and right away started walking to the passenger side

 

2.)  at no point in the video  did he get out and give up his weapon  all they knew it coulda still been on him

 

3.) was not listening to the cop's order's and in fact was not walking to the police  to surrender at all was going  towards the passenger side of his car

 

4.) watch the vid from 5:10 on he does nothing of which you say he does 

Edited December 16, 201312 yr by K-9 police 9

I have a new found respect for you now. Simply because we now understand each other's views. I apologise for losing my head, so to speak, on previous pages.

 

The same goes for me, it gets heated.

As I have pointed out on every page, when he left his car, he willingly gave up his weapon. The police knew he was drunk, because suspicion of DUI was what the initial traffic stop was for. Having just crashed into a vehicle at a high rate of speed, he would've been thinking less straight. In his mind, he probably thought he was giving up by slowly walking towards police with both hands visible. Despite the police not knowing his intentions, no danger was posed at the time of the shooting that warranted lethal force.

 

 

But could a simple arrest not suffice for these officers rather than possibly killing him? You say he posed a danger, as has already been said many times, he was out his car. The damage was already done and I just don't see that shooting him was the right choice.

Well the suspicion of being drunk. They didn't know for sure. What IF, the man was mentally ill, or having a violent outburst for whatever reason. The carnage he caused may not have been over. Honestly, the police would have looked bad, if they let him run off and later killed a family in their house. Sure that's hypothetical, but you can't assume anything as a cop. Especially in LA. Again, I feel like the police could have handled it differently, however I feel it was a clean shoot.

 

I don't wanna come off as sounding like a gung-ho, trigger happy cop supporter, but I do feel the shooting was within the context of the law.

Nothing put in place? I'm sorry, I just cannot grasp your line of thinking.

 

What's been put in place is the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

What needs to be done is let teachers carry guns.

 

Schools are generally "gun free zones," meaning that average people are not allowed to carry weapons in them.

 

List all the major shootings in the US over the last few decades. You'll find that almost all, if not ALL of them disallow the carrying of firearms. Tell me where the problem is.

 

A little sticker on the window that says, "No Guns Allowed" will not stop a child murderer from murdering children. The knowledge that any adult in that building may be carrying a firearm will stop him 99% of the time.

 

Why do I carry a gun? I've open carried since 19. Why? Because I want to go home every day. Shit happens, and I like to plan ahead. I may never need it, and I never hope to, but it's always there. I don't live in a bad area, and I don't visit them. I just prefer to be a watchdog, and not a sheep.

 

Do you keep a fire extinguisher in your home? A medical kit? If so, why? Are you paranoid?

 

If you'd like, we can have a private discussion on the topic.

 

In order to keep my post at least slightly relevant to the OP, I think the perp deserved to die, I think the officers were justified in the shooting. I will not speculate on what could have been done, because I wasn't there.

But then if teachers start carrying guns then children will think it is normal to have a gun and will not solve anything. The fact that you can but a gun called 'My First Gun' or something along those lines is horrible. Why not make America a gun free zone? What is so hard to grasp about that idea? Having guns around small children as you are suggesting will have severe ramifications  by allowing children to believe that it is perfectly normal to use a firearm. That wont solve a thing. 

If you want to plan ahead then why not just take out life insurance, invest in self defence classes, or just stop thinking you have the right to take the law into your own hands. 

I do not keep any of those in my house apart from prescribed medication form a doctor. 

 

It like a child throwing stones at someone, you take away the stones and they stop don't they? Take away guns from the public and leave them with firearm officers.

Also the fact about saying someone deserved to die is disgusting. It is a vile attitude to have. Absolutely putrid. 

1.)  never stuck his hands out to surrender,-   what really happened opened his door  and right away started walking to the passenger side

 

 

 I was confused when rewatching it as well. It looks like he's dazed and just trying to push the door open. Not like he was trying to surrender.

The same goes for me, it gets heated.

It sure does haha!

A few of yous are saying that he just started walking round to the other side. He was juts in a high speed collision, he would be in shock at this time, not knowing what he done. Let me ask, have any of you been in a collision? I can tell you, it isn't nice and you definitely don't shoot out of a car walking knowing what you are doing. 

But then if teachers start carrying guns then children will think it is normal to have a gun and will not solve anything. The fact that you can but a gun called 'My First Gun' or something along those lines is horrible. Why not make America a gun free zone? What is so hard to grasp about that idea? Having guns around small children as you are suggesting will have severe ramifications  by allowing children to believe that it is perfectly normal to use a firearm. That wont solve a thing. 

If you want to plan ahead then why not just take out life insurance, invest in self defence classes, or just stop thinking you have the right to take the law into your own hands. 

I do not keep any of those in my house apart from prescribed medication form a doctor. 

 

It like a child throwing stones at someone, you take away the stones and they stop don't they? Take away guns from the public and leave them with firearm officers.

Also the fact about saying someone deserved to die is disgusting. It is a vile attitude to have. Absolutely putrid. 

 

Okay, first of all, IT IS normal to have guns. What is your issue with this? Children should be taught proper gun safety to ensure that accidents don't happen.

 

Take the law into my own hands? No, no, no. What it is is that I value my life over that of someone who wishes me ill. If someone stabs me for my wallet, I don't have time to wait for a cop. I'm going to handle it before it harms me.

 

Some people do deserve to die, and that, friend, is where we find the root of our disagreement. If you can't accept that evil exists in this world, and that evil people deserve to die, then you can never understand my side of things.

 

What I live everyday is called "Freedom," and unfortunately, you have never experienced that.

 

Take away the stones, they find the stones somewhere else. Do you honestly believe the things you're telling me?

 

One question for you, very seriously, why do you refuse to accept personal responsibility for your own safety?

i have watched that video about 12-15 times in HD full screen  and you are  def seeing thing's that are not really there 

 

1.)  never stuck his hands out to surrender,-   what really happened opened his door  and right away started walking to the passenger side

 

2.)  at no point in the video  did he get out and give up his weapon  all they knew it coulda still been on him

 

3.) was not listening to the cop's order's and in fact was not walking to the police  to surrender at all was going  towards the passenger side of his car

 

4.) watch the vid from 5:10 on he does nothing of which you say he does 

'>

How about this? Whether or not guns are normal is a cultural thing. TheMoneyMan, you're wrong when you say having guns is norma: In the UK it is very much NOT normal to have guns. Hell, in places in the US, it is not normal to have guns. The statement that no one in the UK has experienced freedom because they can't carry firearms is frankly a strawman for your own side (Ineffective Argument Technique #21: Invoke Poe's Law). Cool down, and stop assuming that every other person brings the same cultural assumptions as you do - that would be a very boring world.

At the same time, Urbane: In many places in the US, it is perfectly normal to have guns. I first fired a rifle when I was 10, at a summer camp. It's not a rare thing almost anywhere in the US to go to a range; where I live, it is unusual to carry, but firearms are not considered mystical things. You could never make the US a gun-free zone, any more than you could make the UK a tea-free zone.

MODERATOR NOTICE
Please get back on topic regarding the shooting. A gun control debate should have its own thread.

Okay, first of all, IT IS normal to have guns. What is your issue with this? Children should be taught proper gun safety to ensure that accidents don't happen.

 

Take the law into my own hands? No, no, no. What it is is that I value my life over that of someone who wishes me ill. If someone stabs me for my wallet, I don't have time to wait for a cop. I'm going to handle it before it harms me.

 

Some people do deserve to die, and that, friend, is where we find the root of our disagreement. If you can't accept that evil exists in this world, and that evil people deserve to die, then you can never understand my side of things.

 

What I live everyday is called "Freedom," and unfortunately, you have never experienced that.

 

Take away the stones, they find the stones somewhere else. Do you honestly believe the things you're telling me?

 

One question for you, very seriously, why do you refuse to accept personal responsibility for your own safety?

My issue is the line of thought you lot have about guns being normal, it is something I would never understand. 

Freedom isn't defined as having the right to own a firearm. 

 

I do accept responsibility for my own safety, I am sensible enough to go to rough areas and know to get myself out of a bad situation as quickly as possible. I have profound trust in the Scottish emergency services, who always act with extreme professionalism in their jobs and have the utmost respect for them and I have enough common sense to know what will bring harm to me and others and I avoid the situations. 

 

In my opinion, the American right to bear arms is the most stupid thing ever created.

 

One question for you, very seriously, are you the sort of person that, if stopped by the police on the street for carrying a gun, will disrupt their workings as they are enquiring about your gun?

 

EDIT: Sorry c13, didn't see what you said as I was writing my reply. Back on topic, I don't think that I could be convinced of this being justified.

Edited December 16, 201312 yr by UrbaneDegree18