1 hour ago, Kurzmahole said:

the officer was already shot at, though. how much longer is the police supposed to really wait and play it safe if someone stands within arms reach and shoots? it's not going to get better from there on out and that's just not how it works, the threat hasn't immediately seized just because gunfire has momentarily paused (for whatever reasons) and giving someone who's that reckless a chance to further barricade themselves or take more shots, idk, it's like contributing to an escalation. in any case i do think that people are too quick to pass harsh judgement on these type of split second decisions.

 

This all would be right if not for the wounded bystander. All situations have to be assessed separately, and in this particular situation I believe that the best solution was different. of course it's best seen afterwards, and it's always easier to judge when you have all the information.

All I see in this thread is a bunch of people Monday morning quarterbacking this officer. Sure we can sit back in our chairs at our computers and go over the scenario over and over and spend hours thinking about it but this officer had a split second to make a decision that could potentially end his life. Someone cracks a door open and sticks a gun out and starts shooting at me you are damn right I'm going to shoot back. "Gas guns don't sound like real guns so he should have known" - bullshit, there are real guns out there that are not as loud and there are suppressors out there that muffle gun shots. You want to talk about someone acting reckless in this situation? Try the guy who stuck a gas pistol out of a door and started firing blindly. He didn't know who was out there, he just assumed it was more people trying to harass him. The guy was responding to someone knocking on his door, the officer was responding to an actual threat.

My opinion: good shoot. It is unfortunate that a 17 year old girl was injured but the blame for that lies with the guy who decided to blindly fire a gas pistol at the police.

N/A

Edited November 14, 20178 yr by Account Deleted

On 6/4/2016 at 9:55 PM, l3ubba said:

All I see in this thread is a bunch of people Monday morning quarterbacking this officer. Sure we can sit back in our chairs at our computers and go over the scenario over and over and spend hours thinking about it but this officer had a split second to make a decision that could potentially end his life.

Yeah, not disagreeing he had to make a decision, what we're arguing is that he made the WRONG one. General motto of any police department? Serve and Protect. PROTECT. As in PROTECT the population, as ingrate as they might be, part of the job. Please tell me where's the protection part when you shoot blindly through a door and you know nothing about the situation inside. Yes, he decided to do that, and yes, it was a bad decision that should be punished, he is a shame to the police officers profession. In this kind of situation you're supposed to keep your self control and react to the situation accordingly, which did not happen there.

On 6/4/2016 at 9:55 PM, l3ubba said:

You want to talk about someone acting reckless in this situation? Try the guy who stuck a gas pistol out of a door and started firing blindly. He didn't know who was out there, he just assumed it was more people trying to harass him. The guy was responding to someone knocking on his door, the officer was responding to an actual threat.

The guy was not responding to someone knocking his door. He was responding to someone he had NO IDEA who they were, after he got harrassed, almost home-invaded, and with people rioting in front of his house. Police knocked without calling themselves out from the outside, which should be a standard IMO, the man thought he was threatened again by the same people and responded accordingly. I agree it was a stupid reaction, not denying that, but you say later that it was a good shot from the officer to shoot through the door. So, one man uses a gas gun through his door to protect himself from previous threats, you say it's bad. A police officer empties half a magazine through a door to protect himself from an unknown threat, you say it's good. Double standards much? You can't say that in one case it's good, and in one case it's bad, it doesn't make any sense, either you say both are good, or you say both are bad, it's as if you said "This guy was speeding on the highway, it's bad" because it's a guy who's late to his job interview, and then "This cop was speeding on the highway even though he was not in intervention, it's cool" because the officer is late for a interview with his captain.

On 6/4/2016 at 9:55 PM, l3ubba said:

My opinion: good shoot. It is unfortunate that a 17 year old girl was injured but the blame for that lies with the guy who decided to blindly fire a gas pistol at the police.

Yeah, how unfortunate she got almost killed by people supposed to protect her. Then they are asked to trust the police.

By the way:

Just to keep that clear.

Edited April 10, 201610 yr by Hystery

On 4/6/2016 at 10:55 PM, l3ubba said:

My opinion: good shoot. 

How come it's good, could you please elaborate for those who, apparently, can't properly evaluate the situation?

No illegal activity was seized as a result of this weapon usage.

No danger to civilians was eradicated as a result of that shot.

No criminals were hit by that shot.

So just what makes it good? Quick reaction? Aiming skills? Courage?

 

The only one who was injured was a bystander. So that almost certainly makes it bad, unless there's something that I still missing. Because I might be the next person injured by a blindly-fired shot, I'd like to know for certain why this would be good. 

Edited April 9, 201610 yr by Hastings

On 4/9/2016 at 0:01 PM, Hystery said:

Yeah, not disagreeing he had to make a decision, what we're arguing is that he made the WRONG one. General motto of any police department? Serve and Protect. PROTECT. As in PROTECT the population, as ingrate as they might be, part of the job. Please tell me where's the protection part when you shoot blindly through a door and you know nothing about the situation inside. Yes, he decided to do that, and yes, it was a bad decision that should be punished, he is a shame to the police officers profession. In this kind of situation you're supposed to keep your self control and react to the situation accordingly, which did not happen there.

The guy was not responding to someone knocking his door. He was responding to someone he had NO IDEA who they were, after he got harrassed, almost home-invaded, and with people rioting in front of his house. Police knocked without calling themselves out from the outside, which should be a standard IMO, the man thought he was threatened again by the same people and responded accordingly. I agree it was a stupid reaction, not denying that, but you say later that it was a good shot from the officer to shoot through the door. So, one man uses a gas gun through his door to protect himself from previous threats, you say it's bad. A police officer empties half a magazine through a door to protect himself from an unknown threat, you say it's good. Double standards much? You can't say that in one case it's good, and in one case it's bad, it doesn't make any sense, either you say both are good, or you say both are bad, it's as if you said "This guy was speeding on the highway, it's bad" because it's a guy who's late to his job interview, and then "This cop was speeding on the highway even though he was not in intervention, it's cool" because the officer is late for a interview with his captain.

Yeah, how unfortunate she got almost killed by people supposed to protect her. Then they are asked to trust the police.

By the way:

Just to keep that clear.

This kind of stuff really irritates me. "Protect and Serve so they shouldn't be arresting me and shooting people". Yeah the police are there to protect you but that doesn't mean they shouldn't defend themselves or perform the duties they were hired to perform. And the analogy you used is out of nowhere. If a cop was speeding for no reason then I would say he was wrong. I don't even know where you came up with that scenario or why you think they are even remotely the same.

You are calling me the hypocrite? Really? You just said that the police officer firing blindly through a door is reckless yet the guy who sticks a pistol out a door and starts shooting isn't reckless? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? The guy had no idea who was on the other side of that door, it could have been his neighbor for all he knows and he decided to just open fire on whoever it was. The officer on the other hand, sees someone point a gun out from the door and start shooting. He doesn't know who is on the other side of that door but he does know that whoever it is behind it wants to harm him. So to clarify, guy in the house: shooting at someone who knocked on his door; police officer: returning fire at someone shooting at him. See the difference?

And thanks for the smart ass meme. When there is legitimate police brutality I condemn it. This is not one of those cases.

22 hours ago, Hastings said:

How come it's good, could you please elaborate for those who, apparently, can't properly evaluate the situation?

No illegal activity was seized as a result of this weapon usage.

No danger to civilians was eradicated as a result of that shot.

No criminals were hit by that shot.

So just what makes it good? Quick reaction? Aiming skills? Courage?

 

The only one who was injured was a bystander. So that almost certainly makes it bad, unless there's something that I still missing. Because I might be the next person injured by a blindly-fired shot, I'd like to know for certain why this would be good. 

When someone says "good shoot" they are referring to the justification for the shooting, not the outcome. Anytime someone is shot it is bad regardless of the situation, nobody wants anyone to get shot. It is a "good" justification for the shooting.

Misunderstood you then. 

47 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

You are calling me the hypocrite? Really? You just said that the police officer firing blindly through a door is reckless yet the guy who sticks a pistol out a door and starts shooting isn't reckless? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? The guy had no idea who was on the other side of that door, it could have been his neighbor for all he knows and he decided to just open fire on whoever it was.

I said both acted stupid.

11 hours ago, Hystery said:

I said both acted stupid.

So you expect the police to just run away when they get shot at? How are they supposed to do their job if they aren't allowed to respond to getting shot at?

5 hours ago, l3ubba said:

So you expect the police to just run away when they get shot at? How are they supposed to do their job if they aren't allowed to respond to getting shot at?

By acting professional. "Guys, there's a guy shooting at the crowd and at us in that mall!" "Okay, let's shoot at the crowd too, with a bit of luck we'll shoot him down too!". That's a great parody of what happened, but the core of the problem is there.

Edited April 11, 201610 yr by Hystery

3 hours ago, Hystery said:

By acting professional. "Guys, there's a guy shooting at the crowd and at us in that mall!" "Okay, let's shoot at the crowd too, with a bit of luck we'll shoot him down too!". That's a great parody of what happened, but the core of the problem is there.

Out of curiosity, how exactly would you expect law enforcement officials to respond with your given predicament?

11 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

Out of curiosity, how exactly would you expect law enforcement officials to respond with your given predicament?

I said it, backing away with the possibly injured officer behind cover and calling for reinforcement. At least like that they would prepare the assault and avoid injuring innocent bystanders.

23 minutes ago, Hystery said:

I said it, backing away with the possibly injured officer behind cover and calling for reinforcement. At least like that they would prepare the assault and avoid injuring innocent bystanders.

But in the scenario you've provided, the shooter is actively shooting at random. This means that if the officers retreat, they're leaving innocent people to be slaughtered by the gunman. What if reinforcements isn't available? What if the injuries of the officer are too substantial to move his body without causing serious harm to him?

Unrelated to what we're debating here, you're extrapolating one situation out of the context we're talking about. The guy at the door wasn't actively shooting, he shot a couple times and stopped. He didn't hurt anyone that badly, and reinforcements were clearly available.

Edited April 11, 201610 yr by Hystery

3 hours ago, Hystery said:

Unrelated to what we're debating here, you're extrapolating one situation out of the context we're talking about. The guy at the door wasn't actively shooting, he shot a couple times and stopped. He didn't hurt anyone that badly, and reinforcements were clearly available.

They don't know that. All they know is that there is a guy in a house shooting at them, they have no idea what his intent is or if he plans on shooting anyone else. And you are talking about taking stuff out of context? You are the one using examples about police shooting into a crowd at a mall which is not even remotely similar to what we are talking about.

23 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

They don't know that. All they know is that there is a guy in a house shooting at them, they have no idea what his intent is or if he plans on shooting anyone else. And you are talking about taking stuff out of context? You are the one using examples about police shooting into a crowd at a mall which is not even remotely similar to what we are talking about.

It's called an analogy, and I said it was a parody, and I said the core of the problem was similar. Shooting blinding and hoping to get results.

So, at the end of the day, you say it's a good shot to have hurt an innocent 17 years old who just happened to live there.

No wonder why the world is going down in flames, if even when an innocent is gunned down everyone finds it normal.

9 hours ago, Hystery said:

It's called an analogy, and I said it was a parody, and I said the core of the problem was similar. Shooting blinding and hoping to get results.

So, at the end of the day, you say it's a good shot to have hurt an innocent 17 years old who just happened to live there.

No wonder why the world is going down in flames, if even when an innocent is gunned down everyone finds it normal.

It is unfortunate she was shot, but guess who's fault that is? The guy who decided to blindly fire at the police. If he hadn't done that nobody would have been shot. It is ridiculous how the public wants to pin the blame on the cops anytime they have to use force yet the people who are causing that to happen are seen as "innocent". Nobody takes responsibility for their actions anymore.

And I can see you are one of those people who thinks the world is going to shit because a couple bad things have happened. Worse things have happened in our time and the world kept going. You sound just like the people in America who think if Trump doesn't get elected America is going to implode.

Wow that I never expected to hear from an American. Usually it's our Russian Putin lovers who dismiss whatever shit happens in Russia with the words "Ah fuck it, worse things have happened in our time and we keep going, you wouldn't want to blame Putin for it". It's a really weird way to close eyes at problems.

24 minutes ago, l3ubba said:

It is unfortunate she was shot, but guess who's fault that is?

The officer who fired a shot, at least under the law I studied. One who causes damage is liable for that damage unless acting in accordance with the law. One of the grounds for said liability is being reckless (meaning that the person could have reasonably predicted the negative outcome but neglected to do so). If firing a shot blindly through the door is not reckless per se, when I don't know what is.

As I've said before, there's a huge difference in accidentally hitting a bystander on the street while shooting a suspect, and blindly firing through stuff hoping to get some bad guys. The first situation is truly an accident. Police has eyes on the suspect, they have good aim, but accidentally a civilian gets in the way. Shit happens. The second is -- plainly -- being reckless, and an officer can't afford being reckless. That's why they are highly trained professionals trusted to do an extremely dangerous and demanding job.

oh yeah and please note I'm not defending the original shooter. Firing blindly at those who knocked at your door could probably even be classified as an attempted homicide. However, I guess that in some US states even that would be treated as a legal self-defense. A fair play you know, you fire at cops, they fire back, old Wild West days, the one who stays tells the tale.

That's why I love America (no joking, I really do)

4 hours ago, l3ubba said:

It is unfortunate she was shot, but guess who's fault that is? The guy who decided to blindly fire at the police. If he hadn't done that nobody would have been shot. It is ridiculous how the public wants to pin the blame on the cops anytime they have to use force yet the people who are causing that to happen are seen as "innocent". Nobody takes responsibility for their actions anymore.

No. I'm tired of this excuse used by people to cover cops who don't do their job right. I'm all for supporting police officers who do their job correctly. My own dad is a cop in the motorcycle squad. But at some point, you have to point a cop out when one does a big mistake. Always covering them no matter what happens is getting ridiculous. The girl was shot by the officer. His REACTION almost killed her, not the guy who shot at them with a gas gun. I never said that guy was innocent by the way, I said he was stupid. His action was understandable, but stupid. But the cop who shot through that door was equally, if not even more stupid.

 

4 hours ago, l3ubba said:

And I can see you are one of those people who thinks the world is going to shit because a couple bad things have happened. Worse things have happened in our time and the world kept going. You sound just like the people in America who think if Trump doesn't get elected America is going to implode.

I actually think the contrary, that if Trump gets elected, America, and most likely the whole civilized world, is going to implode, but that's not the topic.

Edited April 12, 201610 yr by Hystery

3 hours ago, Hystery said:

No. I'm tired of this excuse used by people to cover cops who don't do their job right. I'm all for supporting police officers who do their job correctly. My own dad is a cop in the motorcycle squad. But at some point, you have to point a cop out when one does a big mistake. Always covering them no matter what happens is getting ridiculous. The girl was shot by the officer. His REACTION almost killed her, not the guy who shot at them with a gas gun. I never said that guy was innocent by the way, I said he was stupid. His action was understandable, but stupid. But the cop who shot through that door was equally, if not even more stupid.

 

I actually think the contrary, that if Trump gets elected, America, and most likely the whole civilized world, is going to implode, but that's not the topic.

I think what 13ubba is trying to say, and he can correct me if I'm wrong, is that police officers don't have the time to plan out the appropriate reaction. While the primary job of law enforcement is to protect and serve, they also have a responsibility to uphold the law. We can sit here all day and talk about what the officer should have done, but the officer doesn't have all day to make that decision. It gets to the point where that officer becomes concerned for his own safety and well being, and has to make a split second decision that could end his own life. When it comes down to it, I think most police officers would agre with the statement, "it's either them or me" when dealing with a situation like that. 

Now I'm not necessarily saying that police officers can run around shooting people then declare that they felt their lives were threatened, but you've got to open your mind to their perspective of the situation. There was actually a small social experiment conducted, I'm sure the videos are somewhere on YouTube, where everyday civilians were given fake handguns and asked to play out a typical situation that the police would deal with. The situation goes wrong and you'd be surprised that every single person fired their weapon. 

Whats my point? You just have to consider their circumstances and perspective. They have families and children they want to get home to. They aren't going to take any chances when it comes to life or death when dealing with a criminal. Yes we need to hold out police accountable, but put yourself in their shoes.