More False Narratives

Aldebaran · Jul 18, 2020

KCfromNC said:
Shot because he was exercising his 2nd amendment rights?

There is no second amendment right to threaten the lives of law enforcement officers. But nice try at attempting to generate more of the title of this thread.

Ken-1122 · Jul 18, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
No, he may have thought it was, but he never established that that belief was accurate.

Police should not require 100% proof their life is on the line in order to defend themselves; real life situations do not allow it.

iluvatar5150 said:
Ok, so now you concede that the cop failed to first establish that there was a threat.

Reaching inside your pants when told to show your hands IS an established threat. Even if your intention is to produce identification in your wallet, it is an established threat.

iluvatar5150 said:
I’m glad you’re not a cop.

If cops were required to work under your standards, nobody would be a cop

iluvatar5150 said:
I’d like to think that I would have verified first that he wanted to do me harm.

How long do you wait before shooting?
*Do you allow him to produce a gun? (he could be going for his wallet)
*Do you allow him to shoot his gun?(the gun could be unloaded or fake)
*Do you allow him to shoot and hit a vital organ? (he could be shooting to hit you in the leg)
How far do you go to verify he wanted to do you harm?

iluvatar5150 · Jul 18, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
Police should not require 100% proof their life is on the line in order to defend themselves; real life situations do not allow it.

That’s the standard by which an ordinary citizen is judged and that’s often the ROE for military personnel deployed in war zones. Why do cops need more leniency?

Reaching inside your pants when told to show your hands IS an established threat. Even if your intention is to produce identification in your wallet, it is an established threat.

No, it’s a suspected threat. You should go look up what the word “established” means.

[quote
If cops were required to work under your standards, nobody would be a cop[/quote]

The military operates under those rules and people still enlist.

How long do you wait before shooting?
*Do you allow him to produce a gun? (he could be going for his wallet)

Definitely.

*Do you allow him to shoot his gun?(the gun could be unloaded or fake)

Maybe. It depends on what he’s doing with the gun beforehand.

*Do you allow him to shoot and hit a vital organ? (he could be shooting to hit you in the leg)
How far do you go to verify he wanted to do you harm?

At a minimum, displaying a weapon that I can identify as a weapon (e.g. I know it’s not a wallet) and then acting in some menacing way with it. (e.g. pointing it at himself or merely running away doesn’t count)

Aldebaran · Jul 18, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
Police should not require 100% proof their life is on the line in order to defend themselves; real life situations do not allow it.

Reaching inside your pants when told to show your hands IS an established threat. Even if your intention is to produce identification in your wallet, it is an established threat.

If cops were required to work under your standards, nobody would be a cop

How long do you wait before shooting?
*Do you allow him to produce a gun? (he could be going for his wallet)
*Do you allow him to shoot his gun?(the gun could be unloaded or fake)
*Do you allow him to shoot and hit a vital organ? (he could be shooting to hit you in the leg)
How far do you go to verify he wanted to do you harm?

Those who think cops should just let themselves be shot rather than defend themselves are the same ones who want to see police departments defunded and eliminated and have no regard for the lives of those who serve in that capacity. They're also offended by the term, "Blue Lives Matter" because they don't believe they really do.

Ken-1122 · Jul 18, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
That’s the standard by which an ordinary citizen is judged and that’s often the ROE for military personnel deployed in war zones. Why do cops need more leniency?

Oh so because you say it, that makes it so? Umm.... no. Please provide an outside source that says US military personnel in a war zone are required to establish 100% proof of a perceived threat before they are allowed to engage the enemy

iluvatar5150 said:
Definitely.

By the time you allow him to produce and shoot the gun, it's too late, you're already dead.

Ken-1122 · Jul 18, 2020

Aldebaran said:
Those who think cops should just let themselves be shot rather than defend themselves are the same ones who want to see police departments defunded and eliminated and have no regard for the lives of those who serve in that capacity. They're also offended by the term, "Blue Lives Matter" because they don't believe they really do.

Agreed!

KCfromNC · Jul 18, 2020

Aldebaran said:
There is no second amendment right to threaten the lives of law enforcement officers.

Is holding a gun an inherent thread to law enforcement officers and punishable by death?

GodsGrace101 · Jul 18, 2020

Tom 1 said:
Why not apply the same reasoning to BLM and the protests?

LOL
Because it's the WHOLE GROUP that is not a social movement but a political movement.

I'm not for movements that do NOT HELP the persons they say the mean to save.

Many persons have died during the protests,,,,even blacks. Where is the outrage?

Is our country better off now?
Is there more division or less?

There is more. So BLM is doing harm,,not good.

GodsGrace101 · Jul 18, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
How do you know this?

Why is it necessary for the police car to come to a complete stop before shooting?

So if he was a real criminal with a real gun, he would have had time to kill the cops first?

I guess it's OK when a cop gets killed.

And I can't even believe the protests in Detroit a few days ago.

Darkhorse · Jul 18, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
That’s the standard by which an ordinary citizen is judged and that’s often the ROE for military personnel deployed in war zones. Why do cops need more leniency?

Wrong. An ordinary citizen's standard for using deadly force is: they must reasonably believe that they are in immediate danger of death or great bodily injury, and that deadly force is necessary to stop the threat.

Being threatened by a toy gun which looks real (no red tape on the end) would be reasonable for a citizen also.

I remember when I was 5 years old, in a restaurant in El Paso. Some state troopers were eating there, and my parents reminded me to not point my toy gun at them (they had a standing rule to not point it at anyone).

That's good parenting.

Darkhorse · Jul 18, 2020

KCfromNC said:
Is holding a gun an inherent thread to law enforcement officers and punishable by death?

Obviously not, but pointing a gun at law enforcement officers and failing to drop it (when ordered to) is.

iluvatar5150 · Jul 18, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
Oh so because you say it, that makes it so? Umm.... no. Please provide an outside source that says US military personnel in a war zone are required to establish 100% proof of a perceived threat before they are allowed to engage the enemy

Because I say so? No, because I read and because I talk to people who've served overseas. Here's the ROE from Iraq in 2003:
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-iraq-rules-of-engagement.pdf

3.A.(4) (U) All personnel must ensure that, prior to any engagement, non-combatants and civilian structures are distinguished from proper military targets.

3.A.(5) (U) Positive Identification (PID) of all targets is required prior to engagement. PID is a reasonable certainty that the individual or object of attack is a legitimate military target in accordance with these ROE.

3.A.(6) (U) Military operations will be conducted, in so far as possible, to ensure that incidental injury to civilians and collateral damage to civilian objects are minimized

3.B.(2)(A) (S//REL) TROOPS IN CONTACT (TIC). While friendly forces are in contact with enemy forces, either in self-defense (in response to hostile act/intent) or in reaction to a positively identified declared hostile force, the OSC has approval authority for all counter battery and reactive fire, including all organic and nonorganic weapon systems. The OSC is responsible for establishing PID, minimizing collateral damage and responding in a proportional manner. For specific operational guidance on counter fire missions see FRAGO 278 to OPORD 05-012, Appendix 2 to Annex E.

Loehmann didn't positively identify rice as a threat.

By the time you allow him to produce and shoot the gun, it's too late, you're already dead.

Think about what you're advocating - officers get to shoot people on a hunch. Why do you want that?

iluvatar5150 · Jul 18, 2020

Darkhorse said:
Wrong. An ordinary citizen's standard for using deadly force is: they must reasonably believe that they are in immediate danger of death or great bodily injury, and that deadly force is necessary to stop the threat.

Being threatened by a toy gun which looks real (no red tape on the end) would be reasonable for a citizen also.

I remember when I was 5 years old, in a restaurant in El Paso. Some state troopers were eating there, and my parents reminded me to not point my toy gun at them (they had a standing rule to not point it at anyone).

That's good parenting.

That's great. He didn't point the gun at the officers. Why do I have to keep repeating that?

whatbogsends · Jul 18, 2020

Aldebaran said:
There is no second amendment right to threaten the lives of law enforcement officers. But nice try at attempting to generate more of the title of this thread.

He didn't threaten the life (or lives) of any law enforcement officers. Why do you insist on pushing a false narrative?

Ken-1122 · Jul 18, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
Because I say so? No, because I read and because I talk to people who've served overseas. Here's the ROE from Iraq in 2003:
https://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-iraq-rules-of-engagement.pdf

What about under “hostile intent”.

When hostile intent is present, the right exists to use proportional force, including armed force, in self-defense by all necessary means available to deter or neutralize the potential attacker or, if necessary, destroy the threat.

Evidence of hostile intent is considered to exist when a foreign force or terrorist is detected to maneuver into a weapon launch position; is preparing to fire, launch, or release weapons against US forces.

So according to the link you provided, 100% proof of a perceived threat is not necessary to use armed force, all that is necessary is for the enemy to appear to maneuver into weapon launch position, or to prepare to fire against US forces.

iluvatar5150 said:
Loehmann didn't positively identify rice as a threat.

He didn't have to! Reaching into his pants to retrieve his weapon is the same as getting maneuvering into weapon launch position, or preparing to fire.

iluvatar5150 said:
Think about what you're advocating - officers get to shoot people on a hunch. Why do you want that?

Think about what you’re saying; the police has to wait till they are shot at first before they can return fire? Do you really want that?

iluvatar5150 · Jul 18, 2020

Ken-1122 said:
What about under “hostile intent”.

When hostile intent is present, the right exists to use proportional force, including armed force, in self-defense by all necessary means available to deter or neutralize the potential attacker or, if necessary, destroy the threat.

Evidence of hostile intent is considered to exist when a foreign force or terrorist is detected to maneuver into a weapon launch position; is preparing to fire, launch, or release weapons against US forces.

So according to the link you provided, 100% proof of a perceived threat is not necessary to use armed force, all that is necessary is for the enemy to appear to maneuver into weapon launch position, or to prepare to fire against US forces.

He didn't have to! Reaching into his pants to retrieve his weapon is the same as getting maneuvering into weapon launch position, or preparing to fire.

The police weren't even sure yet that he had a weapon.

Think about what you’re saying; the police has to wait till they are shot at first before they can return fire? Do you really want that?

No, that isn't what I've advocated.

Ken-1122 · Jul 18, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
The police weren't even sure yet that he had a weapon.

Maneuvering into weapon launch position! The police shouldn't have to confirm whether you have a weapon or not; if they ask to see your hands, and instead you reach into your pocket, reach behind your back, or reach down your pants, they have every right to assume you do have a weapon and are justified in reacting accordingly.

Darkhorse · Jul 18, 2020

iluvatar5150 said:
That's great. He didn't point the gun at the officers. Why do I have to keep repeating that?

I didn't say that he pointed the gun at the officers in response to your post (#208). I was correcting your error about the "standard".

I mentioned "pointing a gun at officers" in post #216, but that was in response to the hypothetical question posed in post #212, not to this case.

KCfromNC · Jul 19, 2020

Darkhorse said:
I mentioned "pointing a gun at officers" in post #216, but that was in response to the hypothetical question posed in post #212, not to this case.

That wasn't a hypothetical, it was an example of people who pulled out guns and weren't shot to death by police, in contrast to the idea from post 177 that such a police response was totally justified.

Darkhorse · Jul 19, 2020

KCfromNC said:
That wasn't a hypothetical, it was an example of people who pulled out guns and weren't shot to death by police, in contrast to the idea from post 177 that such a police response was totally justified.

Did any of them point their guns at the police?

More False Narratives

NCC-1701-A

Newbie

Well-Known Member

NCC-1701-A

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

just horsing around

just horsing around

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

just horsing around

Regular Member

just horsing around

Similar threads