Come Watch A "peacefull" Protest With Live Ammo, Teargas, Smokes, Rubber Bullets, Beanbags (Live)

[OrphanMaker]

I think the biggest problem here is the fact the police are above the law. There is no punishment for police officer committing crimes, just a fellow slap on the back. I think there should be a separate law for police officers to follow to keep them from becoming corrupt as we see here. "Checks and Balances!"

 

This reminds me of the Jedi. The Jedi had a separate code of conduct and lifestyle to keep them from becoming corrupt with all the power they had. It all worked until the senate sith changed things. It seems as if corruption will always see a way to slither it head into things, and take control.

 

Corruption in this situation good old animal instincts. Human beings need a negative/positive reinforcement to keep them from indulging into their primitive selfish instincts. Especially, when these human beings have been given power for a noble cause.

 

Police officers suppose to be for the nobility and peace of its citizens, not creating a separate faction and arming itself against its citizens.

[011100110110000101101101]

I don't know who told you that but If they are fired at point blank range they can prove to be lethal. The blunt force can rupture organs. If you have blanks in a gun and put it up to someones head and fire, you have a good chance at killing them.

I never said they cannot kill you, I said it was unlikely.  They stop being barely lethal at about twenty feet, and afterwards, they are non-lethal, unless you are shot in the eye, which has killed people before, but not many.

 

Blanks on the other hand, will only kill you if the blank itself was A) made by a person who made it incorrectly, or B) extremely high pressure.  I'm not even sure if they can reach the pressures that would kill you.

 

Blanks will however burn you pretty badly at direct contact because of the powder burning outside of the barrel, and if the wound gets infected, can kill you, but that is not the blank killing you, but the infection itself.

Edited August 19, 2014 by 011100110110000101101101

[-FrostByte-]

6 shots - 4 to the arm, 2 to the head. Make of that what you will, but for me, I hardly believe an unarmed teenager warrants 6 shots for 'provocation'.

 

that doesn't prove anything.

 

you can counter-argue that,because all the shots where in his front part of his body, he was trying to attack the officer.

 

Untill we get proper info is released we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

[-FrostByte-]

I never said they cannot kill you, I said it was unlikely.  They stop being barely lethal at about twenty feet, and afterwards, they are non-lethal, unless you are shot in the eye, which has killed people before, but not many.

 

Blanks on the other hand, will only kill you if the blank itself was A) made by a person who made it incorrectly, or B) extremely high pressure.  I'm not even sure if they can reach the pressures that would kill you.

 

Blanks will however burn you pretty badly at direct contact because of the powder burning outside of the barrel, and if the wound gets infected, can kill you, but that is not the blank killing you, but the infection itself.

 

I believe you did not say that. But that is all I have to say about bullets.

 

There is rarely ever a real reason to start a riot.

 

These people are overreacting quite a bit.

 

About Rubber Bullets and beanbag rounds, they lack the energy to kill a person or cause serious injury unless shot through the eye, and even then would likely only cause blindness.

[Seanjuju]

Have you seen pictures of the officers responding to the protests? They're all armed with assault rifles and wearing full combat gear. They look more like soldiers than police officers. The military grants given to police departments have gotten ridiculous, this is just an exhibition of the worst aspects of it.

 

The town where I live actually recently got a used APC from the Department of Defense, they showed it off outside the town hall when they got it. It's the kind of thing you'd expect in a warzone, not the suburbs. It's insane that they think they'd need anything like that.

Intimidation is an important psychological tool for preventing violence within groups. There's more than enough military surplus to go around I would think. The reality is that these officers are supposed to embody an oppressive force.

Edited August 19, 2014 by Seanjuju

[011100110110000101101101]

I believe you did not say that. But that is all I have to say about bullets.

I think I said that.

 

They do lack the energy for a direct kill unless at extremely short ranges, afterwords they can kill you, but only if hit in a certain area.

 

I never did say they cannot kill, and I did say it was unlikely.

 

Maybe I should have given more explanation in the original statement.

 

Anyway, seeing as the debate is finished, happy hunting, Tenno!

[Seanjuju]

1

 

Edited August 19, 2014 by Seanjuju

[Vastaren]

that doesn't prove anything.

 

you can counter-argue that,because all the shots where in his front part of his body, he was trying to attack the officer.

 

Untill we get proper info is released we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

I'm finding it hard not to jump to conclusions given how the evidence really is stacked against police handling of the situation. The independent coroner commissioned by the victim's family and lawyers found no signs of struggle consistent with a fight in the body to suggest that a physical altercation had taken place prior to the shooting, corroborating eyewitness accounts of the scene (P. Shallwani, 2014).

There were 6 shots to the upper body and head - I don't know how Americans do it, but in Australia, officers are trained to aim for the legs for disabling shots. A forensic pathologist also in on the investigation confirmed that one of the bullet grazes on the victim's arm would most likely have been made as he was in a defensive position, (NewsCorp Australia, 2014) and though the subsequent wounds may have been consistent with bullets fired as he was moving towards the officer, the kicker is the agreed-upon final shot to the top of the head was done in such a way that the bullet could only have passed in that manner if the victim's head was bowed well down (J. Swaine, 2014). Jumping to conclusions through implied leaps of logic, or rational, reasonable inferences from independent fact from an outsider looking in?

 

Bridging into the realm of speculation, the transparency with which these professionals have acted lead me to be inclined to believe that not only are they the ones really pushing for the full dissemination of information to the public in regards to the situation, but also the ones 'in the moral right' if there were sides to take - and I'm pretty sure there are. The police and law enforcement response has been lacklustre in comparison, with multiple authority figures being vague in responses they have foreknowledge of (Police Chief of Ferguson Police Department - Original Footage at 47 seconds) and diversionary in their answering of questions (Ferguson Mayor - Original Footage at 3 minutes, 23 seconds). Interestingly, also brought up is the spectacular question of how rampant police militarisation has affected the response to this situation. Shouldn't there have been non-lethal options explored by the officer in question at first, and why hasn't any mention been given to this?

 

Intimidation is an important psychological tool for preventing violence within groups. There's more than enough military surplus to go around I would think. The reality is that these officers are supposed to embody an oppressive force.

Supposed to? When is a police force by definition an agent for oppression and intimidation, rather than a body for correctional public services in accordance with written law? Surely intimidation, as situationally effective as it can be, isn't the only strategy the police force can rely on. As pointed out earlier, the only time a rifle should be raised is when the bearer intends to pull the trigger. Is this behaviour a police responsibility in the USA?

Edited August 19, 2014 by Vastaren

[011100110110000101101101]

As pointed out earlier, the only time a rifle should be raised is when the bearer intends to pull the trigger. Is this behaviour a police responsibility in the USA?

Much of the police force here in the USA is unfortunately quite corrupt 

 

The police are supposed to only fire when necessary and never point any weapon at a civilian unless they need to.

 

But the kind of power the police have is much more than many of them can handle, and that power corrupts the weak minded.

 

If I were in charge, I would disband the police and replace them with a Civil Protection unit, that unit would do as their name implies, protect the public, and uphold the law, because here in the USA, the police aren't even supposed to protect the public, they serve ONLY to uphold the law, and to do that many of them break our constitutional rights as Americans.

 

Because, a force that only protects the law, will be as corrupt as its government.

[Gammaion]

There are two sides to every story. Apparently the man that was gunned down by the officer had just robbed a shop, and was holding the person who worked at the checkout with a knife to his throat.  He also threatened the officer multiple times, apparently.

 

I really don't know what happened for sure, though.

[notlamprey]

The "protestors" are uneducated and undisciplined, like nearly every-friggin'-body in the U.S. seems to be these days. Everyone's just looking for an excuse to vent their frustration because nobody in this country feels in control of their own life.

 

The police are being given tools they aren't trained to use, and everyone is shocked when violence spirals out of control. Major media outlets fire up the Metatron one more time, and the tail wags the dog some more.

 

People get scared, and ask the federal government how much control it needs to make the scary man go away.

 

Curmudgeons like me are sick of hearing about it before we've even started, because we've seen it time and time again. The compassion of good souls is exhausted, and the already powerful scoop yet a little more power into their cup. The hollow, rotten center of this country is growing faster than the veneer can expand to hide it.

 

And I just keep being sad about it, because trying to fix it is unprofitable.

[OrphanMaker]

http://youtu.be/o4BZwKoHALk

 

Nuff said...

[011100110110000101101101]

Nuff said...

I hate how this is basically the only stuff that gets publicized about police officers.

 

Not all of 'em are bad, in fact bad cops are the minority, we just only hear about the bad ones because they attract more attention than the good ones.

 

Look around for the good stuff, it's there, you just need to find it.

Edited August 21, 2014 by 011100110110000101101101

[OrphanMaker]

I hate how this is basically the only stuff that gets publicized about police officers.

 

Not all of 'em are bad, in fact bad cops are the minority, we just only hear about the bad ones because they attract more attention than the good ones.

 

Look around for the good stuff, it's there, you just need to find it.

Yeah, you keep saying that until the police cars are replaced with tanks and hummers. And you see these guys marching up and down the street.

 

http://youtu.be/ETwh4XEUSt0

 

Because this is what coming

Edited August 21, 2014 by OrphanMaker

[TrinityPrime]

Why can't we just have all police officers wear GoPros.  They already got one on their car and if there's one thing that's statistically proven it's how people behave differently when they know they're on camera.

[011100110110000101101101]

Yeah, you keep saying that until the police cars are replaced with tanks and hummers. And you see these guys marching up and down the street.

 

http://youtu.be/ETwh4XEUSt0

 

Because this is what coming

Don't deny that good cops exist, and don't deny that the american people wouldn't let government takeover happen to them.

 

We have gun ownership for this exact reason.

 

The government would likely fail.

Why can't we just have all police officers wear GoPros.  They already got one on their car and if there's one thing that's statistically proven it's how people behave differently when they know they're on camera.

Some states have officers wear cameras on their uniforms, and in those states police crime is lowered a little bit.

[-FrostByte-]

-snip-

 

Nuff said...

 

I think this driver, an "old man" was the guy that went on a rampage and killed five others.

Edited August 21, 2014 by n0lyfe

[RSITH]

Oh goodness.

[Vastaren]

Don't deny that good cops exist, and don't deny that the american people wouldn't let government takeover happen to them.

We have gun ownership for this exact reason.

The government would likely fail.

When you have to tout your absolute faith in the success of using violence against your own government by alluding to the nature of gun ownership rights, that makes me wonder.

It also makes me very worried.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Vastaren