P1tchblack's "All Things About Cops" Thread...

[P1tchblack]

In Pitchblack's world, where a dangerous armed suspected is running from police after committing a crime, the cop can stop him with deadly force, but only when the suspect takes the first shot at point blank range.  If the cop survives, he can fire his weapon.

First, the cops didn't know which, if any of, the kids in the car were involved in the drive-by. Second, the cops didn't know if any of the kids that ran were even armed. Third, is running with a gun an executable offense when nobody is being threatened?

[Soupcity Kid]

In Pitchblack's world, where a dangerous armed suspected is running from police after committing a crime, the cop can stop him with deadly force, but only when the suspect takes the first shot at point blank range.  If the cop survives, he can fire his weapon.

I won't go that far as far as being shot at but I get your point.  He wants Chicago.  Let the police do nothing until the murder spree is over.  Don't intervene then complain why none of these crimes are solved approach.

[P1tchblack]

This is getting difficult to read.

There are laws regarding lethal force and with those laws there are parameters and it is judged by a jury of peers.  This is not that difficult.

The example of hitting with a bat is just dumb.  The law covering that is abuse and or assault.  The law with shooting someone running is if that person poses a threat.  The case in Pittsburgh involved a drive by shooting.  The thug (used intentionally) was involved in a drive by shooting at some level thus he was deemed a threat to others.  If the thug wanted to claim his innocence he could have stopped and had his day in court.

The bat example was meant to clearly paint a picture of what I'm talking about when I say "bad laws".  Clearly any sane person would acknowledge that a) a law permitting parents to use wooden bats on kids is a bad law and b) the wood bat law doesn't change the fact that hitting kids with a wooden bat is wrong.

Well it did not prove any point.

It appears what you want is something saying the police has to be held at gunpoint or the perp is actively shooting someone and that is the only way you would accept it.

In my lifetime I watched the law change from when someone can defense their homes.  The law in Ohio was if someone is outside your home in a menacing fashion.  Then it moved to they had to break into your house.  Then it moved to breaking into your house and posed a reasonable threat???   Sorry breaking into my home is a reasonable threat and I will not cede my right to defend my family to someone with your ideology and I will not cede an officers right to defend my family to someone with your ideology.

The kids that ran from the car were unarmed.  Is an unarmed kid running from police automatically a threat worthy of being killed?

Did the police officer search them before he fired and knew they weren't armed?

You don't execute someone who's running because you THINK they're armed.  You better know they're armed and they better be threatening someone before you pull the trigger.

[P1tchblack]

In Pitchblack's world, where a dangerous armed suspected is running from police after committing a crime, the cop can stop him with deadly force, but only when the suspect takes the first shot at point blank range.  If the cop survives, he can fire his weapon.

 
You forgot that the cop has to bleed out for at least 3 minutes before he can fire at one of Pitch's beloved "victims".

#A$$RapingTheStrawman

[zigbee]

Again, cops are not allowed to kill without reason or threat or they will be held accountable.  To suggest otherwise is akin to talking about a law to beat kids with a bat.  Just dumb.

[Hightop77]

In Pitchblack's world, where a dangerous armed suspected is running from police after committing a crime, the cop can stop him with deadly force, but only when the suspect takes the first shot at point blank range.  If the cop survives, he can fire his weapon.

First, the cops didn't know which, if any of, the kids in the car were involved in the drive-by. Second, the cops didn't know if any of the kids that ran were even armed. Third, is running with a gun an executable offense when nobody is being threatened?

The jury clearly disagreed with all that.

[P1tchblack]

In Pitchblack's world, where a dangerous armed suspected is running from police after committing a crime, the cop can stop him with deadly force, but only when the suspect takes the first shot at point blank range.  If the cop survives, he can fire his weapon.

First, the cops didn't know which, if any of, the kids in the car were involved in the drive-by. Second, the cops didn't know if any of the kids that ran were even armed. Third, is running with a gun an executable offense when nobody is being threatened?

The jury clearly disagreed with all that.

Correct, because terrible laws exist that give cops way too much power to kill people.  As I said several pages ago, there are two issues: bad cops and bad laws that allow cops to be bad.  The laws allow for way to much "Well, I THOUGHT he....." or "Well, I FELT like....."  as an excuse for killing innocent people.

[Hightop77]

In Pitchblack's world, where a dangerous armed suspected is running from police after committing a crime, the cop can stop him with deadly force, but only when the suspect takes the first shot at point blank range.  If the cop survives, he can fire his weapon.

First, the cops didn't know which, if any of, the kids in the car were involved in the drive-by. Second, the cops didn't know if any of the kids that ran were even armed. Third, is running with a gun an executable offense when nobody is being threatened?

The jury clearly disagreed with all that.

Correct, because terrible laws exist that give cops way too much power to kill people.  As I said several pages ago, there are two issues: bad cops and bad laws that allow cops to be bad.  The laws allow for way to much "Well, I THOUGHT he....." or "Well, I FELT like....."  as an excuse for killing innocent people.

And that statement clearly reflects your warped values and ideas and lack of understanding of how dangerous these suspects are and how their life is a series of bad decisions and related criminal actions.   Most should never get out of prison.  Their deaths in these situations is actually a victory for civilization.

[P1tchblack]

In Pitchblack's world, where a dangerous armed suspected is running from police after committing a crime, the cop can stop him with deadly force, but only when the suspect takes the first shot at point blank range.  If the cop survives, he can fire his weapon.

First, the cops didn't know which, if any of, the kids in the car were involved in the drive-by. Second, the cops didn't know if any of the kids that ran were even armed. Third, is running with a gun an executable offense when nobody is being threatened?

The jury clearly disagreed with all that.

Correct, because terrible laws exist that give cops way too much power to kill people.  As I said several pages ago, there are two issues: bad cops and bad laws that allow cops to be bad.  The laws allow for way to much "Well, I THOUGHT he....." or "Well, I FELT like....."  as an excuse for killing innocent people.

And that statement clearly reflects your warped values and ideas and lack of understanding of how dangerous these suspects are and how their life is a series of bad decisions and related criminal actions.   Most should never get out of prison.  Their deaths in these situations is actually a victory for civilization.

Once again, the cop didn't know if a) the car he pulled over was the car involved in the drive by, b) if it was the car which, if any, of the kids in the car did the shooting, c) if there were still any weapons in the car d) if either of the kids that ran were armed when they ran...

and, again, running from police is punishable BY THE COURTS.  Running with a gun, when you aren't threatening any one, should not be an executable offense but, thanks to terrible laws, it is.

[Hightop77]

First, the cops didn't know which, if any of, the kids in the car were involved in the drive-by. Second, the cops didn't know if any of the kids that ran were even armed. Third, is running with a gun an executable offense when nobody is being threatened?

The jury clearly disagreed with all that.

Correct, because terrible laws exist that give cops way too much power to kill people.  As I said several pages ago, there are two issues: bad cops and bad laws that allow cops to be bad.  The laws allow for way to much "Well, I THOUGHT he....." or "Well, I FELT like....."  as an excuse for killing innocent people.

And that statement clearly reflects your warped values and ideas and lack of understanding of how dangerous these suspects are and how their life is a series of bad decisions and related criminal actions.   Most should never get out of prison.  Their deaths in these situations is actually a victory for civilization.

Once again, the cop didn't know if a) the car he pulled over was the car involved in the drive by, b) if it was the car which, if any, of the kids in the car did the shooting, c) if there were still any weapons in the car d) if either of the kids that ran were armed when they ran...

and, again, running from police is punishable BY THE COURTS.  Running with a gun, when you aren't threatening any one, should not be an executable offense but, thanks to terrible laws, it is.

And of course you refuse to admit the importance of context once again.  Police don't shoot people just for running from them which you also claimed.  The entire incident had a context and all of the facts and circumstances were taken into account by the jury and they determined there was no murder.

[P1tchblack]

The jury clearly disagreed with all that.

Correct, because terrible laws exist that give cops way too much power to kill people.  As I said several pages ago, there are two issues: bad cops and bad laws that allow cops to be bad.  The laws allow for way to much "Well, I THOUGHT he....." or "Well, I FELT like....."  as an excuse for killing innocent people.

And that statement clearly reflects your warped values and ideas and lack of understanding of how dangerous these suspects are and how their life is a series of bad decisions and related criminal actions.   Most should never get out of prison.  Their deaths in these situations is actually a victory for civilization.

Once again, the cop didn't know if a) the car he pulled over was the car involved in the drive by, b) if it was the car which, if any, of the kids in the car did the shooting, c) if there were still any weapons in the car d) if either of the kids that ran were armed when they ran...

and, again, running from police is punishable BY THE COURTS.  Running with a gun, when you aren't threatening any one, should not be an executable offense but, thanks to terrible laws, it is.

And of course you refuse to admit the importance of context once again.  Police don't shoot people just for running from them which you also claimed.  The entire incident had a context and all of the facts and circumstances were taken into account by the jury and they determined there was no murder.

It's in the news story stating that the cop was acquitted.  He said that he thought the kids were armed.  That WAS his defense and the existing lethal force laws allow for "I thought...." as justification or killing an unarmed teenager who's doing nothing more than running from police.

[Hightop77]

Correct, because terrible laws exist that give cops way too much power to kill people.  As I said several pages ago, there are two issues: bad cops and bad laws that allow cops to be bad.  The laws allow for way to much "Well, I THOUGHT he....." or "Well, I FELT like....."  as an excuse for killing innocent people.

And that statement clearly reflects your warped values and ideas and lack of understanding of how dangerous these suspects are and how their life is a series of bad decisions and related criminal actions.   Most should never get out of prison.  Their deaths in these situations is actually a victory for civilization.

Once again, the cop didn't know if a) the car he pulled over was the car involved in the drive by, b) if it was the car which, if any, of the kids in the car did the shooting, c) if there were still any weapons in the car d) if either of the kids that ran were armed when they ran...

and, again, running from police is punishable BY THE COURTS.  Running with a gun, when you aren't threatening any one, should not be an executable offense but, thanks to terrible laws, it is.

And of course you refuse to admit the importance of context once again.  Police don't shoot people just for running from them which you also claimed.  The entire incident had a context and all of the facts and circumstances were taken into account by the jury and they determined there was no murder.

It's in the news story stating that the cop was acquitted.  He said that he thought the kids were armed.  That WAS his defense and the existing lethal force laws allow for "I thought...." as justification or killing an unarmed teenager who's doing nothing more than running from police.

What he thought was determined to be reasonable and prudent in the situation.  End of story.

[P1tchblack]

And that statement clearly reflects your warped values and ideas and lack of understanding of how dangerous these suspects are and how their life is a series of bad decisions and related criminal actions.   Most should never get out of prison.  Their deaths in these situations is actually a victory for civilization.

Once again, the cop didn't know if a) the car he pulled over was the car involved in the drive by, b) if it was the car which, if any, of the kids in the car did the shooting, c) if there were still any weapons in the car d) if either of the kids that ran were armed when they ran...

and, again, running from police is punishable BY THE COURTS.  Running with a gun, when you aren't threatening any one, should not be an executable offense but, thanks to terrible laws, it is.

And of course you refuse to admit the importance of context once again.  Police don't shoot people just for running from them which you also claimed.  The entire incident had a context and all of the facts and circumstances were taken into account by the jury and they determined there was no murder.

It's in the news story stating that the cop was acquitted.  He said that he thought the kids were armed.  That WAS his defense and the existing lethal force laws allow for "I thought...." as justification or killing an unarmed teenager who's doing nothing more than running from police.

What he thought was determined to be reasonable and prudent in the situation.  End of story.

Correct, because the laws allow for cops to shoot and kill unarmed people for doing nothing more than running from police.  Would the court system ever execute someone for running from police?

[Hightop77]

Once again, the cop didn't know if a) the car he pulled over was the car involved in the drive by, b) if it was the car which, if any, of the kids in the car did the shooting, c) if there were still any weapons in the car d) if either of the kids that ran were armed when they ran...

and, again, running from police is punishable BY THE COURTS.  Running with a gun, when you aren't threatening any one, should not be an executable offense but, thanks to terrible laws, it is.

And of course you refuse to admit the importance of context once again.  Police don't shoot people just for running from them which you also claimed.  The entire incident had a context and all of the facts and circumstances were taken into account by the jury and they determined there was no murder.

It's in the news story stating that the cop was acquitted.  He said that he thought the kids were armed.  That WAS his defense and the existing lethal force laws allow for "I thought...." as justification or killing an unarmed teenager who's doing nothing more than running from police.

What he thought was determined to be reasonable and prudent in the situation.  End of story.

Correct, because the laws allowed for cops to shoot and kill unarmed people for doing nothing more than running from police.  Would the court system ever execute someone for running from police?

And just as I predicted hours ago, you have gone full circle back to your insane and dishonest talking point.  You never disappoint.

[P1tchblack]

And of course you refuse to admit the importance of context once again.  Police don't shoot people just for running from them which you also claimed.  The entire incident had a context and all of the facts and circumstances were taken into account by the jury and they determined there was no murder.

It's in the news story stating that the cop was acquitted.  He said that he thought the kids were armed.  That WAS his defense and the existing lethal force laws allow for "I thought...." as justification or killing an unarmed teenager who's doing nothing more than running from police.

What he thought was determined to be reasonable and prudent in the situation.  End of story.

Correct, because the laws allowed for cops to shoot and kill unarmed people for doing nothing more than running from police.  Would the court system ever execute someone for running from police?

And just as I predicted hours ago, you have gone full circle back to your insane and dishonest talking point.  You never disappoint.

How is what you bolded inaccurate?