White male wearing America flag bandanna wanted for setting police car on fire.

I want more coverage of the market and liquor store

 

Crazy. One reporter had the camerman zoom in on the liquor bottle that was stolen.

Right. Kind of like the kid in Cleveland with the BB gun who hadn't killed anyone and had a 911 call saying that it was a child and most likely a toy?

 

You go into a situation trusting a guy who has just indiscriminately shot up a movie theater and is off his rocker and trust his word that he's surrendered?

 

I'm confused JW. Are you saying since the cops at the movie theater were able to get the guy to surrender without shooting him that no cop can shoot anyone at any time?

Right. Kind of like the kid in Cleveland with the BB gun who hadn't killed anyone and had a 911 call saying that it was a child and most likely a toy?

 

You go into a situation trusting a guy who has just indiscriminately shot up a movie theater and is off his rocker and trust his word that he's surrendered?

Do you seriously think that the officers in Colorado if they thought he was still a threat that they wouldn't have shot?

 

If his hands were up, or in some other way not a threat, you don't shoot. this case tonight deals with a guy who rushed an officer.

Again two different situations. Two different police forces. Those officers must of not felt threatened or attacked.

 

I think it's a joke to compare two diffent circumstances to try and make a point justice wasn't served.

 

 

So yesterday, the kid in Cleveland with a BB gun, he threatens officers to the point of engaging in deadly fire, but the loon who has indiscriminately shot up a theater doesn't make officers feel threatened or as if they are under attack?

 

I don't see anywhere where I said justice was or wasn't served.

 

You seem to be thinking I'd have batted an eye if one of the officers responding in Aurora put a few rounds in the guy's dome. He was nuts enough to booby trap his apartment knowing investigators would go there looking for evidence, so I'm not sure why he's getting a pass on not being killed when others are vehemently defending an officer's need to use deadly force in others. That's the point I'm making. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

How so?

 

If you are going to say that Michael Brown was a deadly threat to an officer, then you have to say that a guy loaded to the gills with weapons going into a theater, opening fire on patrons and killing them is a danger too. IMO, the latter is much worse.

 

It'd be ridiculous to say that if Brown was a severe threat, then the guy in Aurora wasn't.

 

Now, it's just as ridiculous to say you'd blame an officer too severely they emptied a clip into the armed Aurora shooter, but I don't think anyone is saying that.

 

I figured you'd know better. Holmes didn't threaten police when he was arrested and the police who arrested him most likely had no idea how much carnage he'd done inside the theatre.

I'm stunned that we see eye to eye so much these days :thumb:

 

Like I said in our disagreements I support law enforcement and have never attacked indivdual officers. I questioned macro level policies. I still do.

 

But I applaud police efforts tonight showing restraint , much more than I ever could.

 

No reasonable person can argue with the findings after that press conference in my mind.

Crazy. One reporter had the camerman zoom in on the liquor bottle that was stolen.

 

Certainly seemed like they were making a joke of it, right?

Do you seriously think that the officers in Colorado if they thought he was still a threat that they wouldn't have shot?

 

If his hands were up, or in some other way not a threat, you don't shoot. this case tonight deals with a guy who rushed an officer.

 

Yea... look up Sean Gobert and get back to me. The hands up example is a great one.

Right. Kind of like the kid in Cleveland with the BB gun who hadn't killed anyone and had a 911 call saying that it was a child and most likely a toy?

 

You go into a situation trusting a guy who has just indiscriminately shot up a movie theater and is off his rocker and trust his word that he's surrendered?

 

 

Who said the officers trusted the theatre shooter? He didn't come out shooting or pointing a gun at the officers so he was taken Into custody.

 

Now ow you bring up the BB gun shooting. Are you saying a kid can not shoot anyone? Do you have any idea how many kids do shoot people? The BB gun didn't have the Orange barrel. The officers asked the kid to put his hands up and he ignored them

and instead grabbed the gun from his waistband. Sorry buddy but if I'm on a call with a kid with a gun and he reaches for it when told to, I'm not going to wait to see if I'm the one going to the morgue.

As a man of the law you should know why that's the case.

 

The two situations are completely different. Mainly because James Holmes was not a threat at the time he was apprehended.

I wouldn't even worry about it. When one has to bring up not one, but two other non related events, they are reaching!

 

Right. Kind of like the kid in Cleveland with the BB gun who hadn't killed anyone and had a 911 call saying that it was a child and most likely a toy?

 

You go into a situation trusting a guy who has just indiscriminately shot up a movie theater and is off his rocker and trust his word that he's surrendered?

 

You like to ignore certain things. First, the police didn't know anyone said the gun was likey fake. It doesn't matter anyways because they're not required to wait until shots are fired in their direction before they defend themselves.

So yesterday, the kid in Cleveland with a BB gun, he threatens officers to the point of engaging in deadly fire, but the loon who has indiscriminately shot up a theater doesn't make officers feel threatened or as if they are under attack?

 

I don't see anywhere where I said justice was or wasn't served.

 

You seem to be thinking I'd have batted an eye if one of the officers responding in Aurora put a few rounds in the guy's dome. He was nuts enough to booby trap his apartment knowing investigators would go there looking for evidence, so I'm not sure why he's getting a pass on not being killed when others are vehemently defending an officer's need to use deadly force in others. That's the point I'm making. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

Do you have evidence in the aurora shooting he pointed weapon or threatened officers. Officers can just shoot if there is no immediate threat. Aren't you in law school?

Right. Kind of like the kid in Cleveland with the BB gun who hadn't killed anyone and had a 911 call saying that it was a child and most likely a toy?

 

You go into a situation trusting a guy who has just indiscriminately shot up a movie theater and is off his rocker and trust his word that he's surrendered?

 

And if you are a cop on the streets (not in your living room), you are just going to take the word of a 911 operator who "heard" it "may" be a toy? So when the kid gets the gun close to being able to shoot you, you will just assume it is a toy and take your chances? I am so sorry the 12 year died but if a 12 year old pulls the trigger and fires a gun, it is just as deadly as if a 30 year old pulls the trigger.

 

We agree he had no weapon in his hand, correct?

 

If so then I'd say distance matters. Is he a threat at 100 feet with no gun? 75?

 

What is the point of no return?

 

Once he tried to take Officer Wilson's gun he made it a deadly force situation. He displayed his intent to kill the officer, unless you think he just wanted to see what it looked like. You dont agree?

 

The distance would matter if he sniped him from a mile away. If he's relatively close and charging the officer...it's different.