I've been preaching that for weeks.

 

I consider your posts an endorsement.

I don't follow. What is domestic terrorism? Pulling a gun on an officer?

 

When the protesting turns to violence yes its domestic terrorism. These people need to be dealt with accordingly so that this stops. Eliminate the threat.

This all is sickening. But what is really disturbing is to read how many are thoroughly convinced this was a set-up, the gun without a serial number was planted, the officer should have simply subdue the perp because one time in a gun fight a perp lived, etc. I fear for the future of law enforcement. There is not enough money you could pay me to be a cop.

When the protesting turns to violence yes its domestic terrorism. These people need to be dealt with accordingly so that this stops. Eliminate the threat.

 

 

So if the protesters throw bottles you want the police to open fire on them?

This all is sickening. But what is really disturbing is to read how many are thoroughly convinced this was a set-up, the gun without a serial number was planted, the officer should have simply subdue the perp because one time in a gun fight a perp lived, etc. I fear for the future of law enforcement. There is not enough money you could pay me to be a cop.

 

Totally agree. Police are put in the position to make a split second decision that can alter or end a life (their own, an innocent by stander or the alleged criminal). If they make a mistake, they are branded as racist or bad - even if they simply made a mistake. And the people that are branding them as bad are doing so from the comfort of their living room after spending minutes, hours, days or months reviewing evidence or in this case, video tape that can be rewound and slowed down to see what happened. If they do make a mistake, many will not tolerate the mistake at all.

 

Even worse, if they do EVERYTHING RIGHT, many will STILL say they are racist are bad...just because that is the narrative they want to believe. Cops cannot win. The vast majority of people in this country truly support the police and are sickened by the knuckleheads that are protesting and shouting things like "kill cops". However, there are enough bad guys out there to ruin things for all...and the cops don't know if the next guy they encounter is a normal citizen or some copy cat nut.

 

No way I would want to be a cop...

He actually began firing as he was stumbling backwards. Im assuming he was suprised when the gun was drawn an his first instinct was to backup.

 

That's what you are trained to do. Create distance between you and the threat while returning fire if warranted.

Did the prosecutor put witnesses who he knew was lying on the stand in the Ferguson case? Yes. He admitted that he did. What did I say that is false?

 

But just to be clear ... sometimes I post comments to make other posters think outside their box ... and to try and bring some balance, reason or a different point of view to the discussion. Sometimes are my comments are sarcastic.

 

I will also say that I bring no agendas to any of these controversies. I bring objectivity and let the facts guide my view.

 

Why do we need to think outside the box when there is clear evidence the guy pulled a gun a pointed it at an officer? I guess facts don't really matter anymore to some.

So if the protesters throw bottles you want the police to open fire on them?

 

Would Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets and Tasers be OK for Bottle throwers?

 

Do brick throwers get real bullets fired at them or should the police just run away at that point?

 

Rioters in NYC had bags of hammers, what would you suggest they do if someone hits them in the head with a hammer or comes at them with a hammer in a threatening manner?

 

I'm just asking what should the police response be to those situations listed?

Would Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets and Tasers be OK for Bottle throwers?

 

Do brick throwers get real bullets fired at them or should the police just run away at that point?

 

Rioters in NYC had bags of hammers, what would you suggest they do if someone hits them in the head with a hammer or comes at them with a hammer in a threatening manner?

 

I'm just asking what should the police response be to those situations listed?

 

It sure sounded to me like he was advocating opening fire on the crowd. He said that they should be treated as domestic terrorists and we should eliminate the threat. That doesn't sound like he was talking about tear gas and rubber bullets. Unless the police are being fired on themselves I do not think that should ever be an option. If it becomes too dangerous for the police to be there then yes, I think they should back away and let them tear their own town up. If you think it is dangerous to be a cop with the current environment wait and see how dangerous it would become if the police opened fire on a group of protesters.

 

I hadn't read that about the hammers. Whatever level of force that they used in that situation would seem to be sufficient given that I also didn't read about any major injuries on either side.

Edited December 25, 201411 yr by AverageJoesGym

 

Would Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets and Tasers be OK for Bottle throwers?

 

Do brick throwers get real bullets fired at them or should the police just run away at that point?

 

Rioters in NYC had bags of hammers, what would you suggest they do if someone hits them in the head with a hammer or comes at them with a hammer in a threatening manner?

 

I'm just asking what should the police response be to those situations listed?

 

Well they can't have riot gear because it looks mean. They can't have armored trucks because they look mean and they look too muchh like the military. They need only what Andy Griffith had...:lol2:

 

It's easy to say what the police should or shouldn't have when I'm not the one getting bricks thrown at my head, shot at, stabbed etc.

Did the prosecutor put witnesses who he knew was lying on the stand in the Ferguson case? Yes. He admitted that he did. What did I say that is false?

 

But just to be clear ... sometimes I post comments to make other posters think outside their box ... and to try and bring some balance, reason or a different point of view to the discussion. Sometimes are my comments are sarcastic.

 

I will also say that I bring no agendas to any of these controversies. I bring objectivity and let the facts guide my view.

 

Quit it I'm laughing to hard on Christmas.

All this talk of tear gas, body cameras, rubber bullets, etc., etc., etc... How about just becoming a society that values nurturing parents that raise children who do not commit crimes and possess guns? And oh by the way: if you are 16, 18 or even 95 years old and you are committing a crime and you get into an altercation with an officer, I don't care what color anyone is - I hope you are not killed, but if you are I am not going to shed a tear. Sorry.

It sure sounded to me like he was advocating opening fire on the crowd. He said that they should be treated as domestic terrorists and we should eliminate the threat. That doesn't sound like he was talking about tear gas and rubber bullets. Unless the police are being fired on themselves I do not think that should ever be an option. If it becomes too dangerous for the police to be there then yes, I think they should back away and let them tear their own town up. If you think it is dangerous to be a cop with the current environment wait and see how dangerous it would become if the police opened fire on a group of protesters.

 

I hadn't read that about the hammers. Whatever level of force that they used in that situation would seem to be sufficient given that I also didn't read about any major injuries on either side.

 

Yeah, let's just have the cops back off and have anarchy rule. Bet you would feel different if your home or business was about to be attacked.

 

Either you want the cops to do their job or you want anarchy to rule. You can't have it both ways.

 

It sure sounded to me like he was advocating opening fire on the crowd. He said that they should be treated as domestic terrorists and we should eliminate the threat. That doesn't sound like he was talking about tear gas and rubber bullets. Unless the police are being fired on themselves I do not think that should ever be an option. If it becomes too dangerous for the police to be there then yes, I think they should back away and let them tear their own town up. If you think it is dangerous to be a cop with the current environment wait and see how dangerous it would become if the police opened fire on a group of protesters.

 

I hadn't read that about the hammers. Whatever level of force that they used in that situation would seem to be sufficient given that I also didn't read about any major injuries on either side.

 

Wait...what? Police should only be allowed to shoot when they are being fired upon? Please tell me I read that wrong.

 

And how much more dangerous can it get? Police are getting ambushed by anti police cowards while they sit in their cars, or eat dinner.

Wait...what? Police should only be allowed to shoot when they are being fired upon? Please tell me I read that wrong.

 

And how much more dangerous can it get? Police are getting ambushed by anti police cowards while they sit in their cars, or eat dinner.

 

Let them open fire on a crowd of people that are not firing at them and see how bad it gets.

 

How many police have been seriously injured in these protests? I don't see anything that has happened this far that justifies opening fire on a crowd of people. That should always be the last resort. That sounds like what plantmanky was advocating when he wanted to eliminate the threat.

 

And it has been far more dangerous to be a police officer before now. Police deaths have been going down at a steady rate the last several years.