Quit it I'm laughing to hard on Christmas.

 

Of course you are. Glad I brought joy to your Christmas day.

 

On the other hand, I have never dismissed or laughed off a comment by you regardless of how I view it. I guess that is where we differ.

It's pretty rare for a white officer to shoot a black (or white) citizen. It's also pretty rare for a black officer to shoot a white (or black) citizen. It's little less rare for a black citizen to shoot a white citizen (or a white citizen to shoot a black or white citizen)... and then there is the spike in the graph where the black citizen shoots the black citizen. That is the problem. It doesn't matter what race, religion, or ethnicity the officer is. I for one would like an officer (black or white) around when there is a bad guy about. And oh by the way, if the bad guy (black or white) is brandishing a gun: put 10 rounds into him so that the rest of the law abiding citizens may sleep more peacefully. The morons that say to aim for the leg or fire a warning shot only do so because they know they had a hand in raising a son who is now walking around town with a gun.

 

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.

 

Where did I say they should open fire on a crowd? You said they should only fire when fired upon. So if some one is coming at them with a knife, they can't shoot in your opinion?

 

You think deaths are the only measure of danger when it comes to law enforcement?

 

It's not dangerous when police are shot, shot at, attacked, stabbed, but survive? I'd say police deaths have gone down because of the tactics and equipment you argue they shouldn't have.

Of course you are. Glad I brought joy to your Christmas day.

 

On the other hand, I have never dismissed or laughed off a comment by you regardless of how I view it. I guess that is where we differ.

 

I'm laughing because that comment you tried to defend was the furthest thing from reasonable. It was a shocking comment out of left field and just made a little joke because it was ironic that someone named the voice of reason made such an unreasonable comment.

 

We were having a pretty civil discussion and you threw out a statement as if they would botch a prosecution on purpose. It really didn't fit in the discussion.

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.

 

Obviously they shouldn't just open fire with live rounds into the crowd unless they were being shot at.

 

But did you see the injuries the two cops sustained in the riot after this last shooting. Behavior like that is unacceptable and becoming to common.

Where did I say they should open fire on a crowd? You said they should only fire when fired upon. So if some one is coming at them with a knife, they can't shoot in your opinion?

 

You think deaths are the only measure of danger when it comes to law enforcement?

 

It's not dangerous when police are shot, shot at, attacked, stabbed, but survive? I'd say police deaths have gone down because of the tactics and equipment you argue they shouldn't have.

 

 

 

This is pointless. You're totally twisting my words and ignoring the context of the original post. But I expect nothing less from you. Plantmanky's original post is the one that I was referring to. In that he said that protesters should be treated as domestic terrorists and that the police should eliminate the threat if protests get violent. I was talking specifically about crowds of protesters like plantmanky referenced.

 

I'm done with this one. Merry Christmas.

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

 

On this note... pulling a gun at 200ft an pulling a gun at this distance is way different imo... a guy doing this is ready to kill or ready to die. Watching the video I was amazed the guy pulled a gun at this distance. Im still wondering what was his reasoning?? Had he just committed a bad crime?

Was he just trying to bully a cop thinking the cop would back down based on Ferguson being close by?

 

I know what you want to say " he wasn't thinking"...

 

Has any motives been mentioned?

 

This is pointless. You're totally twisting my words and ignoring the context of the original post. But I expect nothing less from you. Plantmanky's original post is the one that I was referring to. In that he said that protesters should be treated as domestic terrorists and that the police should eliminate the threat if protests get violent. I was talking specifically about crowds of protesters like plantmanky referenced.

 

I'm done with this one. Merry Christmas.

 

Maybe you could just be more clear with what you are trying to say. I've twisted nothing. You could have just answered the question instead of taking your ball and going home.

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?

 

Maybe you could just be more clear with what you are trying to say. I've twisted nothing. You could have just answered the question instead of taking your ball and going home.

 

Above is plantmanky's post and my response. How much clearer should it have been that I was talking about opening fire on protesters?

 

Above is plantmanky's post and my response. How much clearer should it have been that I was talking about opening fire on protesters?

 

You later said they should only shoot when fired upon. That was the post I referred to. I was only asking for clarification, no need to get all fussy.

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.

 

No way in the world this should be the policy.

For one thing, the town does not belong to the protestors. The other people in that town have rights. When others trample on those rights intentionally in a criminal manner, they must be dealt with.

I hate it that the police have had to become "militarized" but that is a better option than complete lawlessness and anarchy in my opinion.

It is never ok to just cave in to the ones committing criminal acts.

No way in the world this should be the policy.

For one thing, the town does not belong to the protestors. The other people in that town have rights. When others trample on those rights intentionally in a criminal manner, they must be dealt with.

I hate it that the police have had to become "militarized" but that is a better option than complete lawlessness and anarchy in my opinion.

It is never ok to just cave in to the ones committing criminal acts.

 

 

 

So you would open fire on the crowd to "eliminate the threat" like plantmanky was advocating? How many lives would that cost? How many lives are some buildings and merchandise worth?

 

But it would probably be effective. Maybe if they gun down a couple hundred next time people will think twice about acting up.

So you would open fire on the crowd to "eliminate the threat" like plantmanky was advocating? How many lives would that cost? How many lives are some buildings and merchandise worth?

 

But it would probably be effective. Maybe if they gun down a couple hundred next time people will think twice about acting up.

 

I don't advocate "Shooting into the crowd" for any reason and no sane person does. Firing at an individual that is presenting a lethal threat is a different situation and in some cases must be done.

 

But as Plato said, The Police serve everyone and they just can't turn and run and leave the rest of the town to protesters. Think of it this way, what if an Outlaw Bike Gang took over downtown Somerset and was threatening violence against the police all the while breaking into every business and looting and destroying downtown, should SPD, PCSO and KSP simply fall back to Burnside and wait for the Bikers to get tired and move on? What about the people that own those businesses and homes downtown, don't they deserve police protection?

 

There are often no pretty and easy answers when it comes to dealing with criminals (I didn't say protesters). Those that willfully break the law must be dealt with and thank God there are men and women willing to do it for those that aren't willing to do it.

 

So you would open fire on the crowd to "eliminate the threat" like plantmanky was advocating? How many lives would that cost? How many lives are some buildings and merchandise worth?

 

But it would probably be effective. Maybe if they gun down a couple hundred next time people will think twice about acting up.

 

Did plantman say he would open fire into the crowd?

So you would open fire on the crowd to "eliminate the threat" like plantmanky was advocating? How many lives would that cost? How many lives are some buildings and merchandise worth?

 

But it would probably be effective. Maybe if they gun down a couple hundred next time people will think twice about acting up.

 

You, my friend, have gone a little off the deep end.

 

I'm not saying shoot first. I am saying make it stop.

Let us never forget that it is the protestors who are committing criminal acts who are unquestionably in the wrong. They put their own lives and the safety of others at risk in addition to the destruction of property - which to those store owners and their families is probably worth a substantial amount.

If I owned one of the stores I would certainly not be ok with the "stand back and let them destroy the town" approach.

Geez...