 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| User | Post |
| n3g-Z3r0 theory Posts: 20/80 |
Exactly as Arwon was saying with the life or death situations.
Okay lets think about this Guru. If someone is about to shoot and possibly kill you and you are holding a weapon of your own are you going to: (a) Have them drop their weapon though they aren't going to? (b) Fire for one second, approx. 3-5 bullets? Not knowing if they're dead. (c) Shoot until you're certain of the person being dead? (d) Drop your own weapon and run and hide behind something? Personally I would pick (c) and I would most definately fire for longer then 3 seconds. Just look at videos of the U.S. Army in Iraq right now. They fire for about 5-8 seconds or until they're certain they killed their target. In otherwords, the 12 S.W.A.T. were entirely justified because of the life or death situation, Fired enough to make sure the person died and couldn't kill them, and the fact that there were 12 of them just increased the number of bullets fired. Now if those rounds had been fired from one person I'd would be all like....Oh EMMM GEEE |
| Arwon Posts: 394/631 |
I really question how much experience any of you people have with the whole idea of life-and-death gun situations and shooting people. |
| Young Guru Posts: 144/279 |
You do realize how long 3 seconds is when you're shooting someone. Three seconds is a long time, usuallly you trigger the gun for a quick snap maybe half a second, a whole second max, and get your bullets out and you reasses the situation. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, police punish those who attack them, but still, I like to hope in level headed authority to stick to the system. And beneficci is right, it's not our job, and it's not the police's job to enact karma, it's the judicial system's (which I know, is totally fucked, but still, what isn't in the US nowadays, I'm begining to lose a lot of faith in this nation). |
| n3g-Z3r0 theory Posts: 16/80 |
First of all, It is true that they have three setting on their rifles; however, when one of their own is shot I'm pretty sure they instantly put their weapons on fully auto. Thus a 3-second burst probably shot out 10-15 per rifle per 12 people, someone stopped early...Anyways, they were entirely justified in shooting the person. He didn't throw out the gun and pointed it at them, they all held the trigger for 3 seconds or less and the person died. They saved themselves, though they were most definately wearing fully body kevlar. If you kill you will be killed. If you kill a cop you will be killed 12 times=OVERKILL!
Any questions? |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 1424/1697 |
I honestly don't see the difference between 1 and 110 in this case. Someone was going to die in that situation. |
| beneficii Posts: 262/310 |
Oh God, I can practically feel the testosterone pumping in this thread.
Anyway, Vyper, it's not humans' responsibility to ensure that karma is brought about. We have a criminal justice system and we bring criminals to justice, but that's as punishment for a crime and our activities in that regard are and should be tightly regulated. If this was karma, then it wasn't the humans' responsibility in carrying it out. And that last statement ("Now that you know these cops will fire 100+ rounds into your bitch ass, are going going to kill one any time soon? Didn't think so.") seems like it was meant to be very menacing. Sheesh, that's why these debates are always so wearing. |
| Vyper Posts: 484/575 |
Hey man, karma's a bitch. That's what you get for killing a cop. Serves the guy right.
Besides, they warned him to put the gun down and come out from under the brush. He didn't move and aimed the gun at the SWAT team. They fired. Maybe they figured the brush would affect their accuracy. The guy was under a big tree or something (I remember watching the FOX Live news report). Now that you know these cops will fire 100+ rounds into your bitch ass, are going going to kill one any time soon? Didn't think so. |
| Young Guru Posts: 143/279 |
Well, if it's like most standard SWAT weapons, they have three settings, locked, full auto, and semi-auto (3 shot bursts). As far as I know they usually leave it on locked, then switch to semi-auto for most situations and only go full auto on dire occasions (and a single shooter is not a dire situation). And with training SWAT should know how to not shot that many shots, it's their job for God's sake. If your a valet and you drive a beater car from the eighties with terrible pickup, you can't just hop into someone's nice bmw and crash it into a wall because, well, it's just so much more powerful, it's your job, you need to know how to use the equipment given you. I guess I just hold police officers to higher standards (maybe because it's their job!) and for them to show some restraint in situations that most citizens would go overkill on. As my civics teacher in high school said, if we let everyone enact their own justice, then if someone happened to run over my dog, I wouldn't just kill his dog, I'd destroy his car, kill his cats, threaten his family, and maybe even burn down his house, so that everyone in the neighborhood would no not to fuck with me. Now police officers are given the right to enforce the law from the citizens of the state and with this power we expect them to show fair justice and not just revenge justice. I guess it's just my stance on life, I've never understood the concept of killing someone to get justice, it just makes absolutely no sense to me (violence only begets more violence). |
| rubixcuber Posts: 133/356 |
Oh, taking into account automatic weapons I don't think 110 is bad. When I first read the article I was thinking like... pistols. Firing at a guy 110 times with a single shot gun would be crazy. I retract my previous statement. |
| ||bass Posts: 489/594 |
Originally posted by Young GuruUsually nothing. Most people don't have access to fully automatic SWAT type weapons. These guns were most likley full auto. Also, considering there were 9 men and each of those guns probably has a high-capacity 30 round magezine in them. That gives them a total of 270 bullets. 110 bullets is restraint. |
| emcee Posts: 567/867 |
I really don't see what difference it makes how many times he was shot. Dead is dead.
I also don't really think this has too much to do with him killing a cop. If you're considered dangerous, and you point a gun at a swat team, you're going to get killed. |
| Young Guru Posts: 142/279 |
I'm not saying they should have to sacrafice their own lives, but 110 bullets is a helluva lot. And I don't care if they have automatics, they should be trained on how to use them and not to just unleash unrelented fire. Usually those weapons are fired in quick 3 shot bursts, and usually an entire squad doesn't fire upon one man. Or maybe better worded, they shouldn't. |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 1422/1697 |
This is a swat team, they probably have automatic or semi-automatic guns. It probably took all of three seconds and the guy was dead. A cop shouldn't sacrifice his life just because some crimal shot at him and he couldn't shoot back. |
| Young Guru Posts: 141/279 |
Originally posted by Rom Manic I really hope that isn't the case because I don't want my law enforcement to be the kind of people that will not be able to have level heads when something doesn't go according to plan. It's not the athority of the police to decide justice, it's their job to maintain order and bring suspected criminals into court to then have justice determined. I'm not saying people that kill cops are good, they're terrible people, but no worse than those who kill other civilians, and I always get a little worried at people in power thinking they have the authority to circumvent the systems of justice we have in place, no matter how bad that system might be (and let's face it, almost every judge in america throws the book at people who attack cops). |
| Rom Manic Posts: 340/557 |
It's a little overkill, but I suppose everyone might have been shocked at the first gunshot, then just fired at him.
That would smell like bullshit to me. I think they wanted revenge and unloaded on him like they were pissing on a tree. Which is fine, I suppose...Just not what I would have done. It only takes a few bullets to kill someone, and only one if placed correctly (Heart, head, spine, stomach, etc...) |
| ||bass Posts: 487/594 |
Originally posted by ArwonIt's because the police are the enforcers of law & order. When you take a shot at the police, you're opening fire on the system itself. |
| Vyper Posts: 481/575 |
Payback's a bitch.
 ! ! |
| Arwon Posts: 390/631 |
I've never quite understood, why are cops extra sacrosanct? Is it just people looking out for their own?
I mean, from one angle, "I don't wanna go to jail" is a better reason for killing than most others. More justifiable if not more right... |
| Sinfjotle Posts: 1416/1697 |
Between nine swat team people, that's only like 12 rounds each. |
| rubixcuber Posts: 103/356 |
I like how he's the "man suspected of killing a sheriff's deputy" and they shot 110 rounds of ammunition at him. Sure he raised a gun and was hiding in brush making it difficult to tell if they had taken him down, but the idea was to apprehend him not kill him. I mean, "I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had". That seems a little off to me. I smell justice in the air - no wait, that's gunpowder. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
