Yes, you are pretty clueless.
Another unarmed black man gunned down
- Thread starter zitothebrave
- Start date
Yes, you are pretty clueless.
Yes, and any soldier will tell you(I live near a base so I know) that these rules of engagement have gotten many of their friends killed. If we had these rules of modern warfare during WWII we would not have won.
sturg33
I
Just to be clear... you think my cluelessness derives from my belief that cops should not kill unarmed people?
Just want to make sure that my desire for american citizens not to be killed is now classified as clueless in this country.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Yeah, and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
We've lost so few soldiers that your story doesn't really stand up. We've had under 2500 troop deaths in our 15 year War in Afghanistan. We lost about 4500 in Iraq. So in a combined (official I guess) 22 years of war we lost about 7000 troops. In 4 years in Korea we lost 36,000 troops. In 20 years in Vietnam 58000 troops, 4 years in WWII 405K troops. Sounds to me like the peeple who complain about the rules of engagement getting their friends killed are either few and far between, lying because what are the odds that that many people know one of the 7000 who died, or honestly, naive about what would ahve happened to their buddies in pretty much any other major US offensive.
And again, I know more poeple who cherish that training because it stopped them from killing someone innocent.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Nope. They could tase, They could run in and tackle him, they could beat him with a nightstick, they could backup to cover and see if he produces a weapon. Afterall they're the ones trained to deal with these situations, not the "criminal"
LOL! Dude, now you're using a silly strawman argument. Look at what we discussed above. You'll have your answer.
sturg33
I
Training... "shoot first. get half the country defending you. take a paid suspension."
You're trying to compare small war engagements to larger war engagements for your numbers. However, read some history. If we had modern liberals back then you guys would have a field day with all of the **** McArthur and Patton did. War Crimes galore. Personally, I know you're not telling the truth with the last sentence because most military guys know that modern wars of engagement cost more lives than what they save.
If they have a taser you would be correct. Trying anything else you suggested gets your ass shot.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
No, that stat is based on witness and victim descriptions of the perp, at least the stat I use. Also, black people are significantly disproportionately the victims of murder and violent crime. And I would like to see you back up your claim that black people are convicted of violent crime significantly more than white people.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Nope. But whatever, keep your head in the sand.
As far as war crimes, there were some for sure, but WWII was a bloody mess where the Germans started it.
Do you want articles from military leaders for proof? I'm right and you're wrong. You libs have no clue when it comes to the military.
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
That's a very simplistic argument. Unarmed doesn't mean that police don't have the right to shoot. Unarmed can mean a person holding a toy weapon that looks just like a real gun. Unarmed means a perp trying to take the gun of the cop. It can mean reaching for something that the police officer can't see, which could be a gun. This idea that killing an unarmed person is always wrong is absurd. Maybe it's always tragic, but it's not always illegal.
sturg33
I
Not sure about violent... but definitely sure about drug convictions... no good reason to see why it would be different
sturg33
I
Like I said earlier... I'll always assume the cop is wrong when it comes to killing an unarmed person. If evidence comes out to justify it, I'll listen. But my initial reaction will always be that is should not have happened. Unfortunately, too many people like Garmel in this country who cop suck everything they do... when a huge amount of cops are corrupt assholes whose sole purpose is limit liberty
So, you assume guilt before innocence then mention liberty in the next sentence. LOL!!!
sturg33
I
Uhhh... isn't the cop assuming guilt before innocence by pulling the trigger? I suppose he also is the judge, jury, and executioner. At least my judgement doesn't result in someone being killed
But I'm the ****ed up one...
weso1
<B>Clique Leader</B>
That's an absurd position. You're going to make the cop wait until the person is pointing a gun at them? If the person is making a move for the gun then the police officer has the right to defend him or herself.
sturg33
I
Is that what happened?
Yeah, it's terrible that a cop has the right to defend himself and shouldn't have to risk his life unnecessarily. Yes, you're the ****ed up one. Feels like I'm talking to 57.