Use of force

Serious discussions on politics, religion, and the like.
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 1:07 am

Re: Use of force

Post by goku90504 »

Tailsteak wrote:I'm gonna say this: if you have a gun, and pepper spray, and a taser, and handcuffs, and combat training, and a car, and the ability to call for backup... and then someone who is unarmed and who has none of that can make you so afraid for your own personal safety that you can think of no possible response other than to draw your gun, point it at their center mass, and keep pulling the trigger until you hear a click... then you are bad at your job.
I agree to the above in theory though the taser is more important to that than the pepper spray and handcuffs because i know people on certain drugs are effectively immune to pepper spray (in that the pepper spray does not deter them from continuing their violence and might in fact make them more so) but so far as i currently know a taser jolt will do a number on them regardless of what they're on that said a second gun with rubber bullets or bean bag rounds or what ever non-lethal projectile fits the bill should be standard issue and part of standard training
Tailsteak wrote: Again, let's ignore whether it's self-defense or murder and whether or not a trial should have gone forward and whether the cop in question is racist. Can we not agree that if someone who has lethal weapons feels his life is threatened by someone who does not have lethal weapons, and can think of no way to defend himself other than to kill, that this person is profoundly lacking in intelligence, let alone skill or bravery or good judgement? Can we not agree that such a person is incapable of walking down the street in uniform, let alone serving or protecting a community of any sort?

And y'know what? Let's just make that a general rule for weapon ownership. If you are able-bodied, uninjured, and have a gun, and you are facing one person who does not have a weapon, then shooting that person may or may not be technically legal, but it still makes you a bad gun owner and someone who should not have said gun.

Anyone disagree?
Frankly anyone aggressively invading the personal space of a cop deserves to be treated as if they're armed and dangerous because it's so easy to conceal deadly short ranged weapons such as small knives
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: Use of force

Post by gaeila »

Grimjac100 wrote:Wow...from use of force to Eric Garner to grand juries and the job of the police...time to throw in my over-inflated opinion!

Firstly: anyone who has not been shot at, assaulted with a knife, gotten curb-stomped, kicked in the nads, or otherwise personally experienced violent attentions...shut the hell up because you haven't got a clue. You have NO idea what a `proper' response would possibly be. Just like those of you not women have no idea what menstrual cramps or PMS is like. You can entertain all the lofty ideals you want about it, craft your dream palaces about How It Ought To Be...and none of it means a damn because you don't know how it IS.
First, I HAVE experienced violent attentions. More than once. So yeah, I've been there. And yeah, I agree with you rather more than I wish I had to. For those who haven't been there, here's some things to think about:
1. The flood of adrenaline is indescribable. No horror movie, scary Halloween event, etc. is comparable. There is so much adrenaline, it can quite literally take days to wear off. The only thing that might compare is taking a huge overdose of speed, and since I've never done that, I don't know if it really would compare.
2. With an overdose of adrenaline coursing through your system, you can't use your brain in the same ways you "normally" do. You. Just. Can't.
3. People tend to perform pretty badly when suddenly faced with a novel situation.

Here's a question: What if you're not able-bodied any more? What if you are not capable of running away from someone who has crashed through your front door? Unfortunately, that is my situation. I do own a gun--a Ruger GP 100 (cop approved!), which can chamber both .38 Special and .357 Magnum; guess what I keep loaded? (Here's a hint: if I have to shoot, and do hit someone, they are highly likely to fall down. No matter where I hit them.)

Anyway, if someone breaks down my door without warning (Firemen and other emergency folks know to bang loudly and identify themselves), and comes at me, I'm going to shoot as straight for center of mass as I can. Multiple times. I won't shout a warning--there's a time factor--not enough distance between the door and where my bed is.

Why? Because I will be afraid for my life. Which is pretty much the the only circumstance under which I would shoot someone.

And I don't think I'm a bad gun owner.

BTW, here's a bit of a fun educational side note: A new homeowner was dithering endlessly with his contractor over what kind of door and lock to install; how durable, how expensive, etc. The contractor got fed up, and explained to the guy that anyone who REALLY wants to break into your home can do so. He then demonstrated by easily kicking his way in through the siding, pine 2 x 4's and drywall of the guy's partially complete house.
This story is true. I completely believe it, because there's been a huge building/gentrification boom in my neighborhood, and I've watched a bunch of nice-looking and fairly expensive houses go up that I am certain I could kick my way into, even with my disabled body. In fact, now I'm wondering if should even share this story, because this knowledge doesn't really seem to have caught on among the home-invasion population. Plus, it mostly goes for homes built in the last 30 years or so, and brick homes are an obvious exception. Oh well. MY house was built in 1897, so I don't have to worry. They built 'em really tough back then.
Last edited by gaeila on Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:07 pm

Re: Use of force

Post by gaeila »

Also, how do you know if someone who breaks into your house is unarmed or not? It might be dark, guns or other weapons can be stashed behind the back, etc.

Because here's the thing: in the U.S., you have to go to quite a bit of effort to get a carry permit. In many states, it's almost impossible to get a carry permit. So for most people, using a gun on a stranger is only going to come up as a possibility IF THEIR HOME HAS BEEN INVADED.

You really think they deserve the chance to shoot first?
Post Reply