Cop Accidentally Shoots Man, Ignores Emergency Responder, Other Cops In Order To Text Union Rep

from the 'I-feared-for-my-employment' dept

Wed, Dec 10th 2014 4:12am — Tim Cushing

Late last month, rookie NYPD officer Peter Liang shot an unarmed resident of a Brooklyn housing project while entering an unlit stairwell. While opening a door, Liang's gun "discharged" (as they say). The bullet struck Akai Gurley in the chest, killing him.

It was an accident, but an avoidable one. Liang claims to have been opening the door to the stairwell with a flashlight in one hand and his gun in the other. While opening the door (possibly using his "gun hand), he inadvertently fired his weapon. That his gun was drawn was questionable enough. But this error in judgment was further compounded by his actions immediately following the discovery that he had shot someone in the stairwell.

The New York Daily News reports that in the crucial minutes following the shooting, Liang and his partner did not try to get medical attention for the grievously wounded man and could not be reached by either their commanding officer or the 911 dispatcher who fielded a call from a neighbor reporting gunshots.

Let that sink in for a moment. An accidental shot hits a man in the chest and the two officers on the scene have zero interest in ensuring the victim receives medical attention. Both officers (both rookies) decided to go off the grid rather than deal with the mess they had created.

Liang knew he had screwed up. But he chose to protect himself as a man he shot lay dying. Instead of responding to queries and calls, he was texting his union representative.

If there's any entity that can keep cops from being held accountable for their actions, it's police unions. Through the power of labor agreements and arbitration hearings, unions can reinstate cops despicable enough that their own departments have disowned them. Liang may only be a rookie but he already recognizes who holds the most power.

His partner may have been following Liang's lead or was equally unsure of where to turn in the wake of this unfortunate incident. He may not have texted a union rep, but he also did nothing to ensure the victim received medical attention. He also chose to remain incommunicado. That decision may have been prompted by the fact that not only had the two officers been forbidden from performing this sort of patrol (called a "vertical") by their supervisor, but they also had no idea where they were.

Mistakes happen. But this collection of errors snowballed into an accidental shooting of an unarmed man. That part is excusable, but only if entirely separated from the events following the shooting. Texting a union rep shows that Liang's primary concern was for his own livelihood rather than the well-being of anyone around him. His partner's compliant silence pushes this situation from merely tragic into the arena of the possibly criminal.

The Daily News cites court insiders as saying "while the shooting may have been a mishap, the cops' subsequent conduct can amount to criminal liability."

While I can appreciate the fact that the instinct for self-preservation can often override better judgment, police officers are held -- or should be -- to a higher standard. When someone's life is ebbing away thanks to your screwup, you need to take care of them first and worry about the extent of your ass coverage later. Police officers are already well-insulated against accountability. Talking to a union rep as a man lays dying is, no sickening pun intended, overkill.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: akai gurley, nypd, peter liang, police, police brutality, police unions, protection

146 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

The First Word

“

Bringing the second amendment into this is a red herring.

Imagining that, without privately owned guns, the police wouldn't have guns is incorrect. The UK was almost unique in not issuing firearms for routine police work. And that has changed. It's not uncommon to see sidearms routinely carried in some areas.

Did the police have their firearms drawn because they expected to enter a gun battle? Or even expected to use them? Almost certainly not. Exchanging gunfire is rare, and they wouldn't have entered the stairwell without backup if they expected it.

That suggests that they had their guns drawn as a means of intimidation. Not because they expected armed opposition, but because they wanted to "control the situation".

'Control the situation' is a now-common part of police training. And it now extends to all situations, even when no crime is being committed. It goes hand-in-hand with 'respect my authority', and quickly moves to feeling above the laws you are enforcing on the little people.

—DB

”

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 4:21am

In the last few years we've seen a dozens of states pass laws to reduce the bargaining power of public employee unions - and MI went full right-to-work. I wonder why there are always exceptions for LEOs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 6:56am
  
  Re:
  Reduced bargaining power of public employees may not be as bad an idea if you want to encourage same-educated private jobs, but the reduction should be made in a way where every organisation can be targetted equally. Making exceptions seems like a copout showing that the intend is more along the line of the private industries fight against any union. A veritable race to the bottom in terms of organizing labour.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Name for this Use, 10 Dec 2014 @ 4:27am

LEO exception
Yes there was, cops and firefighter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 4:42am

Error
Mistakes happen. But this collection of errors snowballed into an accidental shooting of an unarmed man.

The original mistake is the second amendment, or at least its interpretation to include modern handguns.

The US does not actually allow an unlimited "right to bear arms". If it did then privately owned tanks, fighter planes and tactical nuclear weapons would be allowed. Clearly the 2nd amendment could be restricted to the kind of armaments that were available when it was written.

Without a plethora of privately owned handguns a police officer would not have felt the need to draw his gun in this situation and in fact would not even have needed a gun. UK police manage fine without them - and have resisted calls for them to be issued.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jim, 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:26am
  
  Re: Error
  Yea, because everyone knows that once you take guns away from those who obey the law, there will be no more guns for criminals to use.... Idiot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:13am
    
    Re: Re: Error
    Yea, because everyone knows that once you take guns away from those who obey the law, there will be no more guns for criminals to use
    
    Just look at the gun death statistics for UK and US.
    
    Figures don't lie.
    
    Fewer legal guns does inevitably mean fewer in the hands of criminals. Almost every criminal's gun starts life as a legal gun.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leit, 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      Sure, I mean, all those guns supplied by the ATF were totally clean.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - art guerrilla (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 12:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        actually, in a sense, they were: they used a production run of guns that were specifically and secretly made WITHOUT SERIAL numbers, for the express use of being distributed by our alphabet agencies to be 'untraceable'...
        
        so, as per usual, actions which are ABSOLUTELY illegal for us 99%, are just fine when our 'superiors' do it...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      Correlation does not mean causation
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PRMan, 10 Dec 2014 @ 10:17am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      Look at the mental health figures for UK and US. Look at how many mass shooters were mentally ill.
      
      Wait, maybe the gun statistic was lying.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JP Jones (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      Yup, this is completely true.
      
      In 2011, approximately 32,163 individuals were killed by guns in the U.S. (including accidental deaths). The U.S. had 15,953 homicides, 11,101 of which were caused by guns. In 2011, there were about 310.5 million people, with a similar number of guns owned (estimates range from 270 million to 310 million) and both legal and illegal ownership is estimated at 101 per 100 people.
      
      Now, compare this to Russia, which has strict gun control laws. In 2011, Russia had a population of around 143 million. The latest data of gun ownership in Russia is about 12,750,000, or around 8.9 guns per 100 people. Although we do not have exact numbers from Russia specific to guns, in 2011 they had 13,826 homicides.
      
      Oh, huh, that's a little odd. Russia, with 10% of the guns per capita and 46% of the population, has a total homicide rate about 2,000 individuals less. Per person, the homicide rate in the U.S. is 1 homicide per 19,463 people and the rate in Russia is 1 homicide per 10,342 people. So the U.S. had 90% more gun ownership, 54% higher population, and a 47% lower homicide rate than Russia.
      
      Here are four countries with higher murder rates than the U.S.: Venezuela, Belize, South Africa, and El Salvador, with homicide rates per 100,000 people of 70.2 El Salvador, 45.1 in Venezuela, 39 in Belize, and 30.9 in South Africa (The U.S. is 4.7). The U.S. has a gun rate per 100 population of 101. Those other countries? Venezuela 10.7, Belize 10, South Africa 6.9, and El Salvador 5.8. The rate of gun homicides per 100,000 people is 39.9 El Salvador, 39 Venezuela, 21.8 Belize, 17 South Africa, and 2.8 United States.
      
      So there are five countries with less guns but higher rates of gun violence, and violence in general, than the U.S. (significantly so!). Are there countries out there with lower gun ownership and lower violence/gun violence than the U.S.? Of course, there are many. But you don't just get to ignore the ones that don't correlate with your theory.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:27am
  
  Re: Error
  Yes because if guns are illegal, then no one would be carrying them
  /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - pouar (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:28am
    
    Re: Re: Error
    Forgot to sign in, this is me
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Richard (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:15am
    
    Re: Re: Error
    "No one" is a straw man - but the reality is that FEWER people would be carrying them - and that is enough to reduce the death toll substantially.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dan (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:33am
  
  Re: Error
  I don't see how Richard's point is even relevant. Even if the citizenry didn't have handguns, these cops still would have as part of their job. The accident would have still been possible. The prudent thing would have been to not try to open a door with a loaded gun.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - David, 10 Dec 2014 @ 6:55am
    
    Re: Re: Error
    We are not talking about opening a door with a loaded gun. We are talking about opening a door with a cocked gun pointed not just anywhere but in the direction of a corridor/flight of stairs with the security off.
    
    That's not an accident, that is at the very least having fun. It might be worth checking other places that "patrol" has been for bullets in the wall and powder traces.
    
    Whether or not somebody being in the corridor that got the bullet was unexpected, the shot itself can hardly count as coincidence.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:48am
  
  Re: Error
  and with these protections a the 2nd amendment our government would completely run over us the ability to shoot back is one hell of a deterrent for a power and control hungry system. and if one amendment falls so shall the others.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 6:07am
    
    Re: Re: Error
    "[...] our government would completely run over us the ability to shoot back is one hell of a deterrent for a power and control hungry system [...]"
    
    Ah, the sad delusions of gun nuts. Almost -- but not quite -- charmingly naive in their childlike simplicity.
    
    Your guns are no deterrent at all to a government that has guided missiles, stealth fighters, drones, sonic weapons, cluster bombs, tanks, armored robots, infrared vision systems, and all kinds of other gear.
    
    If you are inconsequential and irrelevant, then of course they won't bother with you. You're simply not worth the effort and the expense.
    
    If you become consequential and relevant, then they will. And your guns will be incinerated along with you when a drone carrying high explosives closes on your position and detonates. Nobody will need to pry your gun from your cold, dead hand because your hand will be ash and your gun will be slag.
    
    If you want to resist power, then you'll need weapons vastly superior to guns: reason, logic, facts, compassion, dignity, courage, empathy. These are the weapons of the brave; guns are the weapons of cowards.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Rich, 10 Dec 2014 @ 6:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      Yeah, you're really brave, Mr. Anonymous Coward.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AJ, 10 Dec 2014 @ 6:38am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      I tell you what.. you throw your logic, facts, and compassion at the guy breaking into your house if you want... I'll stick to my 9mm. Natural selection will determine who comes out ahead.. I'm feeling pretty good about my chances.. you?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        You know that's not how natural selection works, don't you? Actually, you probably don't.
        
        Natural selection depends on a positive (advantageous) reproducible (genetically inheritable) trait; choosing to own a handgun is not a reproducible trait.
        
        However, being so stupid that you actually argue against reason, logic, and facts is reproducible. However, it's not at all positive, nor does low intelligence increase the probability of reproducing in the first place (unless you find your "equal" which only hurts the next generation's odds as far as natural selection goes).
        
        Good luck!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Choosing to have a handgun is not advantageous? I'm glad you like your big words. It is just too bad you don't have any clue how reality works. Gun violence is the least common result of owning a weapon. Displaying a weapon to someone breaking into your home will end 99% of all crimes. For the remaining 1%, they already had a weapon, and were ready to use it regardless of your possession of one. Feel free to feel high and mighty with your zero contribution to the gene pool.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 10:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Choosing to have a handgun is not advantageous?
        
        Apparently not.
        Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home
        
        I'm glad you like your big words.
        
        Intelligent people like to use them sometimes. I guess that's not your normal crowd.
        
        It is just too bad you don't have any clue how reality works. Gun violence is the least common result of owning a weapon.
        
        Sorry, I do know how reality works. So do these folks:
        If you have a gun, everybody in your home is more likely than your non-gun-owning neighbors and their families to die in a gun-related accident, suicide or homicide.
        
        Displaying a weapon to someone breaking into your home will end 99% of all crimes. For the remaining 1%, they already had a weapon, and were ready to use it regardless of your possession of one.
        
        Where did you get those stats? Just pulled them out of your ass, didn't you? They sure smell that way. Here's some that don't stink so much:
        Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.
        
        Feel free to feel high and mighty...
        
        Thanks. I will.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 10 Dec 2014 @ 11:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        The reference you provided also acknowledges that "Studies of defensive gun use suggest that millions of defensive gun use incidents occur each year by people to protect themselves or their property against assaults, theft, or break-ins"
        
        ... it's actually a very good read. I would say the data actually points overall to responsible gun ownership having more benefits than not. Here is some more interesting reading.
        
        * Roughly 16,272 murders were committed in the United States during 2008. Of these, about 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]
        
        * A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."[12]
        
        hmmm...
        
        Murders: 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]
        
        Guns in Defense (5 year span): "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year
        
        http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 1:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        The reference you provided also acknowledges that "Studies of defensive gun use suggest that millions of defensive gun use incidents occur each year by people to protect themselves or their property against assaults, theft, or break-ins"
        
        ... it's actually a very good read.
        
        Yea, it is a good read. Maybe you should read and comprehend it next time instead of cherry-picking that sentence from the rest of the paragraph.
        
        Studies of defensive gun use suggest that millions of defensive gun use incidents occur each year by people to protect themselves or their property against assaults, theft, or break-ins. HOWEVER, guns are also involved in unintentional firearm shootings and domestic altercations in the home and are the primary method used in suicides in the United States. The body of research to date, including the findings of this study, shows a strong association between guns in the home and risk of suicide. The findings for homicide, while showing an elevated risk, have consistently been more modest.
        
        I would say the data actually points overall to responsible gun ownership having more benefits than not. Here is some more interesting reading.
        
        Yea, that's what you would say. Too bad the data points to the opposite. The last 2 sentences are saying that you are more likely to be a victim of a homicide if you own a gun.
        
        The first of your other two references doesn't say anything at all, just a number. The second one ... do you really think that a stat from .05% of the population that quotes them saying they had to use their gun or get killed, people who have every reason to lie and/or exaggerate, proves anything?
        
        It doesn't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 10 Dec 2014 @ 1:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Stop crying troll, you got caught up in your own bullshit. I followed the link to it's references, then again to their references. All of them pointing to the same thing. Yes people kill themselves with guns, yes people commit crimes with guns, but you are much MUCH more likely to us a gun to defend yourself than to be murdered or kill yourself with one.
        
        Firearm suicides
        Number of deaths: 19,990
        http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
        
        Murders: 10,886 or 67% were committed with firearms.[11]
        http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#general
        
        vrs.
        
        Guns in Defense (5 year span): "almost certainly would have been killed" if they "had not used a gun for protection." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year
        
        I realize you absolutely cannot fathom that you are wrong. Thats ok, Troll's aren't expected to admit anything. But you ARE wrong, and no amount of bullshit is going to change that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 2:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Stop crying troll, you got caught up in your own bullshit.
        
        No, it wasn't me. It was you who tried to pull a single sentence out of a whole body of research to try to prove your bullshit. And got caught.
        
        FACT: having a gun in the home increases your risk of being a victim of a homicide. It was right there in the paragraph you tried to cherry-pick that sentence from.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 10 Dec 2014 @ 3:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        You got your ass handed to you all over this post. Pack up your shit, and go home. It's ok to loose, at least that's what you should be telling yourself troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 10 Dec 2014 @ 3:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        *Lose....Stupid second keyboard, can't even talk shit w/o mistyping something...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        That's really funny. You cherry-pick a single sentence out of one of the several links I've posted that appears, in isolation, to contradict the point that owning a gun increases your risk of homicide, and you think that amounts to getting "my ass handed to [me]."
        
        Try these:
        "Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home." Source
        
        "Conclusion: Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm." Source
        
        "... we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7)" (That means almost 3 times as likely) Source
        
        "The adjusted relative risk for homicide, given a history of family handgun purchase, was 2.2" (That means more that twice as likely). Source.
        
        I could go on all day because all the studies say the same goddamn thing you can't or won't get through your thick skull: that owning a gun increases your chances of being a victim of a homicide.
        
        Good luck trying to cherry-pick a seemingly contradictory sentence out of each one of those. ;-)
        
        Go ahead, keep trying to argue against what is glaringly obvious. Keep making yourself look like a stubborn moron. It really is quite amusing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 11 Dec 2014 @ 4:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        You can keep trying to pound home your bullshit. But that's all it is; bullshit. I read no less than 3 additional studies last night that picked that study apart.
        
        All that crap your parroting is the equivalent of saying "If you own a car, you are more likely to be in a car accident". They, and the people like you noob shit who pick out one part of the overall picture, and try to bend the entire study to match that view, are idiots.
        
        ""Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home." Source"
        
        Read the fucking sentence you linked retard, think about what they are telling you. You are more likely to die from a homicide, but they don't add the comparison as to how likely you would be able to defend yourself or your property should you actually have a gun, vrs running like a scared coward. When you defend yourself, there is indeed a chance you will be killed in the battle. Such is life. If you don't stand and fight, your odds of not dying increase right? I didn't need a fucking study to figure that out.
        
        11 thousand murders, of that lets say 7 thousand own guns. They don't fucking tell you about the 162,00 that were able to defend themselves successfully do they? Just the amount that owned guns and were killed. That's fairly disingenuous don't you think?
        
        ""Conclusion: Having a gun at home is a risk factor for adults to be shot fatally (gun homicide) or commit suicide with a firearm." Source"
        
        That sentence is just fucking stupid. On the rare occasion someone kills themselves at a friends house, or steal's a gun, it's really fucking hard to kill yourself with a gun unless you own one isn't it noob shit?
        
        ""... we found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly and independently associated with an increased risk of homicide (adjusted odds ratio, 2.7)" (That means almost 3 times as likely) Source"
        
        Notice again, they only tell you that it increases the risk, the study doesn't include the number of successfully defended homes by persons with a firearm, they only point out the increased risk.
        
        11 thousand murders, 162 thousand successfully defended. My point was that although it raises the "risk" of homicide times 2, it raises your ability to defend yourself by 16 times. The studies actually point to responsible gun ownership is more advantages than not doesn't it? Isn't that what I said you fucking retard?
        
        Your parroting facts from studies you don't understand is funny in a sad way. You jump all over people on this thread like you know what the fuck your talking about, and all your doing is confirming your a dumb ass. Again I say; pack up your shit, and go home.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 5:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        I read no less than 3 additional studies last night that picked that study apart.
        
        Hmm, why don't you have links to those? Oh, I know. Because you're full of shit.
        
        Even if you do manage to find a study or two that finds flaws in that one that I referenced, what about all other the other studies that find the exact same thing!
        
        11 thousand murders, 162 thousand successfully defended. My point was that although it raises the "risk" of homicide times 2, it raises your ability to defend yourself by 16 times.
        
        How do you square against this:
        Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in.
        
        How is it possible that in an actual scientific study they conclude that a gun doesn't prevent you from being victimized in a crime, yet according your hoo-ha a gun owner is 16 times better at protecting themselves? Something doesn't jive there. And it's pretty obvious, if you have any understanding of stats, what it is. The study you're relying on is self-reporting from people who have every reason to embellish or straight-out lie to a)the police; b)their own conscience; c)their friends/family; d)the media; e)the "perp's" family/friends; f)their "god"; g)their "church"; h)society as a whole.
        
        Yea, those are some reeeaaallly reliable numbers. hahahaha. What a dumbass you are.
        
        Aside from the fact your 162,000 is a bullshit number, comparing it to ~10,000 murders and coming to the conclusion that this makes gun owners 16 times more able to defend themselves is also bullshit. First off, you're starting with bullshit numbers. Second, it's not a valid comparison. Here's why: you don't (and can't) know how many of the former are part of the latter. Why can't you know? Because they're from independent studies. And you're dumb enough to try to mix their results and draw a conclusion.
        
        Leave statistical analysis to people who actually understand how it works.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 5:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        You know what? I'm done with this. Nobody that would be able to gain any knowledge is going to be reading this thread anymore, and you're just plain too dense to accept rational facts, reason, and logic.
        
        I'm sure I'll run into in another thread somewhere and crush you once again. Until then, have a nice life.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 11 Dec 2014 @ 6:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        That's right troll, tuck your fucking tail and run. You come to this forum and try to talk down to everyone that has an opposing view. I see it the vast majority of your posts. Your not interested in having an honest discussion, your interested in trying to feel superior. Your a fucking troll, not even a good one.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 11 Dec 2014 @ 6:03am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        "Aside from the fact your 162,000 is a bullshit number, "
        
        The numbers, and the studies that contradict the one you linked, are used as references in the link you provided you fucking retard. The study you linked acknowledged them, and to some degree even pointed out that there is contradicting evidence. The study you linked, points to references, some of which are compiled in the link below.
        
        http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
        
        Lets take this a step further. Here is some additional info.
        
        "If guns have a countervailing benefit—that lawful firearm owners frequently or even occasionally use guns to defend themselves and their loved ones—then determining how aggressively to curb private possession becomes a more complicated proposition."
        
        "What’s the upshot?
        
        1. We don’t know exactly how frequently defensive gun use occurs.
        
        2. A conservative estimate of the order of magnitude is tens of thousands of times a year; 100,000 is not a wild gun-nut fantasy."
        
        http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-12-27/how-often-do-we-use-guns-in-self-defense
        
        htt ps://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
        
        The fact is, we don't know for sure how many times a year someone has to use a gun to keep from getting killed. Conservative estimates put it at 100K, and less conservative estimates put it around 600K
        
        "Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in."
        
        This is from Hemenway, and he compiled his data from "A National Crime Victimization Survey report". Now, his data is from 1997, current estimates are around 100K. So even the guy that's spewing this bullshit is acknowledging that for every 1 murder, a gun is used to defend life or property around 10 times. How the fuck does that not reduce your risk of being injured in a break in? The conclusions he's reaching don't jive with the numbers he's giving us.
        
        "A National Crime Victimization Survey report, controlling for many of the methodological problems in Kleck, supported Hemenway, finding 65,000 defensive gun uses per year (NCVS Report, 1997). Current NCVS estimates are in the 100,000 range."
        
        Bullshit. If conservatively 100k people use a gun to protect themselves, and only 11K are murdered, then as a gun owner you are 10 times more likely to use a gun to defend yourself than to be murdered by one (suicide aside). That's using the very research and numbers the study your linking states.
        
        Stop drinking the cool aid troll, and start thinking for yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 6:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Let's see yourself try to tie yourself in knots over this one:
        
        In the UK the intentional homicide rate is 1.0
        In the US the intentional homicide rate is 4.7
        Source
        
        In the UK the crime rate is 41.00
        In the US the crime rate is 50.16
        Source
        
        How is it that a country with guns has a significantly higher intentional homicide rate and crime rate than a country without guns when, according to your (utterly flawed) analysis, guns make you 10 or 16 (or whatever bullshit number you decide to use depending on your mood) "more likely to use a gun to defend yourself than to be murdered by one"?
        
        They do not have guns, yet get murdered nearly less frequently.
        
        Those are hard numbers, not just suppositions like you're trying to use in your feeble attempt to make it look like a gun makes you more safe. They don't.
        
        Results. After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05).
        
        Conclusions. On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.
        Source
        
        Over and over and over and over, studies point to the same fucking thing but you're too dense to get it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2014 @ 7:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Your an even bigger idiot than previously thought. We live in a gun culture, we have unsecured borders, and are responsible for our own safety. Australia, the U.K., and others that have made it extremely difficult to own guns, have significantly lower gun deaths, but they also don't have the freedoms we have.
        
        There never has been a question that if you take away the guns, you will have less gun violence It's a simple math problem. But in doing so, we give up our freedoms. Our forefathers made sure that we couldn't be a U.K. or an Australia, as a matter of fact, you could make a solid argument that we were granted rights for firearms BECAUSE of England. They knew that one guy with a rifle up against the government was suicide... but a government who's citizens are well armed may be a deterrent for a rouge government heading down the road of tyranny. At least perhaps it would give them pause. Unfortunately, having a gun culture has its problems too, but that's what we have.
        
        The point of my argument was not to prove that guns are not dangerous. They are, everyone knows that. Simply having one provides the chance that someone gets shot. I have conceded that point, logic prevails. However, because we have these liberties/freedoms in a gun ownership culture we have to balance how much freedom/liberty we have, vrs safety. These one sided studies, on both sides are disingenuous and filled with research errors or out right lies. Spewing research findings from a very pointed study, then pointing at another country who's culture and liberties are completely different than ours in an effort to prove your point, is a sad display of your stupidity... but keep trying troll, I'm enjoying this.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Australia, the U.K., and others that have made it extremely difficult to own guns, have significantly lower gun deaths, but they also don't have the freedoms we have.
        
        Where do you get these silly ideas? They're certainly not supported by facts.
        
        Go here and note where the US ranks against UK and Australia for freedom. That's with all values set to .50 except Gun Control which I set to 0 (since you're trying to say that we have more freedoms because of a lack of gun control it seems prudent to remove that from the equation). Hell, even if it Gun Control is weighted the same as the rest, AUS still comes out on top.
        
        In this here Freedom in the World Index, all three come out exactly tied.
        
        And in this Economic Freedom Index, both UK and AUS come out more free than the US.
        
        This Index of Freedom of the World puts AUS ahead and the UK somewhat behind.
        
        There never has been a question that if you take away the guns, you will have less gun violence It's a simple math problem. But in doing so, we give up our freedoms.
        
        Sorry, that's just false and not supported by facts, just like all of the other shit you've been spewing.
        
        It must be so frustrating for you to have everything you say destroyed by factual, researched, proven evidence. Sucks to be you. No wonder you have such a shitty reputation around here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2014 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        LOL, you are absolutely pathetic! Again, your spitting out bullshit. I can run down to the gun shop and buy a gun, you can't fucking do that in the U.K. can you? Your comparing apples and oranges again fucktard. Try comparing gun rights... no? I didn't fucking think so, give it up.
        
        By giving up guns your not giving up freedoms? I hope your not being serious. Again; not even a good troll.
        
        Australia, the U.K., and others that have made it extremely difficult to own guns, have significantly lower gun deaths, but they also don't have the freedoms we have.
        
        "Where do you get these silly ideas? They're certainly not supported by facts."
        
        I can run down to walmart, fill out a form, and if I pass a very basic background check, walk out of walmart with a semi-auto rifle or shotgun... complete with ammo. In the U.K., it is a long and drawn out process and some firearms are outright illegal.
        
        http://www.bbc.com/news/10220974
        https://www.gov.uk/shotgun-and-firearm-certificates
        http://en .wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_ States_by_state
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom
        
        You keep spouting your bullshit as "facts", yet when i look the links you post and read, they contradict your statements or are blatant propaganda. Keep trying troll!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 9:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        You know, everything you just said can be summed up as "If we give up our freedom to have guns, we'll have given up our gun freedom!"
        
        That's a tautology. I won't even bother to give you a link. Do your own homework.
        
        Come back after you learn how a tautology is a logical fallacy.
        
        What other freedoms have they given up in AUS and UK, as you suggested? If you do any research you'll find the answer is none. Yet, they still have lower crime and homicide rates even though they can't protect themselves with guns. Amazing! hahaha
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 7:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Here's some more for you to chew on (and drive your cognitive dissonance through the roof)
        Results—Even after excluding many reported firearm victimizations, far more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun to protect themselves. A majority of the reported self defense gun uses were rated as probably illegal by a majority of judges. This was so even under the assumption that the respondent had a permit to own and carry the gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly.
        
        Conclusions—Guns are used to threaten and intimidate far more often than they are used in self defense. Most self reported self defense gun uses may well be illegal and against the interests of society. Source
        
        Odds are that you're one of those who like to use your gun to bully people. No doubt you have a small dick, too. hahaha
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 11 Dec 2014 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Like I said, your not even a good troll. Your just spewing out one sided research that has a clear agenda. Get that weak shit off the field and learn how to think for yourself.
        
        "Odds are that you're one of those who like to use your gun to bully people. No doubt you have a small dick, too. hahaha"
        
        What makes you think I'm male? You might be getting your ass handed to you by a girl. Get back under your bridge noob shit troll. Your weak ass insults and arguments are pathetic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 8:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Your just spewing out one sided research that has a clear agenda.
        
        1) Don't you mean "you're"? Gonna blame that on the keyboard again? hahaha
        
        2) At least it's research, which is a helluva lot more than you can say.
        
        You might be getting your ass handed to you by a girl.
        
        But I'm not getting my ass handed to me. YOU are but you're too stupid to realize it. The best you've got is "it's one-sided" or "let me pull this one sentence out of one body of research that sorta kinda contradicts the points being made."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2014 @ 9:11am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Really, grammar Nazi time? You are sorry excuse for a troll. At least come up with some semi-original material. Resulting to picking at grammar in a gun control debate is as pathetic as you are. I was willing to carry on with this, but your sorry ass excuse of an argument, compounded with your child like attempts at making yourself look superior is just sad.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 9:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Really, grammar Nazi time?
        
        You started it. On yourself of all things!!! Then tried to blame your keyboard. Now that is fucking pathetic. hahahaha.
        
        your child like attempts at making yourself look superior.
        
        I don't have to try to make myself look superior. I just am.
        
        (By the way, "childlike" is one word. That darn keyboard again? hahahahaha)
        
        You say the stupidest shit. No wonder everyone around here thinks you're an asshole. No wonder you don't make an actual account (don't want the stupid shit you say coming back on you, do you?)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        "However, being so stupid that you actually argue against reason, logic, and facts is reproducible."
        
        LOL, You called me stupid, then proceeded to make the exact same point I was making in my original post.
        
        My argument was that defending yourself from a criminal using fact, logic, and compassion was not in itself logical, and would quickly get you killed. As you said in your reply, arguing against logic is "reproducible". You made my point for me, then called me stupid.
        
        It's ok to be a dumb ass, but I would appreciate it next time if you would keep it to yourself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 9:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        ... then proceeded to make the exact same point I was making in my original post.
        
        I assure you that's not the case. Try looking into reading comprehension sometime.
        
        As you said in your reply, arguing against logic is "reproducible".
        
        No, I said stupidity is reproducible. If you knew anything about this "natural selection" you brought up, you would know enough to realize that "arguing" is not reproducible.
        
        ... then called me stupid.
        
        Because you are stupid.
        
        I'll break this down for you: In my post I stated that stupid is the reproducible trait. What came after that word ("that you actually argue against reason, logic, and facts") is a modifier of stupid, the degree, if you will, of stupid. You got that all mixed up, thinking that "argue" was the subject rather than "stupid"
        
        Not real bright.
        
        It's ok to be a dumb ass, but I would appreciate it next time if you would keep it to yourself.
        
        You really need to follow your own advice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 10 Dec 2014 @ 11:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Yeah, I could have worded it better.. my point was that arguing against logic is stupid, therefore in your words reproducible. But on reading your other posts it's apparent I'm talking to a troll who feels inferior for whatever reason, and because of that, has to insult everyone else to prop himself up.
        
        The good news is I can correct my terrible phrasing, you on the other hand, will always be an an asshole. Good luck with that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 11:55am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Yeah, I could have worded it better.
        
        Or understood what I said better in the first place, thus avoiding all of this.
        
        my point was that arguing against logic is stupid
        
        You're absolutely correct. But the point you're trying to make isn't back up by data, facts, or reason and therefore not logical:
        
        Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that having a gun in your house reduces your risk of being a victim of a crime. Nor does it reduce your risk of being injured during a home break-in. Source
        
        Despite the widely held belief that guns are effective for protection, our results suggest that they actually pose a substantial threat to members of the household. People who keep guns in their homes appear to be at greater risk of homicide in the home than people who do not.Source
        
        We did not find evidence of a protective effect of keeping a gun in the home, even in the small subgroup of cases that involved forced entry. Source
        
        The good news is I can correct my terrible phrasing
        
        But you'll probably still never start accepting facts that disagree with your opinion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 10 Dec 2014 @ 12:17pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        "But the point you're trying to make isn't back up by data, facts, or reason and therefore not logical:"
        
        Bullshit! The other link you posted acknowledges that millions of people used guns in defense of life or property. You posted the link!
        
        If you don't want to own a gun, then don't. The supreme court has stated that the police are not there to protect you, they are there to enforce the law. Your protection is your own responsibility. It's your choice.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2014 @ 3:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        I have kind of an idea how sexual selection works Ottermaton. It probably varies geographically, but in my neck of the woods being condescending and throwing some misplaced big words at stupid gun owners wouldn't spread your genes around very far. Is D-bag genetically inheritable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Shawn, 10 Dec 2014 @ 6:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      The entire point is that the officer in question shot an unarmed man who was not a threat to anyone.
      
      As far as fighting the government, a good rifle and rifle man a the correct place and time can be more effective than all the aircraft and tanks in the military. If you need an example of that looks at the battles during ww2 where a single sniper held up the advance of the German forces into Stalingrad
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        While being in a country with decently strict gun-control:
        
        The issue is not about what, but more about where, when and especially why.
        Why often gets lost in the discussion: Living in Alaska with bears tripping around, hell yeah, you have good reason to have a gun there.
        In houses, it is a tossup: Bad neighborhood, you better. Rich neighborhood, hmm maybe. But carrying a loaded piece in public places and automatic weapons outside of very special circumstances, seems unreasonable.
        
        Generally guncontrol debates like in this thread are unreasonable because the discussions boil down to what instead of how (in a broader sense)...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        You do realize that more than 70 years has passed since that battle in WW2, right? Gov'ts have made vast improvements in their weaponry in that time, while the gun you almost certainly have is hardly different than that sniper's.
        
        If that situation were to happen today, taking out that sniper would be no more trouble than swatting a fly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 9:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        And yet, the war against a handful of terrorists armed with antiquated weapons enters year 14...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Well, if you want to delude yourself into thinking that situation is at all analogous to you fighting off the ATF/CIA/FBI/whoever I suppose that's your right.
        
        Hate to break it to you, but it won't end well for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 6:53am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      Many of battles have been fought and won against tanks carpet bombing and and weapons of mass destruction , Look at Vietnam , yes we lost , look at Afghanistan , The Russians and Americans can't win, and how many American soldiers will fire on their own countrymen they are sworn to protect, not many because they see the writing on the wall more so than others. I'll keep my guns and I'll continue to hunt and protect my home.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RD, 10 Dec 2014 @ 6:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      "If you want to resist power, then you'll need weapons vastly superior to guns: reason, logic, facts, compassion, dignity, courage, empathy."
      
      None of those will stop a drone strike either.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:01am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      If you want to resist power, then you'll need weapons vastly superior to guns: reason, logic, facts, compassion, dignity, courage, empathy. These are the weapons of the brave; guns are the weapons of cowards.
      
      You seem to be pretty judgmental who says I'm not all of those and a proud owner of firearms , your ego and lack of logic , facts makes you look very ignorant and self centered , enjoy your life and while your at it have a great day.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Well said there. Firearm ownership does not remove the possibility of a person's understanding of courage, compassion, dignity or how the real world functions.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        ... who says I'm not all of those and a proud owner of firearms[?]
        
        Nobody did. Narcissistic much?
        
        Nice straw man fail.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        ...it was implied by the OP. Put your straw man away.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:47am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        No, it wasn't.
        
        You failed. Stop whining.
        
        (Just for the record, _I_ own guns, plural. And I agree with everything he said).
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:51am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Thanks for your record and your repeated attempt at a "fail" comment.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Leit, 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:36am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Aww, isn't it frustrating when someone won't just give up and agree when you unilaterally declare superiority? Sort of like all those folks with their guns in Afghanistan, Iraq, central Africa etc. who don't seem to realise that the "peacekeepers"' tanks, drones and missiles should mean that their cause is hopeless.
        
        Whoops.
        
        Your gun ownership or lack thereof confers no special knowledge or status, and makes your argument no more valid. Plenty of folks who want to outright ban firearms either own or are guarded by security who carry firearms. It's the typical arrogant "oh, I'M responsible, but those common folks aren't trustworthy" attitude.
        
        Attempting to defend the inferences of someone who opened by describing gun "nuts" as childlike and naive is genuinely pathetic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 11:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        That was nice bit of cherry picking of examples there. Too bad that in the world of reality the force with greater firepower and personnel wins in the overwhelmingly vast majority of cases.
        
        Whoops indeed.
        
        But go ahead and keep on hanging on to your outliers and trying to pretend they prove anything. The rest of us will just keep on snickering at you.
        
        Your gun ownership or lack thereof confers no special knowledge or status ...
        
        No one said it did. I was just pointing out that one can be a gun owner without being a gun nut.
        
        Attempting to defend the inferences of someone ...
        
        It possible for someone to make inferences. You, as a "receiver" can infer things and draw inferences from them. The word you're looking for is implications.
        
        You don't help your argument much by making yourself look so stupid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:03am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      Your use of the phrase "gun nuts" and condescending approach already indicate both your position and attitude toward those who seek to protect themselves from criminal and government alike. "If you want to resist power" is another example of your lack of understanding of the issue. Power itself is not something tangible as a tank or negligent rookie. I would say get your facts straight, but it appears you've already used them against a fellow anonymous coward. I hope your empathy keeps you alive on that lonely tower of yours.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Of course I'm condescending to gun owners: I look down on them. Their outdated and silly fetish deserves ridicule.
        
        Haven't you noticed? The battles that matter aren't being fought with guns. They're being fought with words -- and, increasingly, with code. So if you really do value your freedom, then you need to spend less time training your marksmanship, and more time training your intellect.
        
        Your adversaries are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:30am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Please continue informing us on how you are correct and that anyone who disagrees is wrong, incompetent of complex concepts (such as non violent resistance or freedom) and/or simply deserving of your self inflated opinion on what we should do (and why we're ignorant to not heed your infallible wisdom). Perhaps a walk through the history section in your local library will show you how most conflicts are resolved with this species.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        I did and the result is words. Words have resolved most conflicts within the human species.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Really? Like words that were used as orders for action? I think, however, you implied that actual words directly resolved conflicts correct? Like those who stormed the beaches of Normandy armed with only their words? Or during the Crusades when both sides simply talked instead of killing each other? Your version of history is interesting, but not realistic
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 9:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        crusades? you loose.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 4:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        How is that exactly? I assume you can provide factual data to back up your assertion that words solve conflicts?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - ottermaton (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:37am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        There's quite the difference between a gun owner and a gun nut. People who delusional enough to think their pea-shooters (in comparison to the weapons the gov't can bring to bear) will make the slightest bit of difference are gun nuts and deserve every bit of condescension they get.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:02am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Precisely so. The image of the lone gun owner courageously making a last stand against the fascist hordes and striking a blow for freedom is a nice one...but it's also an obsolete one. The game is no longer played at that level, and anyone who becomes a serious nuisance will be dealt with no matter how many assault rifles they've got stashed in the basement.
        
        (So why not at the Bundy Ranch? My guess is that they were probably not important enough.)
        
        "Tank Man", standing unarmed and alone, did more for the cause of freedom on this planet than any gun nut could possibly achieve. THAT is what courage looks like.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 10:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        Who said anything about a lone gunman? ISIS has shown what a few thousand "gun nuts" can do against better armed forces. As has Al Queda. As has the Taliban. As has the Viet Cong. As has... I think I made my point. And there are millions of NRA members in this country. If even a fraction of them went full revolutionary, they'd be hard to defeat.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ragnarredbeard, 11 Dec 2014 @ 4:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Error
        ""Tank Man", standing unarmed and alone, did more for the cause of freedom on this planet than any gun nut could possibly achieve."
        
        And what did he achieve for freedom? Thousands of people still died in Tianemen Square, China still represses freedom of religion and speech. Still forcefully aborts babies, etc.
        
        Exactly what did he achieve?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - scotts13 (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 10:24am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      So... you're saying the general populace should be much better armed than they are?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - steell (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 11:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      Been living in a cave your entire life?
      Just a few exceptions for your perusal.
      Vietnam
      Afghanistan
      Columbia
      And many other places. Guerilla warfare is about more than high tech arms.
      
      Oh yeah, there is one huge point you missed, the people in Uniform that man those high tech weapon systems? Those are our sons and daughters.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - CGB, 10 Dec 2014 @ 12:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      Wow you are an idiot ... Go crawl back in your hole ... Gun nuts .... ASSHOLE
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rich, 10 Dec 2014 @ 6:11am
  
  Re: Error
  And what does all that nonsense have to do with the cops shooting an UNARMED man?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- RD, 10 Dec 2014 @ 6:45am
  
  Re: Error
  "Clearly the 2nd amendment could be restricted to the kind of armaments that were available when it was written."
  
  Wrong beyond all possible ways of being wrong. Come back when you actually understand the intent and letter of the 2nd amendment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:08am
    
    Re: Re: Error
    agreed, the first amendment doesn't only extend to types of speech and communication available when the good old presidential toilet paper was ratified.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:22am
    
    Re: Re: Error
    If money can be free speech then my firearms clearly fit the bill. but we have the 2nd amendment for that although it's nice to have a contingency plan in place.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:24am
  
  Re: Error
  "Clearly the 2nd amendment could be restricted to the kind of armaments that were available when it was written."
  
  I call BS.
  
  Our founding fathers were fighting the most well equipped army in the world, the British. Pretty sure they intended that everyone can bear arms to defend themselves from the most well equipped armies in the world irregardless of how destructive the weapon might be.
  
  Why else would they just use the word "arms"?
  If they intended to limit it to guns of the time they would have replaced "arms" with "arms available prior to ratification of this document"
  
  arms is defined as "weapons and ammunition" which would include nukes, fighter jets, tanks, bombers, automatic rifles, grenades and many other weapons.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jackn, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:27am
    
    Re: Re: Error
    Pretty sure they intended that everyone can bear arms to defend themselves
    
    then why do they mentioned a well-regulated militia?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Isma'il, 10 Dec 2014 @ 12:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Error
      "then why do they mentioned (sic) a well regulated militia?"
      
      The militia, in the United States, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, were......the PEOPLE.
      
      If the founding fathers intended only for LEO and military to have "arms," it would've been worded that way.
      
      You forget about the second clause of the amendment, "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (emphasis added).
      
      The PEOPLE mentioned in the second clause of the Second Amendment are the same PEOPLE mentioned in the rest of the Bill of Rights, as well as the Constitution itself.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:06am
  
  Re: Error
  I am just as OK with this argument about the second amendment as you appear to be with limiting your first amendment rights to quill pens and hand operated printing presses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re: Error
  I just love how your saying its not the cops at fault for being trigger happy with unarmed and generally unresisting citizens, but instead its the fault of the citizens being allowed to own guns to resist tyranny
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 4:43pm
  
  Re: Error
  So you're saying that the rise in sword crime and knife crime in the UK after their gun ban is imaginary?
  
  Banning guns does nothing but make people choose different weapons.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DWH, 22 Dec 2014 @ 1:12pm
  
  Re: Error
  Just like the 1st and 4th amendments should only apply to items which existed at the time they were ratified. There should be no protection of speech which is not written or printed on paper or spoken and no warrant should be required to intercept electronic communication or data of any kind.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
spodula, 10 Dec 2014 @ 4:57am

Privately own tanks and fighter planes *are* allowed in the US. Good luck on getting Ammo for them tho.

Although I was watching some Youtube stuff not so long ago, and a private collector certainly managed to get some tank shells from somewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:06am
  
  Re:
  If there's a will there's a way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:04am

There should be an app on cell phones that detects whether you have just discharged your firearm into an innocent bystander and once detected, disallows texting of your union representative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ragnarredbeard, 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:29am

Excusable?
"Mistakes happen. But this collection of errors snowballed into an accidental shooting of an unarmed man. That part is excusable, but only if entirely separated from the events following the shooting."

Accidental shooting? Hardly. Negligent shooting. No threat, no probable cause, but Barney Fife has his gun out and his finger on the trigger while he's opening a stairwell door.

Excusable? No. Negligent? Yes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:33am

Why are you always bashing Unions on this site , They only use the law to their advantage,(we wish we all had these protection and legal backing) If this guy gets off it's failures from the justice system not the Union whom he pays weekly, These two officers in my opinion should be in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:50am
  
  Re:
  This site will bash anyone they see complicit in a broken system. Besides, look through the archives and you'll see articles praising labor groups that have come forward to oppose bad laws that are proposed and "free trade" deals.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    Thanks for the incite."tips hat"
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jackn, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    This site will bash anyone they see complicit in a broken system.
    
    Anyone and everyone should bash anyone and everyone who is complicit in a broken system.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pragmatic, 11 Dec 2014 @ 5:08am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Damn straight.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DB (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:34am

Bringing the second amendment into this is a red herring.

Imagining that, without privately owned guns, the police wouldn't have guns is incorrect. The UK was almost unique in not issuing firearms for routine police work. And that has changed. It's not uncommon to see sidearms routinely carried in some areas.

Did the police have their firearms drawn because they expected to enter a gun battle? Or even expected to use them? Almost certainly not. Exchanging gunfire is rare, and they wouldn't have entered the stairwell without backup if they expected it.

That suggests that they had their guns drawn as a means of intimidation. Not because they expected armed opposition, but because they wanted to "control the situation".

'Control the situation' is a now-common part of police training. And it now extends to all situations, even when no crime is being committed. It goes hand-in-hand with 'respect my authority', and quickly moves to feeling above the laws you are enforcing on the little people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Call me Al, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:46am
  
  Re:
  "It's not uncommon to see sidearms routinely carried in some areas"
  
  Wait... what?
  
  I live in London. You see armed police at certain locations but you don't see armed police just wandering the streets.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 12:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Wait... what?
    
    I live in London. You see armed police at certain locations...
    
    Isn't that exactly what DB said?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:37am

It's easy to blame the unions, but the reason police unions have power is because we, through our politicians, give them power.

Factory workers used to have strong unions, but not anymore. Teachers used to have strong unions, but not anymore. The police still have strong unions because politicians will bend over backwards to protect cops. Because they feel they have to be "law and order" in order to get elected.

We could weaken police unions just like we did every other union, but no one is willing to take that first step.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:11am
  
  Re:
  weakening Unions isn't the answer , the answer is making the laws that apply to citizens apply to law enforcement.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Ima Fish (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:28am
    
    Re: Re:
    First, I'm responding to a very specific point raised by Tim, "If there's any entity that can keep cops from being held accountable for their actions, it's police unions." My argument is that it's not the union's fault, it's our fault for letting it happen.
    
    Second, there are such laws, but they're not enforced against cops as compared to the general population because politicians aren't willing to stand up against cops. No politician is willing to stand up against cops because s/he would likely not get elected unless s/he's strongly in support of law an order.
    
    Once again, this is not the union's fault or the lack of laws, it's our fault.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:22am
  
  Re:
  how would strong or weak unions protect people from being shot by the police?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Leit, 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    If the unions aren't powerful enough to prevent any possible punishment for police actions, police would be less reckless and cause fewer incidents like this.
    
    Insulation from accountability is why police can afford to be careless, and why the first action of a cop who screwed up is CYA rather than *actually* controlling the situation - ie. arranging medical care and coordinating with emergency services/chain of command.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:47am

i'm just waiting to see how long it takes for someone in Congress to get their act together and do something about this! how many more innocent people have to die before there are some curbs put in place? how many more have to die before those causing the deaths, the police officers, are actually charged with committing crimes? even if it was an accident, there is no excuse for what he did. if it were an ordinary person that did this, they would be arrested, jailed and taken to trial charged with manslaughter at least, then possibly jailed for an extended term. no one would listen to the pleas of 'it was an accident! i didn't mean to kill them'!! if there are no excuses for ordinary people, there should be even less for police officers!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:10am
  
  Re:
  won't someone think of the children?!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 1:20pm
    
    Re: Re:
    the police have been shooting them, isn't that thought enough?
    
    There was the sleeping 7 year old girl shot in the face by a cop who kicked in the wrong door by "mistake", then the 12 year old boy recently shot within 2 seconds of the police pulling right up to him.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Name for this Use, 10 Dec 2014 @ 5:57am

Well the important thing is..
That no heroic law enforcers where harmed and that he had ready access to people that could extort immunity from responsibility for him.

Q: is the Policeman's benevolent association and actual union or is it a professional association?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 7:58am

The police didn't attempt to help Eric Garner either. They left the corpse handcuffed and said he was "faking" his own death. The only thing they protect and serve is their own self interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:11am

How did this turn into a gun control debate?

The issue is this, everyone likes most cops, because most cops are good. No one likes bad cops, and the blue code of silence has to end.

Same with teachers, most of them are dedicated, hardworking and really do a good job. The ones that make headlines, the ones who parents hate, are the ones we can't get rid of.

Both bad teachers and bad cops give good ones a bad name and bring about a lot of hate towards them.

Look at what Frank Serpico (probably the most famous NY Cop ever)is saying about cops today. One article quotes him as saying "we (cops) used to carry a knife or a gun to plant on someone, now, they don't even bother."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:35am
  
  Re:
  How did this turn into a gun control debate?
  
  Because if the police were not routinely armed and/or did not routinely expect to meet armed criminals (as in the UK) then this tragedy couldn't have happened.
  
  Actually there is an even better reason for gun control.
  
  One of the major causes of gun death is suicide - and this is very common even in countries like Switzerland which have lots of guns - but are otherwise much more law abiding than the US.
  
  Suicide by gun is just so much easier, quicker and more certain than any other method.
  
  You can't get around the fact that gun control saves many lives.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 9:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    you're assuming the person wanting to commit suicide only will complete the act if it is 'easy' and a gun is available. removing one option forces people down different roads, sometimes literally.
    
    mental health is more the problem than the inanimate tool used to end the life. some people will kill themselves, that is just the way of the world. some will use guns, some will use razor blades, some will use cars, some will use buildings and bridges. we can keep removing tools but suicidal people will find a way.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Leit, 10 Dec 2014 @ 10:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      While I agree to a degree, even as an advocate of gun ownership I have to be honest and admit that access to firearms for suicidal people is a problem. It's especially an issue for veterans - and there is no shortage of those in the wake of the many "war on x" campaigns. Sexist or not, men - and especially fighting men - will go with the "manly" option of a bullet when possible, and shy away from other options.
      
      Where I diverge is in seeing this as a problem for the mental health system and development of support networks for former troops and other at-risk citizens, rather than simply blanket banning firearms. But there's no easy solution and no black and white in this part of the debate.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Richard (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 11:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        you're assuming the person wanting to commit suicide only will complete the act if it is 'easy' and a gun is available.
        
        No - just that they are more likely to complete the act successfully. If they are unsuccessful that gives the mental health system an opportunity to kick in and resolve the problem.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AJ, 10 Dec 2014 @ 12:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I agree Richard, that it is unfortunate that guns are apparently a very popular tool when committing suicide. I would probably argue that suicide and accidental shooting are an unfortunate hazard of a gun culture. One that can be mitigated with educations and a good mental health system. But IMHO the benefits of responsible gun ownership far out weigh the cons, and is an important part of American culture.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Watchit (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 11:55am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yo, stop it with the ignoratio elenchi, Richard. We get it, you think the Second Amendment was a bad idea. But your drawing the issue away from what the article meant to address, which are the deplorable actions of a rookie police officer and the unchecked power of police unions.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re:
  some people want to defend police no matter what they do it seems
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 2:01pm
  
  Define 'good'
  The issue is this, everyone likes most cops, because most cops are good.
  
  I don't, because as far as I can tell most cops aren't 'good'.
  
  Sure most cops might not be likely to beat you senseless for fun, or come up with trumped up charges to make your life miserable just for kicks, but most of them will cover for those that are doing those things, with silence if nothing else. As soon as they cover for the rotten, corrupt cops, they become rotten, corrupt cops.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 2:45pm
    
    The code of silence.
    Omertà.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:33am

Ima Fish, yes, there is blame for the politician, but think about it this way. We have a good cop observe a bad cop doing something wrong and says nothing. Both the good and bad cop are to blame here. The prosecutor who winks at the cops actions, the judge that lets it go, this all needs to stop.

Say what you want about unions, politicians, the general public, but the good cop should stand up and say "no more"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 12:39pm
  
  Re:
  We have a good cop observe a bad cop doing something wrong and says nothing.
  
  How can you call that a good cop?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 12:53pm
  
  Re:
  ... but the good cop should stand up and say "no more"
  
  Unfortunately, as Frank Serpico proved, that can get a good cop killed. He even left the country because his life was still in danger from dirty cops long afterward.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 2:26pm
    
    All it takes for bad cops to prevail is for good cops to...
    So there are no good cops.
    
    There's bad cops and cowed cops.
    
    And yeah, the blue brotherhood is behaving far more like a mob or street gang than a state-run institution.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 8:36am

disarm the police
We need to remove guns from the hips of police officers. I don't even feel we need to remove them from patrol cars, but keep them in the trunk; just take the gun off the hip. Having a gun on your person makes it too easy to use without proper pause for consideration.

Contract Tazer to make a multiple-discharge tazer gun. It may be abused but wouldn't be fatal at least. Then victims can press charges/sue, whereas dead men cannot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 9:24am
  
  Re: disarm the police
  an alternative would be to require an officers career to end upon discharge of a firearm in the line of duty, regardless of the reason (negligent/intentional/justified/not justified).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re: disarm the police
    or, maybe just in cases where
    
    negligent/not justified applies.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 9:51am
      
      Re: Re: Re: disarm the police
      apparently we've never had one of those.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - That One Guy (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 12:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: disarm the police
      Good idea, but as determined by who?
      
      According to at least two recent grand juries, gunning someone down on a street, or choking someone to death on camera isn't even serious enough to go to trial, where the 'justified/not justified' bit would be determined.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anon, 10 Dec 2014 @ 10:12am

Police Unions
It's been my observation that an employer gets the union they deserve. Arbitrary and confrontational employers will get confrontational and uncompromising unions. This attitude does not come from nowhere.

My educated gues is that the unions eveolved their current attitude because the same power-tripping cops who cause problems for the public are the ones who become boss and apply that same bully attitude to their subordinates, jumping to conclusions and happy to throw anyone under the bus to appease public pressure and higher-ups. It doesn't take too many of those before the bottom rank police become militant about their own protection - especially in a job where one mistake could be career-ending or life-threatening.

Not that I'm a great fan of police or their current lack of accountability. I just suspect the police brotherhood attitude doesn't come from nowhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 10:36am
  
  Re: Police Unions
  "It's been my observation that an employer gets the union they deserve. Arbitrary and confrontational employers will get confrontational and uncompromising unions. This attitude does not come from nowhere."
  
  I've noticed this as well. It really does seem that companies which have asshole management get asshole unions, and companies that have reasonable management get reasonable unions.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 11:21am

The Cover-Your-Own-Ass culture...
Seems yet another good time to mention it.

That's exactly what's happening here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldMugwump (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 11:35am

Yes, our brave men in blue...
...selflessly dedicating themselves to protecting and serving their community, even at the risk of their own lives.

But of course, not at the risk of their steady paychecks or retirement benefits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 1:09pm

does anyone know how police are currently being trained to view the public?

I get this feeling they are being trained to be brutal with unarmed suspects, to beat up people they have detained. To shoot unarmed and unresisting citizens just because they can.

Be good to know if police are being trained to make war on their citizens or if the police as a whole can be saved from the corruption drowning it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 1:29pm

Just because you don't believe it doesn't keep it from being true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 2:15pm

On one hand, the cops should have been nervous in that building, as it had had two homicides in the recent past. On the other hand, they managed to increase the homicide rate in the building by 50%. Way to go, guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Dec 2014 @ 2:34pm

Why are you debating gun control? You will not resolve the debate. It is just like abortion. If you support it but I believe it is murder, do you think we can ever compromise?

Same with guns. If I believe it is my constitutional right to bear arms, you will never change my opinion with statistics.

What are the odds a gun will ever save my life? Very slim. What are the odds I will be murdered with a gun? Very slim. What are the odds I will win the lottery? Very slim, but millions of people play it everyday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Dec 2014 @ 2:43pm

No amount of gun control...
...would have prevented this incident. You guys know that, right?

The police in the US get to do what they want, and they love their toys, especially their little bang-bangs.

So no, if there were no legal guns, these guys would still have been out playing with their guns until one got spooked and discovered the hard way that guns are not toys.

Someone got needlessly shot and gun control wouldn't have fixed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joe Dirt, 10 Dec 2014 @ 3:23pm

Terror Nation
Police unions -- and all public employee unions -- should be banned by federal law. It's worked out quite well for the State of Virginia.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2014 @ 5:12am

Talk about off topic rants ... wow.

LEO shows true colors by engaging in CYA prior to assisting the innocent person he just shot for no reason

and, of course this results in arguments about gun ownership amongst the public.

Not sure why I expected anything other than this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Uriel-238 (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 12:49pm
  
  Why things don't change.
  The rants here on gun-control illustrate in a microcosm why things don't change. It's too easy in the current political clime, even at local levels, to turn a solution political, so that even if the opposition agrees with the bill, they won't vote on it because it's not their bill, and they feel they can't afford to do anything that lends credit to the other side.
  
  What is telling here is not only that the two officers were acting outside their duty orders, but also feel the same necessity to CYA first before responding to the emergency.
  
  Our society has become so desperate, so aware that a single mistake or unfortunate event can cause the cascade ruin of our lives that we have to think first about numero uno even when we have cause -- even a duty -- to respond to crisis.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Dec 2014 @ 12:10pm

This should be no different than the rules for hit and run.

What they did was basically the same, but with a gun.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- tqk (profile), 11 Dec 2014 @ 1:58pm
  
  Re:
  I think it's long been understood that you're better off if your victim dies. If they live, you'll be bankrupted by lawyers defending yourself for years afterward. If they're a corpse, they'll no longer be in a position to trouble you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]