The Big Lie About Police Brutality is Claiming it’s Not Rampant"

[gunnails]

I doubt that police brutality is on the rise, I would think the opposite would be true, IMHO.

Cameras are every where now and that fact may make it seem that brutality is on an uptick. Then again knowing that cameras are everywhere you would think that LEO would take that into account and be on there best behavior going forward.

I am not even sure whether I am not completely against police brutality when applied judiciously, some of these cretins that police deal with are certainly deserving of a beat down.

It amazes me sometimes when I hear stories of people getting roughed up that they in essence bring it on through there own actions. Do what the cop say's when he say's it, right or wrong if you don't you should expect some negative reinforcement.

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Got into a lot of firefights there, huh?

Thank you for your service, and if there actually had been a war between Cuba and the US you would've been in a bad position, so I imagine it was tense, but Child Please is right. You were a guard on a cold border along which no shots have been fired for what, decades? That's not combat duty.

Finally here;

"A Veteran--whether active duty, discharged, retired, or reserve--is someone who at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to: 'The United States of America', for an amount of 'up to, and including his or her life.'" Please honor him or her accordingly.

I get this message from one of my Marine buddies each time he messages me. Where is YOUR check?

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

We could also have some articles on nasty white people who like to cook up cold medicine in red states while their toddlers are running around their trailer.

Go South!! METH!! Woot!!

Hmmmm. Western NY is a major hotbead for meth. Lots of other drugs too right? I mean, YOU regularly espouse usage, right? Go Southern Tier.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

Shots were always exchanged while I was stationed there. There was even a missile fired near the Marine Barracks one night. Cuba is the place where the USA announced DEFCON 2. Mostly they shot to at us.

I had dinner last year in NYC with a Marine buddy of mine who was stationed with me then, we laughed about it. You have no idea what it is like to spend ONE night on guard duty in GTMO or the 38th Parallel.

It is dark, hot, humid and lots of sounds that you have to distinguish. Viscous mosquitoes. Scorpions. Snakes. Huge crabs. Lizards. The Minefield. Wild Boars. The Cubans were easy to deal with (lol).

We did not even get a full magazine of rounds back then. Guess they wanted us to use the rounds upon ourselves if the Cubans came full force (lol)

That is just one of the exciting places that I spent some time at. Marines are trained for killing and combat. When the Iraq war began in 2003, I went to sign up again. The Marines won't take you past the age of 29.

I never stated that I saw combat. I was sure looking for it!!!!! And I went to some of the right places to get. It is all about timing. Combat makes Marines comfortable. That's why there are only a 'few' of us.

Our retention rate is higher when there is a war. 70% of the Marines leave when there is no war.

You have made a few statements in this post and previously which make me suspect your sanity.
Once you've seen a sign at LeJeune you've lost all fear for good? That is just plain crazy. Any person, regardless of branch, who has no fear is a fool. And dangerous to himself and his unit.
You "were looking for combat". "Combat makes Marines comfortable"? That is just plain BS. Nobody looks for trouble like that. And comfortable - right.
Combat soldiers have a JOB to do. Good ones do it well. Fear is always a component - a good one.
As far as the few? Marines have a ceratin specialty. They are good marksmen. They also have great unifforms which entices a lot of young guys. My father joined at the beginning of WWII because being of German descent he didn't want to fight against them (still had relatives there).

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

Shots were always exchanged while I was stationed there. There was even a missile fired near the Marine Barracks one night. Cuba is the place where the USA announced DEFCON 2. Mostly they shot to at us.

I had dinner last year in NYC with a Marine buddy of mine who was stationed with me then, we laughed about it. You have no idea what it is like to spend ONE night on guard duty in GTMO or the 38th Parallel.

It is dark, hot, humid and lots of sounds that you have to distinguish. Viscous mosquitoes. Scorpions. Snakes. Huge crabs. Lizards. The Minefield. Wild Boars. The Cubans were easy to deal with (lol).

You do understand that is not combat duty, right? That being in a firefight typically means that "hot, humid, lizards and mosquitoes" don't make the top 100 "things I'm worried about right now", right?

That is just one of the exciting places that I spent some time at. Marines are trained for killing and combat. When the Iraq war began in 2003, I went to sign up again. The Marines won't take you past the age of 29.

I never stated that I saw combat. I was sure looking for it!!!!! And I went to some of the right places to get. It is all about timing. Combat makes Marines comfortable. That's why there are only a 'few' of us.

Our retention rate is higher when there is a war. 70% of the Marines leave when there is no war.

That's nice. It still means that you don't have actual combat experience. However much you wanted it.

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

You do understand that is not combat duty, right? That being in a firefight typically means that "hot, humid, lizards and mosquitoes" don't make the top 100 "things I'm worried about right now", right?




That's nice. It still means that you don't have actual combat experience. However much you wanted it.

Where's your check? Marines do not need combat experience. If you are born at the right time, it comes with the job.

2 links with Marines during wartime, doing other duties....

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-u...#ixzz25AETWv3O

http://www.federaljack.com/?p=177057

With your logic, they are not Marines either. If I was one of your clients, I would get my money back. You could not even last one day at PISC.

Again, where is your check?

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

Where's your check? Marines do not need combat experience. If you are born at the right time, it comes with the job.

2 links with Marines during wartime, doing other duties....

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-u...#ixzz25AETWv3O

http://www.federaljack.com/?p=177057

With your logic, they are not Marines either. If I was one of your clients, I would get my money back. You could not even last one day at PISC.

Again, where is your check?

I really think you need to look up the meaning of the word "logic". To quote Andre the Giant, it does not mean what you think it means

[Jetworks]

What a shock to log on here today and still see no pertinent answers to the questions I put forth to the OP.


FACTS > Hyperbole.

[NxYxJets]

Originally Posted by Jetworks

It means I wasn't sure if you were serious about whether or not the cops should have shot them in the leg. If that was serious, it shows a profound lack of understanding about policing and the use of deadly physical force.



Cops are justified in the two examples I cited. OP will never admit that, though.



Where are "my thoughts" wrong? Go read some operational orders or CPLs about the use of deadly physical force and get back to me about what is actionable and justifiable, instead of relying on sophist posts of bloggers. And then get some relevant numbers to back up your claims that it's more prevalent. Until then, please preface all of these posts you make with "IMO", because that's what they are, opinions.

The citation you have offered up about the M16s is, in fact, about AR15s. It goes on to say that the the MPDC trained 10% of their force. That is most certainly not "routinely". The Miami PD started using them in response to an officer being shot by a bad guy that had one. Would you prefer that LEOs be under-equipped to meet that? Or do you think it's better practice to have shotguns, which are inherently less accurate? And since the article is 4 years old, are there updated statistics about this "rampant" increase in the equipping of rifles? Also, how does this relate to police brutality? Carrying better equipment does not equal abuse.

Still waiting to hear you justify the position that the two cases I cited were not good shootings. Of course, you having no LE training puts you at a disadvantage for understanding the legalities of the situations, but I'm still curious to hear how you would have handled them. Guy has a knife, is clearly altered, what do you do? Guy has a gun, has killed someone in plain sight in NYC, what do you do? Seriously, I'd love to hear your answers.

Not lessening my respect for those that stood the wall, but by your admission, you've never seen any combat then?

Justified? 46 rounds in a homeless man armed with a small knife? I don't care if was waving it aggressivelyat them. From that distance they could of slowly approached the homeless (also malnourished and buzzed and weaker) man and tazed him.

What about Oscar Grant? This young man was shot in the back while in handcuffs!! Police brutality is out of control, it has been for a while. The advent of social media and smartphone technology just amplifies it.

I read the other day that Apple just got approval for a patent that will disarm cameraphones depending on location. Looks like they want to inhibit the ability of the people to record whats happening at big events (political conventions, protest, and other places where disagreement with those in power may lead to police action).

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by NxYxJets

Justified? 46 rounds in a homeless man armed with a small knife? I don't care if was waving it aggressivelyat them. From that distance they could of slowly approached the homeless (also malnourished and buzzed and weaker) man and tazed him.

What about Oscar Grant? This young man was shot in the back while in handcuffs!! Police brutality is out of control, it has been for a while. The advent of social media and smartphone technology just amplifies it.

I read the other day that Apple just got approval for a patent that will disarm cameraphones depending on location. Looks like they want to inhibit the ability of the people to record whats happening at big events (political conventions, protest, and other places where disagreement with those in power may lead to police action).

Knife= deadly weapon
Gun= better deadly weapon
Tazer= dangerous instrument

So, you propose that the cops bring the figurative knife (tazer) to a gunfight (knife). Malone would not approve. Seriously, do you guys even think before shooting off about this sh!t?

Per Criminal Procedure Law, the use of a firearm is considered DEADLY physical force, which means you intend to cause death or serious injury when you use it. A knife is a DEADLY WEAPON, not a DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, which warrants the use of DEADLY physical force to end the threat. If it takes 100 shots to do so, then that is justified. The FBI did a study on the safe distance an attacker with a knife would have to be at relative to someone with a gun. Go look it up and prepare to be surprised.

[32green]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

I never saw combat.

Lmao....puts all of your posts in sad context.

Guess what?

I saw combat on the streets of NYC in polyester pants, a light blue shirt and a silly hat.

I was changed.

I wouldnt dare tell you about your former job, dont tell me about mine.

Get a hobby.

-

-

[JetsfanfromtheBURGH]

Originally Posted by Jetworks

Knife= deadly weapon
Gun= better deadly weapon
Tazer= dangerous instrument

So, you propose that the cops bring the figurative knife (tazer) to a gunfight (knife). Malone would not approve. Seriously, do you guys even think before shooting off about this sh!t?

Per Criminal Procedure Law, the use of a firearm is considered DEADLY physical force, which means you intend to cause death or serious injury when you use it. A knife is a DEADLY WEAPON, not a DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, which warrants the use of DEADLY physical force to end the threat. If it takes 100 shots to do so, then that is justified. The FBI did a study on the safe distance an attacker with a knife would have to be at relative to someone with a gun. Go look it up and prepare to be surprised.

If any of them get suspended, then we will know it was the wrong move. Right?

[NxYxJets]

Originally Posted by Jetworks

Knife= deadly weapon
Gun= better deadly weapon
Tazer= dangerous instrument

So, you propose that the cops bring the figurative knife (tazer) to a gunfight (knife). Malone would not approve. Seriously, do you guys even think before shooting off about this sh!t?

Per Criminal Procedure Law, the use of a firearm is considered DEADLY physical force, which means you intend to cause death or serious injury when you use it. A knife is a DEADLY WEAPON, not a DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT, which warrants the use of DEADLY physical force to end the threat. If it takes 100 shots to do so, then that is justified. The FBI did a study on the safe distance an attacker with a knife would have to be at relative to someone with a gun. Go look it up and prepare to be surprised.

You must of missed the part where this was a homeless man with a small knife. I know what a knife can do, I have seen it with my own eyes. This man with a small knife doesn't warrant 46, 100, or 10 rounds. That is excessive! One shot would of ended the threat. What they did was end the life of a homeless man. I don't give a damn about the FBI's study.

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by JetsfanfromtheBURGH

If any of them get suspended, then we will know it was the wrong move. Right?

Don't know, does it? What I wrote was as per the NYS CPL and the training taught at the FTU. You shoot center mass to end the threat. Does that mean some dumbass politico/boss or steered GJ wouldn't suspend or indict? Of course it doesn't.

Originally Posted by NxYxJets

You must of missed the part where this was a homeless man with a small knife. I know what a knife can do, I have seen it with my own eyes. This man with a small knife doesn't warrant 46, 100, or 10 rounds. That is excessive! One shot would of ended the threat. What they did was end the life of a homeless man. I don't give a damn about the FBI's study.

I saw the part about the guy with a knife, a deadly weapon. Guess you missed the definitions I was so kind to provide. I fail to see what his being homeless has to do with anything. Actually, given the mental health statistics of homeless individuals, I would say that would be more cause for concern, not less.

Who are you to say something is excessive if it isn't you who is directly under threat? And are you an expert that can readily determine that EVERY individual needs only 1 shot to end any threat? Lemme guess, he should have just winged him, shot him in the leg, right?

Good to know you don't care about a study done by the foremost police organization in the world. Who needs the facts when you have pathos?

I'll put the same question to you that I did to the OP (who STILL hasn't answered, I might add); how would you have handled the situation? What steps, both tactically and ethically, do you feel should have been taken?

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

We could also have some articles on nasty white people who like to cook up cold medicine in red states while their toddlers are running around their trailer.

Go South!! METH!! Woot!!

Probably plenty in your neck of the woods...

[JetsfanfromtheBURGH]

Originally Posted by Jetworks

Don't know, does it? What I wrote was as per the NYS CPL and the training taught at the FTU. You shoot center mass to end the threat. Does that mean some dumbass politico/boss or steered GJ wouldn't suspend or indict? Of course it doesn't.



I saw the part about the guy with a knife, a deadly weapon. Guess you missed the definitions I was so kind to provide. I fail to see what his being homeless has to do with anything. Actually, given the mental health statistics of homeless individuals, I would say that would be more cause for concern, not less.

Who are you to say something is excessive if it isn't you who is directly under threat? And are you an expert that can readily determine that EVERY individual needs only 1 shot to end any threat? Lemme guess, he should have just winged him, shot him in the leg, right?

Good to know you don't care about a study done by the foremost police organization in the world. Who needs the facts when you have pathos?

I'll put the same question to you that I did to the OP (who STILL hasn't answered, I might add); how would you have handled the situation? What steps, both tactically and ethically, do you feel should have been taken?

Doing the right thing and doing what is politically correct will always be a debate. People are gonna view it both ways. No matter what happens, a **** storm will arise from one side.

[NxYxJets]

Originally Posted by Jetworks

Don't know, does it? What I wrote was as per the NYS CPL and the training taught at the FTU. You shoot center mass to end the threat. Does that mean some dumbass politico/boss or steered GJ wouldn't suspend or indict? Of course it doesn't.



I saw the part about the guy with a knife, a deadly weapon. Guess you missed the definitions I was so kind to provide. I fail to see what his being homeless has to do with anything. Actually, given the mental health statistics of homeless individuals, I would say that would be more cause for concern, not less.

Who are you to say something is excessive if it isn't you who is directly under threat? And are you an expert that can readily determine that EVERY individual needs only 1 shot to end any threat? Lemme guess, he should have just winged him, shot him in the leg, right?

Good to know you don't care about a study done by the foremost police organization in the world. Who needs the facts when you have pathos?

I'll put the same question to you that I did to the OP (who STILL hasn't answered, I might add); how would you have handled the situation? What steps, both tactically and ethically, do you feel should have been taken?

If I were in that position, I would have slowly approached the suspect demanding he drop his weapon. My partners and I, armed with guns and tazers would have slowly approached with our demands. If our commands were not met, I would have tazed the homeless man until he pissed himself. Pretty simple really. Cops are trained to deal with dangerous people. You are being ignorant when you say they did not use excessive force.

[MnJetFan]

I am not Black just in case you didn't know that. But I did work with the NYPD and did see the underbelly of a few cops. Is there police brutality YES but to say it is a crisis is an overstatement. I ca't speak for a Black guy/gal.
So I wll leave the racial part alone. I am just an old white just making it thru this lifetime. Peace be with you!

[Jetworks]

Originally Posted by NxYxJets

If I were in that position, I would have slowly approached the suspect demanding he drop his weapon. My partners and I, armed with guns and tazers would have slowly approached with our demands. If our commands were not met, I would have tazed the homeless man until he pissed himself. Pretty simple really. Cops are trained to deal with dangerous people. You are being ignorant when you say they did not use excessive force.

So, you would give yourself the short-shrift in dealing with an individual better armed than yourself. Good for you. Glad to know you won't be partnering up with any LEOs whose life may be in your hands.

Originally Posted by MnJetFan

I am not Black just in case you didn't know that. But I did work with the NYPD and did see the underbelly of a few cops. Is there police brutality YES but to say it is a crisis is an overstatement. I ca't speak for a Black guy/gal.
So I wll leave the racial part alone. I am just an old white just making it thru this lifetime. Peace be with you!

True statement is not debatable.

Still nothing from the OP on the subject, day 3. Guess the hot air has passed.

[Winstonbiggs]

The country is being armed to the teeth with heavy weapons, large clips and semi-automatic and automatic weapons available to virtually anyone.

The background checks today are practically a joke when guns are bought and sold legally through second and third parties with no check at all. We have a person like the nut in Colorado who was under psychiatric care, reported to the University, who could still legally buy multiple weapons and enough ammo to blow away a city block legally in any number of US retail outlets.

The cops are essentially fighting in a combat zone because that's what we are turning this country into. Guys like Dawg support his right to carry war zone weapons and yet he *****es about cops having to operate like it was a war zone. The cops are very dangerous and out of control because they have to be to protect themselves and society.