http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plKcTPXRBkc&feature=related Beware calling for cops, they might shoot you instead.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rong-woman-suspect-swaps-clothes-hostage.html Whoops. Police sniper shoots wrong person. Don't worry, police were not harmed.
So what is your point? Are you calling for disarmament of the police? Are you calling for better training for the police? Or are you trying to claim that armed citizenry can do better?
the punctuation mark at the end of a sentence that looks like this ? m the statement is in fact a QUESTION ergo it cannot be a "strawman argument " let alone a textbook one as I have not made any claims And again you seem and I repeat SEEM TO be inferring that the police are either inept or redundant and again I ASK - that is request, seek enlightenment, enquire, query in an effort to ascertain further information Something which has been ignored post after post Instead i am treated to an endless series of Ad homs and personal attacks This latest posting is interesting given the previous posts showing purported police ineptitude - here the police were successful - arrived on time, apprehended the offender, who escaped and seemingly acted in a manner that was threatening to the police and was subsequently shot. There are claims he was innocent - despite acting in a manner that was not consistent with that claim. Ask any warden - the jails are full of people who are "innocent" So what is the point of THIS story?? Where is the problem - were the police not doing their duty?
He was really innocent. Police were looking for a terrorist. He wasn't. Which you seemed to miss. The point is very simple. Which you keeping missing. It is the police shoot and kill the wrong people and they do it with regularity.
For a start - how do you recognise a terrorist? In the heat of the moment - how do you tell? They do not wear black hats you know! And if the police, who are trained to shoot in situations like this miss and shoot the wrong people - how would a civilian fare better?
He was shot in the head when other police officers had tackled him to the ground. I think they were close enough to know he had no weapons. They put the barrel of the gun to his head and pulled the trigger. They also missed twice. It only do police shoot the wrong person a lot, they commonly shot them unarmed.
this thread is a thread in support of gun control. If police, who are professionally trained, can't even get it right, how can you expect some guy off the street to protect himself or others with a gun? It just shows how dangerous guns are, and why they should be limited in access.
Ok, so lets see.... Guns should be "limited in access"- yes, and they are Guns are dangerous-yes they are intended to be How can you expect some "guy" to be able to protect "himself" with a gun? I have a concealed carry permit. I know the laws, I know when I can use justifiable deadly force. I've done a lot of shooting at the range. IF someone breaks into my house, I will know it as I have a good alarm system. Its a bit over the top but I lock the bedroom door. Sexual assault makes quite an impression, I dont want a repeat. Now, if someone breaks in, I will be speed dialing 911, and I will be behind the bed with a double barrel shot gun aimed at the door. If you think I cant be expected to successfully defend myself,you are wrong. Your if / then analysis is facile at best.
Wy don't you do some research get an answer before you try to convince someone else of your political ideas on this subject. It is not my job to protect others. I won't make a mistake shooting the wrong person. If I call the cops about a suspect then I already know who to shoot.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/t/story?id=95475&page=1 Police raid wrong address. Resident dies. Police are sorry not our fault.
Which story are you referring to because THIS story is nothing like that Gee, What part of THAT story you posted showed incompetent and dangerous police?
Ah! And when one reads the story you find that although they pounded on the door and identified themselves as police they were SHOT AT BY THE RESIDENT Sorry but thanks for the ammunition - I have been looking for a story like this to show how silly it is to have unsecured guns in the home with a culture that reinforces the idea of shooting intruders
Let us know how it goes for you if intruders wishing to harm you do enter your home. That is, if you can.
Good Number of times intruder wishing harm - 2 Number of times no harm - 2 Number of police shot at by accident - 0 Number of times arrested for attempted murder of police - 0 Now, number of times threatened/hit at/spat on/and generally threatened AT WORK - too many to count !@#!@#@ alcohol and drug addicts!@#!@#@
I do think you probably mean well. I dont wish any harm to come to you. I hope your luck holds. here are my "stats": number of persons wishing me harm: 3 number of successful attempts to injure me: 3 Number of weapons at my disposal: zero skull fractures: 2 broken ribs: 3 other injuries I dont care to specify: many
You are wrong that there ware zero weapons - because YOU SURVIVED!! Even if that "weapon" as a degree of submission to prevent further harm - you survived!! Bottom line - they lost you WON! Yes things might have been different but do not dwell on the "what its" or maybes - that way lies self doubt Keep telling yourself you WON and they LOST. I gather they ended up behind bars - then you won doubly because they cannot hurt anyone else for a while at least
"Police admitted thier mistake.." Home invaders prentending to be law enforcement. Whooops. [video=youtube;FdA_5r_Gu-A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdA_5r_Gu-A&feature=fvwrel[/video]
All this proves is that instead of investing in a gun you should be investing in video equipment for the front door And are you seriously suggesting that if someone knocks on the door and says "police" that it is OK to fire first? Note question mark at end of sentence - means a QUESTION was asked
