• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

How not to get shot by the police

A better title for this thread would be, "How not to get bit by the cobra in you kitchen and the rattlesnakes in your bedroom."
 
You can't use one example to disprove the entire idea of systematic oppression. You need a lot more data points than that.
 
Things I have personally found to be helpful:

1. Look as much like a very nondescript, generic, small girl next door/siste/cousin as possible. Later, transition to the mom or aunt next door. Am doing a beta test of (gulp) grandmother next door. It goes without saying: be as white as possible, middle class version.

2. Don't be seriously mentally I'll, although if you are, you may be spared the indecision and guilt associated with suicide. Being unarmed is not particularly a factor.

3. Don't be a victim of a crime. Even if you look like the girl next door and are calling to report an armed robbery from the ladies room at work, multiple police officers will arrive, heavily armed and pumped for action. They WILL all aim their firearms at you when they bust down the door to the ladies room. They will do nothing to assure that you are ok after the double trauma, but if you are white and female, you might survive.

4. Do not reassemble any suspect in any criminal activity. Again, being white is a tremendous help as it decreases the chances the police will shoot you first and verify identity later.

BTW, all of these are real life examples from my personal experience or that of close family and friends.


In review: it's better to be white. Being a female doesn't hurt but doesn't mean you won't have five or six cops with guns pointed at you while you are hiding from the armed robber.
 
Of course, the guy being armed clouds the issue. I think the problem most people have with police shootings is that they happen when the victim is unarmed.
Attacking the cop means the perp can arm himself with the officer's gun. Unarmed !=harmless.

Sooooo... the solution is to stop letting cops carry guns, as criminals could easily take those guns away. I think that would solve the issue of police shootings pretty well.

Of course, saying that perps can apparently easily disarm a cop and take their gun.. doesn't that contradict the whole idea of owning a gun for protection? If it can so easily be taken, why bother having one in the first place?
 
Sounds like all the commotion about cops shooting black people might be starting to have some effect.
Shootings have always been a very small fraction of all police encounters regardless of race. Loren's point is that getting shot depends on your behavior (like Michael Brown attacking the cop), not race. This guy was treated courteously because he was courteous himself.

America, where being less than courteous can result in summary execution.
 
America, where being less than courteous can result in summary execution.
You are purposely misunderstanding what I wrote.
Again, attack a cop and you will have a high likelihood that you will get shot. How difficult is that to understand?
 
It's always a good idea to refrain from giving cops shit, but this does not relieve police from responsibility in how they use their power. And they do have power. Let's stop bootlicking and hold them responsible for fuck's sake, regardless of whether the powerless are rude or immature.
 
Sooooo... the solution is to stop letting cops carry guns, as criminals could easily take those guns away. I think that would solve the issue of police shootings pretty well.
You can do that in a place like UK where people rarely have guns. In the US where guns are common police have to be armed.

Of course, saying that perps can apparently easily disarm a cop and take their gun.. doesn't that contradict the whole idea of owning a gun for protection? If it can so easily be taken, why bother having one in the first place?
Because you can shoot the perp before they can take the gun away from you (ranged weapon and all that). More Indiana Jones, less the all too common trope in moves where the good guy throws his gun away in order to have a "fair" fistfight with the bad guy.
indiana-jones-shoots-swordsman-o.gif
 
It's always a good idea to refrain from giving cops shit, but this does not relieve police from responsibility in how they use their power. And they do have power. Let's stop bootlicking and hold them responsible for fuck's sake, regardless of whether the powerless are rude or immature.
They should be held responsible when they did something wrong but not when the witchhunt against them is built on lies - "hands up don't shoot", "he only had a sandwich", "he didn't do nothing" etc.
 
It's always a good idea to refrain from giving cops shit, but this does not relieve police from responsibility in how they use their power. And they do have power. Let's stop bootlicking and hold them responsible for fuck's sake, regardless of whether the powerless are rude or immature.
They should be held responsible when they did something wrong but not when the witchhunt against them is built on lies - "hands up don't shoot", "he only had a sandwich", "he didn't do nothing" etc.

+1

Police officers should be held to a higher standard and have very thick skin. (We should also be wary of lowering standards for recruits to meet political goals.) The reason these debates go on and on, it seems, is that the anti-cop crowd is generally bad at choosing its martyrs and villain police examples. This crowd may simply be desiring to push an agenda rather than be genuinely interested in the facts surrounding a selected occurrence. After all, why do some incidents garner social media outrage while others do not? For example: http://www.surenews.com/crime/shocking-leaked-video-shows-police-chief-candidate-sadistically-tasering-non-combative-inmates/
 
I made mention of this before when a FB friend of mine posted this. Let's assume for a minute that this guy HADN'T handled it correctly. Let's say he was verbally confrontational. Does he then deserve to be killed?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

That is not cooperating and deserves a misdemeanor. Which means the officer can drag him out of the car. If the victim's gun falls out of his back pocket when that happens then the officer can fear for his life. Some people in the forum think that an officer's fear for his life is justification for shooting the victim.

I think if I were reading what I wrote above, I might think it is a bit cartoonish and unreal, but if you look at real incidents of police stops, escalations and fear, they are also unreal.

A falling gun will likely get guns pointed at you but won't get you shot. Now, grabbing for that falling gun is another matter. (However, one should never grab a falling gun anyway--when people do that once in a while they go bang.)
 
They should be held responsible when they did something wrong but not when the witchhunt against them is built on lies - "hands up don't shoot", "he only had a sandwich", "he didn't do nothing" etc.

+1

Police officers should be held to a higher standard and have very thick skin. (We should also be wary of lowering standards for recruits to meet political goals.) The reason these debates go on and on, it seems, is that the anti-cop crowd is generally bad at choosing its martyrs and villain police examples. This crowd may simply be desiring to push an agenda rather than be genuinely interested in the facts surrounding a selected occurrence. After all, why do some incidents garner social media outrage while others do not? For example: http://www.surenews.com/crime/shocking-leaked-video-shows-police-chief-candidate-sadistically-tasering-non-combative-inmates/
What nonsense. First off, there is no "anti-cop" crowd. Second, it doesn't matter which of these events gets coverage and which do not. Those of us critical of how policing works in this country are focused upon a culture which seems to systematically target minorities (especially African Americans) and pile abuse after abuse upon them. This issue is much larger than any single incident, which is something that the anti-accountability crowd seems to ignore.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
How the hell can a gun just discharge if the safety is on?

I'm pretty sure that carrying with the safety off is not taught in most concealed carry courses.
 
How the hell can a gun just discharge if the safety is on?

I'm pretty sure that carrying with the safety off is not taught in most concealed carry courses.
I didn't see it say that it was a concealed carry. If it was an open carry then there aren't any courses you need to take to carry it.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
 
+1

Police officers should be held to a higher standard and have very thick skin. (We should also be wary of lowering standards for recruits to meet political goals.) The reason these debates go on and on, it seems, is that the anti-cop crowd is generally bad at choosing its martyrs and villain police examples. This crowd may simply be desiring to push an agenda rather than be genuinely interested in the facts surrounding a selected occurrence. After all, why do some incidents garner social media outrage while others do not? For example: http://www.surenews.com/crime/shocking-leaked-video-shows-police-chief-candidate-sadistically-tasering-non-combative-inmates/
What nonsense. First off, there is no "anti-cop" crowd. Second, it doesn't matter which of these events gets coverage and which do not. Those of us critical of how policing works in this country are focused upon a culture which seems to systematically target minorities (especially African Americans) and pile abuse after abuse upon them. This issue is much larger than any single incident, which is something that the anti-accountability crowd seems to ignore.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


And there's the agenda. It's the narrative über alles.
 
How the hell can a gun just discharge if the safety is on?

I'm pretty sure that carrying with the safety off is not taught in most concealed carry courses.
I didn't see it say that it was a concealed carry. If it was an open carry then there aren't any courses you need to take to carry it.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Well the Texas Open Carry guy swears PTSD fuels his need to open carry, so maybe you have to go into combat.
 
How the hell can a gun just discharge if the safety is on?

I'm pretty sure that carrying with the safety off is not taught in most concealed carry courses.

Some guns do not have safeties as such. Glocks for example. use widely by police. A shirt tail caught in the trigger guard during reholstering can cause an accidental discharge.. A few cops have as a result done just that and shot themselves in the leg. Adrenaline during a confrontation can cause a discharge when one's finger squeezes the trigger. Saftey in a Glock is not having a finger on the trigger unless you mean to shoot. Glocks come with a 5 lb trigger pull which really is not much. As a result some localities order police service Glocks with an 8 pound trigger assembly. Some gun nuts order 3 pound triggers, an invitation to disaster. In very tense, fast moving confrontations, police have been known to accidentally discharge guns because they had a finger on the trigger when they drew their guns. Other DOA automatics rely on long trigger pulls and comparatively heavy trigger actions. And yes, I have owned a Glock and know that the triggers on Glocks are not that hard to pull. I can see how easily it would be to shoot somebody accidentally in a confrontation.
 
Back
Top Bottom