Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
one would think that in order to be fatally wounded
one would have to die
--LOL
It took two days and forty post to convince QW of that fact.
That explains why I am still trying to explain to you why it is possible to be fatally wounded and still do other things.
Case in point, a fatal dose of radiation can take days or weeks to kill you.
How could they have known a man hiding in a boat that had previously shot at them was now unarmed?
Are you related to Rdean? TM? Zona? Jakestarkey? Rightwinger? Or some other liberal nut job?
You are asking the wrong question. Given that police cannot use deadly force unless they are protecting themselves or others why would they shoot when he was not pointing a gun at them?
No I asked the right question and you're dodging it.
You may need to research rules of engagement for police officers.
When possible, making contact should be accomplished prior to the armed individual(s) becoming active shooters. The goal is to proactively minimize injury and death to innocents by positioning ballistically protected officers in close proximity with the threat, so that accurate application of deadly force can be expeditiously applied, if necessary.
Immediate Action Rapid Deployment tactics should only be established by law enforcement agencies willing to establish clear policy, provide initial and recurrent training in IARD, and provide all first-responding officers with high quality ballistic shields that allow each officer the ability to deliver accurate handgun and/or long-gun firepower when safely positioned behind a lightweight ballistic barrier.
Patrol officers must be capable of neutralizing the threat before any further aggressive action can be taken against innocents, including the officers. Quickly making contact is the key to a successful outcome, which is realistically determined by how many innocents are saved, and not by how many are initially murdered and injured prior to the arrival of the first responders. Delaying physical police contact until the armed suicidal individual(s) becomes "active", will lead to a higher casualty count.
The police had to assume the suspect was armed and act accordingly.
It took two days and forty post to convince QW of that fact.
That explains why I am still trying to explain to you why it is possible to be fatally wounded and still do other things.
Case in point, a fatal dose of radiation can take days or weeks to kill you.
Obviously you don't understand what fatal means.
If what you say is true and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was fatally wounded how is that he's still alive and recovering from his wounds?
Just admit your description was wrong and move on.
You are asking the wrong question. Given that police cannot use deadly force unless they are protecting themselves or others why would they shoot when he was not pointing a gun at them?
No I asked the right question and you're dodging it.
You may need to research rules of engagement for police officers.
When possible, making contact should be accomplished prior to the armed individual(s) becoming active shooters. The goal is to proactively minimize injury and death to innocents by positioning ballistically protected officers in close proximity with the threat, so that accurate application of deadly force can be expeditiously applied, if necessary.
Immediate Action Rapid Deployment tactics should only be established by law enforcement agencies willing to establish clear policy, provide initial and recurrent training in IARD, and provide all first-responding officers with high quality ballistic shields that allow each officer the ability to deliver accurate handgun and/or long-gun firepower when safely positioned behind a lightweight ballistic barrier.
Patrol officers must be capable of neutralizing the threat before any further aggressive action can be taken against innocents, including the officers. Quickly making “contact” is the key to a successful outcome, which is realistically determined by how many innocents are saved, and not by how many are initially murdered and injured prior to the arrival of the first responders. Delaying physical police contact until the armed suicidal individual(s) becomes "active", will lead to a higher casualty count.
The police had to assume the suspect was armed and act accordingly.
Shooting unconscious people is not part of any rules of engagement.
That explains why I am still trying to explain to you why it is possible to be fatally wounded and still do other things.
Case in point, a fatal dose of radiation can take days or weeks to kill you.
Obviously you don't understand what fatal means.
If what you say is true and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was fatally wounded how is that he's still alive and recovering from his wounds?
Just admit your description was wrong and move on.
Not only do I know what fatal means, I know that when a doctor says you will die without treatment it does not mean you are dead.
Inmates in prison or jail have no expectation nor right of privacy.When an Inmate is one the loose, the Warden has the Authority to check every cell until that Prisoner is found.
How did the police know for certain the person in the boat was a bombing suspect?How could they have known a man hiding in a boat that had previously shot at them was now unarmed?
Are you related to Rdean? TM? Zona? Jakestarkey? Rightwinger? Or some other liberal nut job?
You are asking the wrong question. Given that police cannot use deadly force unless they are protecting themselves or others why would they shoot when he was not pointing a gun at them?
No I asked the right question and you're dodging it.
You may need to research rules of engagement for police officers.
When possible, making contact should be accomplished prior to the armed individual(s) becoming active shooters. The goal is to proactively minimize injury and death to innocents by positioning ballistically protected officers in close proximity with the threat, so that accurate application of deadly force can be expeditiously applied, if necessary.
Immediate Action Rapid Deployment tactics should only be established by law enforcement agencies willing to establish clear policy, provide initial and recurrent training in IARD, and provide all first-responding officers with high quality ballistic shields that allow each officer the ability to deliver accurate handgun and/or long-gun firepower when safely positioned behind a lightweight ballistic barrier.
Patrol officers must be capable of neutralizing the threat before any further aggressive action can be taken against innocents, including the officers. Quickly making contact is the key to a successful outcome, which is realistically determined by how many innocents are saved, and not by how many are initially murdered and injured prior to the arrival of the first responders. Delaying physical police contact until the armed suicidal individual(s) becomes "active", will lead to a higher casualty count.
The police had to assume the suspect was armed and act accordingly.
How did the police know for certain the person in the boat was a bombing suspect?You are asking the wrong question. Given that police cannot use deadly force unless they are protecting themselves or others why would they shoot when he was not pointing a gun at them?
No I asked the right question and you're dodging it.
You may need to research rules of engagement for police officers.
When possible, making contact should be accomplished prior to the armed individual(s) becoming active shooters. The goal is to proactively minimize injury and death to innocents by positioning ballistically protected officers in close proximity with the threat, so that accurate application of deadly force can be expeditiously applied, if necessary.
Immediate Action Rapid Deployment tactics should only be established by law enforcement agencies willing to establish clear policy, provide initial and recurrent training in IARD, and provide all first-responding officers with high quality ballistic shields that allow each officer the ability to deliver accurate handgun and/or long-gun firepower when safely positioned behind a lightweight ballistic barrier.
Patrol officers must be capable of neutralizing the threat before any further aggressive action can be taken against innocents, including the officers. Quickly making contact is the key to a successful outcome, which is realistically determined by how many innocents are saved, and not by how many are initially murdered and injured prior to the arrival of the first responders. Delaying physical police contact until the armed suicidal individual(s) becomes "active", will lead to a higher casualty count.
The police had to assume the suspect was armed and act accordingly.
Bull shit. Talk that shit now, but when you need one, you will scream and beg for an "authoritarian" to come listen to you cry.
I take it that you're a cop?
You have a misconception. The public does want the police to do their job. The problem is that in too many places, like New York or Los Angeles, the line between the criminals and the cops is non-existent. We know that the NYPD detective squad was nothing more than part of the Gotti gang for decades. Few believe that it is anything but an extension of the mob today.
THE GAMBINO CRIME FAMILY CONTROLS N.Y.P.D. - CNN iReport
Los Angeles Police is probably the most corrupt organization in the nation.
{More than 70 police officers either assigned to or associated with the Rampart CRASH unit were implicated in some form of misconduct, making it one of the most widespread cases of documented police misconduct in United States history. The convicted offenses include unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of false evidence, framing of suspects, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and the covering up of evidence of these activities.[1]}
Rampart scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The police are not here to protect or serve the public. The police serve the courts. If they do their jobs, they investigate crimes after the fact and arrest those involved. In metropolitan areas, they are just as likely to be the perpetrators of the crimes.
As for protection, the public is, and always has been, on their own. I do think cops should be armed, but I SURE the hell don't want them better armed than the rest of us.
LAPD hasn't been LAPD since the Rampart scandal. It is still operating under a consent decree from the federal government. The goal is to be more sensitive, gay friendly, and accommodating to women. They gutted the SWAT team for these goals. It's so bad that the police had to abandon the anti gang task force because no cops wanted to be part of it.
LAPD hasn't been LAPD since the Rampart scandal. It is still operating under a consent decree from the federal government. The goal is to be more sensitive, gay friendly, and accommodating to women. They gutted the SWAT team for these goals. It's so bad that the police had to abandon the anti gang task force because no cops wanted to be part of it.
LAPD remains an extension of MS-13 and the Mexican Mafia. Their primary function is drug trafficking.
Their primary function is butt fucking and has been since gay outreach.
What has this country come to? A manhunt for one guy is reason to cordon off a complete city?
That's insane.
I don't care how badly the police want one guy.
Armed tanks rolling through the streets aiming guns at peoples homes? Are you going to let the search for one guy be an excuse for that kind of over reach of authority?
That precident is so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start.
I for one am disgusted with what America has become to allow such totalitarian behavior.
You people in Boston are pussies.
That is all.
But there almost always is a problem with presumptive action -- such as the example in L.A. when the cops shot up the wrong car during the Dorner pursuit, injuring innocent people. Those cops are lucky they didn't kill anyone.How did the police know for certain the person in the boat was a bombing suspect?No I asked the right question and you're dodging it.
You may need to research rules of engagement for police officers.
When possible, making contact should be accomplished prior to the armed individual(s) becoming active shooters. The goal is to proactively minimize injury and death to innocents by positioning ballistically protected officers in close proximity with the threat, so that accurate application of deadly force can be expeditiously applied, if necessary.
Immediate Action Rapid Deployment tactics should only be established by law enforcement agencies willing to establish clear policy, provide initial and recurrent training in IARD, and provide all first-responding officers with high quality ballistic shields that allow each officer the ability to deliver accurate handgun and/or long-gun firepower when safely positioned behind a lightweight ballistic barrier.
Patrol officers must be capable of neutralizing the threat before any further aggressive action can be taken against innocents, including the officers. Quickly making “contact” is the key to a successful outcome, which is realistically determined by how many innocents are saved, and not by how many are initially murdered and injured prior to the arrival of the first responders. Delaying physical police contact until the armed suicidal individual(s) becomes "active", will lead to a higher casualty count.
The police had to assume the suspect was armed and act accordingly.
I'm not sure. I wasn't there. But it could have been a number of things.
I'm sure some kind of communication was going on. But who else would be bleeding and hiding in a boat and not surrender when ordered to do so by the police?
But there almost always is a problem with presumptive action -- such as the example in L.A. when the cops shot up the wrong car injuring innocent people. Those cops are lucky they didn't kill anyone.How did the police know for certain the person in the boat was a bombing suspect?
I'm not sure. I wasn't there. But it could have been a number of things.
I'm sure some kind of communication was going on. But who else would be bleeding and hiding in a boat and not surrender when ordered to do so by the police?
For that reason federal agents are forbidden to discharge their weapons unless a target is visible and clearly identified. But that regulation was ignored at Waco when they were shooting randomly and wildly through walls and doors. I don't know if any agents were disciplined for violating that rule, but the fact that they did it weighed heavily in acquitting the Davidians of murder in the killing if ATF raiders. It was considered self-defense in accordance with Section 9.31 of the Texas Penal Law.
The topic is police authority, which is the focus.But there almost always is a problem with presumptive action -- such as the example in L.A. when the cops shot up the wrong car injuring innocent people. Those cops are lucky they didn't kill anyone.I'm not sure. I wasn't there. But it could have been a number of things.
I'm sure some kind of communication was going on. But who else would be bleeding and hiding in a boat and not surrender when ordered to do so by the police?
For that reason federal agents are forbidden to discharge their weapons unless a target is visible and clearly identified. But that regulation was ignored at Waco when they were shooting randomly and wildly through walls and doors. I don't know if any agents were disciplined for violating that rule, but the fact that they did it weighed heavily in acquitting the Davidians of murder in the killing if ATF raiders. It was considered self-defense in accordance with Section 9.31 of the Texas Penal Law.
No not always and this case proves it.
And as for what LAPD did or didn't do or what happened in Waco has no bearing on what happened in Boston. So please focus on the topic.
The topic is police authority, which is the focus.But there almost always is a problem with presumptive action -- such as the example in L.A. when the cops shot up the wrong car injuring innocent people. Those cops are lucky they didn't kill anyone.
For that reason federal agents are forbidden to discharge their weapons unless a target is visible and clearly identified. But that regulation was ignored at Waco when they were shooting randomly and wildly through walls and doors. I don't know if any agents were disciplined for violating that rule, but the fact that they did it weighed heavily in acquitting the Davidians of murder in the killing if ATF raiders. It was considered self-defense in accordance with Section 9.31 of the Texas Penal Law.
No not always and this case proves it.
And as for what LAPD did or didn't do or what happened in Waco has no bearing on what happened in Boston. So please focus on the topic.
(Are you Jewish?)
The topic is police authority, which is the focus.No not always and this case proves it.
And as for what LAPD did or didn't do or what happened in Waco has no bearing on what happened in Boston. So please focus on the topic.
(Are you Jewish?)
The focus and what I had been arguing since I started in this thread was police authority as it pertained to the Boston bombers. Perhaps you should read the OP again. It's clear he was specifically talking about the events in Boston.
Am I Jewish? Why would that be relevant?
The topic is police authority, which is the focus.
(Are you Jewish?)
The focus and what I had been arguing since I started in this thread was police authority as it pertained to the Boston bombers. Perhaps you should read the OP again. It's clear he was specifically talking about the events in Boston.
Am I Jewish? Why would that be relevant?
UMMMmmm..... Yes and no.
"Police Authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What has this country come to? A manhunt for one guy is reason to cordon off a complete city?
That's insane.
I don't care how badly the police want one guy.
Armed tanks rolling through the streets aiming guns at peoples homes? Are you going to let the search for one guy be an excuse for that kind of over reach of authority?
That precident is so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start.
I for one am disgusted with what America has become to allow such totalitarian behavior.
You people in Boston are pussies."
Ya... The activities and tactics the police,,FBI, Mass State Police,..Boston Police used was the impetus but not neccesarily the sole focus of my OP.
"I for one am disgusted with what America has become to allow such totalitarian behavior"
I haven't interjected much in this thread because I was more interested in how others saw the situation as it unfolded and still is unfolding. The bigger picture was definitely part of the concern I expressed in the OP.
The conversation has been lively and off topic occasionally but that's just USMB.
Carry on. Great replies! Thanks!
The focus and what I had been arguing since I started in this thread was police authority as it pertained to the Boston bombers. Perhaps you should read the OP again. It's clear he was specifically talking about the events in Boston.
Am I Jewish? Why would that be relevant?
UMMMmmm..... Yes and no.
"Police Authority
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What has this country come to? A manhunt for one guy is reason to cordon off a complete city?
That's insane.
I don't care how badly the police want one guy.
Armed tanks rolling through the streets aiming guns at peoples homes? Are you going to let the search for one guy be an excuse for that kind of over reach of authority?
That precident is so wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to start.
I for one am disgusted with what America has become to allow such totalitarian behavior.
You people in Boston are pussies."
Ya... The activities and tactics the police,,FBI, Mass State Police,..Boston Police used was the impetus but not neccesarily the sole focus of my OP.
"I for one am disgusted with what America has become to allow such totalitarian behavior"
I haven't interjected much in this thread because I was more interested in how others saw the situation as it unfolded and still is unfolding. The bigger picture was definitely part of the concern I expressed in the OP.
The conversation has been lively and off topic occasionally but that's just USMB.
Carry on. Great replies! Thanks!
It was in fact the sole purpose.
But go ahead and start lying. I wouldn't expect anything less from a liberal puke!
