My Idea of Gun Control

[Boxlicker101]

Armed citizens use their guns to apprehend two dangerous felons:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...nnessee-stopped-by-gun-owning-homeow-n2342051

The bravery of a homeowner put an end to the three-day long manhunt, Fitzhugh said.

The inmates had run through the woods to a home on Pruitt Road, near the rural community of Christiana.
[…]

The homeowner called his neighbor and both men, each armed with a gun, confronted the fugitives.

Having lost their weapons in the crash, Dubose and Rowe surrendered, authorities said.

 

[phrodeau]

The gun nut Philando Castile was pulled over by a police officer, and when he refused to make his loaded gun disappear, was shot to death.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/philando-castile-trial-verdict/index.html

 

[ChloeTzang]

The gun nut Philando Castile was pulled over by a police officer, and when he refused to make his loaded gun disappear, was shot to death.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/16/us/philando-castile-trial-verdict/index.html

Not quite that simple, little hairy-toes. And besides, trial by jury. Jury's tend to consider the evidence pretty seriously with the level of scrutiny on cases like this. And it's Minnesota. Lib heaven.

And on the OP topic, the officer had excellent gun control. Shots on target, suspect stopped. Threat to officer stopped. That guy made a bad misjudgement and sounded like the officer was twitchy but hey, it's a dangerous job.

MY last traffic stop was very sociable. I smiled. Kept my hands in sight. Told him I had a firearm in my possession. Did exactly what I was asked and told him what I was doing and did it slowly, didn't argue and got a ticket for 40 in a 30 zone when I was doing ummm .... 55. In my old piece of mobile rust. No biggie. No shots fired. No take downs. Nada. The officer was very polite and friendly.

Then again, my demographic isn't known for cutting lose except in HK movies.

 

[HisArpy]

Not quite that simple, little hairy-toes. And besides, trial by jury. Jury's tend to consider the evidence pretty seriously with the level of scrutiny on cases like this. And it's Minnesota. Lib heaven.

And on the OP topic, the officer had excellent gun control. Shots on target, suspect stopped. Threat to officer stopped. That guy made a bad misjudgement and sounded like the officer was twitchy but hey, it's a dangerous job.

MY last traffic stop was very sociable. I smiled. Kept my hands in sight. Told him I had a firearm in my possession. Did exactly what I was asked and told him what I was doing and did it slowly, didn't argue and got a ticket for 40 in a 30 zone when I was doing ummm .... 55. In my old piece of mobile rust. No biggie. No shots fired. No take downs. Nada. The officer was very polite and friendly.

Then again, my demographic isn't known for cutting lose except in HK movies.

It musta been the dimples. 'Cuz we all know that the mere presence of a gun is enough for people to just roll over shot-to-dead. So them dimples must be powerful stuff.

 

[phrodeau]

Not quite that simple, little hairy-toes. And besides, trial by jury. Jury's tend to consider the evidence pretty seriously with the level of scrutiny on cases like this. And it's Minnesota. Lib heaven.

And on the OP topic, the officer had excellent gun control. Shots on target, suspect stopped. Threat to officer stopped. That guy made a bad misjudgement and sounded like the officer was twitchy but hey, it's a dangerous job.

MY last traffic stop was very sociable. I smiled. Kept my hands in sight. Told him I had a firearm in my possession. Did exactly what I was asked and told him what I was doing and did it slowly, didn't argue and got a ticket for 40 in a 30 zone when I was doing ummm .... 55. In my old piece of mobile rust. No biggie. No shots fired. No take downs. Nada. The officer was very polite and friendly.

Then again, my demographic isn't known for cutting lose except in HK movies.

So it didn't work with you. Dang.

 

[ChloeTzang]

It musta been the dimples. 'Cuz we all know that the mere presence of a gun is enough for people to just roll over shot-to-dead. So them dimples must be powerful stuff.

Aiiiyaahh, no dimples lah. Just snub nose and smile and cute little eyes. So big smile. So batting eyelids.

 

[HisArpy]

Aiiiyaahh, no dimples lah. Just snub nose and smile and cute little eyes. So big smile. So batting eyelids.

I'm pretty sure there's a dimple someplace. Maybe you could get your partner to come tell us where?

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm pretty sure there's a dimple someplace. Maybe you could get your partner to come tell us where?

Better yet, show us a picture or GIF.

 

[handysr]

So it didn't work with you. Dang.

You seem to be hoping that anyone who carries a gun gets killed by the cops? How rude. Typical of you though. Instead of eying to refute truth, you call names, or in this case, imply you're upset another user isn't dead. You're charming.

 

[ChloeTzang]

So it didn't work with you. Dang.

Ohhhh little hairy-toes, so bad thoughts lah. The lidless eye must have got to you. Time for an exorcism of the evil spirits before such bad expression of evil wishes towards so charming self reappears. For suitable penance, please find nearest black neighborhood and walk thru wearing Trump MAGA tee and holding up large sign saying "make America great". Let us know how it goes. So forgiving you such evil thoughts after so suitable penance lah. Otherwise so repeating Pilots virtuous expression of friendly good wishes to fellow Lit user with whom minor disagreement over conflicting views arouses so emotional response.

 

[ChloeTzang]

You seem to be hoping that anyone who carries a gun gets killed by the cops? How rude. Typical of you though. Instead of eying to refute truth, you call names, or in this case, imply you're upset another user isn't dead. You're charming.

Oh, it's a very "liberal" thought process. They attribute their own deepest desires and behaviour to others. We see it all the time with those comments about Trump being a fascist or those owning guns and supporting the second amendment as crazed shooters. When in actuality, they themselves are the fascists and the wannabe crazed killers. As we have seen recently. Nobody here wished the Castile guy dead. Merely that it was the consequence of some unfortunate decisions and misjudgements on his part and the officers reaction was understandable, as a jury decided. Big difference between that and expressing a desire for the death of another user, even if she is a psychopathic cunt, huh, hairy-toes?

 

[ChloeTzang]

Better yet, show us a picture or GIF.

That you should be so lucky. Lol.

 

[phrodeau]

You seem to be hoping that anyone who carries a gun gets killed by the cops? How rude. Typical of you though. Instead of eying to refute truth, you call names, or in this case, imply you're upset another user isn't dead. You're charming.

I was just exercising my personal imagination instead of relying on facts. That's what people do here.

Case in point: "And on the OP topic, the officer had excellent gun control. Shots on target, suspect stopped. Threat to officer stopped."

The officer emptied his gun, firing seven shots, and only four hit the victim. This is at point blank range.

The victim's gun was in easy reach of the victim's girlfriend, so the threat wasn't stopped.

Officer Yanez should never touch a firearm again in his life.

 

[ChloeTzang]

I was just exercising my personal imagination instead of relying on facts. That's what people do here.

Case in point: "And on the OP topic, the officer had excellent gun control. Shots on target, suspect stopped. Threat to officer stopped."

The officer emptied his gun, firing seven shots, and only four hit the victim. This is at point blank range.

The victim's gun was in easy reach of the victim's girlfriend, so the threat wasn't stopped.

Officer Yanez should never touch a firearm again in his life.

You try shooting someone when you believe you're at risk and the other guy is going for a gun. It's hard enough hitting a target on the range with a handgun when you're doing a drill. Add in stress and actually having to shoot someone and others in the car and he did pretty good. Didn't hit the girlfriend or the kid. Now it may have been a bad call in hindsight but the jury agreed with the officer. Now you want to second guess the jury?

Working in ER, I totally get the stress these guys are under. Most of the time it's routine but every now and then you get a patient whose going or gone or it's something horrible - the worst I've seen myself is someone coming in with half their face ripped of by a chainsaw with no guard that bounced back and I was just about puking but you still have to do your job. You have to make totally split second decisions and just do it.

I'm sure there's a few others here who've been in the same position. Pilot flew SR71's way back when for example. You drill and you drill and you drill for these things but nothing really prepares you for the actual shit hitting the fan except being there and going through it and that's when you're trained responses kick in and you just do what you've trained to do.

You have to make a split second decision, you've got no time for conscious thought. you react and you hope you react the right way. in ER you do that and the risk is really only to the patient and to your own state of mind. In the police or the military, you have that added stress factor that it's your life on the line.

My partner was in the military, did a few tours in Afghanistan, both my Granddads served in Vietnam, my vietnamese granddad was in combat non-stop for over 10 years. We've talked about this quite a few times and you can't second guess these guys. You have to be in their shoes facing what they face every day and you have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

In all likelihood, that Castile guy didn't deserve to die, but the cop saw the threat and reacted the way he was trained and the jury assessed that, and believed his actions were, under the circumstances, justified. There's not much more any of us can say except it's not something I'd wish on anyone.

And the cop's gun control WAS pretty good. He only hit the target, no-one else, and four out of seven under those circumstances isn't bad. As you say, the guy's gun was in easy reach of his girlfriend, but the officer didn't shoot her once the immediate threat was stopped so he was assessing the risks and didn't see her as one despite, as you say, the gun being in her reach.

You gotta get down to the range and do a few drills and see for yourself what it can be like. And that's under controlled training. Here for example is a quick 50 round training session. I usually go thru at least a couple of hundred rounds in a single practice session and that's for my handgun. Something I do at least once a month. I also train with my rifles and my shotgun. And I cross train with my partners weapons.

 

[phrodeau]

So you acknowledge that your "shots on target" line was bullshit.

 

[ChloeTzang]

So you acknowledge that your "shots on target" line was bullshit.

Nope. What I said was what I said. He done good. Four out of seven ain't bad IMHO.

And hey, gotta run. Swimming calls my name and its looking beautiful and hot out there. Have fun without me

 

[about_average]

Armed citizens use their guns to apprehend two dangerous felons:

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...nnessee-stopped-by-gun-owning-homeow-n2342051

The bravery of a homeowner put an end to the three-day long manhunt, Fitzhugh said.

The inmates had run through the woods to a home on Pruitt Road, near the rural community of Christiana.
[…]

The homeowner called his neighbor and both men, each armed with a gun, confronted the fugitives.

Having lost their weapons in the crash, Dubose and Rowe surrendered, authorities said.

While it's unfortunate the escapes had lost their weapons and so couldn't give the two homeowners reason to take them out, I'm not sure how brave it is facing two unarmed men (even if they are cold blooded killers).
I'd never want to be in that position, but if I ever were, I wouldn't want to be called "brave" for doing it.

Nope. What I said was what I said. He done good. Four out of seven ain't bad IMHO.

Actually it is pretty bad at 3 feet against a stationary target who isn't returning fire and doesn't even have a gun in his hand.

 

[ChloeTzang]

While it's unfortunate the escapes had lost their weapons and so couldn't give the two homeowners reason to take them out, I'm not sure how brave it is facing two unarmed men (even if they are cold blooded killers).
I'd never want to be in that position, but if I ever were, I wouldn't want to be called "brave" for doing it.

Considering they'd already killed and they likely had no idea they'd lost their guns, it was pretty brave. That's what I'd call it anyhow. Or courageous. Whatever.

Actually it is pretty bad at 3 feet against a stationary target who isn't returning fire and doesn't even have a gun in his hand.

Stress. Tunnel vision. Adrenaline. People miss at point blank range all the time in situations like that apparently. You ever tried it? I haven't. And I'm not going to second guess or criticize someone who has to.

 

[Boxlicker101]

While it's unfortunate the escapes had lost their weapons and so couldn't give the two homeowners reason to take them out, I'm not sure how brave it is facing two unarmed men (even if they are cold blooded killers).
I'd never want to be in that position, but if I ever were, I wouldn't want to be called "brave" for doing it.

The homeowners knew they were facing desperate criminals, and they had no way of knowing the killers were not packing. It was very brave, because the citizens believe they were risking their lives. They will be handsomely rewarded, 130,000. I believe, and they deserve it. The killers will probably be put to death, and I will not cry over that. They also deserve it.

 

[about_average]

The homeowners knew they were facing desperate criminals, and they had no way of knowing the killers were not packing.

Fair enough if that was the case.

 

[HisArpy]

Phrodeau and I don't agree on much. In this case though...right on the money. This officer should be behind bars right now. This is the worst fear of every person who carries (myself included) that we'll run into a poorly trained, jumpy LEO.

Juries tend to back the police, and in 99.9% of situations, so do i, but this case is ugly, and it deserved a different verdict.

Why a different verdict?

The jury heard the testimony. They reviewed the evidence. They saw the video. And they had the relevant use of force guidelines.

They deliberated and discussed the facts as they were presented. And they said not guilty.

Given that we trust Juries to do exactly that and come to a UNANIMOUS decision, why is a different verdict "deserved" in this case? Is it because the dead guy is black? Or the cop white?

Facts matter. Not skin color. Not the potential for a race riot. Facts. Matter.

The cop did what he was trained to do. Whether that training was good enough isn't the issue. It was what he was trained to do, and he did it according to the then existing guidelines. If the guidelines and training are inadequate, then update them. But don't blame the cop who followed his training for not complying with an as yet unpublished and undetermined new set of rules.

 

[handysr]

Why a different verdict?

The jury heard the testimony. They reviewed the evidence. They saw the video. And they had the relevant use of force guidelines.

They deliberated and discussed the facts as they were presented. And they said not guilty.

Given that we trust Juries to do exactly that and come to a UNANIMOUS decision, why is a different verdict "deserved" in this case? Is it because the dead guy is black? Or the cop white?

Facts matter. Not skin color. Not the potential for a race riot. Facts. Matter.

The cop did what he was trained to do. Whether that training was good enough isn't the issue. It was what he was trained to do, and he did it according to the then existing guidelines. If the guidelines and training are inadequate, then update them. But don't blame the cop who followed his training for not complying with an as yet unpublished and undetermined new set of rules.

/thread


Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[mark_j]

Let's ask a pertinent procedural question here..

As a CWP holder, when you get stopped by a cop and he approaches and asks for your lic,reg,ins and such do you:

A. Quietly hand the cop your papers along with your CWP and basically say nothing.

B. You or your passenger blurts out that you have a gun possibly setting the cop's teeth on edge before you hand him the paperwork.

 

[handysr]

C. Not say anything unless asked. Or if you have to get out of the vehicle, say it while your hands are on the steering wheel.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Phrodeau and I don't agree on much. In this case though...right on the money. This officer should be behind bars right now. This is the worst fear of every person who carries (myself included) that we'll run into a poorly trained, jumpy LEO.

Juries tend to back the police, and in 99.9% of situations, so do i, but this case is ugly, and it deserved a different verdict.

If you are white it is not a problem. Do you hear the NRA and it's supporters lining up behind the Castile family. NO! If you are white you are perfectly safe. See the RWCJ chick's post.