[quote]Alphaboy wrote:
Shoot first and ask questions later…[/quote]
How about using good police tactics to counter real threats!
i say kill the bastard
[quote]snipeout wrote:
You don’t have to say you hate cops to hate them, its in your actions.[/quote]
…And you aren’t presumed to be a “good cop” simply because you wear a badge.
[quote]
Ever heard actions speak louder than words.[/quote]
Ooh, how cliche. What were my actions that spelled out “cop hatred”? Was it the questioning of the actions made by a cop? I see.
How dare I question someone who is a police officer? Clearly they are above all fault and should all simply taken at their word. Tell me, is there the possibility of any corruption in your mind when it comes to police? That simply doesn’t exist, does it?
[quote]
There you go again thinking because you went to school to be a doctor that your job is so much harder and better than everyone elses. [/quote]
Ridiculous. Twice your job was compared directly to mine, not placed below it. If actions speak louder than words, then your accusations only show you can’t even grasp the concepts you speak of.
[quote]
For the record, ONE associated press reporter reported that TWO people didn’t hear a crazy guy say he had a bomb.[/quote]
Your point? Because of this shining discrepancy there needs to be an investigation and all judgements will be witheld until all facts are known…however, it would be foolish to assume he was not at fault at all given the uncovered circumstances.
Your position seems to be that even questioning him is out of line. My position is that you alone show that not all cops are level headed. It isn’t as if your responses in this forum have been strictly logical with repressed emotion.
[quote]TriGWU wrote:
AZMojo wrote:
TriGWU wrote:
The guy was right given the situation.
Go toot your horn somewhere else. This pawn isn’t working for you.
What was the situation? It seems to change each day, and each day it looks less and less “right”.
The witnesses interviewed seems like they might have been paying some attention to the guy since they knew other details of his behavoir. The last thing some people do when they see agitated and erratic people get on an airplane is tune-out with their i-pods.
Of course it all makes sense now. Now that we’ve had 3 days to dwell on it. He had … 30 seconds?
I’m not talking about seeing the incident and then throwing on an iPod. I’m talking about how people TUNE OUT to begin with.
Of course they didn’t tune out when he was erratically running. But maybe when he first stood-up and mentioned that he had a bomb. Planes are pretty big too. Its not like we are all standing on top of eachother.
Forgive me for trying to have a logical discussion about this.
You know… pointing out that we’ve had… DAYS to run this through our head.
“You know… come to think of it…”
No. There wasn’t time for a “come to think of it…”
Last time the government didn’t act (9/11) on a 50/50 decision, you guys got pissed.
This time we act on 50/50 decision, you get pissed.
At least one thing is consistent. These same people will always look for a reason to bitch.
I’m not asking for blind patriotism, but damn. Show some support - more often than when it is politically convenient - for SOMETHING.[/quote]
Who are “you guys”? I’d like to meet the rest of my team.
Talk about speculation.
Maybe when he first stood up and said he had a bomb nobody nearby heard him? But, the agents at the front of the plane did? Planes are pretty big you know.
Neither of us know shit about what really happened on that plane, or in the jetway where the shooting occurred.
When the story first surfaced, it seemed like an unfortunate, but correct, action by the marshall.
Now, as more evidence comes to light, it seems that may not be the case.
Either way more investigation is needed.
If the guy wasn’t a threat he shouldn’t have been shot, right?
As far as 9/11 goes. You’re totally wrong about my position on that. I’ve long advocated that we couldn’t have done anything about that. Multiple pieces of intelligence come in daily indicating a possible attack.
What came in regarding 9/11 was vague and weak. Even if we did react to the intelligence, what would we have done? They took over the planes with fucking boxcutters. Was that in the intel reports? No.
That’s the ugly beauty of terrorism, it’s easy and it works.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
No being a cop means I understand where he has a split second to make a decision and then has to spend the rest of his life defending himself to fucking retards like you who hate cops. For every bad incident involving cops in the news, there are a hundred good ones that don’t make it.
The problem I have is that all you people do is highlight the bad stuff, typical whiny bitch shit, you would complain no matter what happened.
[/quote]
killing a guy who didn’t have to die is typical whiny bitch shit ?
whooohooo! give that man a sig !
[quote]swivel wrote:
but hey shoot first and ask questions later.[/quote]
I only post here on about as rare an occassion.
Very nice there though, I did laugh out loud.
Nothing personal.
[quote]swivel wrote:
snipeout wrote:
No being a cop means I understand where he has a split second to make a decision and then has to spend the rest of his life defending himself to fucking retards like you who hate cops. For every bad incident involving cops in the news, there are a hundred good ones that don’t make it.
The problem I have is that all you people do is highlight the bad stuff, typical whiny bitch shit, you would complain no matter what happened.
killing a guy who didn’t have to die is typical whiny bitch shit ?
whooohooo! give that man a sig !
[/quote]
Why don’t you quote my whole post then. Where I went on to state that only bad things about police officers is ever reported in the news, not the hundreds of other selfless acts. And for the Professor, never once did I state that the actions should not be investigated thoroughly. The minute people see negative press about an incident they are way more inclined to view it negatively. Every reporter has their own slightly biased agenda. My point was that one reporter wrote an article based on an interview with 2 people as to what they didn’t hear. I never once stated that police officers shouyldn’t be held accountable for their actions, as a matter of fact in comparison to the average citizen on the whole we are held way more accountable. Judge’s tend to show very little mercy when an indictment is handed down, are bails are extremely high and once sentenced we are usually hit with a maximum term with no leniency(I am speaking from what I have seen firsthandf in the state of new jersey, not speaking for other areas). I just think the public has this idea that we should never make mistakes and everyone is human. PROFESSOR, would it be fair to assume that since you have well over 8 years of education in your field that you should never make a mistake? Also should it be assumed that if you do make a mistake that your feet be held to the fire?
[quote]-21- wrote:
i say kill the bastard
[/quote]
Great first post on T-Nation. Go hang your head in shame…Oh that’s right there is no shame anymore.
[quote]snipeout wrote:
PROFESSOR, would it be fair to assume that since you have well over 8 years of education in your field that you should never make a mistake? Also should it be assumed that if you do make a mistake that your feet be held to the fire?[/quote]
Are you simply not reading what others are posting? How many times have I written in this thread alone that a doctor would often have every action brought under a microscope if a patient lost their life while under their care? You are acting as if none of this was stated when it was written more than once. Get off your damn soapbox and quit acting like cops are just crucified for no damn reason. It’s a lie. Doctors are very much expected to never make mistakes. In fact, it may be the only profession where you are expected to be damn near perfect in every decision made. If you do make a mistake, there will be plenty of hands reaching for your wallet in court. You didn’t know this? What world are you living in?
No, cops are not simply trusted just because they wear a badge. Sorry if that stings. If you kill someone and witness testimony conflicts your version, you will be deeply investigated. You SHOULD be deeply investigated. Otherwise, you have a bunch of guys with guns with no barrier preventing them from becoming Judge Dredd on the damn streets. You think this shouldn’t happen? Cops should simply not be questioned? If you don’t think this, then what the fuck are you arguing about?
[quote]AZMojo wrote:
hedo wrote:
If you threaten lethal force then lethal force is justified in being used against you and the other guy may just be better at applying it.
That may be true on the field of war, but among the civilian population it simply isn’t.
If somebody tells a cop that he’s “going to blow his brains out” but doesn’t have a weapon, the cop doesn’t get to shoot him just because he made a threat of lethal force. There actually has to be some sort of evidence that he can imminently carry out that threat.
That may be the case here, but your point is still incorrect.[/quote]
“threatening” of lethal force doesn’t give you the go ahead. But a threat with say your hand in a bag or in a pocket in a manner to imply that you have bomb or some other weapon does.
[quote]PGA200X wrote:
Apparently passengers are saying he didnt say he had a bomb while on the plane?[/quote]
I heard this as well, but witness accounts are near worthless. I had a friend giving a presentation in a criminal justice class a few years back. Another friend and I burst in yelling for everyone to keep their heads down and blurting out political retoric. We knocked the presenter down and took his brief case. Then ran out of the room.
Then, my friend had the class right down exactly what had happened to the fullest detail they could. We were identified as being black, (we are both caucasion) I was wearing a hat, (I had my head shaved with no hat) We were waving guns, (that would have been over the top for an all ready outlandish stunt for his presentation)and other then “get your heads down!” misquoted everything else we said.
I don’t think one person gave an accurate acount of the event.
My friend got an A on his presentation but was also told to never do anything like that again.
[quote]Alphaboy wrote:
Shoot first and ask questions later…[/quote]
Busted any trolly stealers yet? nabbed any hard crims that have stolen candy from the shops? 
sick of the desk work rookie? LOL!!!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
How many times have I written in this thread alone that a doctor would often have every action brought under a microscope if a patient lost their life while under their care? You are acting as if none of this was stated when it was written more than once. Get off your damn soapbox and quit acting like cops are just crucified for no damn reason. It’s a lie. Doctors are very much expected to never make mistakes. In fact, it may be the only profession where you are expected to be damn near perfect in every decision made. If you do make a mistake, there will be plenty of hands reaching for your wallet in court. You didn’t know this? What world are you living in?
[/quote]
I gotta disagree with you on this one Prof. The Brazilian that was shot on the subway in the UK was IMO definitely an unjustified shooting, they ambushed the guy and popped him 8X in the head. I say this so you don’t think I’m a “cops are always right” type. This guy was an impromptu standup on an aircraft with a quasi-prepared (compared to the UK team) marshall team at the trigger.
I think someone who had experience as a combat medic would definitely see the difference between the scrutiny of a doctor in an O.R. and a field medic if one of his associates were shot unexpectedly. Do you know any? More importantly to me, than whether he had a bomb or not, did the marshalls draw the weapons and say freeze? I haven’t been in too many of these situations, but my understanding is that either the suspect freezes or someone gets shot/blown up/stabbed etc. It just so happened that the marshalls decided this one.
And you need to get off your own soapbox a little too, nuclear technicians, air traffic controllers, etc. are all expected to be spot on perfect as well, doctors just tend to get paid a lot more.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
More importantly to me, than whether he had a bomb or not, did the marshalls draw the weapons and say freeze? I haven’t been in too many of these situations, but my understanding is that either the suspect freezes or someone gets shot/blown up/stabbed etc. It just so happened that the marshalls decided this one.[/quote]
if the marshall made the right choice, no one should fault him for it. I wasn’t there and neither were you. That is why there needs to be an investigation. The argument came up because of the attiutude as if the cop should simply be viewed as justified for actions regardless of the investigation.
Hey, I agree with you there. I am sure there are some other fields that are expected to be perfect. Forensics is another field where collection of info needs to be perfect. However, this was between me and a cop who apparently thought his own job was the only one expected to be right when someone loses a life. I don’t even understand how someone who holds gun on their job can believe that they shouldn’t be expected to make near perfect decisions when they use it.
Now Im comeing in late so if the point has already been made Im sorry. I didnt have time to read everything.
Now as air marshall his job is to protect the plane and the passengers.
And what has been done cant be veiwed in hind site. Any police officer or any one that has to carry a weapon only has seconds to react and make a decision. We can sit here and say well I would of done it this way or he should have done this. After it has already happend and we have hade plenty of time to think about what could or should have been done. When all he had was seconds to see the threat hear what was said and then react.
So the woman was yelling he was not takeing his meds. Well for all he knew she could have been a distraction for the guy. And if it caused enough hesitation in the marshall and the plane was destroyed along with all the passengers then it would be a far worse situation. Not that it still isnt a terrible situation. Because it is.
But, the point is the man had a job to do. He was there to protect the plane and the people. He seen the threat evaluated the situation and reacted.
I mean the guy was yelling he had a bomb and running around.
I cant sit here and say what I would have done or what he should have done because I was not there and didnt see it.
But, each officers threat level is different.
Each person would evaluate the situation in a diff way.
We can just judge what he did after we have had days to think about it and he only had seconds.
My 2 cents.
Goku
Now let the dissecting begine.
[quote]Goku_SS4 wrote:
I mean the guy was yelling he had a bomb and running around.
[/quote]
Was he?
Hey, I can’t imagine a situation where authorities would make a mistake in judgement and then create a cover story to hide it.
It’s not like that would ever happen.
[quote]Goku_SS4 wrote:
Now Im comeing in late so if the point has already been made Im sorry. I didnt have time to read everything.
[/quote]
bro seriously, on a thread like this why would you post anything if you hadn’t read it ? btw i didn’t actually read your post but i’m responding 'cause i’m psychic.
well yeah, the thrust of your post is the recurring theme of this thread, if you’d read it. anyway i don’t think your point holds up because not everyone has equal split-second decision making capabilities. can you play speed chess w/ those cats in harvard square for example ? quarterback an nfl team ? professionals and experts will have decision capabilities far beyond what us pedestrian folk can comprehend.
now be careful, 'cause all i am saying here is that there are questions that should be answered until there is silence. and as citizen’s of a free society, it’s kinda our responsiblity to be throwing every damn question we can find. after all they are only questions, not bullets.
further, the questions i’m talking about are not the kind intended to jump on some anti-cop bandwagon and bring cops down, but rather to elevate the value of innocent life which i think a lot of people are missing the boat on. it’s pretty funny how easily friends i have will forgive the marshall for capping an innocent guy, but they can’t forgive grady little for leaving pedro out there in game 7 w/ the spanks 2 years back.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hey, I can’t imagine a situation where authorities would make a mistake in judgement and then create a cover story to hide it.
It’s not like that would ever happen.[/quote]
Best post you ever made!
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
and I feel sorry for the T-Nation forum because once the more politically inclined posters get involved, this thread is going to blow up.
vroom wrote:
Shoot. I hope not. So far it doesn’t look like anything other than an acknowledgement that the guy was probably in a no-choice situation.
He can’t risk the guy actually having a bomb and killing people with it.
I completely agree with vroom on this. It’s a tragic situation all the way around, but if you have someone claiming to have a bomb, and he reaches into his bag and refuses to get down when ordered to do so, they have to shoot him. It’s a different calculus than if he claimed to have a gun – then they could have shot him in the leg or something – but because he claimed to have a bomb they had to shoot to take him out.[/quote]
Shoot him in the leg? You’re kidding right? Gee, why don’t they shoot the gun out of his hand too, or just shoot his finger off? The bottom line is, if a cop is pointing a gun at you, DO EXACTLY WHAT HE SAYS TO DO! Do not respond to “get on the ground” by reaching into your bag.
A cop is not taught to shoot to wound. A cop is taught to shoot to kill, because a gun is a lethal weapon, and a last resort. That shooting him in the leg thing is only for the action movies. This case is yet another example of a decision that a cop had to make in 1/10th of a second that will be over-analyzed for 10 months by people who have never been in that situation.