[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I agree that majority doesn’t necessitate rightness, but your logic just doesn’t hold up and you have yet to properly refute arguments against you.
I feel that it has been established through logical proceedings (not just I’m right, your wrong) that cops have more power and get reduced to no consequences for their actions when they don’t do the right action.
(power)+(reduced consequences)=corruption
Is there an issue with this line of thought Houstonguy? If so, please point out why.[/quote]
To be specific, define “wrong”. Your own equation alludes to police having greater power than the average citizen, by that token “wrong” logically has a different set of qualifiers which spins you back to the conversation.
You were called to a violent, life threatening scene
You reasonably believe you are at the right place
You reasonably believe the violator is in the yard
You do not know what he may or may not have concealed
You do not know how critical unseen aspects of the situation are but you are responsible for handling the situation
A dog is approaching you
You do not have back up.[/quote]
#7: if he honestly believed in 1-5 then he should have waited for backup. If you want to be a hero then actually act like one and don’t shoot a dog when the owner is telling you it’s OK. A cop with a minimum of balls and common sense would have simply asked the owner to call and/or restrain the dog. Oh wait, then POTENTIALLY, the owner could have used the dog as a bullet proof shield while drawing his weapon, because he always carries when gardening, and shooting the officer. Or, POTENTIALLY, had the “perp” moved he could have stepped on a hidden switch he had installed that opened up a trap door that would open under the cop and he would have fallen into a dungeon. Come to think of it, if we are going to use POTENTIALITY as the standard we measure by then cops should just shoot suspects on sight as POTENTIALLY it could turn into a deadly situation. It’s way easier than actually expecting they have some courage and the ability to think reasonably under pressure. Shooting is easier than thinking.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I agree that majority doesn’t necessitate rightness, but your logic just doesn’t hold up and you have yet to properly refute arguments against you.
I feel that it has been established through logical proceedings (not just I’m right, your wrong) that cops have more power and get reduced to no consequences for their actions when they don’t do the right action.
(power)+(reduced consequences)=corruption
Is there an issue with this line of thought Houstonguy? If so, please point out why.[/quote]
To be specific, define “wrong”. Your own equation alludes to police having greater power than the average citizen, by that token “wrong” logically has a different set of qualifiers which spins you back to the conversation.
[/quote]
I’m not saying some people shouldn’t be put in positions of higher power. Some people absolutely should be in more powerful positions than others. But with that should come greater responsibility for their actions.
And by ‘I’m right your wrong’, I’m just referring to how some people will base arguments not on logic or anything like that but saying they’re right about something just to be right and using strategies of domination in debate like authority or majority or other fallacies in debate.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I agree that majority doesn’t necessitate rightness, but your logic just doesn’t hold up and you have yet to properly refute arguments against you.
I feel that it has been established through logical proceedings (not just I’m right, your wrong) that cops have more power and get reduced to no consequences for their actions when they don’t do the right action.
(power)+(reduced consequences)=corruption
Is there an issue with this line of thought Houstonguy? If so, please point out why.[/quote]
To be specific, define “wrong”. Your own equation alludes to police having greater power than the average citizen, by that token “wrong” logically has a different set of qualifiers which spins you back to the conversation.
[/quote]
I’m not saying some people shouldn’t be put in positions of higher power. Some people absolutely should be in more powerful positions than others. But with that should come greater responsibility for their actions.
And by ‘I’m right your wrong’, I’m just referring to how some people will base arguments not on logic or anything like that but saying they’re right about something just to be right and using strategies of domination in debate like authority or majority or other fallacies in debate.[/quote]
I know what you’re saying.
You will need to define “wrong”, which is what the entire thread is about.
You were called to a violent, life threatening scene
You reasonably believe you are at the right place
You reasonably believe the violator is in the yard
You do not know what he may or may not have concealed
You do not know how critical unseen aspects of the situation are but you are responsible for handling the situation
A dog is approaching you
You do not have back up.[/quote]
#7: if he honestly believed in 1-5 then he should have waited for backup. If you want to be a hero then actually act like one and don’t shoot a dog when the owner is telling you it’s OK. A cop with a minimum of balls and common sense would have simply asked the owner to call and/or restrain the dog. Oh wait, then POTENTIALLY, the owner could have used the dog as a bullet proof shield while drawing his weapon, because he always carries when gardening, and shooting the officer. Or, POTENTIALLY, had the “perp” moved he could have stepped on a hidden switch he had installed that opened up a trap door that would open under the cop and he would have fallen into a dungeon. Come to think of it, if we are going to use POTENTIALITY as the standard we measure by then cops should just shoot suspects on sight as POTENTIALLY it could turn into a deadly situation. It’s way easier than actually expecting they have some courage and the ability to think reasonably under pressure. Shooting is easier than thinking. [/quote]
As usual, you are eliminating REASONABILITY from your arguments. The cop thought he was at the scene of a dead or dying woman. The rest of your argument is bullshit.
I thought that the cop made a poor judgement call, a wrong judgement call. The man was unarmed and cooperative. And a cop does need to keep in the mind possibilities such as false accusations or in this case a wrong address. You shouldn’t just based off of a call come blazing in with shotgun blasts unless such has been verified by authorities (like a cop calling in for backup to a gun fight for an extreme example).
Using your logic, it’s too easy for me to say my neighbor shot a gun at someone and now a cop comes in knocking the door down and killing that person’s pets based purely on a call. I feel as if that’s the standard and implication of saying what the cop did is okay.
What’s really wrong is that there was no apology or any attempt at compensation for the victim and no penalties for the cop. Only lies from that cop and the rest of the department covering for him.
Again search for Firce Decisions at amazon . It’s by Rfiry Miller. Order it and read it.
Until then if you’re talking about how force should or not be used you do not know what you’re talking about.
You need to judge things with the information available to the officer in the time frame that he had to deal with. All other judgements are ridiculous .
Again, unless you inform yourself with use of force by police you’re opinion will most likely be incorrect .
I learned this stuff when I got a CCW permit.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
You were called to a violent, life threatening scene
You reasonably believe you are at the right place
You reasonably believe the violator is in the yard
You do not know what he may or may not have concealed
You do not know how critical unseen aspects of the situation are but you are responsible for handling the situation
A dog is approaching you
You do not have back up.[/quote]
#7: if he honestly believed in 1-5 then he should have waited for backup. If you want to be a hero then actually act like one and don’t shoot a dog when the owner is telling you it’s OK. A cop with a minimum of balls and common sense would have simply asked the owner to call and/or restrain the dog. Oh wait, then POTENTIALLY, the owner could have used the dog as a bullet proof shield while drawing his weapon, because he always carries when gardening, and shooting the officer. Or, POTENTIALLY, had the “perp” moved he could have stepped on a hidden switch he had installed that opened up a trap door that would open under the cop and he would have fallen into a dungeon. Come to think of it, if we are going to use POTENTIALITY as the standard we measure by then cops should just shoot suspects on sight as POTENTIALLY it could turn into a deadly situation. It’s way easier than actually expecting they have some courage and the ability to think reasonably under pressure. Shooting is easier than thinking. [/quote]
As usual, you are eliminating REASONABILITY from your arguments. The cop thought he was at the scene of a dead or dying woman. The rest of your argument is bullshit.[/quote]
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I thought that the cop made a poor judgement call, a wrong judgement call. The man was unarmed and cooperative. And a cop does need to keep in the mind possibilities such as false accusations or in this case a wrong address. You shouldn’t just based off of a call come blazing in with shotgun blasts unless such has been verified by authorities (like a cop calling in for backup to a gun fight for an extreme example).
Using your logic, it’s too easy for me to say my neighbor shot a gun at someone and now a cop comes in knocking the door down and killing that person’s pets based purely on a call. I feel as if that’s the standard and implication of saying what the cop did is okay.
What’s really wrong is that there was no apology or any attempt at compensation for the victim and no penalties for the cop. Only lies from that cop and the rest of the department covering for him.[/quote]
He didn’t shoot the man.
You need to judge things with the information available to the officer in the time frame that he had to deal with. All other judgements are ridiculous .
Again, unless you inform yourself with use of force by police you’re opinion will most likely be incorrect .
I learned this stuff when I got a CCW permit.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
You were called to a violent, life threatening scene
You reasonably believe you are at the right place
You reasonably believe the violator is in the yard
You do not know what he may or may not have concealed
You do not know how critical unseen aspects of the situation are but you are responsible for handling the situation
A dog is approaching you
You do not have back up.[/quote]
#7: if he honestly believed in 1-5 then he should have waited for backup. If you want to be a hero then actually act like one and don’t shoot a dog when the owner is telling you it’s OK. A cop with a minimum of balls and common sense would have simply asked the owner to call and/or restrain the dog. Oh wait, then POTENTIALLY, the owner could have used the dog as a bullet proof shield while drawing his weapon, because he always carries when gardening, and shooting the officer. Or, POTENTIALLY, had the “perp” moved he could have stepped on a hidden switch he had installed that opened up a trap door that would open under the cop and he would have fallen into a dungeon. Come to think of it, if we are going to use POTENTIALITY as the standard we measure by then cops should just shoot suspects on sight as POTENTIALLY it could turn into a deadly situation. It’s way easier than actually expecting they have some courage and the ability to think reasonably under pressure. Shooting is easier than thinking. [/quote]
As usual, you are eliminating REASONABILITY from your arguments. The cop thought he was at the scene of a dead or dying woman. The rest of your argument is bullshit.[/quote]
Again search for Firce Decisions at amazon . It’s by Rfiry Miller. Order it and read it.
Until then if you’re talking about how force should or not be used you do not know what you’re talking about.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Again search for Firce Decisions at amazon . It’s by Rfiry Miller. Order it and read it.
Until then if you’re talking about how force should or not be used you do not know what you’re talking about.
Translation : Houstonguy is right.[/quote]
Why should I read that when I can refer to my actual LEO training, unlike HG.
You were called to a violent, life threatening scene
You reasonably believe you are at the right place
You reasonably believe the violator is in the yard
You do not know what he may or may not have concealed
You do not know how critical unseen aspects of the situation are but you are responsible for handling the situation
A dog is approaching you
You do not have back up.[/quote]
#7: if he honestly believed in 1-5 then he should have waited for backup. If you want to be a hero then actually act like one and don’t shoot a dog when the owner is telling you it’s OK. A cop with a minimum of balls and common sense would have simply asked the owner to call and/or restrain the dog. Oh wait, then POTENTIALLY, the owner could have used the dog as a bullet proof shield while drawing his weapon, because he always carries when gardening, and shooting the officer. Or, POTENTIALLY, had the “perp” moved he could have stepped on a hidden switch he had installed that opened up a trap door that would open under the cop and he would have fallen into a dungeon. Come to think of it, if we are going to use POTENTIALITY as the standard we measure by then cops should just shoot suspects on sight as POTENTIALLY it could turn into a deadly situation. It’s way easier than actually expecting they have some courage and the ability to think reasonably under pressure. Shooting is easier than thinking. [/quote]
As usual, you are eliminating REASONABILITY from your arguments. The cop thought he was at the scene of a dead or dying woman. The rest of your argument is bullshit.[/quote]
He was behaving reasonably when he shot a dog after the owner said it was OK? Reasonable would have been to have the man restrain his dog unless you think he could have used the dog to bludgeon the cop. Shooting the dog wouldn’t have made a difference even if it were the right address. It served no purpose and was unnecessary. Having the owner deal with the dog wouldn’t have changed things for the worse again, even if it were the right address. If the woman was dead, she would still be dead. If she were dying, she would still have been dying.
You were called to a violent, life threatening scene
You reasonably believe you are at the right place
You reasonably believe the violator is in the yard
You do not know what he may or may not have concealed
You do not know how critical unseen aspects of the situation are but you are responsible for handling the situation
A dog is approaching you
You do not have back up.[/quote]
#7: if he honestly believed in 1-5 then he should have waited for backup. If you want to be a hero then actually act like one and don’t shoot a dog when the owner is telling you it’s OK. A cop with a minimum of balls and common sense would have simply asked the owner to call and/or restrain the dog. Oh wait, then POTENTIALLY, the owner could have used the dog as a bullet proof shield while drawing his weapon, because he always carries when gardening, and shooting the officer. Or, POTENTIALLY, had the “perp” moved he could have stepped on a hidden switch he had installed that opened up a trap door that would open under the cop and he would have fallen into a dungeon. Come to think of it, if we are going to use POTENTIALITY as the standard we measure by then cops should just shoot suspects on sight as POTENTIALLY it could turn into a deadly situation. It’s way easier than actually expecting they have some courage and the ability to think reasonably under pressure. Shooting is easier than thinking. [/quote]
As usual, you are eliminating REASONABILITY from your arguments. The cop thought he was at the scene of a dead or dying woman. The rest of your argument is bullshit.[/quote]
He was behaving reasonably when he shot a dog after the owner said it was OK? Reasonable would have been to have the man restrain his dog unless you think he could have used the dog to bludgeon the cop. Shooting the dog wouldn’t have made a difference even if it were the right address. It served no purpose and was unnecessary. Having the owner deal with the dog wouldn’t have changed things for the worse again, even if it were the right address. If the woman was dead, she would still be dead. If she were dying, she would still have been dying. [/quote]
I’m not going to chase tails with you. Read the thread, and even the post you are quoting, and reply.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Again search for Firce Decisions at amazon . It’s by Rfiry Miller. Order it and read it.
Until then if you’re talking about how force should or not be used you do not know what you’re talking about.
Translation : Houstonguy is right.[/quote]
Why should I read that when I can refer to my actual LEO training, unlike HG. [/quote]
A teacher and a cop? Will you have personal experience in every scenario discussion?
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Again search for Firce Decisions at amazon . It’s by Rfiry Miller. Order it and read it.
Until then if you’re talking about how force should or not be used you do not know what you’re talking about.
Translation : Houstonguy is right.[/quote]
Why should I read that when I can refer to my actual LEO training, unlike HG. [/quote]
A teacher and a cop? Will you have personal experience in every scenario discussion?
And conveniently a teacher in a poor school?
Get the fuck out of here.[/quote]
Was a substitute teacher while in school. Am an MP in the National Guard. I know, it’s hard to believe that people actually get out, live, and have various experiences…which they then bring to the table unlike others who will go unnamed. Good job keeping score though. The internet is serious business.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Again search for Firce Decisions at amazon . It’s by Rfiry Miller. Order it and read it.
Until then if you’re talking about how force should or not be used you do not know what you’re talking about.
Translation : Houstonguy is right.[/quote]
Why should I read that when I can refer to my actual LEO training, unlike HG. [/quote]
A teacher and a cop? Will you have personal experience in every scenario discussion?
And conveniently a teacher in a poor school?
Get the fuck out of here.[/quote]
Was a substitute teacher while in school. Am an MP in the National Guard. I know, it’s hard to believe that people actually get out, live, and have various experiences…which they then bring to the table unlike others who will go unnamed. Good job keeping score though. The internet is serious business. [/quote]
Lol! A substitute?
And now an MP?
Call that “living” if you want but you’re full of shit with “personal experience” for discussion.
You were called to a violent, life threatening scene
You reasonably believe you are at the right place
You reasonably believe the violator is in the yard
You do not know what he may or may not have concealed
You do not know how critical unseen aspects of the situation are but you are responsible for handling the situation
A dog is approaching you
You do not have back up.[/quote]
#7: if he honestly believed in 1-5 then he should have waited for backup. If you want to be a hero then actually act like one and don’t shoot a dog when the owner is telling you it’s OK. A cop with a minimum of balls and common sense would have simply asked the owner to call and/or restrain the dog. Oh wait, then POTENTIALLY, the owner could have used the dog as a bullet proof shield while drawing his weapon, because he always carries when gardening, and shooting the officer. Or, POTENTIALLY, had the “perp” moved he could have stepped on a hidden switch he had installed that opened up a trap door that would open under the cop and he would have fallen into a dungeon. Come to think of it, if we are going to use POTENTIALITY as the standard we measure by then cops should just shoot suspects on sight as POTENTIALLY it could turn into a deadly situation. It’s way easier than actually expecting they have some courage and the ability to think reasonably under pressure. Shooting is easier than thinking. [/quote]
As usual, you are eliminating REASONABILITY from your arguments. The cop thought he was at the scene of a dead or dying woman. The rest of your argument is bullshit.[/quote]
When the hell did she become dead and dying? Talk about spin.
[quote]tom63 wrote:
Again search for Firce Decisions at amazon . It’s by Rfiry Miller. Order it and read it.
Until then if you’re talking about how force should or not be used you do not know what you’re talking about.
Translation : Houstonguy is right.[/quote]
Why should I read that when I can refer to my actual LEO training, unlike HG. [/quote]
A teacher and a cop? Will you have personal experience in every scenario discussion?
And conveniently a teacher in a poor school?
Get the fuck out of here.[/quote]
Was a substitute teacher while in school. Am an MP in the National Guard. I know, it’s hard to believe that people actually get out, live, and have various experiences…which they then bring to the table unlike others who will go unnamed. Good job keeping score though. The internet is serious business. [/quote]
Lol! A substitute?
And now an MP?
Call that “living” if you want but you’re full of shit with “personal experience” for discussion.[/quote]
I guess if you live with your parents it would be unbelievable. What about your experience?