Cactusboy

That's why you are an internet message board hero and not a cop. If you were, and had been put in all those situations, you would probably have been shot dead by now. Yeah . . . it's pretty easy to sit back and nit pick after the bodies drop. It's a little different story out in the real world. Are or have you been a cop? It is easy to 2nd guess people actions when you're reading it on the internet. The old adage, don't judge a man, until you walk a mile in his shoes, rings true. When I was in the military, I was only privy to one "situation", and it scared the sh#t out of me. There is some validity to this logic, but it can also easily be exploited and over used.

That's why you are an internet message board hero and not a cop. If you were, and had been put in all those situations, you would probably have been shot dead by now. Yeah . . . it's pretty easy to sit back and nit pick after the bodies drop. It's a little different story out in the real world. Are or have you been a cop?

So this is what it comes down to. I don't see how a guy turning to walk back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head...even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone at the scene. The cop has an itchy trigger finger based on what we know and he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

So this is what it comes down to. I don't see how a guy walking back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head...even if there is thought to be a black object in his pocket or on him somewhere. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone at the scene. The cop has an itchy trigger finger based on what we know and he shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun.

double post

Take a good look at the bold. You might see a pattern. Regarding the latter, let me put this very clearly because you seem to be having trouble comprehending it: "Keep in mind that I'm not even addressing the loaded pistol and shotgun located only feet away because the officers didn't know about them at the time of the shot." Do you see that little underlined section? That explains why I didn't include that in my analysis but you've conveniently omitted it. In your wonderful analogy you would be omitting the part where I said that Miles Davis isn't on my list of friends because we've never spoken. I don't see a pattern. and I meant no threatening behavior at the scene. Yes...if I said ""and keep in mind I'm not even addressing that my neighbor is Miles Davis that is moving in tomorrow". I would say to that and to you mentioning the other guns...why even bring them up? It's obviously used as an "icing on the cake", but whatever it's stupid to argue that little stupid part since we agree it's irrelevant. Look closer. no you can just tell quit trying to be cute and come out w/ it or I'll take it as a sign of obvious weakness.

Take a good look at the bold. You might see a pattern. Regarding the latter, let me put this very clearly because you seem to be having trouble comprehending it: "Keep in mind that I'm not even addressing the loaded pistol and shotgun located only feet away because the officers didn't know about them at the time of the shot." Do you see that little underlined section? That explains why I didn't include that in my analysis but you've conveniently omitted it. In your wonderful analogy you would be omitting the part where I said that Miles Davis isn't on my list of friends because we've never spoken. I don't see a pattern. and I meant no threatening behavior at the scene. Yes...if I said ""and keep in mind I'm not even addressing that MIles Davis is moving in next door tomorrow". I would say to that and to you mentioning the other guns...why even bring them up? It's obviously used as an "icing on the cake", but whatever it's stupid to argue that little stupid part since we agree it's irrelevant.

http://news.yahoo.co...-202543583.html

post 23

I already said that from what I found police are trained to shoot to kill and not stop.

The officers reported seeing a black object in his hand before the shot. Maybe he was putting his phone into his pocket? Whether or not he actually had a black object in his hand is not as relevant as if the officers thought he did at the time. It's all from a subjective perspective. I brought the guns up because I'm guessing the officer felt his actions were a little more justified (after the fact) upon seeing those. They are not a factor in the analysis of whether or not his shot was justified at the time of the shot. Note where I said THIS: I specifically noted that and you still tried to pick a fight over it. Life is too short to argue over areas of agreement. Let's leave that part at that, ok? so they saw a black object in his hand at one point...but it had to have been back in his pocket when he took his shot. So he's walking back into the house calmly and not disobeying orders w/ nothing but the baby in his hand and they feel the need to kill him. I don't see how a guy walking back into his house ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone. yes you said "Keep in mind that I'm not even addressing the loaded pistol and shotgun"....that language looks like you COULD use it as a relavant point but you're choosing not to. Like..if we were talking about who has the coolest friends...and I give my list of friends and then say "and keep in mind I'm not even addressing that my neighbor is Miles Davis".

Breitbart is such a piece of sh#t. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03SpbWdCWHY http://www.dailykos....via=blog_607528

You think it would be a huge stretch for us to assume that a guy who had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor (right after kicking the neighbor's trash can into the street) might attempt to hurt the baby he was holding of the responding officers? That's not a huge stretch at all. If anything that's a fairly logical assumption. Angry irrational man who just had a cocked gun holding a baby? What could possibly go wrong? Seems like the officer has a very defensible argument. I'm open to new facts when and if you find them. Yes take away your spin and I think it's a huge stretch. The city already paid at least 75k for his past actions. and you still haven't even attempted to explain how the officers right next to the guy didn't make a move. If it was a heated talk w/ the cops I'm sure they cops would have told the reporters. Same thing if he had ignored any commands from the officers. All we know that he did was turn around and walk back into his house...PERIOD. and actually from what we know he didnt' have anything in his hand. based on what we know it seems the 2 cops were lying. They said they saw a black object in his hand...but it was later found out he was not carrying a ANYTHING...but a phone was IN HIS POCKET. Maybe there is more to this, but FROM WHAT WE KNOW there was nothing in his hand.

1. Exactly. That's up close and personal. We aren't talking about a knife fight. 2. Agreed. We've got slim facts. My opinion could be changed but from the facts that I've seen so far it was a defensible action. 3. And we never will. A. Black object observed in his hand by multiple officers. B. Reaches down to his right. C. Turns slightly. D. Holding baby. E. Had just pointed cocked gun at his neighbor. (Keep in mind that I'm not even addressing the loaded pistol and shotgun located only feet away because the officers didn't know about them at the time of the shot.) 4. Imputed knowledge is a well established part of our law. A non-anonymous citizen informant is presumptively reliable. I'm not sure why or how you would argue otherwise. 5. You watch too many movies. You don't use a firearm on another to incapacitate them. Deadly weapons are used with deadly intent. Police don't shoot to wound and they shouldn't shoot to wound. 3 - he reached to his right...if that was a threatening or dangerous move it'd be the cops up next to him that would know...not a guy 18' feet way. It's irrelevant if there were loaded guns later found...because they weren't known at the time..they didn't factor into his decision to kill the guy. and it's legal to have a loaded gun in your house. no where did it say he made a move for a gun either. 4 - Yes take into account what he was accused of doing before arrival...but that doesn't make it right to shoot before needed. 5 - So cops are trained to ALWAYS shoot to kill? Serious question, because IDK, but I would hope tha'ts not the case. 3. He reached to his right AND had a black object in his hand. This shortly after he pointed a cocked gun at a citizen. (I specifically noted that the guns found later were NOT relevant. You still tried to disagree with me. Go back and read it again.) 4. The point is whether it APPEARED necessary at the time. There is a strong argument to be made that it was. Feel free to disagree but the legal argument is stronger that it was justified than that it wasn't justified. 5. So far as I know, yes. Shooting to incapacitate or shooting a weapon out of a hand is for the movies. In reality, if a gun is used, it's used to kill. If you don't intend to kill, don't use the gun. How was the phone in his hand if it was later found in his pocket? Why even bring up the other guns if you agree they aren't relevant?

BEHAVE YOURSELVES....STOP RAPING PEOPLE...YOU FREAKS. What a loon you tube search- breitbart ows cpac for the video

Recently read this book and it's somewhat relevant to this discussion. The title of the book is Blink. I feel time was on the police's side in the Scottsdale case. I think it'd be a huge stretch for us to assume the guy was about to our would hurt the baby he was holding. This next part is interesting too. http://m.tululu.ru/bread_79145_144.xhtml

from same link: It seems it'd be very hard to find a cop criminally guilty in a shooting because how are you going to prove that he didn't think there was an "imminent use of deadly physical force"?

It looks like cops are trained to shoot to kill and not shoot to stop...from my quick googling. I found this too: http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Decision_Letters/PS-2011%20Protocol.pdf I think it was avoidable and I strongly suspect it will go to civil court. Which has happened at least 1-2 times in the past and the city lost 75-150k as a result.

1. Exactly. That's up close and personal. We aren't talking about a knife fight. 2. Agreed. We've got slim facts. My opinion could be changed but from the facts that I've seen so far it was a defensible action. 3. And we never will. A. Black object observed in his hand by multiple officers. B. Reaches down to his right. C. Turns slightly. D. Holding baby. E. Had just pointed cocked gun at his neighbor. (Keep in mind that I'm not even addressing the loaded pistol and shotgun located only feet away because the officers didn't know about them at the time of the shot.) 4. Imputed knowledge is a well established part of our law. A non-anonymous citizen informant is presumptively reliable. I'm not sure why or how you would argue otherwise. 5. You watch too many movies. You don't use a firearm on another to incapacitate them. Deadly weapons are used with deadly intent. Police don't shoot to wound and they shouldn't shoot to wound. 3 - he reached to his right...if that was a threatening or dangerous move it'd be the cops up next to him that would know...not a guy 18' feet way. It's irrelevant if there were loaded guns later found...because they weren't known at the time..they didn't factor into his decision to kill the guy. and it's legal to have a loaded gun in your house. no where did it say he made a move for a gun either. 4 - Yes take into account what he was accused of doing before arrival...but that doesn't make it right to shoot before needed. 5 - So cops are trained to ALWAYS shoot to kill? Serious question, because IDK, but I would hope tha'ts not the case.

You can read the rest on the link and it talks about the other shootings he was involved it. Def sounds like a loose cannon. You don't need to shoot to kill in every situation. Read more: http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz1mZhyQD00 [/left] I read the article. I think this shooting is a close call . . . but in the totality of the circumstances it was justified. The guy had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor after kicking over his neighbors trash can. The guy answered the police at the door shortly after and went for his pocket . . . while holding a baby. Bad situation. If I were the officer I would probably have taken the shot. Sad story. (His other shootings looks mostly justified as well. I wish they had more facts. The 2005 and 2010 shootings look the most questionable.) I guess we don't know why he turned around and walked back into the house...or if that even matters. I don't see how anyone was threatened.. He shot from 18 feet away...how could he even hear what was being said? and it doesn't say he went for his pocket...it says they saw a black object and they later found his cell phone in his pocket. 18 feet is about 6 paces. That's not particularly far. The deceased had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor. I don't know what the reports say but my guess is that he was ordered to remain still and he moved in a way perceived as potentially threatening. Without the prior gun report it would NOT be justified. With that report it was probably an appropriate response . . . even if it ultimately turned out to be incorrect. 18' is less than a step inside the high school 3 point line. We actually don't know enough from the article to know if it was justified or not. We don't know why he went back into the house...or if it even matters. But there is noting about he made a sudden movement...or a move for something...and how do they know he really pulled a gun on someone...just because someone called in said it happened. If he was a threat why couldn't a cop at the door take action? Why not one of them shoot him in the leg/knee?

You can read the rest on the link and it talks about the other shootings he was involved it. Def sounds like a loose cannon. You don't need to shoot to kill in every situation. Read more: http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz1mZhyQD00 [/left] I read the article. I think this shooting is a close call . . . but in the totality of the circumstances it was justified. The guy had just pointed a cocked gun at his neighbor after kicking over his neighbors trash can. The guy answered the police at the door shortly after and went for his pocket . . . while holding a baby. Bad situation. If I were the officer I would probably have taken the shot. Sad story. (His other shootings looks mostly justified as well. I wish they had more facts. The 2005 and 2010 shootings look the most questionable.) I guess we don't know why he turned around and walked back into the house...or if that even matters. I don't see how anyone was threatened.. He shot from 18 feet away...how could he even hear what was being said? and it doesn't say he went for his pocket...it says they saw a black object and they later found his cell phone in his pocket.

So... what happens when Iran's government falls apart, the more-modern youth of the country finally get tired of living under the watchful eyes of the gasht-e ershad, and civil war erupts? What will an unstable religious hierarchy do, especially after establishing a decades-long precedent of arming known terrorists? Will Iran's hard-liners really care if their nukes are traced back to them when they're going to be out of power anyway? That's not a bet I'm excited to make. What happens when that happens in other countries in the area w/ nukes? I'd say get the international community involved work WITH them on their nukes(not weapons). That way we know what they have and don' t have. Iran has been willing to work w/ the world on this issue for many years. and even signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has not. PUtting them in the "axis of evil" was a major eff up. Threatening them over and over is not only stupid but against international law. Whatever Israel says on the matter (at least publicly) should go in one ear and out the other of everyone. They want to sell us into a war by acting like Iran is a direct threat to the US....much like they did w/ Iraq.

I don't think this was one of the cops I encountered...at least it wasn't the one doing the talking. You can read the rest on the link and it talks about the other shootings he was involved it. Def sounds like a loose cannon. You don't need to shoot to kill in every situation. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/scottsdale/articles/2012/02/15/20120215shooting-seventh-scottsdale-police-officer.html#ixzz1mZhyQD00 [/left][/left][/left]

Not in all cases. Castro was willing to push the button in 1962, and there are many non-state groups who would jump at the opportunity. I'm saying Iran won't give a nuke to some terrorist group to use because it would be traced back to Iran. I"m not making this up...it's what experts say.

video on link here is the beginning of the interview: