Tuesday's shooting is seventh for Scottsdale police officer

[Cactusboy]

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".

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.

[carlfense]

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".

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.

 

I brought them up because I figured I would nip that point in the bud. Instead you are trying to make it seem like part of my argument when I have repeatedly and consistently stated that it's not. I'm not sure how I could make it easier for you to understand but I'm certainly open to suggestions.

[HSKR]

cactus, I'm not going to get into a huge argument with you again, but cops aren't trained to kill or injure. We are trained to stop the threat, we don't aim for arms or legs because in a stressful situation officers shooting abilites go down. It's the bodies natural reaction and only their training takes over. We are trained to shoot center mass or, depending on if we've been tactically trained, we will do headshots. So with all due respect your comment about shooting in the arm or leg is pretty short sighted. Also, just because an officer has been involved in 7 shootings doesn't mean he's a loose cannon. Do I agree that 7 shootings isn't the norm in an officer's career............yes.

 

 

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

 

Center Mass, that means the torso, Most of your vital organs are in that area. If you aiming for the "extremities", then you are less likely to hit what you're aiming at.

Why aren't cops trained to shoot all the bad guys in the kneecaps like Arnold did in Terminator II?

[Cactusboy]

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".

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.

[Cactusboy]

double post

[carlfense]

And actually . . . I think my favorite part of your argument is that you keep accusing me of using "icing on the cake" after the fact evidence as part of my argument (despite my repeated agreement that they cannot be a factor) . . . while simultaneously arguing that "he was holding ONLY a baby."

 

Apparently you you are more than willing build your argument on a foundation of irrelevant evidence while falsely accusing me of doing the same.

 

Sweet.

[Cactusboy]

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.

[HSKR]

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.

 

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.

[carlfense]

so they saw a black object in his hand at one point...1. but it had to have been back in his pocket when he took his shot. 2. So he's walking back into the house 3. calmly 4. and not disobeying orders 5. 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 6. ONLY holding a baby warrants a shot to the head. 7. There is no report of any threatening behavior at anyone.

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.

 

No problem.

 

1. He could have easily been putting the phone into his pocket. "Moments later he reached down to his right . . ."

2. False. "Loxas turned to go back inside . . ." He was not walking back to the house. The reporter says that he was but the quote from the officer contradicts that. He turned and was shot. Any assumption of his intention beyond that is conjecture.

3. False. It does not say "calmly" anywhere in the article. You're inventing things.

4. Assuming facts not in evidence. The article does not mention this at all. You're inventing things.

5. Discovered only AFTER the shot. "Icing on the cake" problem that you've mentioned a time or two.

6. " "

7. Completely false. "According to the 911 call, the neighbors said Loxas was pushing his 9-month-old grandsonin a stroller and walked over and kicked a neighbor's trash can into the street. When another neighbor went to pick it up, Loxas returned with the baby in his arms and started yelling, "You got a problem with that?" the caller tells the dispatcher. "The guy pulls out a gun, c$%ks it and aimed it at him.""

[carlfense]

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.

 

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.

[Cactusboy]

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.

[Cactusboy]

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.

 

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?

[walksalone]

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.

 

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.

[Cactusboy]

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.

 

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.

[walksalone]

there is some validity to this logic, but it can also easily be exploited and over used.

 

Ok, then I have a hypothetical situation for you.

 

You're in the military, in a combat zone in the middle of a fire fight. A woman or a kid (say 12 years old), picks up a rifle, and points it at you.

 

What do you do?