Texas police kill 8th-grader carrying pellet gun [Archive]

Ostrinski

6th January 2012, 00:56

fucking devils

BROWNSVILLE, Texas (AP) — The parents of an eighth grader who was fatally shot by police inside his South Texas school are demanding to know why officers took lethal action, but police said the boy was brandishing — and refused to drop — what appeared to be a handgun and that the officers acted correctly.
The weapon turned out to be a pellet gun that closely resembled the real thing, police said late Wednesday, several hours after 15-year-old Jaime Gonzalez was repeatedly shot in a hallway at Cummings Middle School in Brownsville. No one else was injured.
"Why was so much excess force used on a minor?" the boy's father, Jaime Gonzalez Sr., asked The Associated Press outside the family's home Wednesday night. "Three shots. Why not one that would bring him down?"
His mother, Noralva Gonzalez, showed off a photo on her phone of a beaming Jaime in his drum major uniform standing with his band instructors. Then she flipped through three close-up photos she took of bullet wounds in her son's body, including one in the back of his head.
"What happened was an injustice," she said angrily. "I know that my son wasn't perfect, but he was a great kid."
Interim Police Chief Orlando Rodriguez said the teen was pointing the weapon at officers and "had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers' orders, and he didn't want to."
The chief said his officers had every right to do what they did to protect themselves and other students even though there weren't many others in the hallway at the time. Police said officers fired three shots.

Shortly before the confrontation, Jaime had walked into a classroom and punched a boy in the nose for no apparent reason, Rodriguez said. Police did not know why he pulled out the weapon, but "we think it looks like this was a way to bring attention to himself," Rodriguez said.
About 20 minutes elapsed between police receiving a call about an armed student and shots being fired, according to police and student accounts. Authorities declined to share what the boy said before he was shot.
The shooting happened during first period at the school in Brownsville, a city at Texas' southern tip just across the Mexican border. Teachers locked classroom doors and turned off lights, and some frightened students dove under their desks. They could hear police charge down the hallway and shout for Gonzalez to drop the weapon, followed by several shots.
Two officers fired three shots, hitting Gonzalez at least twice, police said.
David A. Dusenbury, a retired deputy police chief in Long Beach, Calif., who now consults on police tactics, said the officers were probably justified.
If the boy were raising the gun as if to fire at someone, "then it's unfortunate, but the officer certainly would have the right under the law to use deadly force."
A recording of police radio traffic posted on KGBT-TV's website indicates that officers responding to the school believed the teen had a handgun. An officer is heard describing the teen's clothes and appearance, saying he's "holding a handgun, black in color." The officer also said that from the front door, he could see the boy in the school's main office.
Less than two minutes later, someone yells over the radio "shots fired" and emergency crews are asked to respond. About two minutes later, someone asks where the boy was shot, prompting responses that he was shot in the chest and "from the back of the head."
Administrators said the school would be closed Thursday but students would be able to attend classes at a new elementary school that isn't being used.
Superintendent Carl Montoya remembered Gonzalez as "a very positive young man."
"He did music. He worked well with everybody. Just something unfortunately happened today that caused his behavior to go the way it went. So I don't know," he said Wednesday.
Gonzalez Sr. said he had no idea where his son got the gun or why he brought it to school, adding: "We wouldn't give him a gift like that."
He said he last saw his son around 6:30 a.m. Wednesday, when the boy said goodbye before leaving to catch the bus to school. And he said nothing seemed amiss the night before when he, his wife and their son went out for nachos then went home and watched a movie.
Gonzalez Sr. was struggling to reconcile the day's events, saying his son seemed to be doing better in school and was always helpful around the neighborhood mowing neighbors' lawns, washing dogs and carrying his toolbox off to fix other kids' bikes.
Two dozen of his son's friends and classmates gathered in the dark street outside the family's home Wednesday night. Jaime's best friend, 16-year-old Star Rodriguez, said her favorite memory was when Jaime came to her party Dec. 29 and they danced and sang together.
"He was like a brother to me," she said.

GPDP

6th January 2012, 03:58

Fuck. The. Police.

I live a few hours away from there. This hits pretty close to home. Fucking pigs. Goddamn.

Red Commissar

6th January 2012, 04:19

First day this news broke the police were pretty adamant about the kid threatening them with a real weapon.

Sometime afterwards the media eventually got that the kid had a pellet gun. I'm sure the police knew this already- though they for obvious reasons didn't want to drop they killed someone with a fake weapon. Current line of 'defense' from them and killer-cop apologists is that the gun looked too 'real' and the kid ignored multiple warnings.

All the while we have a dead, 15 year old. Life has been cut short. I wonder if the apologists would be acting any differently if the kid was "white".

Drowzy_Shooter

6th January 2012, 04:29

I have several of those realistic pellet guns, and often shoot them to the trees in my backyard, in my front yard. Better just shoot them in the backyard now.

Anyways, f the police :cursing:

Leftsolidarity

6th January 2012, 04:32

Ele'ill

6th January 2012, 04:34

These fucking lizards swear an oath and know that the job they take has the potential to be dangerous. Fucking armed thug cowards going into a situation like this and gunning down a kid. 'Where there's a mental health crisis and a gun we'll neutralize it with double the fire power' 'Just doing our job'. Absolutely right- covering up the gaping social holes in our society with bullets and blood.

Ostrinski

6th January 2012, 04:37

Is it just me, or does it seem like there's been a surplus of these incidents as of late? Probably just me. But it seems like I've read about one every day for the last week. And of course, those are just the ones that are being reported.

Ele'ill

6th January 2012, 04:41

So while I'm not a police apologist, I have to ask if the kid's death could really be viewed as anything more than tragic. The only part that really shows wrong-doing would be the shot to the back of the head. (Why the fuck would a cop be aiming at the head? You aren't supposed to do that anyways.)

Maybe I am just missing something here though. I honestly mark this up as a tragic story that the kid honestly brought upon himself.

Anyone care to explain to me why I am wrong without attacking me as an enemy? I just don't see how else it can be spinned.

And to the race comment, I thought it was a white kid.

The problem is that there was a mental crisis and the response was the police. The problem was that there was a mental crisis. That there are mental crisis's. That the only response to pretty much every societal issue that could arise on a day to day basis is the world's largest organized crime ring.

Princess Luna

6th January 2012, 04:43

So while I'm not a police apologist, I have to ask if the kid's death could really be viewed as anything more than tragic. The only part that really shows wrong-doing would be the shot to the back of the head. (Why the fuck would a cop be aiming at the head? You aren't supposed to do that anyways.)

Maybe I am just missing something here though. I honestly mark this up as a tragic story that the kid honestly brought upon himself.

Anyone care to explain to me why I am wrong without attacking me as an enemy? I just don't see how else it can be spinned.

And to the race comment, I thought it was a white kid.
Had this had happened at night I would agree with you. But it happened in a school, in broad daylight. Pellet guns have really small holes in them, and they should have been able to tell when he aimed it at them. Also they could have used a stun-gun, to subdue him even if he had a real gun.

RadioRaheem84

6th January 2012, 15:43

This incident could've easily been avoided. There have been worse situations in which police subdue a gun wielding criminal without excessive force and the criminal coming out alive.

This was a chance for trigger happy police to see "some action".

Nox

6th January 2012, 16:23

Jesus christ it gets more ridiculous each time, what next? Killing a 7 year old with a water pistol??

piet11111

7th January 2012, 00:00

Psy

7th January 2012, 15:13

Os Cangaceiros

7th January 2012, 15:23

Well to be honest with events like Columbine and Virginia tech in mind i doubt if i where one of those cops i would be thinking "lets have a look at that gun to see if it might be a BB-gun"

15 year olds are capable of getting firearms illegally and if those cops did go in with a report of an armed student and shots fired i can see how this happened.

I really hate cops but if the article is correct then i really can't put much blame on the cops for shooting what to them was an armed individual that refused to comply with orders to drop his "weapon"

I have seen BB-guns from Spain that look exactly like the real weapons they imitate and personally i wouldn't risk it if i had such a thing pointed at me.

Yeah, as much as I hate the police, I don't feel like I'm standing on as solid ground with this incident as with others. No one is going to wait to look down the barrel of what otherwise looks exactly like a pistol.

Another thing is that, while stupidity isn't a crime worthy of death, this kid was pretty stupid to bring anything even resembling a gun to school. Schools in the USA take an extremely hardline on such matters. I don't want to say that he "brought it unto himself", but he did bring it on himself more than, say, the guy who got shot dead on his front lawn by cops because they thought his garden hose was a gun.

Luc

7th January 2012, 15:31

There is shooting to warn (shoot at the floor before the suspect) and shooting to wound.

and then there is also shooting to kill, seriously "back of his head"? I pray thats an exit wound

RefusedPP

7th January 2012, 16:10

Jesus christ it gets more ridiculous each time, what next? Killing a 7 year old with a water pistol??

I wouldn't put it past them.

As for shooting three times, it is unnecessary. They probably just get a thrill out of the adrenaline at the opportunity to kill somebody.

RefusedPP

7th January 2012, 16:13

Yeah, as much as I hate the police, I don't feel like I'm standing on as solid ground with this incident as with others. No one is going to wait to look down the barrel of what otherwise looks exactly like a pistol.

Another thing is that, while stupidity isn't a crime worthy of death, this kid was pretty stupid to bring anything even resembling a gun to school. Schools in the USA take an extremely hardline on such matters. I don't want to say that he "brought it unto himself", but he did bring it on himself more than, say, the guy who got shot dead on his front lawn by cops because they thought his garden hose was a gun.

That is true and I understand what you're saying and agree to an extent. It is hard to justify because we weren't in the police shoes, and it was stupid for the kid to carry that around at school. But I used to have a bb gun when I was a kid and used to run around the street playing with my friends, and I was younger than 15.

Still... shot 3 times? :rolleyes:

Psy

7th January 2012, 16:36

Yeah, as much as I hate the police, I don't feel like I'm standing on as solid ground with this incident as with others. No one is going to wait to look down the barrel of what otherwise looks exactly like a pistol.

That doesn't mean police should just take down a armed threat with lethal force. For example if police feel threatened that can always take cover like infantry have been trained to do since WWII and really being behind cover from a pistol is very easy since modern ballistic shields with angled surfaces deflect all pistol rounds. Meaning with ballistic shields police could just stand behind ballistic shields and be in no danger from any pistol other then being shot below the shield (leg and foot).

piet11111

7th January 2012, 18:38

I wouldn't put it past them.

As for shooting three times, it is unnecessary. They probably just get a thrill out of the adrenaline at the opportunity to kill somebody.

If i read the article right he was shot at by 2 cops also since cops have semi-automatic pistols instead of revolvers shooting 3 bullets can be done extremely fast.

The article states that he raised the "gun" on the cops and before that refused orders to drop it.

If you have a gun aimed at you you wont be contemplating if you are going to do a wounding shot or not there simply is not enough time to do anything but react.

I don't see what the cops could have done differently if the article is correct on how this went down though the shot in the back of the head is extremely suspect (assuming its not an exit wound)

RefusedPP

7th January 2012, 20:29

If i read the article right he was shot at by 2 cops also since cops have semi-automatic pistols instead of revolvers shooting 3 bullets can be done extremely fast.

The article states that he raised the "gun" on the cops and before that refused orders to drop it.

If you have a gun aimed at you you wont be contemplating if you are going to do a wounding shot or not there simply is not enough time to do anything but react.

I don't see what the cops could have done differently if the article is correct on how this went down though the shot in the back of the head is extremely suspect (assuming its not an exit wound)

It's a difficult situation, it is understandable that the police confronted him, but why didn't he put down the weapon? It is a terrible shame that a 15 year old was killed.

I would like to believe that somehow the situation was avoidable, but I understand that the law says the police had every justification to do what they did - especially with consideration of past events in american schools. A lot of police activity I have read about lately has angered me however. I am not sure if the article says he directly raised his 'gun' however, it said "If the boy were raising the gun as if to fire at someone", although it said he refused to drop it.

All in all it is sad, but the behaviour of the kid appeared to be fairly erratic before death.

piet11111

7th January 2012, 20:39

Interim Police Chief Orlando Rodriguez said the teen was pointing the weapon at officers and "had plenty of opportunities to lower the gun and listen to the officers' orders, and he didn't want to."

Obviously its taking a pigs word for what happened but if its true then i can not say i could have handled this differently.

Psy

7th January 2012, 21:53

If i read the article right he was shot at by 2 cops also since cops have semi-automatic pistols instead of revolvers shooting 3 bullets can be done extremely fast.

The article states that he raised the "gun" on the cops and before that refused orders to drop it.

If you have a gun aimed at you you wont be contemplating if you are going to do a wounding shot or not there simply is not enough time to do anything but react.

I don't see what the cops could have done differently if the article is correct on how this went down though the shot in the back of the head is extremely suspect (assuming its not an exit wound)
Use ballistic shields to body check the suspect.
Use rubber/wax bullets to force the suspect to surrender.
Use flash bangs to disorient the suspect.
Use pepper spray to disorient the suspect.
Use electroshock weapon to incapacities the suspect
Encircle the suspect so the suspect can't keep an eye on all the officers.

Not being properly prepared to take in a armed suspect alive is no excuse.

WeAreReborn

7th January 2012, 22:05

Obviously its taking a pigs word for what happened but if its true then i can not say i could have handled this differently.
I see what you mean but I disagree. Police officers are trained to deal with these kind of situations and there is something wrong with the fact that they instantly responded with lethal force. You can maybe blame the training they receive and the job they are in but the problem is essentially the same. Which is they handle situations in almost every case with excessive force. Other members were pointing out alternative methods. I understand it was in the moment but that is what their training covers. Even if the gun was real the kid shouldn't have been killed.

La ComÃ©die Noire

7th January 2012, 22:14

I think deadly force is something too extreme for first responders to use. It creates a vicious cycle where the agitated person gets nervous then the cops get nervous which in turn makes the agitated person even more nervous and then you have things like this happen.

piet11111

7th January 2012, 22:24

I see what you mean but I disagree. Police officers are trained to deal with these kind of situations and there is something wrong with the fact that they instantly responded with lethal force. You can maybe blame the training they receive and the job they are in but the problem is essentially the same. Which is they handle situations in almost every case with excessive force. Other members were pointing out alternative methods. I understand it was in the moment but that is what their training covers. Even if the gun was real the kid shouldn't have been killed.

I doubt training can erase the basic survival instinct of preserving oneself.
If i see what i believe to be a gun aimed at me i would shoot to kill.

Others might disagree with that but that is what i would do and if that amounts to excessive force in this case then i would also have been guilty of it in their shoes.

Alternative methods to dealing with this situation depends on the availability of said methods and i doubt they had ballistic shields or rubber bullets or flashbangs available to them.
Everything else would require them to get so close to the suspect that they would position themselves in mortal danger if there was an actual firearm involved and honestly we can not ask that from anyone.

Psy

7th January 2012, 23:25

I doubt training can erase the basic survival instinct of preserving oneself.

Infantry training aims to diminish people's phobia of getting shot and under fire still follow the chain of command so when their commanding officers tell their troops to hold fire they will hold their fire if they were properly trained.

Alternative methods to dealing with this situation depends on the availability of said methods and i doubt they had ballistic shields or rubber bullets or flashbangs available to them.

Again them not being prepared to take in armed suspects alive is not a good excuse.

Everything else would require them to get so close to the suspect that they would position themselves in mortal danger if there was an actual firearm involved and honestly we can not ask that from anyone.
And what about the mental disorders police officers suffer from in such shooting? Post traumatic stress disorder is more prevalent in law enforcement due to police having a even more reactionary attitude to it then soldiers.

the last donut of the night

8th January 2012, 08:38

i'd like to remind everyone that brownsville is 93% latino and one of america's poorest ZIP codes, IIRC

Renegade Saint

8th January 2012, 10:10

There is shooting to warn (shoot at the floor before the suspect) and shooting to wound.
No there's not. Only in movies.

You always shoot to take down, not to warn or 'wound'. That means shooting center mass period.

As for the 3 shots, you shoot until the target is neutralized (ie down).

The bullet hole in the back of the head has two possibilities other than exit wound that come to mind: either the police intentionally shot him there after he was down or it happened as he was falling/spinning. The former seems unlikely in a crowded school in the middle of the day.

As other have said, a tragedy. I doubt I would have acted any differently if I were in that situation though.

And what about the mental disorders police officers suffer from in such shooting? Post traumatic stress disorder is more prevalent in law enforcement due to police having a even more reactionary attitude to it then soldiers.
Source?

piet11111

8th January 2012, 13:24

Infantry training aims to diminish people's phobia of getting shot and under fire still follow the chain of command so when their commanding officers tell their troops to hold fire they will hold their fire if they were properly trained.

Infantry training consists largely of target range shooting at pop-up targets the faster you put those down the better.
Not something i would want to train a cop in.

Police do very limited training about dealing with being under fire to my knowledge if at all.

Again them not being prepared to take in armed suspects alive is not a good excuse.

But we have to be realistic here these are not SWAT cops we are talking about here chances are they never had to use their weapons before this.

And what about the mental disorders police officers suffer from in such shooting? Post traumatic stress disorder is more prevalent in law enforcement due to police having a even more reactionary attitude to it then soldiers.

I do not understand what you are saying here.
Cops suffer from PTSD more after a shooting because they are worse people ?

Psy

8th January 2012, 15:21

No there's not. Only in movies.

You always shoot to take down, not to warn or 'wound'. That means shooting center mass period.

In the military there is: Sentry training includes shooting to get the targets attention for various reasons. Infantry in general are trained how shoot to pin down the target. Marksman are trained how to shoot to wound for missions where the target is required to be taken alive for interrogation.

The fact police are only trained how to shoot to kill is no excuse as most every army in the world trains their soldiers how to do more then just shooting at center mass.

As for the 3 shots, you shoot until the target is neutralized (ie down).

Again armies train marksmen to shoot to wound so they can take target back as prisoners.

Source?
Toronto Star did an article of a Emergency Tactical Force officer that suffered from PTSD and complained police culture treated PTSD as being weak thus started his own police support center for PTSD.

Infantry training consists largely of target range shooting at pop-up targets the faster you put those down the better.
Not something i would want to train a cop in.

It also includes shooting to warn and for marksmen shooting to wound so the unit can take the target back as a prisoner for interrogation.

But we have to be realistic here these are not SWAT cops we are talking about here chances are they never had to use their weapons before this.

And why were they not prepared to take armed suspects back as prisoners?

I do not understand what you are saying here.
Cops suffer from PTSD more after a shooting because they are worse people ?
That not giving police the means to take suspects back alive gives them PTSD. They are fed the lie shooting the wound is only done in the movies while most armies in the world train marksmen to do just that for intelligence gathering yet police don't get the same training that could save lives of suspects.

Renegade Saint

8th January 2012, 17:04

freakazoid

8th January 2012, 17:47

Pellet guns have really small holes in them, and they should have been able to tell when he aimed it at them

Are you fucking stupid? No, you can't tell.

There is shooting to warn (shoot at the floor before the suspect) and shooting to wound.

Wow. You don't shoot to warn, especially in a fucking school!

As for shooting three times, it is unnecessary. They probably just get a thrill out of the adrenaline at the opportunity to kill somebody.

No, it's not unnecessary. One, you are trained to shoot twice, and two, there was more than one cop meaning that each cop hit at least once. And comparing that actual excessive force they were showing a huge amount of restraint.

The cops had come in responding to a school shooting. They repeatedly told the kid to put down the gun. The kid refused. The kid then does something to cause all the cops to shoot.

The fact police are only trained how to shoot to kill is no excuse as most every army in the world trains their soldiers how to do more then just shooting at center mass.

Are you purposefully lying or do you actually believe that?

Again armies train marksmen to shoot to wound so they can take target back as prisoners

1, bullshit. 2, you are talking about marksmen, people who all they do is train to shoot with a rifle which is something cops don't do nor do they even train that much with there pistols. And where exactly are they supposed to shoot to wound? Arm? Leg? Do you realize the surface area they would have to aim at? A hell of a lot smaller than center mass, and then those parts move a lot easier than center mass meaning more than likely they are going to miss and hit someone else. And if they do actually hit them in the arm or leg then there is still the risk severing an artery. Not to mention they still have a live armed person that is now injured so even more pissed off. Maybe they should of just aimed for the gun like the Lone Ranger. :rolleyes:

And as for the wound to the back of the head. It is possible that the first shot had spun the kid around causing the next to hit him in the back of the head. I have also heard that he actually never was shot in the back of the head. That it was actually a wound caused from falling after being shot and the mother had taken a picture of it and tried to pass it off as a gun shot wound, which from hearing how the parents had reacted would not surprise me one bit.

I'm no fan of cops, but simply because they are cops doesn't mean that they are to blame for everything.

The Douche

8th January 2012, 17:58

Psy, shut the fuck up, you're wrong, everything you're saying is patently wrong.

Psy

8th January 2012, 18:01

Psy, even assuming that what you're saying about military training is true (which I highly doubt), for infantry and marksmen the weapon they're doing nearly all their training with is a rifle. As you're no doubt aware, cops carry pistols. There's a big difference. With a rifle you may have the time to carefully
I have a decent amount of handgun experience/training, more than your average military member or police officer receives in basic training, and yet even when shooting a target I never had the time to give any thought to "shooting to wound". The fact that you think it's practical to "shoot to wound" in that type of situation makes me think you've never shot a handgun before, let alone in a stressful situation.

Actually, after doing some checking around the internet, it appears that my doubts about the military teaching "shoot to wound" were warranted. If you can stomach some of the jingoistic bullshit these reads are educational.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/roe_article.pdf
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive//t-28514.html
http://www.warriortalk.com/archive//t-1048.html
http://www.policeone.com/columnists/force-science/articles/127238/

There's enough clear-cut cases of police abuse, fixating on a case where the police behaved pretty reasonably is ridiculous.
Your first 4 links don't work for me. But for the last one the reasons don't apply to a military fire team for the following reasons.

Limbs move to fast, well if you are military fire team you are holding assault rifles capable of full automatic, with around 600 rounds a minute I doubt anyone can move their feet fast enough to avoid a single solider sweeping across their legs with bursts of automatic fire at close range below the center mass of the target.

They could hit an artery, duh that is why fire teams have medics encase one of their own gets hit in a artery, and medics are under standing orders to treat enemy wounded if possible.

They could still be a threat, fire teams are trained to not stay exposed for prolonged periods of time, so it wouldn't be a stand off with the fire team standing in the open pointing their weapons at an enemy officer yelling at him to surrender, instead they would be behind cover yelling it, they could be issued a hand held periscope to peek around/over cover thus they could watch the target from behind cover.

As for the issue cops carry pistols, well not even military police use pistols anymore for the very reason their accuracy sucks and at least sub-machine guns kinda makes up for with a high rate of fire but even sub-machine guns are being phased out in military police around the world in favor of carbine assault rifles.

I agree that in situation shoot to wound is unrealistic but only because police let such situations accrue due to sticking to obsolete weapons, tactics and being under equipped and trained.

Psy

8th January 2012, 18:43

Wow. You don't shoot to warn, especially in a fucking school!

This is SOP for infantry, for example there are tons of youtube videos of US soldiers in Iraq firing warning shots into the ground to warn civilians to stay away form them.

In a school, it would be a problem if the floor below has not been evacuated.

Are you purposefully lying or do you actually believe that?

My point is that police are not drilled in how to safely fire off warning shots and re-aim on the target. Infantry go through this training for the simple fact they can't legally have standing orders to fire at the center mass of civilians as it is against internal law (I know it still happens) so they at lest have to train their troops how to abide by internal law so when it happens they can at least say they trained troops how to properly deal with civilians and it was a case of a bad apple.

1, bullshit. 2, you are talking about marksmen, people who all they do is train to shoot with a rifle which is something cops don't do nor do they even train that much with there pistols. And where exactly are they supposed to shoot to wound? Arm? Leg? Do you realize the surface area they would have to aim at? A hell of a lot smaller than center mass, and then those parts move a lot easier than center mass meaning more than likely they are going to miss and hit someone else. And if they do actually hit them in the arm or leg then there is still the risk severing an artery. Not to mention they still have a live armed person that is now injured so even more pissed off. Maybe they should of just aimed for the gun like the Lone Ranger. :rolleyes:

And police use inaccurate pistols because? Legs because they their movement is limited and missed shots go into the ground thus no threat of hitting bystanders (if there no one below) as you aiming low to limit the range of the rounds.

Hitting an artery is not much of a problem if there is a medic on hand to stabilize the wounded suspect. Sure the medic could still fail (and there is a good chance the suspect becomes handicap but statically you'd have much more suspects surviving police encounters and the alternative was killing the suspect.

I'm no fan of cops, but simply because they are cops doesn't mean that they are to blame for everything.
The problem is do we want worker militias to do the same in keeping the peace? Would we avoid training workers militias on how to shoot to warn/wound? Would we not provide workers militias with carbine assault rifles so they have greater accuracy? Would we not provide workers militias fire teams with medics so they can quickly stabilize anyone wounded included downed suspects? Would we not provide workers militias with portable periscope so they can see around/above cover thus can communicated with armed suspects from cover?

The Douche

8th January 2012, 19:59

You're wrong Psy, literally everything you're saying is wrong, "warning shots", "shooting to wound", "sentry training". You are so absurdly full of shit.

The only time anybody fires a warning shot is at a vehicle, and its rare.

Please tell me, how much time have you spent in the army? How much training have you done with the police?

Stop fucking posting in here and go back to telling everybody about the usefullness of forklifts.

Psy

8th January 2012, 20:53

You're wrong Psy, literally everything you're saying is wrong, "warning shots", "shooting to wound", "sentry training". You are so absurdly full of shit.

The only time anybody fires a warning shot is at a vehicle, and its rare.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12241441

You where saying? The ruling class orders warning shots when they are confronted with uprisings they don't want to escalate, they don't bother when it is just police keeping the bourgeois order.

You are taking police doctrine and holding it up as if it is based on anything but tactics developed in the self-interest of the ruling class.

Tell me why a revolutionary army or workers militia can't shoot to warn or wound. Why would it for the greater good of the world proletariat to have standing orders for militia around the world to shoot to kill rather then trying to take armed suspect alive? The biggest reason police departments defend shoot to kill policy is they would need far more training and equipment to give their officers more options and these options would only result in saving the lives of what the ruling class sees as criminals that the ruling class doesn't care.

Please tell me, how much time have you spent in the army? How much training have you done with the police?

The army and police are currently wage slaves of the bourgeois, their goal is not to save people, their goal is to protect property and the interest of the ruling class. I also seriously hope workers militias won't just blindly adopt police doctrine and tell critics to shut up.

I also hope if this happens with a workers militia pulling the triggers we would we ask if we as a society did everything to ensure the kid had a decent chance of not being shot down, including militia training, equipment and policies rather then just blindly put our faith that the revolutionary army and militias know best.

The Dark Side of the Moon

8th January 2012, 21:05

god damned. FTP

i hope they dont kill me for carrying my airsoft gun

Declining to share what he said before they murdered him? was probably something along the lines of this "what? why do you have guns pointed at me? its just a pellet gun"

on another note, less serious side, reminds me of the episode of the boondocks i watched last night "police mistook a mans blaze orange wallet for a weapon"

The Douche

8th January 2012, 21:33

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12241441

You where saying? The ruling class orders warning shots when they are confronted with uprisings they don't want to escalate, they don't bother when it is just police keeping the bourgeois order.

You are taking police doctrine and holding it up as if it is based on anything but tactics developed in the self-interest of the ruling class.

Tell me why a revolutionary army or workers militia can't shoot to warn or wound. Why would it for the greater good of the world proletariat to have standing orders for militia around the world to shoot to kill rather then trying to take armed suspect alive? The biggest reason police departments defend shoot to kill policy is they would need far more training and equipment to give their officers more options and these options would only result in saving the lives of what the ruling class sees as criminals that the ruling class doesn't care.

The army and police are currently wage slaves of the bourgeois, their goal is not to save people, their goal is to protect property and the interest of the ruling class. I also seriously hope workers militias won't just blindly adopt police doctrine and tell critics to shut up.

I also hope if this happens with a workers militia pulling the triggers we would we ask if we as a society did everything to ensure the kid had a decent chance of not being shot down, including militia training, equipment and policies rather then just blindly put our faith that the revolutionary army and militias know best.

A link about the poorly trained tunisian police firing warning shots is relevant to this discussion, how?:laugh:

And then you typed up a whole bunch of words that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Police and military are not trained to shoot to wound, and shooting to wound is a stupid fucking idea. If somebody has a gun pointed at me, I want them dead, not wounded, and I've been shot at more than once, and have a lot more training and experience than you do regarding just what you're supposed to do when somebody has a gun.

Psy

8th January 2012, 22:10

A link about the poorly trained tunisian police firing warning shots is relevant to this discussion, how?:laugh:

And then you typed up a whole bunch of words that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Police and military are not trained to shoot to wound, and shooting to wound is a stupid fucking idea. If somebody has a gun pointed at me, I want them dead, not wounded, and I've been shot at more than once, and have a lot more training and experience than you do regarding just what you're supposed to do when somebody has a gun.

Okay how about the GDR border guards where they orders where to yell "Halt, stehenbleiben, oder ich schieße", fire warning shots then try to hit their legs (if they missed they'd just extra warning shots if they hit they can't run across the border and the border guard could in theory then catch up to them).

You say military are not trained to shoot to wound when GDR borders guards were given that order and it stood till the fall of the Berlin wall.

Also why is it a stupid idea? Why would they be pointing it at you, why you are standing in the open, why are you not behind cover, why where you not issued a ballistic shield? If you have cover why wouldn't you dive right back to cover as soon as you made your shots?

How would it be stupid if the police came in with ballistic shields and body armor thus could take pistol rounds being fired at them then shot at his legs?

SlÃ¡n_Abhaile

8th January 2012, 22:29

It seems to be another tragedy, I'd imagine all the hysteria about "school shootings" was on the mind of the cops involved, which following Columbine they are now reportedly trained to immediately confront the shooter and use lethal force.

However, as Psy has pointed out, they could have used ballistic shields and body armour, but I'd imagine they didn't have that with them at the time as they weren't expecting a shooting incident. But it's a very good point as to why they spend loads of money on tasers, and body armour, SWAT teams, and ballistic shields and they never seem to be deployed in these situations where they could have changed the outcome.

piet11111

8th January 2012, 23:05

Limbs move to fast, well if you are military fire team you are holding assault rifles capable of full automatic, with around 600 rounds a minute I doubt anyone can move their feet fast enough to avoid a single solider sweeping across their legs with bursts of automatic fire at close range below the center mass of the target.

Wait are you seriously saying the police should use assault rifles and shoot away the legs ?

They could hit an artery, duh that is why fire teams have medics encase one of their own gets hit in a artery, and medics are under standing orders to treat enemy wounded if possible.Cops do not have medics if they did they would need one in every patrol car and a lot of specialized equipment in order to treat those that have been shot.

at least sub-machine guns kinda makes up for with a high rate of fire but even sub-machine guns are being phased out in military police around the world in favor of carbine assault rifles.Now that will save lives every cop an MP-5 what could possibly go wrong :thumbup1:

Here's a hint with a pistol you have to aim to hit something with autmatic weapons its spray and pray not something i would want the cops to start doing especially not in a fucking school.

freakazoid

8th January 2012, 23:24

Wait are you seriously saying the police should use assault rifles and shoot away the legs ?

It sounds like he wants to militarise our police force with all this talk about fire teams and such.

Psy

9th January 2012, 00:29

It sounds like he wants to militarise our police force with all this talk about fire teams and such.
The idea is to have it so that law enforcement has the means to not kill any threat they run across.

Wait are you seriously saying the police should use assault rifles and shoot away the legs ?

Is death better then losing the use of ones legs after being shot by police?

Cops do not have medics if they did they would need one in every patrol car and a lot of specialized equipment in order to treat those that have been shot.

Right, so if come down to the problem that police bureaucracies don't want to pay for the labor costs of having police cross trained in being a field medic.

Now that will save lives every cop an MP-5 what could possibly go wrong :thumbup1:

Here's a hint with a pistol you have to aim to hit something with autmatic weapons its spray and pray not something i would want the cops to start doing especially not in a fucking school.
Not necessarily, the point of automatic weapons is you have the rate of power if you need it. For example the MP-5 does have a selector for the firing mode that includes semi-automatic (one round per pull of trigger).

Also pistols are not accurate, especially after the first round as pistols are harder to keep on target.

piet11111

9th January 2012, 00:45

Is death better then losing the use of ones legs after being shot by police?

If your legs are shot to shreds you will be dead before you get to the hospital as the femoral artery will most likely be hit or damaged especially with multiple bullets.
And then you have to hope that the cops only hit the legs.

Right, so if come down to the problem that police bureaucracies don't want to pay for the labor costs of having police cross trained in being a field medic.

How many cops would you think are capable of successfully completing such a training ?
First aid is something i would expect most of them to pass but a full on field medic ?
Then you also have the required equipment and i wouldn't expect them to haul a first aid kit around the size of a duffel bag every moment they are on duty.

Not necessarily, the point of automatic weapons is you have the rate of power if you need it. For example the MP-5 does have a selector for the firing mode that includes semi-automatic (one round per pull of trigger).

In the falklands war the british soldiers ditched their FN-FAL's for the Argentinian ones because those still had full-auto capability.
Point being that if they have the ability to use fully automatic firing mode then they will especially if they think its just a matter of not holding down the trigger until its empty.

Also pistols are not accurate, especially after the first round as pistols are harder to keep on target.

If your pulling the trigger for rapid fire then yeah it will be inaccurate all the more reason why they should be trained to aim before they fire.
Personally i would like them to take aim before handing them automatics that they can use to cause a lot of damage.

Psy

9th January 2012, 03:58

If your legs are shot to shreds you will be dead before you get to the hospital as the femoral artery will most likely be hit or damaged especially with multiple bullets.
And then you have to hope that the cops only hit the legs.

Soldiers have a chance to survive getting their legs blown off by a mine due to field medics being able to stabilize within a minute or two.

How many cops would you think are capable of successfully completing such a training ?
First aid is something i would expect most of them to pass but a full on field medic ?
Then you also have the required equipment and i wouldn't expect them to haul a first aid kit around the size of a duffel bag every moment they are on duty.

If you are taking precautions having a firefight isn't a field medic logical? Not just for saving anyone the police shoot but if the police themselves get shot.

In the falklands war the british soldiers ditched their FN-FAL's for the Argentinian ones because those still had full-auto capability.
Point being that if they have the ability to use fully automatic firing mode then they will especially if they think its just a matter of not holding down the trigger until its empty.

That can be solves with training.

If your pulling the trigger for rapid fire then yeah it will be inaccurate all the more reason why they should be trained to aim before they fire.
Personally i would like them to take aim before handing them automatics that they can use to cause a lot of damage.
Yet the argument police department give against minimal force rules is they only feel safe if once they start shooting the don't stop till either their gun runs out of ammo or the target drops. And as we seen in many shooting incidents where police tend to be very jumpy where they tend to shoot first and after running out of ammo then ask questions.

Ele'ill

9th January 2012, 04:51

I hate this fucking thread.

piet11111

9th January 2012, 12:32

The future of law enforcement under Psy

http://www.bautforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4386&stc=1&d=1167842678

Cost of hellfire will be recuperated by throwing your family out of your home after your death.

Renegade Saint

9th January 2012, 19:55

Psy

9th January 2012, 23:37

GDR border guards?

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

For one, in that situation (assuming it's true, which is a gift considering that nothing else you've said is), people are just trying to cross the border, not aiming weapons at the guards. If someone was 20 feet away pointing a gun at a "GDR border guard" they wouldn't be firing warning shots.

Well some seem to think it is impossible to train riflemen to safely fire warning shots.

Anyway what if that person 20 feet away has body armor? That is what happened during the North Hollywood shootout of 1997, two bank robbers knew police always aim for the chest, and the LA police threw round and round into their body armor that was totally ineffective, a SWAT officer eventually clued in and sprayed the legs which did work.

I don't know why it's so hard for you to get this, but it's hard to hit someone with a bullet. Hitting someone in the legs is several times harder. Expecting someone to do that in a high stress situation with a potentially moving target is absurd.

I don't know where you live, but if it's a country that has gun rangers open to the public, please go to one. Get a target with legs on it (if they have one) and try and "shoot out the legs". And do it in under 5 seconds. And keep in mind that it's a lot harder when someone's pointing a gun back at you.
The SWAT officer during the 1997 North Hollywood shootout didn't have a issue, he just fired bursts towards the legs and it worked. The shooter died from blood loss (due to medical attention being very slow) but the tactic of aiming low still worked for a SWAT officer that was panicking to deal with a target that took all the rounds 900 police and SWAT officers pumped into his chest to no effect.

Well if police can't hope to hit anything but the chest they will be into a world of hurt as technology advances and makes it cheaper for gangs to be as well defended a modern infantry.

freakazoid

10th January 2012, 01:46

You do realise the situation what was going on when he shot him in the legs right? It wasn't even close to the same situation. You watch to many action movies.

Psy

10th January 2012, 03:17

You do realise the situation what was going on when he shot him in the legs right? It wasn't even close to the same situation. You watch to many action movies.

The shooting shown modern body armor stands up to small arms fire, meaning police don't have to be terrified of guns if they make use of modern personal armor like body armor and ballistic shields. The police fired hundreds of times at their chest and it was as effective as firing at a tank with small arms, so why would a police officer if wearing the same protection plus behind a ballistic shield care if the kids opens fire at them?

This is where we break from current bourgeois police doctrine and start thinking about maybe police can tank through gun fire if we give them more costly gear.

On the flip side it is naive to think this is the last police has seen from military grade personal armor being used against them. Technology marches on and such heavy personal armor will become easier to acquire as the means of production becomes more productive. Armor piercing rounds has the problem that missed shots will go through walls, meaning if the police did use them at the 1997 shooting the civilians in the bank would have been in the line of police fire.

I just don't see a workers state accepting the current state of how police use firearms, that they are so under protected that a kid with a pistol is perceived as a threat to them.

Leftsolidarity

10th January 2012, 15:08

Psy, shut the fuck up. Thank you.

The Dark Side of the Moon

10th January 2012, 15:31

I don't know why it's so hard for you to get this, but it's hard to hit someone with a bullet. Hitting someone in the legs is several times harder. Expecting someone to do that in a high stress situation with a potentially moving target is absurd.

I don't know where you live, but if it's a country that has gun rangers open to the public, please go to one. Get a target with legs on it (if they have one) and try and "shoot out the legs". And do it in under 5 seconds. And keep in mind that it's a lot harder when someone's pointing a gun back at you.

i used to shoot rabbits 20 yards away with my .45, i honestly dont think shooting someone in an enclosed space at the leg would be that hard, even if a gun was pointed at you.

i would actually be on the polices side for this if it where not fo tthe fact they hadn't told us his last words

Psy

11th January 2012, 01:29

i used to shoot rabbits 20 yards away with my .45, i honestly dont think shooting someone in an enclosed space at the leg would be that hard, even if a gun was pointed at you.

And there are modern aids like infrared laser sights that makes it easier to take quick aim.

piet11111

11th January 2012, 12:21

And there are modern aids like infrared laser sights that makes it easier to take quick aim.

The infrared laser sight ?

You do know that it makes a laser you can not see with the naked eye but will need a night vision device in order to see it ?
This specific laser you mentioned is created for stealthy night time combat.

Don't you mean a reflex sight ?

http://rustybayonet.com/library/RedDotReflexTacticalSight.jpg

Seriously this thread should now die in a fire.

00000000000

11th January 2012, 16:36

*humanely takes this thread to the woods to shoot it in the leg...misses and gets it in the hip..thread crawls away to die in a ditch..justice is served*

sulla

11th January 2012, 19:01

Applogists for the police make me sick. If you want to be a liberal reformer fuck off to another site.

Leftsolidarity

11th January 2012, 20:01

Applogists for the police make me sick. If you want to be a liberal reformer fuck off to another site.

If you want to incorrectly spell misdirected insults without giving any justicifation......... well I guess you're on the right site.

sulla

11th January 2012, 20:08

If you want to incorrectly spell misdirected insults without giving any justicifation......... well I guess you're on the right site.

So I spelled things wrong? Pointing that out is a empty ad hom attack.

Also the police are thugs and killers, they are the establishments armed gang. When people die, it is because they are doing their job. When a Nazi kills a jew he call it a tragedy. When the USA kills children with bombs, they announce they regret it.

Fuck the police, they just stole another life. I don't accept the police at all.

Leftsolidarity

11th January 2012, 20:10

So I spelled things wrong? Pointing that out is a empty ad hom attack.

Also the police are thugs and killers, they are the establishments armed gang. When people die, it is because they are doing their job. When a Nazi kills a jew he call it a tragedy. When the USA kills children with bombs, they announce they regret it.

Fuck the police, they just stole another life. I don't accept the police at all.

I don't think anyone here likes the police either. Settle down and read what people have been saying. (Except for Psy, s/he's fucking stupid)

sulla

11th January 2012, 20:18

Psy

11th January 2012, 22:27

If the police where not so hostile and ready to use violence, that kid would still be alive. If there was not a culture of impunity for acts of violence for the police, the boy would still be alive, sadly due to the nature of the state, the still will always think it is in the interests of the state to have this culture of impunity not challanged.

The problem is the cowboy mentality in the police, where they have to kill the opponent first even with poorly armed suspects. Even though technology now exists for non-lethal take downs of such poorly armed suspects.

I don't see why Marxists would be against the police modernizing so it could take most of the people it encounters alive be they armed or not. Don't we want the proletariat to survive being attacked by the police?

The infrared laser sight ?

You do know that it makes a laser you can not see with the naked eye but will need a night vision device in order to see it ?
This specific laser you mentioned is created for stealthy night time combat.

Actually you use any optics that let you see inferred and there are inferred optics that work in day light.

Don't you mean a reflex sight ?

http://rustybayonet.com/library/RedDotReflexTacticalSight.jpg

They help but infrared actually illuminates the target, meaning the shooter doesn't have to look down the gun optics they just have to wait till they see the infrared beam cross where they want to shoot at.

sulla

11th January 2012, 22:54

The problem is the cowboy mentality in the police, where they have to kill the opponent first even with poorly armed suspects. Even though technology now exists for non-lethal take downs of such poorly armed suspects.

I don't see why Marxists would be against the police modernizing so it could take most of the people it encounters alive be they armed or not. Don't we want the proletariat to survive being attacked by the police?

Actually you use any optics that let you see inferred and there are inferred optics that work in day light.

They help but infrared actually illuminates the target, meaning the shooter doesn't have to look down the gun optics they just have to wait till they see the infrared beam cross where they want to shoot at.

I am not a Marxist. So I am not interested in reforming the police. The state either communist or capitalist will want a repressive police force. It is the nature of the beast.

freakazoid

12th January 2012, 03:51

I think you mean just a laser light. Not infrared.

Leftsolidarity

12th January 2012, 03:55

Don't we want the proletariat to survive being attacked by the police?

We don't want them attacked by police.

Psy

12th January 2012, 11:19

I think you mean just a laser light. Not infrared.
The problem with laser light is that it is visible to the naked eye thus the target sees where you are aiming too, though it will do if resources are tight.

We don't want them attacked by police.
That is true but in this case the role of the police was to protect the general public from a threat. The problem is the threat turned out to be minor, even if the pellet gun was a real pistol modern military gear renders them mostly harmless against modern personal armor.

#FF0000

12th January 2012, 11:33

The police fired hundreds of times at their chest and it was as effective as firing at a tank with small arms

Shhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuut the fuck up.

Psy

12th January 2012, 22:18

Shhhhhhhuuuuuuuuuuuut the fuck up.
That is not a rational argument, as you are not actually explaining why I should shut up. Thus I can only guess it is because you don't like what I'm saying but can't bring forth any rational counter-argument.

#FF0000

12th January 2012, 23:28

Because body armor just isn't that effective. Even if a piece of armor does stop a pistol round, it doesn't mean it will stop all of them. Taking one bullet already fucks up the integrity of the vest.

Ele'ill

12th January 2012, 23:37

You can die from getting shot in the legs. Body armor 'after taking hundreds of rounds holds up' and with one round can leave the wearer with broken ribs/bones/knocked down. This isn't even the point. The point is police are only necessary because there is a ruling class. Trying to 'reinforce' enemy thugs makes my skin crawl. Might as well back them up legally too, oh wait that's the only armor they need and it saves on cost.

Psy

12th January 2012, 23:58

You can die from getting shot in the legs. Body armor 'after taking hundreds of rounds holds up' and with one round can leave the wearer with broken ribs/bones/knocked down.

True which is why there are ballistic shields where the arm holding the shield acts a shock absorber to the kinetic energy from the round being deflected off the shield. Also full length ballistic shields covers the legs when the holder crouches.

This isn't even the point. The point is police are only necessary because there is a ruling class. Trying to 'reinforce' enemy thugs makes my skin crawl. Might as well back them up legally too, oh wait that's the only armor they need and it saves on cost.
While true in this case the police were not there to defend the interest of the ruling class but more in providing a public service of providing a security service to the community. In this case the police failed at this task as the police lacks means to deal with armed suspects in a non-lethal manner.

Leftsolidarity

13th January 2012, 00:13

That is not a rational argument, as you are not actually explaining why I should shut up. Thus I can only guess it is because you don't like what I'm saying but can't bring forth any rational counter-argument.

Because you're ignoring every rational argument so we shall speak you're language.

SHUT THE FUCK UP!

kurr

13th January 2012, 00:16

Leftist ACAB retardation really makes me giggle. The kid pulled out a realistic looking pellet gun and pointed it at armed officers. What in the hell did you think was going to happen? Not to mention, before the shooting, this kid socked another (random) kid in the face for no reason at all.
For all of the morons on the first page crying racism, the police chief is Latino. I also won't be surprised if the officers on duty were also Latino. So racism is not at play here... nice try though.
Kid lost all his damn sense and had it coming for him. I feel sorry for his parents though.. shit.
As for Psy, successful troll is successful. Ha!

#FF0000

13th January 2012, 00:23

For all of the morons on the first page crying racism

ahahah oh oh no this is just too much pffffffffffffffffffhaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha

kurr

13th January 2012, 00:25

ahahah oh oh no this is just too much pffffffffffffffffffhaaaaaaaaaahahahahaha

I'm calling out dumb whiteboys. Whats the problem? There is legit white supremacy on this forum but in this case, motherfuckers suddenly have a reading disability and they assume that it's white cops.

Psy

13th January 2012, 00:40

Leftist ACAB retardation really makes me giggle. The kid pulled out a realistic looking pellet gun and pointed it at armed officers. What in the hell did you think was going to happen?

The police to acknowledge it is only a pistol and hide behind ballistic shields while attempting a non-lethal take down.

Not to mention, before the shooting, this kid socked another (random) kid in the face for no reason at all.

Maybe is society was willing to help troubled kids rather then shoot them then stuff like won't happen as often.

Because you're ignoring every rational argument so we shall speak you're language.

SHUT THE FUCK UP!

I have acknowledged them but they don't address the issue we are talking about a lone armed suspect with a small caliber pistol in a advanced industrialized nation.

Also to me they are irrational as it basically saying riot police shouldn't use teargas us but shoot us since riots endanger police far more then a lone suspect with a small caliber pistol.

#FF0000

13th January 2012, 01:58

The police to acknowledge it is only a pistol and hide behind ballistic shields while attempting a non-lethal take down.

Oh.

Wait.

Yeah actually your whole thing was a lot more reasonable than I thought it was.

My bad, Psy.

freakazoid

13th January 2012, 05:56

Another thing that should be noted, most cops can go their entire career without ever having to use there sidearm. There is no need for them to become some sharpshooter. That isn't there job. Nor is keeping bullet resistant shields. They are not SWAT. They're cops. And there is no moral duty to keep this punk alive, he threatened peoples lives. Plus it sounds like he was going for a suicide by cop.

Psy

13th January 2012, 11:21

Another thing that should be noted, most cops can go their entire career without ever having to use there sidearm. There is no need for them to become some sharpshooter. That isn't there job.

If they are going to be armed they should be someone what proficient in shooting. World War II support troops were required to having training on the M1 carbine even if they were never suppose to see action, US Army studies back in WWII found it took more effort to train with pistols then with a carbine rifle, also people tended to be more confident with a carbine rife then just a pistol.

Nor is keeping bullet resistant shields. They are not SWAT. They're cops.

Increases in the production process means bullet resistant shields becomes easier to produce as time goes on, thus less costly to equip cops with.

And there is no moral duty to keep this punk alive, he threatened peoples lives. Plus it sounds like he was going for a suicide by cop.
They do have a moral duty to keep him alive, he could be mental ill and be not that bad after treatment.

Leftsolidarity

13th January 2012, 14:31

If they are going to be armed they should be someone what proficient in shooting. World War II support troops were required to having training on the M1 carbine even if they were never suppose to see action, US Army studies back in WWII found it took more effort to train with pistols then with a carbine rifle, also people tended to be more confident with a carbine rife then just a pistol.

Militarized police = bad

You want to equip our enemies with assualt rifles and your reasoning is so that they can shoot out our legs. Sorry, I'm not down with that. That's fucking stupid.

Increases in the production process means bullet resistant shields becomes easier to produce as time goes on, thus less costly to equip cops with.

That doesn't even really have to deal with this. There is no need for normal cops to walk around with riot shields.

Ele'ill

13th January 2012, 17:17

piet11111

13th January 2012, 18:43

khad

13th January 2012, 19:13

piet11111

13th January 2012, 21:15

^I can't believe you folks are actually trying to debate this gear nerd.

I am just really really bored & drunk.

Psy

13th January 2012, 21:45

Since we're playing in that grey area between reform and revolution I'll play devil's advocate and say rather than spending millions on new toys for the police to kill us with- instead spend millions on revamping schools, the education system, social services, etc.. The entire point here is that the police are unnecessary.

Militarized police = bad

You want to equip our enemies with assualt rifles and your reasoning is so that they can shoot out our legs. Sorry, I'm not down with that. That's fucking stupid.

That doesn't even really have to deal with this. There is no need for normal cops to walk around with riot shields.
And what about when workers militia take over police duties in a workers state? What happens when the workers state pushes for everyone to have a rifle to defend itself from being invaded by bourgeois armies, would we still expect the militia to shot someone just for being armed when the worker state is trying to arm everyone?

Think about this situation, a kid waving around a gun in school in a worker state where the state encourages gun ownership rather then try to monopolize the ownership of weapons.

piet11111

13th January 2012, 22:15

Think about this situation, a kid waving around a gun in school in a worker state where the state encourages gun ownership rather then try to monopolize the ownership of weapons.

How about making schools a non weapon environment ?

Also not carrying loaded weapons and also a rule banning the aiming of weapons at people.

This way when you aim a weapon at militia forces they are in their right to shoot you out of self protection.

Any reasonable person would think this would be the best way to deal with such situations.

Psy

13th January 2012, 22:57

How about making schools a non weapon environment ?

How will kids learn firearm safety if schools don't have their own armories, so kids can learn gun safety so kids understand the guns in their home? Or what about when parents take their kids hunting? Thought I do think schools should impose strict firearm discipline.

Also not carrying loaded weapons

That is kind of hard for hunters, and those practicing at firing ranges.

and also a rule banning the aiming of weapons at people.

This way when you aim a weapon at militia forces they are in their right to shoot you out of self protection.

The militia should avoid lethal take down when ever they can. They should also not be spooked by a weapon being aimed at them, as this causes friendly fire, when two friendly forces out of reflexes raise their weapon against each other and they don't give each other the chance to stand down.

Also you'd get more defectors if they know we won't instantly shoot them. Such stories of the militia gunning down a kid would cause would be defectors to think twice about defecting.

Any reasonable person would think this would be the best way to deal with such situations.
I think it is best to avoid such lethal take down.

Leftsolidarity

13th January 2012, 23:15

I am so very done with this thread.

http://imagemacros.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/successful-troll-is-successful.jpg?w=720

piet11111

13th January 2012, 23:19

How will kids learn firearm safety if schools don't have their own armories, so kids can learn gun safety so kids understand the guns in their home? Or what about when parents take their kids hunting? Thought I do think schools should impose strict firearm discipline.

How about at a gun range ?
In highschool we had a gym field that was about a mile away and required a bike to get to.
As such i would consider it quite normal if a gun-range would be separated from the school grounds

That is kind of hard for hunters, and those practicing at firing ranges.I was talking about school grounds and even for hunters carrying a loaded weapon outside of the hunting ground is a really terrible idea.
A hunter should have a lockbox where he keeps his munitions and should only put the bullets in the weapon once he reaches his hunting area.

The militia should avoid lethal take down when ever they canObviously this would be preferable but it should be up to the militia to decide what they do as we can assume they have knowledge of the person that is aiming a weapon at them.
I know some people if they where to aim a weapon at me that they would use it to shoot me and others that wouldn't.
As such i would use my own discretion to decide who i would shoot in the head should such a thing occur to me.

They should also not be spooked by a weapon being aimed at themGood luck training such a thing.

I think it is best to avoid such lethal take down.Its obviously better but not always possible in such a situation i would much prefer a militia member to take down the gunman instead of risking to get killed and that the gunman will go on to cause further casualty's.
Take the case of Anders Breivik he would not have hesitated to kill a policeman and after that he would have carried on his massacre.
Its clear to see how a policeman killing Anders would have been preferable to a non successful attempt to take Anders down.

The greater good would have been better served had Anders been shot in the head.

Psy

14th January 2012, 01:13

How about at a gun range ?
In highschool we had a gym field that was about a mile away and required a bike to get to.
As such i would consider it quite normal if a gun-range would be separated from the school grounds

I meant for firearm safety class. If workers state is going to arm the masses it means kids are going to encounter firearms thus teaching kids how to be safe around guns is a more workable solutions epically if the workers state is trying to teach kids tool safety in schools so when they become workers workplace safety has been drilled into them.

I was talking about school grounds and even for hunters carrying a loaded weapon outside of the hunting ground is a really terrible idea.
A hunter should have a lockbox where he keeps his munitions and should only put the bullets in the weapon once he reaches his hunting area.

That is a bit excessive for firearms with a stiff trigger and the safety on. If the masses are armed why do you need a lockbox? Who are locking out if the workers state is giving out firearms and ammo for free?

Obviously this would be preferable but it should be up to the militia to decide what they do as we can assume they have knowledge of the person that is aiming a weapon at them.
I know some people if they where to aim a weapon at me that they would use it to shoot me and others that wouldn't.
As such i would use my own discretion to decide who i would shoot in the head should such a thing occur to me.

Good luck training such a thing.

Armies around the world train firearm discipline to reduce friendly fire as there are many times where there is significant delay between when a solider spots a contact and recognizes it as friendly, in the meanwhile the solider would be aiming their weapon at the contact.

Its obviously better but not always possible in such a situation i would much prefer a militia member to take down the gunman instead of risking to get killed and that the gunman will go on to cause further casualty's.

Yet if militia are so insecure they start spraying pistol ammo at the slightest sign of a threat then you have many more friendly fire casualties, especially as the worker state arms the masses and in such situation they would be going into a situation where there are lots of gun at the ready most friendly yet not in uniform.

Take the case of Anders Breivik he would not have hesitated to kill a policeman and after that he would have carried on his massacre.
Its clear to see how a policeman killing Anders would have been preferable to a non successful attempt to take Anders down.

The greater good would have been better served had Anders been shot in the head.
True but if the masses were armed his killing spree would have short lived regardless.

freakazoid

14th January 2012, 01:25

How about making schools a non weapon environment ?

Also not carrying loaded weapons and also a rule banning the aiming of weapons at people.

This way when you aim a weapon at militia forces they are in their right to shoot you out of self protection.

Any reasonable person would think this would be the best way to deal with such situations.

Schools already are a non weapons environment. To the extreme to where kids get introuble for bringing a toy soldier carrying a plastic gun, think little green plastic soldier. And I will continue to carry my firearm loaded thank you very much. We need less firearm laws, not more.

piet11111

14th January 2012, 13:46

I meant for firearm safety class. If workers state is going to arm the masses it means kids are going to encounter firearms thus teaching kids how to be safe around guns is a more workable solutions epically if the workers state is trying to teach kids tool safety in schools so when they become workers workplace safety has been drilled into them.

Its still preferable if the gunrange would be outside of the school grounds and that weapons would be turned in at an armory so that the kids wont be walking around the hallways with rifles.

That is a bit excessive for firearms with a stiff trigger and the safety on. If the masses are armed why do you need a lockbox? Who are locking out if the workers state is giving out firearms and ammo for free?

A lockbox in the back of the car where the munitions are kept.
Having bullets in your rifle in a place where you do not intend to shoot the rifle is nonsense.

Armies around the world train firearm discipline to reduce friendly fire as there are many times where there is significant delay between when a solider spots a contact and recognizes it as friendly, in the meanwhile the solider would be aiming their weapon at the contact.

And still they manage to shoot up their allies as Afghanistan has shown us.

True but if the masses were armed his killing spree would have short lived regardless.

True but we are talking about the here and now and even i have gone off-topic by talking about a workers state and how it handles weapons.

Psy

14th January 2012, 15:09

Its still preferable if the gunrange would be outside of the school grounds and that weapons would be turned in at an armory so that the kids wont be walking around the hallways with rifles.

If firearms are outside school grounds how is the school suppose to teach firearm safety for older students? How are the masses suppose to be armed if they are in a armory?

A lockbox in the back of the car where the munitions are kept.
Having bullets in your rifle in a place where you do not intend to shoot the rifle is nonsense.

That is what safeties are for.

And still they manage to shoot up their allies as Afghanistan has shown us.

Due to a lack of discipline that have been stated by even critics inside the US military.

True but we are talking about the here and now and even i have gone off-topic by talking about a workers state and how it handles weapons.
The here and now, you have police officers that with inaccurate pistols, little protection and poor tactics going into dangerous situations that causes police to frequently panic like the Sean Bell shooting that result in them killing innocent people out of fear.