Gun laws (or the lack thereof) in the states are insane.
Cop in America doing a bad job, again
- Thread starter Sigma
- Start date
Have to agree. The way he's carrying it over to the other car is stupid. Just grab it by the receiver and walk over normally. For all they know that's a loaded and charged firearm strapped to his arm. This feels like someone looking to get famous.
What a fecking knob.
It’s basically cosplay using that carry style.
Yeah but enough of @VeevaVee, what about the guy in the video?
Just as I’m coming round to you
I'd disagree because cosplay isn't real. This is actually quite threatening. He can start firing that weapon any time he wants.
It's quite rich that he's complaining about the one officer doing exactly the same thing he is.
I hear what you are saying. There is just a large amount of surreality to the whole video.
I understand his enthusiasm getting it all strapped to his arm and such but it feels either incredibly stupid or intentional. I'm leaning towards intentional.
Also, is this at a police station? Why are there, like, forty cops around?
What a dickhead
If I was to purchase a firearm it would definitely be that one, it's magnificently cool. Do you own anything like that?
And, regarding this particular firearm, how is it classified as a ‘pistol?’ No stock?
I mean, it's a dickheaded move but I get the point.
If he was white they wouldn't be bothered, I think we know that much, irregardless of having already asked them if it was okay to transport the weapon from one vehicle to another. I suspect even with it strapped to his arm like the bellend in the video that they may be cautious about it but you certainly wouldn't get the guy unholstering his weapon on a white guy.
It's obviously done on purpose to make them nervous, the whole video states that. I just wonder if he was white would they be 'nervous' in the same way they were with the black dude. He's plainly asked them if it's okay, they've said yes and then he's done what he said he was going to and they're nearly drawing on him.
No idea why there are so many cops there though.
If he was white they wouldn't be bothered, I think we know that much, irregardless of having already asked them if it was okay to transport the weapon from one vehicle to another. I suspect even with it strapped to his arm like the bellend in the video that they may be cautious about it but you certainly wouldn't get the guy unholstering his weapon on a white guy.
It's obviously done on purpose to make them nervous, the whole video states that. I just wonder if he was white would they be 'nervous' in the same way they were with the black dude. He's plainly asked them if it's okay, they've said yes and then he's done what he said he was going to and they're nearly drawing on him.
No idea why there are so many cops there though.
Barrel length is usually the largest factor. This one is really short, maybe 4". Projectiles fired from a shorter barrel will be a lot slower than the same ones fired from a long barrel.
The absence of a stock, at least from the manufacturer, is another consideration. This one appears to have an aftermarket AR-15 style stock and I'm wondering if that takes him into SBR territory...maybe some of our resident Americans can clarify that? (The US heavily regulates short barrelled rifles and you need a fair bit of paperwork and fees to legally have one). The pistol's overall length here may be the saving grace.
Not American, not a gun owner, but I know way too much about guns and American gun laws for some reason. AR pistols and similar (like this dude's AK pistol) need to have a barrel shorter than 16" and an overall length of less than 26" and be intended to be fired one-handed to qualify as a pistol. The stock you see on that AK isn't technically a stock, but an arm brace. You do what he does; Strap it to your arm to make it easier to fire the rifle-pistol with one hand. At least that was the original intention behind them. I wouldn't be surprised if most are used to make technically legal short barreled rifles (arm braces are only legal if on a rifle-pistol if used as an arm brace. The moment you shoulder it, the ATF considers it a short barreled rifle, and you're in for a world of shit if it gets back to authorities that you're using it that way.)
police should be able to shoot a person, only when his life is at risk, meaning, only when the suspect is holding a gun and trying to shoot the police.
In that case, aiming at his legs is idiotic, because, even if the delinquent gets shot, he is still a menace to the police officer
Now, if the delinquent is escaping, and he is not armed or posing any threat, the police shouldn't shoot him at all, not even the legs, he should pursue him and/or ask for back up.
In my understanding, aiming at the legs is never a good idea
I agree somewhat, but not entirely. What if the perpetrator is running at you, or another innocent person, with a knife or a blunt weapon? Shooting him in the leg will (most likely) stop him from running at you, at least, and will probably/possibly/hopefully do less damage than shooting him in the torso. What if the perpetrator is aiming a gun at somebody who's not a police officer? The police should be able to shoot a person who's actively trying to do serious damage (as in potentially life threatening) to a person, be it police or civilian.
And I of course didn't mean the police should shoot people in the legs when they flee. That was a bit tongue in cheek to underline the point about shooting people in the back at all. I agree that pursuing and calling for backup is the way to go, and that a gun should always be the last resort.
But I don't even see how it's controversial to say that shooting someone in the leg to temporarily disable a person is better than shooting to kill, especially when/if the outcome is the same (preventing death/serious harm to yourself/another victim). Aiming at the legs is absolutely a good idea sometimes, proved by the statistics in one of my previous posts. If the police aimed for the torso of the perpetrator in those cases, chances are there would be a lot more than 3 out of 49 deaths. And I don't think any of those cases ended up with more casualties or injury to other people than the perpetrator, than if they'ed shot him in the torso and/or killed him. The shots stopped the perpetrator from performing whatever life threatening crime he was committing, and in 94% of the cases the perpetrator survived and had to face a court of law.
Last edited:
The whole “aim at the legs” bit is a bit farcical to anyone that’s ever done any amount of shooting.
It’s not the movies. If someone is in close proximity and is running at you or a bystander with a knife, you’re going to shoot center mass so you actually hit them.
I've done quite a bit of shooting. And I agree that it's not easy to aim with a handgun (I don't know if that includes rifles or not, but I mean pistols), especially at moving targets at a distance. But if a target is running towards you? It's not as difficult, at least not "farcically difficult". Usually they're running quite directly at you, so all you have to do is basically lower your aim a bit. I've done specific training in exactly this, and it's most certainly doable. Not at 50 meters, obviously, but again, not my point.
Also, I 100% agree that you shoot to kill if that's the only way to save someone, be it yourself or someone else. That's not my point. My point, again, is that not every shot has to be fired with the intention of killing someone, and that some body parts can be considered "less dangerous" to aim for. And that's certainly doable in many different cases. IF you have the choice, and it's a valid choice, between shooting someone in the leg and shooting someone in the torso, and both stop the perpetrator from committing the crime, you should definitely aim for the leg. If that's impossible, and there's immediate risk to yourself or another person, of course, shoot to kill.
My point is, still, that not every shot has to be "shoot to kill". Again, as is proved by the data provided in a previous post, you can shoot someone, stop the crime, and keep the perpetrator alive to face a court of law for whatever punishment is right. It is definitely possible, doable, although more difficult, to aim for a persons legs and stop him from committing whatever crime he was committing.
in that case, you are right about shooting in the leg will be better, the thing is that is really hard to hit someone in the legs when he is running. In that case it would be better to use a tasser gun. But, else, the police should shoot at the torso. There's a bigger chance to not miss the shot and unless it's a direct hit to the heart, the chances of the perpetrator to survive are big if the ambulance arrives soon enough.
i should learn to read between the lines, of course you didn't mean that, my faulti dont say is controversial, in a perfect world that would be the perfect solution, but i assure you that when a cop shoots, he is in a very stressing state of mind, he shoots to the person and he is scared as shit
i've talk to cops after those events and they are a wreck.
aiming to the legs is only possible when the perpetrator is just wielding the weapon but is not aiming an anyone in particular, some cops call it "suicide by police"
in those cases, is not imposible to shoot at the legs
Then if they are running right for you and you’re shooting the “easier to hit” parts of the lower body, you’re aiming pelvic girdle and thighs. So a solid chance that you’re gonna take out the perp’s femoral and/or iliac blood vessels. Even leg shots are lethal.
My stance - 99% of the situations you could say are a “shoot to not kill” situation are actually “don’t use your gun” situations.
You should. It is absolutely your fault, and I’m always right, even when I’m wrong.
Nah, I get the irony wasn’t as clear as intended. I even got quoted in the hypernormalization thread ffs
Alright, we agree on 99% then. Which is decent, I’d say.
Last edited:
Yep. Hitting narrow targets isn't always easy, especially in a pressure situation where the target is moving.
What a fecking snowflake.
Could the boyfriend file the same civil lawsuit against the police officer specifically?
Wouldn't surprise me if he wins because Kentucky.
Speaking of Kentucky...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nichol...r-to-encourage-regular-employment-of-violence
Report: Kentucky Police Presentation Quoted Hitler To Encourage ‘Regular Employment Of Violence’
A presentation given to Kentucky State Police cadets contained quotes from Adolf Hitler encouraging the cadets to use violence, according to a Louisville high school newspaper, the Manual RedEye, while calling for the future police officers to have a “mindset void of emotion” in order to “meet violence with greater violence.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nichol...r-to-encourage-regular-employment-of-violence
Report: Kentucky Police Presentation Quoted Hitler To Encourage ‘Regular Employment Of Violence’
A presentation given to Kentucky State Police cadets contained quotes from Adolf Hitler encouraging the cadets to use violence, according to a Louisville high school newspaper, the Manual RedEye, while calling for the future police officers to have a “mindset void of emotion” in order to “meet violence with greater violence.”
Up there with Idaho as an utter waste of a state.
UK cops historical drama
Mangrove: 9/10
BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p08vy19b/small-axe-series-1-mangrove
One can argue if its a 'movie' or an extended TV drama, but regardless, a brilliant piece of cinematography capturing the Police violence against black people in 1970s West London. Brilliant scripting, casting, acting and character development allied with authentic location sets, costume and popular culture from the time. Makes the film truly engaging and the 2 hours fly by.
It jolted me back to youth, where I remember just how racist British society was, where unsophisticated white folk tried to cleanse foreigners of their sophisticated culture and where it was culturally acceptable to use language and behaviours against ethic minorities that is banned today. It reminds me that we have made progress towards equality, even if it is always frustratingly two steps forwards and one step backwards.
But I think what makes this movie so brilliant is that it makes it very easy for Millennials and GenZ to understand how their parents and grandparents behaved and struggled with the concept of cultural integration. Its especially pertinent given the recent BLM movement and is also representative for the issues all immigrants have faced when trying to make a home for themselves in UK
Mangrove: 9/10
BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p08vy19b/small-axe-series-1-mangrove
One can argue if its a 'movie' or an extended TV drama, but regardless, a brilliant piece of cinematography capturing the Police violence against black people in 1970s West London. Brilliant scripting, casting, acting and character development allied with authentic location sets, costume and popular culture from the time. Makes the film truly engaging and the 2 hours fly by.
It jolted me back to youth, where I remember just how racist British society was, where unsophisticated white folk tried to cleanse foreigners of their sophisticated culture and where it was culturally acceptable to use language and behaviours against ethic minorities that is banned today. It reminds me that we have made progress towards equality, even if it is always frustratingly two steps forwards and one step backwards.
But I think what makes this movie so brilliant is that it makes it very easy for Millennials and GenZ to understand how their parents and grandparents behaved and struggled with the concept of cultural integration. Its especially pertinent given the recent BLM movement and is also representative for the issues all immigrants have faced when trying to make a home for themselves in UK
"I got a little [pepper spray] left, I want to hit this kid"
This one is great, the "bad apple" is bragging about hitting civilians with a car and the "good cop" realizes his bodycam is on and walks away midsentence to protect the sociopathic piece of shit.
Is that his bullshit detector going off at 0:50 in the second video?
Bad apple starts stuttering like a mofo. No snitching just like a old fashioned street gang.
cnuts
Hopefully it’s a start...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/colorado-tries-new-way-punish-rogue-cops-n1250530
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/colorado-tries-new-way-punish-rogue-cops-n1250530
"A black man looked sketchy'...racist motherfecker.