Liberal's Arguement for BLM

[Saintsfan6]

So I was having some drinks with classmates (white females in their mid/late 20s) and the topic of recent events arose. They were upset that blacks get "targeted" by police officers. They were upset that the two BRPD officers "held a guy down and shot him on the ground" I replied "I didn't realize you can't operate a firearm from your back." They claimed his arms were pinned behind his back when the officers pulled the trigger. I told them that is not what I saw in the video, I saw two officers struggling to get a man subdued and his right hand and right pocket were not secured by either officer. They also were upset because "they didn't have to shoot him six times point blank!" I replied "so how many times is it acceptable to shoot someone who poses a deadly threat?" They replied "once".

These individuals aren't by any stretch unintelligent, but clearly lack understanding of firearms and the justifiable use of deadly force. I attempted to explain that a single gunshot does not always equal a neutralized target, nor does an officer have the time or opportunity to calculate the effectiveness of each discharged round. Instead I explained that once an officer reaches the point where he pulls the trigger, he has decided to us deadly force and that the situation should have never reached that point. The reason it got to that point was not the fault of the officers but is instead the fault of the perp.

I would like input from others about the arguments/points of view of people they have conversated about these topics.

I would also like LEO to comment on the training and protocol for using deadly force so I have a better understanding of what's involved in the split second decision making you have to do.

 

[maniac cop 5]

If you see the weapon pointed at you it's a no brainer.
The tough part is when you SUSPECT a weapon and the suspect starts to move. It's then merely a matter of how close you want to play it before you fire or unholster and fire, depending on the scenario.
Factors in play are your skill level, suspect's skill level, lighting, suspect's emotional state, etc, etc.
We are taught to de-escalate in conversation but to escalate when it becomes hands on.
All of your conversational points were valid in my mind and well thought out.

 

[AustinBR]

So I was having some drinks with classmates (white females in their mid/late 20s) and the topic of recent events arose. They were upset that blacks get "targeted" by police officers. They were upset that the two BRPD officers "held a guy down and shot him on the ground" I replied "I didn't realize you can't operate a firearm from your back." They claimed his arms were pinned behind his back when the officers pulled the trigger. I told them that is not what I saw in the video, I saw two officers struggling to get a man subdued and his right hand and right pocket were not secured by either officer. They also were upset because "they didn't have to shoot him six times point blank!" I replied "so how many times is it acceptable to shoot someone who poses a deadly threat?" They replied "once".

These individuals aren't by any stretch unintelligent, but clearly lack understanding of firearms and the justifiable use of deadly force. I attempted to explain that a single gunshot does not always equal a neutralized target, nor does an officer have the time or opportunity to calculate the effectiveness of each discharged round. Instead I explained that once an officer reaches the point where he pulls the trigger, he has decided to us deadly force and that the situation should have never reached that point. The reason it got to that point was not the fault of the officers but is instead the fault of the perp.

I would like input from others about the arguments/points of view of people they have conversated about these topics.

I would also like LEO to comment on the training and protocol for using deadly force so I have a better understanding of what's involved in the split second decision making you have to do.

Arguing with these people is like arguing with a pig. You get nowhere, and you annoy the pig.

I tried to talk to someone who was convinced two officers held Alton down and shot him in the head because he was selling CDs. When I tried to explain otherwise, said individual blew up calling me a racist.

 

[DAVE_M]

I'm gonna get blasted by some members, but if any of you care to know my tactics when approached with questions like that, I shrug my shoulders and say I don't know. Of course, I do know the answer, but as Austin mentioned, you can't argue with them. They have a one track mind and don't want to veer off course, even if it makes sense to do so.

 

[AustinBR]

I'm gonna get blasted by some members, but if any of you care to know my tactics when approached with questions like that, I shrug my shoulders and say I don't know. Of course, I do know the answer, but as Austin mentioned, you can't argue with them. They have a one track mind and don't want to veer off course, even if it makes sense to do so.

I just usually nod my head and say "mhmm" and walk away. No sense in arguing.

 

[Gator 45/70]

So I was having some drinks with classmates (white females in their mid/late 20s) and the topic of recent events arose. They were upset that blacks get "targeted" by police officers. They were upset that the two BRPD officers "held a guy down and shot him on the ground" I replied "I didn't realize you can't operate a firearm from your back." They claimed his arms were pinned behind his back when the officers pulled the trigger. I told them that is not what I saw in the video, I saw two officers struggling to get a man subdued and his right hand and right pocket were not secured by either officer. They also were upset because "they didn't have to shoot him six times point blank!" I replied "so how many times is it acceptable to shoot someone who poses a deadly threat?" They replied "once".

These individuals aren't by any stretch unintelligent, but clearly lack understanding of firearms and the justifiable use of deadly force. I attempted to explain that a single gunshot does not always equal a neutralized target, nor does an officer have the time or opportunity to calculate the effectiveness of each discharged round. Instead I explained that once an officer reaches the point where he pulls the trigger, he has decided to us deadly force and that the situation should have never reached that point. The reason it got to that point was not the fault of the officers but is instead the fault of the perp.

I would like input from others about the arguments/points of view of people they have conversated about these topics.

I would also like LEO to comment on the training and protocol for using deadly force so I have a better understanding of what's involved in the split second decision making you have to do.

Think there is more to the story than this.

Pretty sure you keep them around for a chance of..............Fill in the blank.

 

[maniac cop 5]

Arguing with these people is like arguing with a pig. You get nowhere, and you annoy the pig.

I tried to talk to someone who was convinced two officers held Alton down and shot him in the head because he was selling CDs. When I tried to explain otherwise, said individual blew up calling me a racist.

Seems like that always happens whenever you ruin the conversation with those bothersome facts.

 

[rcm192]

Seems like that always happens whenever you ruin the conversation with those bothersome facts.

Facts will always ruin a liberals day. They are so open minded that their brain has practically fallen out of their skulls.

 

[Saintsfan6]

Think there is more to the story than this.

Pretty sure you keep them around for a chance of..............Fill in the blank.

Lol good guess! Nope I'm married, our class size is only about 80 people and I've been with them for over 3 years. I wouldn't consider them my closest friends from school but I do still consider them friends.

 

[Saintsfan6]

I just usually nod my head and say "mhmm" and walk away. No sense in arguing.

Wasn't really an arguement, more of a debate. We walked away from it still friends and respecting each other's points of view. Their points of view are just based on less factual information than mine t

Oh and I also forgot to mention that I told them "more whites are shot by cops than blacks" and they said "that's not true". Unfortunately for them I was correct... Again

 

[2011Corvette]

in dealing with liberals and the ones who are protesting ..... their outlook is always the same ----- 'It's always somebody else's fault'

 

[John_]

Arguing with these people is like arguing with a pig. You get nowhere, and you annoy the pig.

I tried to talk to someone who was convinced two officers held Alton down and shot him in the head because he was selling CDs. When I tried to explain otherwise, said individual blew up calling me a racist.

Absolutely agree. You get nowhere. These are the Hillary voters. I have two nieces who are well educated (both have PHDs), young, very successful, and I love em. But they are both obama supporters. I doubt seriously they will vote for Trump. Like 1 outa 10 chances.

To the OP, when you discharge your handgun to defeat a deadly threat, you shoot until that threat is clearly and overwhelmingly defeated. Single handgun projectiles do not neutralize or kill immediately like a high velocity rifle round to the head or chest, so you give em plenty hits, or at least all you can afford at that moment.

 

[Pas Tout La]

Usually the people I encounter that feel the need to let the world know their point of view on EVERY topic cannot form a sentence without the words, "umm", "like", "totally", "really", "seriously", "super", and of course "you know what I'm sayin". I just tell them to get back with me when they can form a coherent sentence.

 

[ajridgedell]

I replied "so how many times is it acceptable to shoot someone who poses a deadly threat?" They replied "once".

I have heard people question why shoot so many times, even if they don't necessarily disagree with why he was shot.
I would further that question with asking what personal experience or knowledge they have to help them form that opinion that someone only needs to be shot once. Explain that once the situation escalates to the point of using deadly force the whole idea is completely stop the threat from harming anyone. If you hunt then you can use your first hand knowledge and experience to illustrate how after an animal is shot it is still alive and moving for a while. Even when an animal is shot right through the brain its body often still moves for a little while. And these perps are clearly just animals (j.k. I wouldn't tell them that unless they have a good sense of humor)

That would be my response to someone that may care to listen or that I believe would have an open mind.

 

[Jasarii]

Simply put, too many ppl out there have seen too many movies/TV where someone is shot one time and 2secs later they are motionless and dead. They actually believe that this is how it is in real life.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Whitebread]

Facts will always ruin a liberals day. They are so open minded that their brain has practically fallen out of their skulls.

Its funny, but the truth is they are only open minded of on things that go counter culture or are superficial. Kind of like the social "non-conformist" in the 90's and 2000's who all dressed alike and listened to the same kind of music, and all had the same sad-sack mopey little faces.

 

[Emperor]

A lot of this ignorance could be tampered down if the media would actually provide statistics when they report. Not just sound bites. The most glaring example of journalistic dishonesty was in the reporting of the Ferguson shooting. Even today, there are news outlets that omit the fact the dead criminal was actually trying to wrestle the gun away from the cop when he was initially shot. Or using the phrase, "unarmed man!" As if to suggest to dummies, there would/could be no reason a cop would ever have to shoot the suspect.

The United States of America is cranking out these dummies in record numbers. Educated people are having less children today than at any other time in history; because they are educated! Conversely, dummies are procreating at record rates; because they are dummies! This widespread ignorance is unsustainable! There is no actual effort to change this culture of delusional mindsets.

 

[Emperor]

These are the Hillary voters. I have two nieces who are well educated (both have PHDs), young, very successful, and I love em. But they are both obama supporters.

This is what interests me. Now granted, the phony liberal politicians are lying sacks of ****, and there is plenty of well documented evidence to show that phony liberalism is a charade. But if these two ladies are intelligent enough to have reached a PHD, then their thought processes and logic and reasoning should afford them the wherewithal to learn the truth about the differences between phony liberalism (a political system of ploys and empty campaign platitudes), and true liberalism (where every American gets a guarantee to be treated equally and fairly by the system).

So, are they naïve, willfully ignorant, or just covering up being stupid?

 

[John_]

Oh they are far from stupid. The oldest of the two had a full scholarship to Harvard with a $25,000 annual stipend paid in addition. She has her own cancer research lab today.

Its a different mindset is all I can determine. And they are far from alone. When Obama was elected the first time, AAs comprised 13% of the US population. There are many white dem supporters, way more white dem supporters than black if you look at it by race. To me, the choice between Obama and McCain was a no brainer......not to 55% of voting Americans. Ditto 2012. And I'd be willing to bet, Clinton will be our next POTUS, much to my disdain.

The majority of our American society supports LGBT, transsexuals choosing which public restroom they want to use, socialism, Obamacare, recreational use of marijuana, pro abortion, more government intervention and public aid programs, and watered down religion (self serving, self interpreted) if any religion or belief in God.

Many liberals want to make all illegal drugs legal, declare the was on drugs as an American failure.

Soften our laws and prosecution because a portion of our population has a very hard time obeying the laws. And they also cite our rising incarceration rates as reason to soften or do away with some prosecution/laws. Never mind people changing/actually OBEYING or complying with the laws......

 

[CatCam]

Pics of the white females in their mid/late 20s before I make my arguments/points of view............