So where's the NRA? Armed in her own home and shot by government tyrants exercising her right to protect herself with a firearm.
Who am I kidding...
Same place the NRA was when Philando Castile and Breonna Taylor were shot.
And since this woman is apparently queer, I'm guessing the NRA will have the same level of sympathy.
I always say this kind of thing when I see similar events. If you're going to be killed by the police just for having a gun in your possession, you don't have the right to have a gun. The right always likes to pretend like they care about gun rights and freedom, but if they did then they would want more restraints on cops, not less. It's obviously just lies. They want cops to keep the poor in line while they do whatever the hell they want, and somehow they've been able to convince a bunch of other poor (though mostly white) people to vote for them.
The NRA stands for the right of white home owners to kill minorities.
I'm just going to leave a time-stamped link to the unedited video because there are a couple apologists in here that are absolutely ridiculous.
The officers identify themselves exactly once at 2:07, a car alarm starts going off at 2:18 and noticeably startles the officer wearing the cam, at 2:23 one of the officers says "someone's coming", and at 2:26 the syllable "Dro-" is interrupted by both officers completely unloading their magazines into the door/window.
It actually doesn't even look like the door was open and maybe the victim was trying to peek out the window?
So how exactly should she have handled this situation to have avoided someone trying to randomly murder her in her own home?
completely unloading their magazines into the door/window.
You're not exaggerating here. It takes about 8 seconds for the one officer to reload the weapon once the mag's been emptied by spasmodic panic-shooting, and while we can deduct time used to talk on the radio, it didn't stop what looked like 40-50 rounds being pumped into the general vicinity of a person.
I have cops in the family, and I get a good idea of the day-to-day grind their soul endures in my country's best-trained and worst-paid police force, and I'll be among hte first to review something critically. There's nothing mitigating about this; it's objectively horrific.
Edit: ho-oleee shit, she survived.
Pouncy, a friend of the woman who lived in the apartment, sustained a total of five gunshot wounds to the leg and torso, according to her attorney, Ben Crump, who reacted to the release of the video on Monday, calling it "evidence of the unnecessary and excessive force."
None of Pouncy’s vital organs were struck by bullets, but the long-term effects of her injuries are yet to be determined, according to Crump. He told ABC News that Pouncy is traumatized by the incident.
I hope she can live and sue the cops so hard it'll change their training, and these two will split between telling their story of idiocy and parking enforcement for the rest of their careers.
They shoot people for no reason and you hope they get parking duty?
How about they go to prison for their crime of attempted murder.
Hes just being real as to what's going to happen. Of course we all want them in prison drinking prison goop through a straw.
No, he's attempting to soften perspective.
Instead of giving up and hoping for the worst, why don't you join me in demanding justice?
The first goal is to take guns away from murderers.
Baby steps. They actually get some punishment. The cops that shot the wrong make, model, and color car in the Dorner saga didn't even get a slap on the wrist.
This is so insane. It actually does look like the police officers completely freaked and just started blasting and then got into a kind of panicked frenzy.
Basically the only way to be safe from police is to not have windows or have bulletproof glass or some kind demilitarized zone so you can see who is coming without coming "out of cover". Have a video phone to talk to would be visitors.
They didn't even ask a fucking question, nothing. Just started shooting! What the fuck.
I honestly thought "well if they broke a glass it is an understandable misunderstanding" but nope, it isn't.
Pretty sure there's even an accidental discharge at 2:37 before the rest of the second mag gets dumped, as a cherry on top.
edit: might've been a shot back, not sure.
Okay, fair enough. To counter, officers typically have to make split second decisions that can mean life and death. They don't want to die, just like you and me. They go to the home, it's clear someone broke in. They announce themselves, 15 minutes later, someone comes walking to the door holding a gun. Now, how SHOULD have the cops handled the situation? Again, it's SO easy to say "well, they should have done this..or that..." when it's not you constantly worried about whether or not you're going to die every time you put on your work uniform.
Now, how SHOULD have the cops handled the situation? Again, it's SO easy to say "well, they should have done this..or that..."
Here's the thing...I don't have to provide the answer to this question. I am not a "trained professional" that is paid specifically to handle these kind of situations.
What I can say without a doubt is there is zero excuse for this woman being shot. If officers are not able to go through their workday without shooting an innocent person then either they shouldn't be a cop or they shouldn't carry a weapon. Period.
A police officer's discomfort or cowardice does not supersede an innocent citizen's rights.
I'll provide an answer, then. The cops should handle it the same way the rest of us already do, which is to positively identify your target and what they're doing before bucking off. It's pretty easy to figure out! Even Cletus the beer-swilling deer hunter can do it. It does, however, require manning up and overcoming your paranoid little fears about every scrap of shadow being a scary oogie boogie man out to get you... Which one would hope (ha!) that a competent policeman has already been trained to do. As part of, you know, being a policeman.
If anyone can't handle the heat, they should get the hell out of the kitchen. I hear there's a shortage of janitors, if motherfuckers want to do some good in the world.
You know, us regular people have to do this in every situation and also have to have robotic encyclopedic knowledge of all relevant self defense and firearms laws at federal, state, county, and municipal levels at all times, plus be able to have a photographic eidetic memory to be able to recount the exact sequence of events down to the nanosecond without the slightest hint of contradiction by any outside source no matter how irrelevant, and to be able to explain to the cops, judge, and jury with airtight millimetric precision exactly why we were justified in even drawing a weapon on someone, let alone firing it, or else we'll get prosecuted and locked up. It seems to me while private citizens are expected to always and unerringly be able to clear this incredibly high bar at the drop of a hat in any given life-threatening situation, it shouldn't be too fucking tough for a bunch of "highly trained" policemen to be able to achieve the same performance. Right?
Pizza delivery drivers die on the job twice as often as police. Should they be able to shoot anyone they want without real repercussions?
...Actually, food service workers specifically should get one free kill a year
"Shoot anyone they want" is a exaggeration. There's over 1 million police officers in this country, over 30,000 police departments... how many would you say are just "going out and shooting anyone they want?"
Far too many for me to have any kind of faith in the embarassing joke that is our police force.
Far too many for my comfort. The problem isn't just that a lot of them do, it's that when they do, they almost always get away scot-free. I can count the number of cops that I've seen actually get punished for murdering someone on one hand. I wish the number of innocent people they've gotten away with killing was so small.
Approximately 3 or 4 every day assuming none of them go for a double kill.
The average drunk driver drives thousands of miles before actually killing someone. Shall we ignore the dead children next?
I bartend. Bad neighborhood, no security. When I work, it's just me behind the bar. Same with my coworkers. There have been plenty of times over the years when shitheads have come into the bar looking to start problems, plus the usual nonsense that happens with a room fun of drunk people. I've never shot anybody over it. Neither have any of my coworkers.
Well you might actually face consequences, so that's understandable.
Look for another job if you can't handle the stress of your current one? Don't just unload your lethal weapon at the slightest hint of potential threat?
No other western democracy has such well armed and yet poorly trained police as those found in the USA.
Name me another "democracy" with over 300 million people, from 1000's of different cultures and backgrounds...who's doing it right? The point is, you all seem to make it sound like it's so easy... there's not another country on the planet in a similar situation as the US.
Thousands of deaths per year at the hand of police is inexcusable. "It's too hard" is a shit response to "why can't you do your job without routinely murdering people".
All of western Europe can do just fine and on net they are as big and as diverse collectively as us.
That's fair right? Compare a lot of small, independent countries to the United States...
Yeah, because the US attacks and destroys anyone who tries.
What happened to Salvador Allende? What happened to Sukarno? What happened to Patrice Lumumba?
There'd be more successful mutliethnic democracies in the world if America didn't hunt them down and destroy them.
Name me a country that has destroyed more democracies than the US.
So, what are you proposing? The United States just stop getting involved in everyone's business? Isn't that what Trump was about? Yet, here we are.... damn if you do, damn if you don't.
Trump assassinated an Iranian general.
It's an order of magnitude more dangerous to get in your vehicle and drive somewhere than it is to be a cop. Is this how you'd defend someone who committed vehicular manslaughter due to negligence?
Pizza delivery driver is statistically a more dangerous job then police, stop spreading copaganda/ apologia
Some proposed changes for your consideration:
Remove upper limit on IQ for cops for all precincts that have one.
Cops should be trained for longer than a hairdresser.
No more Killology seminars.
Personal liability, including criminal liability for egregious shit like locking prisoners in cells covered with feces or burying corpses behind the HQ.
"Who's doing it right?" Not us, my dude.
officers typically have to make split second decisions that can mean life and death
If you feel you need to UNLOAD your weapon at the slightest hint of anything amiss Then don't become a fucking cop. That's a choice anyone can make.
Now fuck off, you apologist piece of shit.
Why don't you join your local police department, show everyone how it's supposed to be done?
Its impossible to distinguish a combatant from a noncombatant by the mere presence of a gun. Half of households have a gun. Even if an intruder was on scene how would you avoid murdering the home owner if you shoot first and ask questions later. You communicate and take the risk of harm to yourself in order to ensure you don't shoot innocent people or you turn in your badge like the pussy bitch you are.
For clarity why do you think its hard to say wait for the door to open and say drop the gun while pointing your guns at the person. Note if they freeze like deer in your headlights in fear you may need to repeat your response and wait for compliance.
What split second? They emptied their entire clips. That's like a 30 second decision.
Holy fuck. I don't usually watch these videos because I am pretty squeamish, but I did for some reason, and you don't actually see the woman get shot.
What you do see is two cops immediately empty their weapons' entire clips the second they think they see a gun.
Cowards. The lot of them.
To be fair, they did see a gun and it was after a break in, and they loudly yelled they were the Sherrifs department, with an open window nearby.
The sheriff's may not have made a correct choice, but if I were in their shoes shoes while standing outside the only exit after yelling I was a cop at an apartment that was just broken into and saw a person going up to the door without turning the lights on with gun in hand I would sure as heck be thinking this person is about to start shooting their way past us.
Your argument would work if they hadn't yelled to drop the weapon and started shooting in the middle of it.
She didn't point it at them... they weren't in danger. People are allowed to have guns in their own home... she did nothing wrong.
Given how these types of encounters keep working out, if I feel in danger when I see a cop with a gun coming to my house do I get to shoot him and say I felt threatened? If the cops did nothing wrong why can't I do the same because clearly we are in danger when cops come to our house.
No.
They didn't imagine the gun. The girlfriend confirms that she picked up her gun and went to the door. If the police are there and banging on the door, you don't pick up a gun and walk to the door in America.
Weird, I thought there was this thing called the second amendment that gun advocates always say is necessary to defend yourself against tyranny.
Also, the cops yell, "DROP THE GUN!" and the start shooting. Immediately.
Maybe don't blame the victim for both exercising her right and for the cops not even giving her time to do what they tell her to do.
more like "DRO-💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥!"
But this dude thinks she should have "just complied."
Bro. Clearly she should have used the Sands of Time to reverse as soon as the police made the "Dro" in "Drop your weapon"
She should have played jar of greed so she had a chance to pull such a card
They specifically shot her because she came to the door with a gun. She could see them just as easily as they could see her. If she had time to pick up her gun and walk across the room she had time to yell out to them that she was the home owner. She also had time to see them and realize that approaching the cops with a firearm might not be the best idea.
Why should she have to announce that she was holding her legal property inside her own home?
Why shouldn't the police have given her time to drop her weapon when they told her to drop her weapon?
You can't be this clueless.
Insulting me does not answer my questions. Please answer my questions:
Why should she have to announce that she was holding her legal property inside her own home?
Why shouldn’t the police have given her time to drop her weapon when they told her to drop her weapon?
Hard to answer questions when you have a mouthful of boot.
I'm not your educator, nor am I under any obligation to answer questions that fundamentally bad. Entitlement doesn't stop bullets.
In other words, those are questions that, if you answered honestly, would undermine your whole argument that the police were justified.
The cops were responding to a call about a break-in and when they asked for someone to come to the door they showed up with a gun. The cops aren't going to sit there and wait for the person to start shooting at them. How disconnected do you have to be to think when the cops are banging on the door that it's a good idea to grab a gun and rock up to the door with absolutely no warning?
Did she at any point identify herself to the police? Did she yell out 'I'm the home owner and I have a gun'?
She might get a payout, but very unlikely that anything will happen to the cops given the situation.
The right to bear arms is a lot like the right to free speech. It protects your right to do it, it doesn't protect you from the consequences.
No, she did not defy the laws of time and space and announce that she had a gun or that she was a homeowner in the tiny space of time between getting off the couch and getting shot by police who tell her to drop the gun and don't give her the time to drop it.
it doesn’t protect you from the consequences.
Consequences like police telling you to drop a gun and then shooting you the second the last syllable enters their mouth? Because, again, I'm not sure why you're expecting her to defy the laws of time and space.
Also, why on Earth you think identifying yourself and saying you have a gun would help her when they didn't help Philando Castile, I don't know. Feel free to explain it. Because Castile said it in the middle of the day where the cops could clearly see what was going on and he was still murdered. Sorry, not murdered, treated fairly by the cops. His very fair treatment for complying with everything the police asked of him and telling them he had a gun.
Edit: Misremembered a detail.
The consequences, such as being executed by police for legally owning a gun
🇺🇲GOD BLESS THE USA🇺🇲
shes alive
Ahh, it was just an attempted execution. That's much better
they're not very good marksmen. i think although both officers reloaded, only managed to land one bullet in the victims leg.
it's embarrassing for the police for many reasons
5 bullets in her leg and abdomen
thanks for the research/assist
Makes you think, maybe if they'd dumped those mags at a range instead of into someone's home, they could use fewer bullets overall. Then again, if they were properly trained, they would have actually killed this woman.
What an awful situation, where it's literally better for officers to be worse marksmen
The cops aren't going to sit there and wait for the person to start shooting at them.
That's what they do in countries where non-criminals aren't afraid of the police, and they seem to do much better both in terms of staying safe and keeping the citizens safe.
There's a law against impersonating cops, so surely no law-abiding home intruder is going to lie like that.
And if they had plugged a child with a toy gun in this circumstance your argument would be what? Go ahead. Try and say that never happens. I dare you.
Walking to the front door of her home with a legally owned firearm does not excuse these officers from attempting to murder her.
The police use flash bangs for children.
The victims only heard banging and not the cops announcement.
So she gets her gun to defend herself and answer the door.
Cops see the gun through the window. Don't announce they're police. Scream to drop the gun and immediately empty their clips...
The same window the victim could have looked out? The cops clearly identified themselves on the video.
Last year, there was a story on here about a homeowner who blasted a drunk college kid through the door of the house because the drunk kid thought it was his own house, and broke the window to unlock the door. And the homeowner faced no charges because it was self-defense. I lamented that this is the America we live in, where people just start blasting without trying anything else first, like turning on the porch light, or calling out. I got down-voted to hell by all the people who said they'd do the same to protect their families.
What if it'd been the cops at the wrong house instead of a drunk college student?
Yes, but look at that plant they were shooting at. How could they reasonably be sure there weren't any acorns growing on it?
I get this reference.
Police officer emptied his gun because an acorn fell in his car and he got scared
“Shots fired!”
Assuming those officers are following their training, we need to change officer training. That behavior is more military than police.
The military have much stricter rules of engagement and punishment for not following them.
Police behavior is more similar to that of a street gang.
The US is one of the largest countries on Earth, with all sorts of different crimes from different walks of life. Street gang or not, it's imperative that we have strong police forces throughout the country to minimize crime. You think it's bad now? Imagine if no one would wanted to be a cop. Imagine if every time a cop did something wrong, they were fired or imprisoned. We'd literally have no one wanting to do it. I don't think people understand how big, and free the US is. Whenever you get something like this, strict law enforcement is not only needed, it's required.
That's an interesting opinion. Unfortunately, the facts don't quite align with your feelings.
it's imperative that we have strong police forces throughout the country to minimize crime
Why do you believe this? Police forces as they exist today aren't even as old as the US. Sure, the US wasn't a bastion of freedom upon its founding but that wasn't due to a lack of police. The absolute biggest factors for controlling neighborhood level crime are increasing public education and reducing the effects of poverty.
I don't think people understand how big, and free the US is. Whenever you get something like this, strict law enforcement is not only needed, it's required.
And this is the weirdest take right here. Freedom and strong, strict police forces are inversely related by definition. One could even point to the origin of many police departments as opposition to freedom.
Feelings? What do you propose, that we allow the entire country to turn into areas like Oakland, Detroit, or Chicago? I mean, there has to be law and order. Are you proposing we "loosen" up on things, and just hope people will get nicer?
Yes, feelings are when you think something works in a certain way without facts to back it up. Like the opinion that strict policing reduces crime. It's a common opinion, but not one that is consistent with the facts.
Do you think that Oakland, Chicago, and Detroit do not have police? Those cities have very harsh police departments and it's not reducing crime. What those cities do have in common is a high poverty rate when geographically controlled and above average poverty rates for the US without even taking geography into account.
What do I want? I want to make changes that comport to the facts of the world, not people's feelings.
What do you propose, that we allow the entire country to turn into areas like Oakland, Detroit, or Chicago?
I'm willing to bet you've never left the suburbs of a Southern state.
I live in California, I travel extensively for work. I've been to many major cities throughout the US... the inner cities are horrible. I'm thankful I live in a smaller city (not the suburbs) in California that 100% supports its police department, low crime rates, and community support for each other.
No. They are proposing officers get proper training. That's how you get a strong force, by making sure they're competent.
‘No way to prevent this,’ says only nation where this regularly happens.
tbf, if you approach soldiers in an active combat zone while carrying a gun, they are legally allowed to shoot you. The weapon marks you as a combatant.
That's not what I was told when I was sent to a combat zone. There's a thing called escalation of force and someone simply holding a gun isn't automatically a target.
That’s not actually true. ROE gets much more specific than that. The US holds that members of the military always retain the right to self defense, but that means that there are times you can’t fire until someone fires on you. So a weapon doesn’t default to legally allowed to shoot. And frequently there are rules about how you escalate force to include verbal warnings given in the local language.
The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007) states: “Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:
A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
I would link to a primary source, but they're all PDFs. So, this is from the Red Cross. There are additional requirements, but openly carrying arms is a big one.
I’m not disagreeing about them being a combatant. I’m disagreeing that being a combatant gives the military carte blanche authority to kill you. Like I said, the rules of engagement can be very specific about how, when, where, and with who you are legally allowed to engage. Self defense is the only universal time the US military is allowed to use lethal force. Outside of that you follow the restrictions and force escalations parameters outlined in the ROE.
Ah, I see. Thank you.
The US is not an active combat zone though.
Sure it is, you can see a fascistic occupation force right there.
Agreed. Just pointing out that this is a militaristic mindset, in disagreement with the previous commenter that wanted to say it was not.
"In an active combat zone" is doing some heavy lifting there.
Part of the point I was trying to make was about how clearly, those two cops did not see things in the same way as we do. They are very clearly behaving as if it was an active warzone, and they are facing a confirmed enemy.
I am more interested in the source of this mentality than I am simply brushing it off as a broader "cops are always whatever".
This mentality comes from the "warrior" and "killology" training methodologies that many, if not most of, US cops follow. They basically are convinced that they are warriors in a warzone, and any suspect or perpetrator is their enemy. They treat everyone as if they had a gun and are trying to kill officers.
This CNN video gives a decent example of some of their training, and helps explain why US cops are so scared and eager to shoot at everyone and everything.
Ah. Well ... that'd do it.
Soldiers in Afghanistan in the latter part weren't even allowed to return fire unless they were fired upon and the shots were close to hitting.
The same rule is used at the DMZ in Korea, with the added bit of never actually hit a North Korean.
tbf, neither of those is an active warzone. DMZ is under an armistice, and Afghanistan was an occupation. In both cases the hot part of the war is over, and peace/pacification is the order of business.
Military would not mess up this bad!
Yes, and there was a point of nuance I missed as well. I was not attempting to disparage the modern military though, as much as point out the us-vs-them mentality and pursuit of destruction of the enemy as a high priority.
If a man beats his wife would you blame training? Would you say "that guy needs better training in not hitting her"? When you blame training you absolve bad cops, it assumes bad cops can be reformed, and it also frames the incident as a "mistake". This is why youve been trained (ironically enough) to blame training.
You can punish him AND blame the training too, then change the training.
We can do more than one thing.
When meeting a knight on the battlefield attack his shield. When and only when his shield is broken to pieces attack his sword. When and only when his sword is broken in two, attack the knight.
Not a lot of knights in my area. Can you please explain the meaning?
This is a horrible take. A police force only works if they follow a strict set of rules, so we need those rules to be well thought out and defined. Every officer needs to be following their directives to the letter if the police is ever going to be good.
99% of the time in these incidents the reason they happen is because they are psycho cops ignoring training and rules. There is no rule saying to mag dump into an unarmed autistic kid because you were scared. Its not that they dont know. Its the warrior cop super soldier occupying force bullshit thats the problem. What is missing is the punishment element when training is ignored. Bad shoot? Homicide charge. Every fucking time!!!! Not retraining.
Everyone needs training for their job. If they do not follow their training, they are probably not doing a good job.
WTH they empty whole clips on her! WHILE asking her to drop the gun!
Not even one magazine, the pig on camera emptied the first magazine, spent longer reloading than she took to dump the mag, and then dumped A SECOND ONE
It's somehow even worse than Acorn Cop, at least he only dumped one magazine
Too bad it was so close range too. She might have had a chance because their aim was probably just as shit as acorn cop's considering how poorly trained they clearly are 😕
She did survive, with two hits that I'm aware of
i learned that if someone bangs on my front door and
shouts "Sheriff's office!" then I need to exit my back door, run, and hide.
Arming bureaucrats and giving them legal immunity was maybe society's largest mistake.
Someone breaks into a house, and then walks to the window holding a gun...I mean, ya'll make it sound SO easy being a cop and reacting to split second decisions that can mean life and death....
Being a cop isnt that dangerous compared to other jobs. I have had 3 guns pointed at me from working retail and being a delivery driver. All robberies. I was armed for 2 of them. All 3 times I managed to not get shot or not shoot anyone by making the right decisions and realizing that material things are not worth more than life. Why can't cops be held to the same standard?
These cops could've retreated to cover down the stairs or to the sides of the door and attempted to make actual communication with the home owner. They are paid well and have great benefits. They know what they signed up for. We should be able to expect them to be competent in situations like these.
It's a good thing you're not a cop. It's a bad thing you're allowed to own a gun.
So they get to murder people in their own homes because their job is dangerous? I don't give a fuck if I break every window in my house at 3am and its real scary for the poor adults with body armor and deadly weapons. I think I have a reasonable expectation of not having some jumpy scrubs empty two magazines through my front door
There are plenty of cases where the police overreact or use excessive force entirely unjustified. There are even more cases when the police get shot at without any rhythm or reason.
There's a reason they're trained to open fire in uncertain situations. A split second decision might be the difference between them dying on the job and going back home to their families.
So, don't create those uncertain situations, unless getting shot is what you're looking for. If the police are banging on your door, they suspect that something is going on. Best you can do, is help them figure out the situation. The cops, however, are not psychic and don't know you and your intentions. So, if you have a gun, keep it in your holster or off yourself entirely. Identify yourself. Talk to them. Don't just walk out on them, gun in hand...
The slogan is 'to protect and serve,' not 'to be a coward and fire an entire clip before you can assess the situation.'
The slogan isn't "get shot and die, because you're too tough to shoot an armed person first" either.
Just imagine yourself in this situation: You're a cop. You're in front of a house that someone, reportedly, broke into. You bang on the door and identify yourself. Several seconds later, a person with gun walks out, not saying a word.
Even if you take a second to access the situation: there's a person, brandishing a weapon (which, in most cases, is a crime) walking out of a house that has been broken into. How does this come off as a safe or normal situation, exactly?
Several seconds later, a person with gun walks out, not saying a word.
That did not happen.
brandishing a weapon
Also did not happen. Holding a weapon is not brandishing it.
That did not happen.
There's a video. You can watch it.
Also did not happen. Holding a weapon is not brandishing it.
The definition of "brandishing" in holding or display a weapon in an intimidating or threatening manner. Substitute the cops with a pizza delivery person, for example, and I bet they'd feel pretty darn intimidated and/or threatened in this exact situation.
When you greet someone at your door, you keep your gun in your holster, just like you keep your dick in your pants. That's called common sense. If you don't have, you've only got yourself to blame.
I did watch it. She neither walked out nor did she hold the gun in a threatening manner. Those are simply untrue. She was inside. You can see she was inside. Even the article says she was walking to the door.
Pouncy's girlfriend told reporters Friday that she and Pouncy heard banging on the door and that Pouncy walked to the door with gun.
But please do show her outside, brandishing the gun. A timestamp on the video at the top of the article will be fine.
The cops are several yards to the right of the door. Last time I've checked, the cops didn't posses the ability to see through walls or behind corners.
Did you forget that you claimed that you could see on the video that she was outside her home and brandishing a weapon?
"Pouncy's girlfriend told reporters Friday that she and Pouncy heard banging on the door and that Pouncy walked to the door with gun."
It's not on the video, but it's confirmed that it has happened. Not everything has to be in one place.
To the door isn't outside it.
It's weird how the goalposts are running around.
Okay, fine. At the door. In direct line of sight. With a gun in hand. Because that changes everything.
This conversation isn't going anywhere. Look, if you think that walking up to cops with a gun in hand is good idea, more power to you. Have fun figuring out that actions have consequences.
Sorry, was this woman in her own apartment with her own gun?
Do you understand the difference between "walked to the door" and "walked out the door?"
You also claimed she was brandishing and not saying a word when she went outside.
So no, the video didn't confirm any of what you said.
They signed up to abuse power and be bullies not put their life on the line to protect people.
Clearly that's only reason police exist. No exceptions. They never do anything other than abuse power and shoot people for funzies. Not at all.
As we all know, the world is perfectly black and white. Assigning qualities to groups of people and, then, treating people in those groups as if all of them posses those same qualities is a perfect system with no flaws. AdolfSchmitler would know.
ACAB.
Okay, I officially feel like an idiot now.
This entire thread is like arguing with a dog regarding its barking. No matter how much thought and logic is thrown at it, the dog just wouldn't shut up, because it doesn't even comprehend what "an argument", "logic" and "reason" are.
Same here. You use logic and explain that the world is not perfectly black and white, in returns they yell "acab" just because they "feel" like it.
Your "logic" and "reason" are trash and you are mad people are telling you as much. Dehumanizing people you disagree with too, not a good look for you
Being lectured for supposedly "dehumanizing people" by people who yell that "all cops are bastards"...
Maybe look in a mirror once in a while?
You're out here defending cops that shot a person dead in their own home. You're victim blaming by saying the victim shouldn't be legally carrying their firearm in their house. You should feel like an idiot, it just shouldn't have taken until now.
ACAB.
A person who grabbed a gun after the police knocked on the door and announced themselves.
Treat a firearm like you'd tread your dick. You keep the latter in your pants and the former in your holster. It's not illegal to hold your dick in your hand while your at home, but if you answer your while doing so, chances are, you're getting charged with indecent exposure. Makes sense, right?
Similarly, it's perfectly legal to carry or even flail around a gun while you're in your own home. But it can very easily turn into brandishing if you'd go to answer the door with one in hand. So here's a crazy idea: how about you don't? Particularly when you're answering the door to police, of all things, who you know are armed.
How about the cops don't murder people who aren't violating anything in their house? If they can't handle the pressure of talking to someone with a weapon, they shouldn't be cops. These two are worthless excuses for human trash.
You keep victim blaming. Everything they did was legal and should be expected as a possibility by the cops. Here's a hypothetical, what if a bad guy knocks on the door and claims to be the cops? The whole fucking point of the second amendment is to protect one's self. You act like someone couldn't pretend to be the police, or that the police have some extra special privilege that supercedes the freedoms of the people. Those to should rot for the rest of their miserable lives, but because the system is so fucked, they'll get lauded and probably promoted.
ACAB
Yeah so the next time you get pulled over remember to reach for your registration real slow. Wouldn't want to make any uncertain situations by reaching for your glove box too fast. They aren't psychic after all you could have a revolver in there. Your family will take great solace in knowing that the internal investigation didn't find any wrong doing.
She literally grabbed a gun.
There's a difference between having a gun on yourself or in the vehicle when you're getting pulled over, and pulling one out and putting it in your hand.
When you see someone grab a gun, you don't assume they're going to scratch their back with it, do you? So, if you get pulled over and the first thing you do is grab a gun, you'll get lit up. Because you're an idiot.
So where's the NRA? Armed in her own home and shot by government tyrants exercising her right to protect herself with a firearm.
Who am I kidding...
Same place the NRA was when Philando Castile and Breonna Taylor were shot.
And since this woman is apparently queer, I'm guessing the NRA will have the same level of sympathy.
I always say this kind of thing when I see similar events. If you're going to be killed by the police just for having a gun in your possession, you don't have the right to have a gun. The right always likes to pretend like they care about gun rights and freedom, but if they did then they would want more restraints on cops, not less. It's obviously just lies. They want cops to keep the poor in line while they do whatever the hell they want, and somehow they've been able to convince a bunch of other poor (though mostly white) people to vote for them.
The NRA stands for the right of white home owners to kill minorities.
She was safe(r)! (sorry forgot the /s)
https://youtu.be/eAz9_iApfRI?t=1m50s
I'm just going to leave a time-stamped link to the unedited video because there are a couple apologists in here that are absolutely ridiculous.
The officers identify themselves exactly once at 2:07, a car alarm starts going off at 2:18 and noticeably startles the officer wearing the cam, at 2:23 one of the officers says "someone's coming", and at 2:26 the syllable "Dro-" is interrupted by both officers completely unloading their magazines into the door/window.
It actually doesn't even look like the door was open and maybe the victim was trying to peek out the window?
So how exactly should she have handled this situation to have avoided someone trying to randomly murder her in her own home?
You're not exaggerating here. It takes about 8 seconds for the one officer to reload the weapon once the mag's been emptied by spasmodic panic-shooting, and while we can deduct time used to talk on the radio, it didn't stop what looked like 40-50 rounds being pumped into the general vicinity of a person.
I have cops in the family, and I get a good idea of the day-to-day grind their soul endures in my country's best-trained and worst-paid police force, and I'll be among hte first to review something critically. There's nothing mitigating about this; it's objectively horrific.
Edit: ho-oleee shit, she survived.
I hope she can live and sue the cops so hard it'll change their training, and these two will split between telling their story of idiocy and parking enforcement for the rest of their careers.
They shoot people for no reason and you hope they get parking duty?
How about they go to prison for their crime of attempted murder.
Hes just being real as to what's going to happen. Of course we all want them in prison drinking prison goop through a straw.
No, he's attempting to soften perspective.
Instead of giving up and hoping for the worst, why don't you join me in demanding justice?
The first goal is to take guns away from murderers.
Baby steps. They actually get some punishment. The cops that shot the wrong make, model, and color car in the Dorner saga didn't even get a slap on the wrist.
This is so insane. It actually does look like the police officers completely freaked and just started blasting and then got into a kind of panicked frenzy.
Basically the only way to be safe from police is to not have windows or have bulletproof glass or some kind demilitarized zone so you can see who is coming without coming "out of cover". Have a video phone to talk to would be visitors.
deleted by creator
Holy shit.
ACAB
WHAT THE FUCK.
They didn't even ask a fucking question, nothing. Just started shooting! What the fuck.
I honestly thought "well if they broke a glass it is an understandable misunderstanding" but nope, it isn't.
Pretty sure there's even an accidental discharge at 2:37 before the rest of the second mag gets dumped, as a cherry on top.
edit: might've been a shot back, not sure.
Okay, fair enough. To counter, officers typically have to make split second decisions that can mean life and death. They don't want to die, just like you and me. They go to the home, it's clear someone broke in. They announce themselves, 15 minutes later, someone comes walking to the door holding a gun. Now, how SHOULD have the cops handled the situation? Again, it's SO easy to say "well, they should have done this..or that..." when it's not you constantly worried about whether or not you're going to die every time you put on your work uniform.
Here's the thing...I don't have to provide the answer to this question. I am not a "trained professional" that is paid specifically to handle these kind of situations.
What I can say without a doubt is there is zero excuse for this woman being shot. If officers are not able to go through their workday without shooting an innocent person then either they shouldn't be a cop or they shouldn't carry a weapon. Period.
A police officer's discomfort or cowardice does not supersede an innocent citizen's rights.
I'll provide an answer, then. The cops should handle it the same way the rest of us already do, which is to positively identify your target and what they're doing before bucking off. It's pretty easy to figure out! Even Cletus the beer-swilling deer hunter can do it. It does, however, require manning up and overcoming your paranoid little fears about every scrap of shadow being a scary oogie boogie man out to get you... Which one would hope (ha!) that a competent policeman has already been trained to do. As part of, you know, being a policeman.
If anyone can't handle the heat, they should get the hell out of the kitchen. I hear there's a shortage of janitors, if motherfuckers want to do some good in the world.
You know, us regular people have to do this in every situation and also have to have robotic encyclopedic knowledge of all relevant self defense and firearms laws at federal, state, county, and municipal levels at all times, plus be able to have a photographic eidetic memory to be able to recount the exact sequence of events down to the nanosecond without the slightest hint of contradiction by any outside source no matter how irrelevant, and to be able to explain to the cops, judge, and jury with airtight millimetric precision exactly why we were justified in even drawing a weapon on someone, let alone firing it, or else we'll get prosecuted and locked up. It seems to me while private citizens are expected to always and unerringly be able to clear this incredibly high bar at the drop of a hat in any given life-threatening situation, it shouldn't be too fucking tough for a bunch of "highly trained" policemen to be able to achieve the same performance. Right?
Pizza delivery drivers die on the job twice as often as police. Should they be able to shoot anyone they want without real repercussions?
...Actually, food service workers specifically should get one free kill a year
"Shoot anyone they want" is a exaggeration. There's over 1 million police officers in this country, over 30,000 police departments... how many would you say are just "going out and shooting anyone they want?"
Far too many for me to have any kind of faith in the embarassing joke that is our police force.
Far too many for my comfort. The problem isn't just that a lot of them do, it's that when they do, they almost always get away scot-free. I can count the number of cops that I've seen actually get punished for murdering someone on one hand. I wish the number of innocent people they've gotten away with killing was so small.
Approximately 3 or 4 every day assuming none of them go for a double kill.
The average drunk driver drives thousands of miles before actually killing someone. Shall we ignore the dead children next?
I bartend. Bad neighborhood, no security. When I work, it's just me behind the bar. Same with my coworkers. There have been plenty of times over the years when shitheads have come into the bar looking to start problems, plus the usual nonsense that happens with a room fun of drunk people. I've never shot anybody over it. Neither have any of my coworkers.
Well you might actually face consequences, so that's understandable.
Look for another job if you can't handle the stress of your current one? Don't just unload your lethal weapon at the slightest hint of potential threat?
No other western democracy has such well armed and yet poorly trained police as those found in the USA.
Name me another "democracy" with over 300 million people, from 1000's of different cultures and backgrounds...who's doing it right? The point is, you all seem to make it sound like it's so easy... there's not another country on the planet in a similar situation as the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_annual_rates_and_counts_for_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers?wprov=sfla1
Thousands of deaths per year at the hand of police is inexcusable. "It's too hard" is a shit response to "why can't you do your job without routinely murdering people".
All of western Europe can do just fine and on net they are as big and as diverse collectively as us.
That's fair right? Compare a lot of small, independent countries to the United States...
Yeah, because the US attacks and destroys anyone who tries.
What happened to Salvador Allende? What happened to Sukarno? What happened to Patrice Lumumba?
There'd be more successful mutliethnic democracies in the world if America didn't hunt them down and destroy them.
Name me a country that has destroyed more democracies than the US.
So, what are you proposing? The United States just stop getting involved in everyone's business? Isn't that what Trump was about? Yet, here we are.... damn if you do, damn if you don't.
Trump assassinated an Iranian general.
It's an order of magnitude more dangerous to get in your vehicle and drive somewhere than it is to be a cop. Is this how you'd defend someone who committed vehicular manslaughter due to negligence?
Pizza delivery driver is statistically a more dangerous job then police, stop spreading copaganda/ apologia
Some proposed changes for your consideration:
Remove upper limit on IQ for cops for all precincts that have one.
Cops should be trained for longer than a hairdresser.
No more Killology seminars.
Personal liability, including criminal liability for egregious shit like locking prisoners in cells covered with feces or burying corpses behind the HQ.
"Who's doing it right?" Not us, my dude.
If you feel you need to UNLOAD your weapon at the slightest hint of anything amiss Then don't become a fucking cop. That's a choice anyone can make.
Now fuck off, you apologist piece of shit.
Why don't you join your local police department, show everyone how it's supposed to be done?
Its impossible to distinguish a combatant from a noncombatant by the mere presence of a gun. Half of households have a gun. Even if an intruder was on scene how would you avoid murdering the home owner if you shoot first and ask questions later. You communicate and take the risk of harm to yourself in order to ensure you don't shoot innocent people or you turn in your badge like the pussy bitch you are.
For clarity why do you think its hard to say wait for the door to open and say drop the gun while pointing your guns at the person. Note if they freeze like deer in your headlights in fear you may need to repeat your response and wait for compliance.
What split second? They emptied their entire clips. That's like a 30 second decision.
Holy fuck. I don't usually watch these videos because I am pretty squeamish, but I did for some reason, and you don't actually see the woman get shot.
What you do see is two cops immediately empty their weapons' entire clips the second they think they see a gun.
Cowards. The lot of them.
To be fair, they did see a gun and it was after a break in, and they loudly yelled they were the Sherrifs department, with an open window nearby.
The sheriff's may not have made a correct choice, but if I were in their shoes shoes while standing outside the only exit after yelling I was a cop at an apartment that was just broken into and saw a person going up to the door without turning the lights on with gun in hand I would sure as heck be thinking this person is about to start shooting their way past us.
Your argument would work if they hadn't yelled to drop the weapon and started shooting in the middle of it.
She didn't point it at them... they weren't in danger. People are allowed to have guns in their own home... she did nothing wrong.
Given how these types of encounters keep working out, if I feel in danger when I see a cop with a gun coming to my house do I get to shoot him and say I felt threatened? If the cops did nothing wrong why can't I do the same because clearly we are in danger when cops come to our house.
No.
They didn't imagine the gun. The girlfriend confirms that she picked up her gun and went to the door. If the police are there and banging on the door, you don't pick up a gun and walk to the door in America.
Weird, I thought there was this thing called the second amendment that gun advocates always say is necessary to defend yourself against tyranny.
Also, the cops yell, "DROP THE GUN!" and the start shooting. Immediately.
Maybe don't blame the victim for both exercising her right and for the cops not even giving her time to do what they tell her to do.
more like "DRO-💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥💥!"
But this dude thinks she should have "just complied."
Bro. Clearly she should have used the Sands of Time to reverse as soon as the police made the "Dro" in "Drop your weapon"
She should have played jar of greed so she had a chance to pull such a card
They specifically shot her because she came to the door with a gun. She could see them just as easily as they could see her. If she had time to pick up her gun and walk across the room she had time to yell out to them that she was the home owner. She also had time to see them and realize that approaching the cops with a firearm might not be the best idea.
Why should she have to announce that she was holding her legal property inside her own home?
Why shouldn't the police have given her time to drop her weapon when they told her to drop her weapon?
You can't be this clueless.
Insulting me does not answer my questions. Please answer my questions:
Why should she have to announce that she was holding her legal property inside her own home?
Why shouldn’t the police have given her time to drop her weapon when they told her to drop her weapon?
Hard to answer questions when you have a mouthful of boot.
I'm not your educator, nor am I under any obligation to answer questions that fundamentally bad. Entitlement doesn't stop bullets.
In other words, those are questions that, if you answered honestly, would undermine your whole argument that the police were justified.
Wow you fucking muppet, answer the question or delete all your comments because you are making a fool of yourself in front of all these nice people
The cops were responding to a call about a break-in and when they asked for someone to come to the door they showed up with a gun. The cops aren't going to sit there and wait for the person to start shooting at them. How disconnected do you have to be to think when the cops are banging on the door that it's a good idea to grab a gun and rock up to the door with absolutely no warning?
Did she at any point identify herself to the police? Did she yell out 'I'm the home owner and I have a gun'?
She might get a payout, but very unlikely that anything will happen to the cops given the situation.
The right to bear arms is a lot like the right to free speech. It protects your right to do it, it doesn't protect you from the consequences.
No, she did not defy the laws of time and space and announce that she had a gun or that she was a homeowner in the tiny space of time between getting off the couch and getting shot by police who tell her to drop the gun and don't give her the time to drop it.
Consequences like police telling you to drop a gun and then shooting you the second the last syllable enters their mouth? Because, again, I'm not sure why you're expecting her to defy the laws of time and space.
Also, why on Earth you think identifying yourself and saying you have a gun would help her when they didn't help Philando Castile, I don't know. Feel free to explain it. Because Castile said it
in the middle of the daywhere the cops could clearly see what was going on and he was still murdered. Sorry, not murdered, treated fairly by the cops. His very fair treatment for complying with everything the police asked of him and telling them he had a gun.Edit: Misremembered a detail.
The consequences, such as being executed by police for legally owning a gun
🇺🇲GOD BLESS THE USA🇺🇲
shes alive
Ahh, it was just an attempted execution. That's much better
they're not very good marksmen. i think although both officers reloaded, only managed to land one bullet in the victims leg.
it's embarrassing for the police for many reasons
5 bullets in her leg and abdomen
thanks for the research/assist
Makes you think, maybe if they'd dumped those mags at a range instead of into someone's home, they could use fewer bullets overall. Then again, if they were properly trained, they would have actually killed this woman.
What an awful situation, where it's literally better for officers to be worse marksmen
That's what they do in countries where non-criminals aren't afraid of the police, and they seem to do much better both in terms of staying safe and keeping the citizens safe.
Cause only cops can say they are cops, right?
There's a law against impersonating cops, so surely no law-abiding home intruder is going to lie like that.
And if they had plugged a child with a toy gun in this circumstance your argument would be what? Go ahead. Try and say that never happens. I dare you.
Walking to the front door of her home with a legally owned firearm does not excuse these officers from attempting to murder her.
The police use flash bangs for children.
The victims only heard banging and not the cops announcement.
So she gets her gun to defend herself and answer the door.
Cops see the gun through the window. Don't announce they're police. Scream to drop the gun and immediately empty their clips...
The same window the victim could have looked out? The cops clearly identified themselves on the video.
Last year, there was a story on here about a homeowner who blasted a drunk college kid through the door of the house because the drunk kid thought it was his own house, and broke the window to unlock the door. And the homeowner faced no charges because it was self-defense. I lamented that this is the America we live in, where people just start blasting without trying anything else first, like turning on the porch light, or calling out. I got down-voted to hell by all the people who said they'd do the same to protect their families.
What if it'd been the cops at the wrong house instead of a drunk college student?
Jesus lmao. What the fuck is that shit?
DROP THE
BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG
GUN!
It's like a joke almost. Like the cops from Cyberpunk. The fuck.
The number of bangs is impressive!
BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG
spends ten seconds reloading
BANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANGBANG
Yes, but look at that plant they were shooting at. How could they reasonably be sure there weren't any acorns growing on it?
I get this reference.
Police officer emptied his gun because an acorn fell in his car and he got scared
“Shots fired!”
Assuming those officers are following their training, we need to change officer training. That behavior is more military than police.
The military have much stricter rules of engagement and punishment for not following them.
Police behavior is more similar to that of a street gang.
The US is one of the largest countries on Earth, with all sorts of different crimes from different walks of life. Street gang or not, it's imperative that we have strong police forces throughout the country to minimize crime. You think it's bad now? Imagine if no one would wanted to be a cop. Imagine if every time a cop did something wrong, they were fired or imprisoned. We'd literally have no one wanting to do it. I don't think people understand how big, and free the US is. Whenever you get something like this, strict law enforcement is not only needed, it's required.
That's an interesting opinion. Unfortunately, the facts don't quite align with your feelings.
Why do you believe this? Police forces as they exist today aren't even as old as the US. Sure, the US wasn't a bastion of freedom upon its founding but that wasn't due to a lack of police. The absolute biggest factors for controlling neighborhood level crime are increasing public education and reducing the effects of poverty.
And this is the weirdest take right here. Freedom and strong, strict police forces are inversely related by definition. One could even point to the origin of many police departments as opposition to freedom.
Feelings? What do you propose, that we allow the entire country to turn into areas like Oakland, Detroit, or Chicago? I mean, there has to be law and order. Are you proposing we "loosen" up on things, and just hope people will get nicer?
Yes, feelings are when you think something works in a certain way without facts to back it up. Like the opinion that strict policing reduces crime. It's a common opinion, but not one that is consistent with the facts.
Do you think that Oakland, Chicago, and Detroit do not have police? Those cities have very harsh police departments and it's not reducing crime. What those cities do have in common is a high poverty rate when geographically controlled and above average poverty rates for the US without even taking geography into account.
What do I want? I want to make changes that comport to the facts of the world, not people's feelings.
I'm willing to bet you've never left the suburbs of a Southern state.
I live in California, I travel extensively for work. I've been to many major cities throughout the US... the inner cities are horrible. I'm thankful I live in a smaller city (not the suburbs) in California that 100% supports its police department, low crime rates, and community support for each other.
No. They are proposing officers get proper training. That's how you get a strong force, by making sure they're competent.
*dogs barking*
Oh yeah there's absolutely no way a country could possibly police itself without murdering its own citizens.
‘No way to prevent this,’ says only nation where this regularly happens.
tbf, if you approach soldiers in an active combat zone while carrying a gun, they are legally allowed to shoot you. The weapon marks you as a combatant.
That's not what I was told when I was sent to a combat zone. There's a thing called escalation of force and someone simply holding a gun isn't automatically a target.
That’s not actually true. ROE gets much more specific than that. The US holds that members of the military always retain the right to self defense, but that means that there are times you can’t fire until someone fires on you. So a weapon doesn’t default to legally allowed to shoot. And frequently there are rules about how you escalate force to include verbal warnings given in the local language.
The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007) states: “Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:
A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.
I would link to a primary source, but they're all PDFs. So, this is from the Red Cross. There are additional requirements, but openly carrying arms is a big one.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/fr/customary-ihl/v2/rule3
edit for formatting
I’m not disagreeing about them being a combatant. I’m disagreeing that being a combatant gives the military carte blanche authority to kill you. Like I said, the rules of engagement can be very specific about how, when, where, and with who you are legally allowed to engage. Self defense is the only universal time the US military is allowed to use lethal force. Outside of that you follow the restrictions and force escalations parameters outlined in the ROE.
Ah, I see. Thank you.
The US is not an active combat zone though.
Sure it is, you can see a fascistic occupation force right there.
Agreed. Just pointing out that this is a militaristic mindset, in disagreement with the previous commenter that wanted to say it was not.
"In an active combat zone" is doing some heavy lifting there.
Part of the point I was trying to make was about how clearly, those two cops did not see things in the same way as we do. They are very clearly behaving as if it was an active warzone, and they are facing a confirmed enemy.
I am more interested in the source of this mentality than I am simply brushing it off as a broader "cops are always whatever".
This mentality comes from the "warrior" and "killology" training methodologies that many, if not most of, US cops follow. They basically are convinced that they are warriors in a warzone, and any suspect or perpetrator is their enemy. They treat everyone as if they had a gun and are trying to kill officers.
This CNN video gives a decent example of some of their training, and helps explain why US cops are so scared and eager to shoot at everyone and everything.
Ah. Well ... that'd do it.
Soldiers in Afghanistan in the latter part weren't even allowed to return fire unless they were fired upon and the shots were close to hitting.
The same rule is used at the DMZ in Korea, with the added bit of never actually hit a North Korean.
tbf, neither of those is an active warzone. DMZ is under an armistice, and Afghanistan was an occupation. In both cases the hot part of the war is over, and peace/pacification is the order of business.
Military would not mess up this bad!
Yes, and there was a point of nuance I missed as well. I was not attempting to disparage the modern military though, as much as point out the us-vs-them mentality and pursuit of destruction of the enemy as a high priority.
If a man beats his wife would you blame training? Would you say "that guy needs better training in not hitting her"? When you blame training you absolve bad cops, it assumes bad cops can be reformed, and it also frames the incident as a "mistake". This is why youve been trained (ironically enough) to blame training.
You can punish him AND blame the training too, then change the training.
We can do more than one thing.
When meeting a knight on the battlefield attack his shield. When and only when his shield is broken to pieces attack his sword. When and only when his sword is broken in two, attack the knight.
Not a lot of knights in my area. Can you please explain the meaning?
This is a horrible take. A police force only works if they follow a strict set of rules, so we need those rules to be well thought out and defined. Every officer needs to be following their directives to the letter if the police is ever going to be good.
99% of the time in these incidents the reason they happen is because they are psycho cops ignoring training and rules. There is no rule saying to mag dump into an unarmed autistic kid because you were scared. Its not that they dont know. Its the warrior cop super soldier occupying force bullshit thats the problem. What is missing is the punishment element when training is ignored. Bad shoot? Homicide charge. Every fucking time!!!! Not retraining.
Everyone needs training for their job. If they do not follow their training, they are probably not doing a good job.
Inspired by true events:
WTH they empty whole clips on her! WHILE asking her to drop the gun!
Not even one magazine, the pig on camera emptied the first magazine, spent longer reloading than she took to dump the mag, and then dumped A SECOND ONE
It's somehow even worse than Acorn Cop, at least he only dumped one magazine
Too bad it was so close range too. She might have had a chance because their aim was probably just as shit as acorn cop's considering how poorly trained they clearly are 😕
She did survive, with two hits that I'm aware of
i learned that if someone bangs on my front door and shouts "Sheriff's office!" then I need to exit my back door, run, and hide.
Arming bureaucrats and giving them legal immunity was maybe society's largest mistake.
Someone breaks into a house, and then walks to the window holding a gun...I mean, ya'll make it sound SO easy being a cop and reacting to split second decisions that can mean life and death....
Being a cop isnt that dangerous compared to other jobs. I have had 3 guns pointed at me from working retail and being a delivery driver. All robberies. I was armed for 2 of them. All 3 times I managed to not get shot or not shoot anyone by making the right decisions and realizing that material things are not worth more than life. Why can't cops be held to the same standard?
These cops could've retreated to cover down the stairs or to the sides of the door and attempted to make actual communication with the home owner. They are paid well and have great benefits. They know what they signed up for. We should be able to expect them to be competent in situations like these.
It's a good thing you're not a cop. It's a bad thing you're allowed to own a gun.
So they get to murder people in their own homes because their job is dangerous? I don't give a fuck if I break every window in my house at 3am and its real scary for the poor adults with body armor and deadly weapons. I think I have a reasonable expectation of not having some jumpy scrubs empty two magazines through my front door
There are plenty of cases where the police overreact or use excessive force entirely unjustified. There are even more cases when the police get shot at without any rhythm or reason.
There's a reason they're trained to open fire in uncertain situations. A split second decision might be the difference between them dying on the job and going back home to their families.
So, don't create those uncertain situations, unless getting shot is what you're looking for. If the police are banging on your door, they suspect that something is going on. Best you can do, is help them figure out the situation. The cops, however, are not psychic and don't know you and your intentions. So, if you have a gun, keep it in your holster or off yourself entirely. Identify yourself. Talk to them. Don't just walk out on them, gun in hand...
What the fuck ever.
Being a cop isn't even one of the top 25 most dangerous jobs in America and they get to have a gun and get away with shooting people.
The slogan is 'to protect and serve,' not 'to be a coward and fire an entire clip before you can assess the situation.'
The slogan isn't "get shot and die, because you're too tough to shoot an armed person first" either.
Just imagine yourself in this situation: You're a cop. You're in front of a house that someone, reportedly, broke into. You bang on the door and identify yourself. Several seconds later, a person with gun walks out, not saying a word.
Even if you take a second to access the situation: there's a person, brandishing a weapon (which, in most cases, is a crime) walking out of a house that has been broken into. How does this come off as a safe or normal situation, exactly?
That did not happen.
Also did not happen. Holding a weapon is not brandishing it.
There's a video. You can watch it.
The definition of "brandishing" in holding or display a weapon in an intimidating or threatening manner. Substitute the cops with a pizza delivery person, for example, and I bet they'd feel pretty darn intimidated and/or threatened in this exact situation.
When you greet someone at your door, you keep your gun in your holster, just like you keep your dick in your pants. That's called common sense. If you don't have, you've only got yourself to blame.
I did watch it. She neither walked out nor did she hold the gun in a threatening manner. Those are simply untrue. She was inside. You can see she was inside. Even the article says she was walking to the door.
But please do show her outside, brandishing the gun. A timestamp on the video at the top of the article will be fine.
The cops are several yards to the right of the door. Last time I've checked, the cops didn't posses the ability to see through walls or behind corners.
Did you forget that you claimed that you could see on the video that she was outside her home and brandishing a weapon?
"Pouncy's girlfriend told reporters Friday that she and Pouncy heard banging on the door and that Pouncy walked to the door with gun."
It's not on the video, but it's confirmed that it has happened. Not everything has to be in one place.
To the door isn't outside it.
It's weird how the goalposts are running around.
Okay, fine. At the door. In direct line of sight. With a gun in hand. Because that changes everything.
This conversation isn't going anywhere. Look, if you think that walking up to cops with a gun in hand is good idea, more power to you. Have fun figuring out that actions have consequences.
Sorry, was this woman in her own apartment with her own gun?
Do you understand the difference between "walked to the door" and "walked out the door?"
You also claimed she was brandishing and not saying a word when she went outside.
So no, the video didn't confirm any of what you said.
They signed up to abuse power and be bullies not put their life on the line to protect people.
Clearly that's only reason police exist. No exceptions. They never do anything other than abuse power and shoot people for funzies. Not at all.
As we all know, the world is perfectly black and white. Assigning qualities to groups of people and, then, treating people in those groups as if all of them posses those same qualities is a perfect system with no flaws. AdolfSchmitler would know.
ACAB.
Okay, I officially feel like an idiot now.
This entire thread is like arguing with a dog regarding its barking. No matter how much thought and logic is thrown at it, the dog just wouldn't shut up, because it doesn't even comprehend what "an argument", "logic" and "reason" are.
Same here. You use logic and explain that the world is not perfectly black and white, in returns they yell "acab" just because they "feel" like it.
Your "logic" and "reason" are trash and you are mad people are telling you as much. Dehumanizing people you disagree with too, not a good look for you
Being lectured for supposedly "dehumanizing people" by people who yell that "all cops are bastards"...
Maybe look in a mirror once in a while?
You're out here defending cops that shot a person dead in their own home. You're victim blaming by saying the victim shouldn't be legally carrying their firearm in their house. You should feel like an idiot, it just shouldn't have taken until now.
ACAB.
A person who grabbed a gun after the police knocked on the door and announced themselves.
Treat a firearm like you'd tread your dick. You keep the latter in your pants and the former in your holster. It's not illegal to hold your dick in your hand while your at home, but if you answer your while doing so, chances are, you're getting charged with indecent exposure. Makes sense, right?
Similarly, it's perfectly legal to carry or even flail around a gun while you're in your own home. But it can very easily turn into brandishing if you'd go to answer the door with one in hand. So here's a crazy idea: how about you don't? Particularly when you're answering the door to police, of all things, who you know are armed.
How about the cops don't murder people who aren't violating anything in their house? If they can't handle the pressure of talking to someone with a weapon, they shouldn't be cops. These two are worthless excuses for human trash.
You keep victim blaming. Everything they did was legal and should be expected as a possibility by the cops. Here's a hypothetical, what if a bad guy knocks on the door and claims to be the cops? The whole fucking point of the second amendment is to protect one's self. You act like someone couldn't pretend to be the police, or that the police have some extra special privilege that supercedes the freedoms of the people. Those to should rot for the rest of their miserable lives, but because the system is so fucked, they'll get lauded and probably promoted.
ACAB
Yeah so the next time you get pulled over remember to reach for your registration real slow. Wouldn't want to make any uncertain situations by reaching for your glove box too fast. They aren't psychic after all you could have a revolver in there. Your family will take great solace in knowing that the internal investigation didn't find any wrong doing.
She literally grabbed a gun.
There's a difference between having a gun on yourself or in the vehicle when you're getting pulled over, and pulling one out and putting it in your hand.
When you see someone grab a gun, you don't assume they're going to scratch their back with it, do you? So, if you get pulled over and the first thing you do is grab a gun, you'll get lit up. Because you're an idiot.