[DerbyX]

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/2 ... ooting.htm

Perhaps with police so quick to shoot he is not willing to take the chance?

[andyt]

If the red dot was a taser, then I don't think the cops can be faulted here. I thought they were aiming their rifles at him, and it seemed like a bit of an over reaction. They obviously do need him to put away the smoke, and using a taser for compliance isn't too bad.

So then it's only the cop with his "he could have put an eye out with that thing."

Don't cops use batons anymore. Smacking him in the hand that's holding the cig should solve the problem.

[DerbyX]

andyt andyt:

If the red dot was a taser, then I don't think the cops can be faulted here. I thought they were aiming their rifles at him, and it seemed like a bit of an over reaction. They obviously do need him to put away the smoke, and using a taser for compliance isn't too bad.

So then it's only the cop with his "he could have put an eye out with that thing."

Don't cops use batons anymore. Smacking him in the hand that's holding the cig should solve the problem.

Possibly. Seeing that he was unarmed they could have then holstered their weapons then calmly questioned him and this could have all been avoided too.

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/23/Family_Says_911_Tape_Caught_Cops_Planning_Cover-Up_After_Shooting.htm

Perhaps with police so quick to shoot he is not willing to take the chance?

Lots of evidence to support your off the cuff comment? So quick to shoot? Like when?

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

andyt andyt:

If the red dot was a taser, then I don't think the cops can be faulted here. I thought they were aiming their rifles at him, and it seemed like a bit of an over reaction. They obviously do need him to put away the smoke, and using a taser for compliance isn't too bad.

So then it's only the cop with his "he could have put an eye out with that thing."

Don't cops use batons anymore. Smacking him in the hand that's holding the cig should solve the problem.

Possibly. Seeing that he was unarmed they could have then holstered their weapons then calmly questioned him and this could have all been avoided too.

You should maybe instruct at the police college as you know so much about it eh?

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

DerbyX DerbyX:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/23/Family_Says_911_Tape_Caught_Cops_Planning_Cover-Up_After_Shooting.htm

Perhaps with police so quick to shoot he is not willing to take the chance?

Lots of evidence to support your off the cuff comment? So quick to shoot? Like when?

Talk to Bart. He has informed you what police down there are like and why he acts the way he does and why he would react the way he would.

I guess you know better then he though right?

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

DerbyX DerbyX:

andyt andyt:

If the red dot was a taser, then I don't think the cops can be faulted here. I thought they were aiming their rifles at him, and it seemed like a bit of an over reaction. They obviously do need him to put away the smoke, and using a taser for compliance isn't too bad.

So then it's only the cop with his "he could have put an eye out with that thing."

Don't cops use batons anymore. Smacking him in the hand that's holding the cig should solve the problem.

Possibly. Seeing that he was unarmed they could have then holstered their weapons then calmly questioned him and this could have all been avoided too.

You should maybe instruct at the police college as you know so much about it eh?

I'd be happy to. Its a sign of professionalism when they diffuse a situation rather then escalate it needlessly and this was escalated needlessly.

Perhaps they should have kicked him in the face too? Then he really would have gotten the message.

[andyt]

DerbyX DerbyX:

andyt andyt:

If the red dot was a taser, then I don't think the cops can be faulted here. I thought they were aiming their rifles at him, and it seemed like a bit of an over reaction. They obviously do need him to put away the smoke, and using a taser for compliance isn't too bad.

So then it's only the cop with his "he could have put an eye out with that thing."

Don't cops use batons anymore. Smacking him in the hand that's holding the cig should solve the problem.

Possibly. Seeing that he was unarmed they could have then holstered their weapons then calmly questioned him and this could have all been avoided too.

How did they know he was unarmed before they searched him. They finally did find the guy with the gun, carried under his coat. What if this was the guy and they were calmly questioning him and he started blasting. I certainly don't blame the cops for being touchy during a gun call. My main beef was with the explanation of how a cigarette is a weapon. Like a stapler I guess.

[DerbyX]

andyt andyt:

How did they know he was unarmed before they searched him. They finally did find the guy with the gun, carried under his coat. What if this was the guy and they were calmly questioning him and he started blasting. I certainly don't blame the cops for being touchy during a gun call. My main beef was with the explanation of how a cigarette is a weapon. Like a stapler I guess.

They could clearly see he had no weapon in his hand and if you start thinking "what ifs" like you are doing then why aren't all traffic stops done at gun point? Plenty of videos of cops getting shot doing just that.

Again, they might be within the letter of the law in how they handled it but that doesn't mean they couldn't have handled it better.

In the end this is the kind of thing that only serves to harm their reputation and lower their credibility the next time the situation is iffy.

[EyeBrock]

Well, when it comes to Canada I am very confident that I do know more than Bart. On USMC stuff in Iraq he is way better informed than me, on this, well he's quite a bit off base.

Oh and your 2009 link is from Phoenix. Hardly relevant to Canada is it now?

Maybe you could get another link to show how fast Canadian cops are to shoot people that would provide some basis for your spurious and irrelevant comment. But in the past you haven’t let the truth and hard facts get in the way of your posts, I see you haven't changed.

And on logic, the cops responded to a call of a person armed with a pistol. It was dark and unless they had x-ray vision how would they know if 'Mr non-compliant-I wanna-finish-my-ciggy and I don't care what you cops say' wasn't armed?

But obviously you thought your responses through eh? Mmmmmmm.

[EyeBrock]

andyt andyt:

DerbyX DerbyX:

andyt andyt:

If the red dot was a taser, then I don't think the cops can be faulted here. I thought they were aiming their rifles at him, and it seemed like a bit of an over reaction. They obviously do need him to put away the smoke, and using a taser for compliance isn't too bad.

So then it's only the cop with his "he could have put an eye out with that thing."

Don't cops use batons anymore. Smacking him in the hand that's holding the cig should solve the problem.

Possibly. Seeing that he was unarmed they could have then holstered their weapons then calmly questioned him and this could have all been avoided too.

How did they know he was unarmed before they searched him. They finally did find the guy with the gun, carried under his coat. What if this was the guy and they were calmly questioning him and he started blasting. I certainly don't blame the cops for being touchy during a gun call. My main beef was with the explanation of how a cigarette is a weapon. Like a stapler I guess.

I agree andy, the call said man with a pistol and pistols easily go into a waistband.

Having watched the journos report, it's obvious he isn't letting logic get in the way of his little story. The journo calls the red dot 'from police guns' and the smoker says it was from a taser. I also note that supposed police response re the lethality of a lit ciggy was a third-person 'quote' from said journo.

I can tell you that I have never thought of a lit ciggy as something that poses a threat of serious bodily harm or death, but if I was arresting somebody smoking or on say a cell phone, I would direct them to put it down. If they didn't I wouldn't shoot them either, but I'm a nice guy.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Well, when it comes to Canada I am very confident that I do know more than Bart. On USMC stuff in Iraq he is way better informed than me, on this, well he's quite a bit off base.

Oh and your 2009 link is from Phoenix. Hardly relevant to Canada is it now?

No, it was directly relevant to the police he deals with and what happens down there in explaining to you his reasoning.

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Maybe you could get another link to show how fast Canadian cops are to shoot people that would provide some basis for your spurious and irrelevant comment. But in the past you haven’t let the truth and hard facts get in the way of your posts, I see you haven't changed.

And on logic, the cops responded to a call of a person armed with a pistol. It was dark and unless they had x-ray vision how would they know if 'Mr non-compliant-I wanna-finish-my-ciggy and I don't care what you cops say' wasn't armed?

But obviously you thought your responses through eh? Mmmmmmm.

Insults now? You are quite predicable when your prejudices are in play like how your opinion about the media and politicians mirrors Diggers and police. You both got your reasons though I'm sure.

Now if you are quite done, you'll recall I said this about our police:

$1:

Why do you think that is? Perhaps it is a direct result of our feelings towards guns in that our police don't go out every day thinking every one they might meet is armed to the teeth and therefore aren't so quick to use deadly force even if they are acting heavy handedly?

Quite clearly showing I WAS saying our police are different then theirs.....

Now, if you are just going to continue the insults and barbs I won't be responding to you any further so you might as well stick me back on ignore.

Good-Day.

[EyeBrock]

Where's the insult?

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Where's the insult?

"But in the past you haven’t let the truth and hard facts get in the way of your posts, I see you haven't changed."

Right there. I won't be responding any further to you with crap like this. All that will happen is I'll be the one getting banned for simply responding in kind. Don't expect responses for any post containing this shit.

[EyeBrock]

Stating facts that you are uncomfortable with doesn't make it an insult.