- Sep 16, 2003
- 31,468
- 1,915
R.I.P.
@ Prez
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Shoot to incapacitate" means "shoot to kill", its just a procedural term. Seriously, I've been in college for four years in a Criminal Justice school and all my CJ professors are former detectives, officers, sergeants, etc., and they all say the only reason you pull out your gun is to lay someone out, there should be no other reason for it.Originally Posted by elboricua 6
viiheaven wrote:
elboricua 6 wrote:
I didnt know incapacitate meant "murder" ... anyways, the dude shot 6 times - one hit the leg the other hit the chest ... no fires where shot back ... just the fact that he hit him on the chest mean that the two officers must of have been facing each other or at the very least seen each other .. so some words have had to be exchange! maybe .. OR MAYBE NOT .. JUST BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG .. begging the search .. holy !@%$ he is a cop!
Originally Posted by HarlemToTheBronx
Damn. That's a #@##%+ up story. Ruined my day.
Media outlets are going to run with the black/white angle, though.
Originally Posted by M16
Just like that one Wire episode
Originally Posted by elboricua 6
Originally Posted by lurkin2long
6 shots because he seen somebody stealing?
cops usually shoot 1st and then try to plan/come up with the excuse ... in this case he shoot a cop so what's the story?
Should automatically go to jail for murder
When someone in plain clothes is running through NYC with his gun drawn, it's not outrageous for an officer to fire before calmly the gun-wielder and asking for identification. I mean, there are some shifty cops out there, but when you're in that situation when all you see is one man chasing another with a loaded pistol, you fire because someone is obviously in immediate danger.Originally Posted by HarlemToTheBronx
kix4kix wrote:
You think he aimed his gun at the officer?....Because my reading comprehension is top notch and the source says he didn't fire his gun so how was he in danger?
But yeah lets "analyze" the "facts"..Funny how they don't rush to any conclusions when policemen are at fault.
Policemen are here to protect and serve, not shoot first and ask questions later. Officers like that give them the bad name. Shooting should be a last option, way past drawing ones weapon, if you were taught that you should fire upon withdrawing a gun, you were taught WRONG.
You guys are so ridiculousOriginally Posted by kix4kix
Originally Posted by HarlemToTheBronx
Damn. That's a #@##%+ up story. Ruined my day.
Media outlets are going to run with the black/white angle, though.
You say that like they shouldn't? ...Like he would have been shot if he was white
We need a new police force to police the police force.
We don't know the whole story, but the officer may have felt like the guy being chased life was in danger thus shooting the other officer to"protect" the other person.Originally Posted by AbominalSnowman
I thought you can't shoot unless you're in danger or whatever...totally sucks.