Lords of Death Forums Lords of Death Forums LoD General Discussion Shits gettin real yo

our forefathers rolled over and let the government do whatever they wanted, we should do the same. Being alive is much better than being dead.

Forgive the WOT, but you asked for it. Bravo for resorting to name calling in a debate. I hope you practice more maturity on the job. I'd argue that you're the moron broseph. You proved that already in the concealed carry thread when I discussed approaching a citizen exercising open carry and you said, AND I QUOTE:



This was in response to me saying this:



You can find this exchange here:

http://www.lordsofdeath.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=426859&page=6

Here home slice, let me show you how an officer with a level head handles an open carry stop. *Hint* he doesn't "draw down as soon as he sees the gun".



You can do your job without being a piece of shit, and this guy proves it. Remember, your dealing with other American citizens, not enemies or terrorists. Just so you can get a little better understanding of my views, I think the guy in the video was being a dousche when the officer asked him for his name and he wouldn't give it. That said, I understand his reason for not doing so, I just think it was unecessary and kinda douschey.

Additionally, I'm confused as to your overall stance on self defense. In the concealed carry thread, you also said this:



So you clearly do understand the idea of excessive force. You stated if a guy swings at me, and I shoot and kill him, I'm going to jail. Why Anti? Because it violates the 3rd element of self defense I mentioned above, right? It no longer becomes self defense at that point.

For a second, try your best to take emotion and your brainwashing, oh I mean training, out of it and look strictly at the letter of the law. To refresh your memory, the elements of self defense are:

1. Reasonably believed that you were in imminent danger of being killed, injured, or touched unlawfully, and
2. Reasonably believed that you needed to use force to prevent that from happening, and
3. Used no more force than was necessary to prevent that from happening.

Let's examine number 1. At 1:02-1:04 in the video, you can clearly see that this IS NOT THE FUCKING CASE. Did the officer take a step back, yes, he did. However, immediately before the guy sicked the dog on him, the MAN HAD HIS HANDS AT HIS FUCKING SIDES. Now you tell me Anti, what threat is there from a man who has his arms at his sides? Is he going to use his words to kill, injure or touch you?

Additionally, and you haven't answered this question, what does a man with a drawn tazer, a gun at his side, two K-9's at his back and 20 friends with guns have to fear from an unarmed man who is angry and yelling?

Also, try to be more truthful or observant in your assessment of the video. You said: "In the real world Vermi, someone charges a cop while shouting, with clenched fists, staring at him, and ignoring all of his commands. He's gonna go to the ground 9/10 times." Go back and look at 1:02 to 1:04. That man does not have his fists clenched. His hands are open and hanging at his sides. No doubt if they filed an excessive report complaint him and all his buddies would write it up that way in their reports though. Hell I dunno, maybe you guys are so brainwashed by your training that you actually believe the shit you write and convince yourselves it's accurate.

Now let's look at # 2. This goes back to #1. Sadly, I don't think we'll ever agree on this because we're looking at the situation through different lenses. You a cop and me a civilian. I don't believe those 20+ officers with 2 trained attack dogs, drawn tazers and guns had anything at all to fear from a man who's yelling with his hands at his sides. Subsequently, I don't feel any force was necessary to prevent one man who's yelling from injuring, killing or touching 20+ officers with tazers drawn, 2 K-9's and guns. You obviously disagree and here I believe never shall the 2 twains meet. All bullshit aside though man, it deeply saddens me that you as a LEO actually believe force is the right response to a guy who is angry and yelling because he believes he's being victimized by the government. Whether he's right or not, how about a little empathy for fuck's sake? The guy is a human being and based on how he's dressed and where he lives, probably a hard working American, just like you. Why is your first response to believe that sicking an attack dog on him and tazing him because he's angry and yelling is an appropriate response?

I've dealt with level headed cops in tense situations. Know what they did? They said something like this to the angry/upset person, "Hey man, why don't you come over here for a minute and let me talk to you." They then proceeded to explain why they were there, what the person was doing wrong and what the consequences would be if the person didn't comply with what they were asking. Could that upset guy have been convinced to step aside and talk to an officer for a minute? We'll never know because they didn't try to be calm or rational or talk to the man. All they did was scream orders at him with weapons drawn.

Now let's look at # 3. Well first off, I don't believe there was any danger of that happening so I think prevention is irrelevant. However, since you do, I suppose we should examine it. To me, this goes back to the whole thing about warning the guy a couple of times to back off and then lighting him up he doesn't. Instead, the officer takes 1 step back and then the other officer sicks the dog on him. That's fucking stupid.

I personally don't believe the situation warranted self defense as I outline above. Despite what you say, I don't think the guy committed a crime at all and I think you're completely full of shit or ignorant with your response to that. If that exact situation happened on the street in front of my house and I sicked a trained attacked dog on a guy who was yelling at me from 4 feet away with his arms at his sides and then tazed him when he kicked my dog, I think my ass would be the one in cuffs. That is not an appropriate response to someone yelling at you. If it's not appropriate for me, as a civilian, then it's not appropriate for you. Take a look at the stand your ground defense/jury instructions.

“A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury/<insert forcible and atrocious crime>) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”

The crux of this argument to me lies with the difference in perception we seem to have here. My perception is that the man in that video was not acting aggressive to the point that use of force was warranted. I don't believe there was any danger. You obviously believe otherwise and that's scares me dude. You want to see some examples of officers being calm in the face of angry people? Here you go:



Go to 1:20 on this one:



Neither of those officers reacted violently to people screaming at them and acting irate. These guys are prime examples of how all LEO's should act when someone is irate. Besides, aren't you guys fucking trained to deal with someone ACTUALLY attacking you? Shouldn't you be able to react with proper force WHEN it happens? Why do you feel the need to use violence before violence is done to you?

Also, if you watch the entire video I originally posted, you can see why the guy was so upset Anti. His Aunt, who is 57 years old and all of 5 foot 4 was thrown to the ground by the cops. She shows her scuffed up knees and cuts on her hands. Now at this point it's conjecture, but I ask you this, what reason would cops have to throw a woman that age and that size to the ground? If that was your aunt, wouldn't you be a little upset? Again man, empathy....

Also, quote from the Nevada governor which pretty much sums up my thoughts on the whole altercation.

"No cow justifies the atmosphere of intimidation which currently exists nor the limitation of constitutional rights that are sacred to all Nevadans."

Such horeshit Vermi.

Look at that video clip again. Hillbilly farmer fuckface drives his ATV in front of traffic. He uses his ATV to block the trucks and thwart enforcement of a lawful court order. You can clearly see him getting off of it at 55 seconds. He then ignores a lawful order to back away. He then advances on the police in a manner that is unquestionably threatening. The police officer does not sick his dog on the guy. The cop holding the dog leash raises one of his hands to point at the guy, and the dog runs forward. The dog approaches him and barks, at which point, fuckface kicks the dog.

The videos you cited as proper police conduct are not even remotely similar in circumstance to hillbilly farmer fuckface's video. But this guy should be good for federal assault charges and a resisting/interfering/obstructing a police officer. I hope they seriously fuck him up with some nice felony charges.

I just don't understand how hillbilly farmer fuckface is your hero, or some champion for American civil liberties. I'm not trying to be rude, but I honestly don't think anyone advocating for this guy has the faintest clue what they are arguing...

I'm hung up on the underlined "horeshit". I can't decide if that's supposed to be whoreshit or horseshit. Whoreshit would be more interesting but horseshit is tried and true.

Hahah

Know how you can tell a lawyer is lying....

My fucking ass dude. You're either blind or deliberately misconstruing what went on there. He clearly issues a command to the dog. You can hear it. Turn up your volume. The dog does not "bark" at him, the dog runs forward, following the command of its handler. I can only assume it was running forward to bite, till it took a face full of boot.

I know EXACTLY what I am arguing Sonya. I am arguing that the officers in this altercation are unquestionably acting extremely aggressive and militant to this group of people. I am arguing that I don't think a cop's first reaction to "maybe there might possibly COULD be some violence" should be actual violence. I'm arguing that a guy with a tazer drawn and 20 friends around with guns had zero to fear from an unarmed guy who's yelling at them.

Do I agree with what "hillbilly farmer fuckface" did? No, I think he's an idiot. I'm not saying he was smart, I'm saying that the guy with the dog should never have let the dog near a guy that was just yelling. That dog is a weapon and and of itself and it was unnecessary to control an irate person.

Also, you're wrong again about my comparison videos. Look at first video 2:38, cop has to back up to avoid being hit by the car door as the man furiously exits his vehicle. Again at 2:44, guy leans in to yell and trooper leans back and this guy is MUCH closer to the trooper than the "hillbilly farmer fuckface". I'm not saying they're exact comparisons, I'm saying the officer in my video is a much better example of how police should handle irate people. How the fuck can you even argue that? The guy is calm and collected the entire time, despite the man losing his shit and screaming.

Also Sonya, I want you to watch 23:-25 seconds in. You can see the cop throw the guys aunt to the fucking ground while her back is turned. She lays on the ground for a solid 3-5 seconds after.

Let's hear your lawyer bullshit justification for that one bro.

Think "hillbilly farmer fuckface" might be a little pissed after he watched the cop do that to his aunt?

The cop was still holding the leash when the guy kicked the dog. When a cop sends his dog after you, trust me, it doesn't look like that.

Bottom line, you don't get to break the law, threaten officers, and kick a fun king dog and then cry like a butch that you're a victim.

And no Vermi, your other videos are nowhere near this. Those were simply motorists yelling about tickets. They were seated for the majority of the time, and the one guy only opened his door because I thought the cop said he would ticket him for littering. Then the guy exits the vehicle. Totally different when a cop tells you to back away and you continue to advance on him. Apples and oranges.

So is your position that cops should have let these people interfere with enforcement of the court's order? If not, then what, in your view, can the cops do when he blocks traffic with his ATV? Ask him politely to move it? And when they refuse? When are they authorized to use force?

You mean the woman refusing to back up and impeding the flow of traffic? Yeah, she got thrown down and arrested. Get over it, lol.

And let's assume, for purposes of argument, that the cop was unjustified. Does that give this guy the right to interfere with a court order?

All you are really advocating is that (1) cops are babysitters; (2) people have to interfere with court orders.