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

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?