XXXXXX

291 results
1
2
3
4
5
6

This topic is locked from further discussion.

5288

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#251 Chaos_HL21

Member since 2003 • 5288 Posts

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]
The window is plainly visible if you click the original article link.
If being overpowered is a legitimate concern, DON'T OPEN THE DOOR.
Oleg_Huzwog

It was dark out. Probably couldn't see them even if he looked out. If he had waited, the cops would have came in and he would probably respond by firing since the cops were stupid enough not to identify themselves. Either way, somebody would have died, BUT no one would have had to if the cops had just double-checked and identified themselves.

An outdoor light, between the door and window, is also plainly visible.

The cops installed the light after the shooting (they probably built the windows too).:P

Seriously, I don't know why some one would open the door gun drawn, you really only should draw your weapon when you know there is a danger. Someone knocking at the door at 1am isn't something that warrent pulling a weapon.

12 years ago

6838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 6838 Posts

[QUOTE="Mike-uk"][QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] And since we can't hear his side of the story, we instead make up a side of the story that makes him look better?

It's an alternative version and one that's highly probable.

All speculation, no concrete evidence. This " alternative version " is moot.

So is the officer's version.

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] How exactly would they prove that he was or wasn't aiming the gun. The victim is dead so we can't exactly hear his side of the story.

And since we can't hear his side of the story, we instead make up a side of the story that makes him look better?

It's an alternative version and one that's highly probable.

You have no idea how probable it is. It's surely POSSIBLE, but there's zero indication whatsoever that that's how it happened, or that that version of events is more likely that the official version presented.

12 years ago

4646

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#254 redstorm72

Member since 2008 • 4646 Posts

The victim is an idiot. When someone knocks on his door in the middle of the night what is the first thing he thinks to do? Ask who it is? No. Look out the window? No. Call the cops? No. Barricade the door? No. Naturally he grabs a gun, opens the door and starts waving his fire arm at the strangers at his door. How f***ing stupid can you be? Why would any criminal worth pointing a gun at KNOCK ON YOUR DOOR! They would have just broke in! The cops probably should have identified themselves, but can you really blame them for not announcing their presence to a suspected murderer? Lesson learned, don't point a f***ing gun at people unless you accept the risk of getting shot back.

12 years ago

13862

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#255 Ravensmash

Member since 2010 • 13862 Posts

The victim is an idiot. When someone knocks on his door in the middle of the night what is the first thing he thinks to do? Ask who it is? No. Look out the window? No. Call the cops? No. Barricade the door? No. Naturally he grabs a gun, opens the door and starts waving his fire arm at the strangers at his door. How f***ing stupid can you be? Why would any criminal worth pointing a gun at KNOCK ON YOUR DOOR! They would have just broke in! The cops probably should have identified themselves, but can you really blame them for not announcing their presence to a suspected murderer? Lesson learned, don't point a f***ing gun at people unless you accept the risk of getting shot back.
redstorm72

Yes, because I'm sure the police officers would happily identify themselves....oh wait. Would the man be in his rights to aim a gun had the knock come from a gang of criminals? Because as far as he was concerned, that's who these unidentified police officers were.

12 years ago

6838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 6838 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] And since we can't hear his side of the story, we instead make up a side of the story that makes him look better?

It's an alternative version and one that's highly probable.

You have no idea how probable it is. It's surely POSSIBLE, but there's zero indication whatsoever that that's how it happened, or that that version of events is more likely that the official version presented.

So we're both assuming. Therefore, my version is just as valid as the "official" version.

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] It's an alternative version and one that's highly probable.

You have no idea how probable it is. It's surely POSSIBLE, but there's zero indication whatsoever that that's how it happened, or that that version of events is more likely that the official version presented.

So we're both assuming. Therefore, my version is just as valid as the "official" version.

Sorry, but witness testimony trumps "$*** I made up in my head" even when the witnesses ARE lying.

12 years ago

6838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 6838 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] You have no idea how probable it is. It's surely POSSIBLE, but there's zero indication whatsoever that that's how it happened, or that that version of events is more likely that the official version presented.

So we're both assuming. Therefore, my version is just as valid as the "official" version.

Sorry, but witness testimony trumps "$*** I made up in my head" even when the witnesses ARE lying.

Made by the cops themselves. Not exactly objective.

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] So we're both assuming. Therefore, my version is just as valid as the "official" version.

Sorry, but witness testimony trumps "$*** I made up in my head" even when the witnesses ARE lying.

Made by the cops themselves. Not exactly objective.

Regardless, the issue is under investigation and there are at least POTENTIAL ways to determine if their account is consistent with the evidence. Do their stories match each other? Are their stories consistent with the physical evidence at the scene? Are their stories consistent with the interviews conducted of the neighbors? It's impossible to know for a fact if they're telling the truth or not, but the issue is under investigation. If they're lying, it's entirely possible that their account will be determined to be inconsistent with the evidence at hand. What YOU'RE doing is just saying, "I don't believe it, I'll bet they're lying, you can't prove I'm wrong."

12 years ago

6838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 6838 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Sorry, but witness testimony trumps "$*** I made up in my head" even when the witnesses ARE lying.

Made by the cops themselves. Not exactly objective.

Regardless, the issue is under investigation and there are at least POTENTIAL ways to determine if their account is consistent with the evidence. Do their stories match each other? Are their stories consistent with the physical evidence at the scene? Are their stories consistent with the interviews conducted of the neighbors? It's impossible to know for a fact if they're telling the truth or not, but the issue is under investigation. If they're lying, it's entirely possible that their account will be determined to be inconsistent with the evidence at hand. What YOU'RE doing is just saying, "I don't believe it, I'll bet they're lying, you can't prove I'm wrong."

I offered a version that I think might have happened. Never claimed that you can't prove me wrong.

12 years ago

UnknownSniper65

9238

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#261 UnknownSniper65

Member since 2004 • 9238 Posts

I'd don't see how the police officers are at fault. Its not unheard of for police officers get killed on these kinds of warrants so it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't identify themselves right away. If you are fearful for your life you shouldn't open the door and force a confrontation.

12 years ago

LostProphetFLCL

18526

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#262 LostProphetFLCL

Member since 2006 • 18526 Posts

I'd don't see how the police officers are at fault. Its not unheard of for police officers get killed on these kinds of warrants so it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't identify themselves right away. If you are fearful for your life you shouldn't open the door and force a confrontation.
UnknownSniper65

Shhh quiet, logic isn't very welcome in this thread. We are just supposed to sit here and trash the police!

12 years ago

27620

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2008 • 27620 Posts

What's with all the stories of cops abusing power recently? Is the media just focusing more on it?
BossPerson

It's not abusing power, it was just not the best judgement on their part.

12 years ago

CreasianDevaili

4429

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#264 CreasianDevaili

Member since 2005 • 4429 Posts

I'd don't see how the police officers are at fault. Its not unheard of for police officers get killed on these kinds of warrants so it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't identify themselves right away. If you are fearful for your life you shouldn't open the door and force a confrontation.
UnknownSniper65

This is true. It is also true what he did was unwise. However it is ALSO true that had he not opened the door, tried to call police with his phone and lifted the gun up as the door was broken in in fear of his life he'd still be dead. Police NEED to announce themselves. Especially that late at night in a dense city. No ands ifs or buts.

Both sides had incorrect knowledge of who was on the other side of the door. Both are at fault. Both. It is plain as day to see why both made critical mistakes that got someone killed.

12 years ago

80441

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 226

User Lists: 0

#265 JustPlainLucas

Member since 2002 • 80441 Posts

Fault on the police for not identifying them. Fault on the victim for not asking who's there. Lose lose.

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] I offered a version that I think might have happened. Never claimed that you can't prove me wrong.

You offered a version that you pulled out of your fantasies and with zero evidence to support it, and claimed that that's just as valid and on equal footing with a version of events that is based on actual evidence. Like it or not, faulty evidence, unreliable evidence, and even forged evidence are still evidence. A version of a story based on EVIDENCE (whether it's unreliable or not) is always going to be on more solid ground than a version of a story that (no matter how plausible) is based on nothing more than the $*** that you imagined in your head. I shouldn't even have to explain that. "This evidence MIGHT be unreliable" or "these witnesses MAY be lying" is not a good reason for totally ignoring any evidence which doesn't support how you'd have liked things to have happened. Have EVIDENCE that witnesses are lying or that things happened contrary to how witnesses stated, then go ahead and present that evidence. But the evidence is all that anyone has to go on. Yes, "witness statements" ARE evidence even if the witnesses are lying. And no, a possible alternative version of events is NOT on equal ground, unless you've got evidence to back it up. But hey...I shouldn't be surprised. I'm talking to someone who thinks that "the person knocking on my door MIGHT be a crazed criminal" is a valid reason for answering the door guns waving. The bottom line is that even though you can't trust everything you see or hear, living in your own head is a recipe for terrible things happening. This dude answered the door like a ****ing maniac, and the best defense anyone can seem to offer for his actions is that he was afraid. We then see how that disconnect between reality and his fears ended up getting him killed. But hell...that's all speculation too. Nobody knows if the police's account is accurate. No one also knows why he answered the door while displaying the gun. No one knows if he even bothered to ASK who was there before answering the door. No one knows if he even knew that it was the cops (or assumed that it wasn't the cops). All speculation, and anyone can fantasize a version of events that fits whatever preconceived story they want to run with. Ultimately, ALL we have to go on is the evidence presented. That';s it. If you can't agree on that, then why are you even discussing this?

12 years ago

25727

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 25727 Posts

The cop ****ed up but I don't blame them for shooting the guy which honestly I think it kind of stupid for him to just open the door and aiming his gun.

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]
I'd don't see how the police officers are at fault. Its not unheard of for police officers get killed on these kinds of warrants so it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't identify themselves right away. If you are fearful for your life you shouldn't open the door and force a confrontation.
CreasianDevaili

This is true. It is also true what he did was unwise. However it is ALSO true that had he not opened the door, tried to call police with his phone and lifted the gun up as the door was broken in in fear of his life he'd still be dead. Police NEED to announce themselves. Especially that late at night in a dense city. No ands ifs or buts.

Both sides had incorrect knowledge of who was on the other side of the door. Both are at fault. Both. It is plain as day to see why both made critical mistakes that got someone killed.

Um...is there any actual evidence that the cops would have broken down the door without announcing themselves as officers, in the event that the dude didn't open the door? A) There's a HUGE difference between "knocking on a door without identifying yourself" and "breaking down a door without identifying yourself." Can we in fact definitively state that willingness to do one automatically implies willingness to do the other? B) Notice that they knocked on the door, instead of just busting down the door in the first place and catching the guy off guard. Why is that? And that's not a rhetorical question. Does anyone actually know? Does anyone know for a fact that they had probable cause to break in without a warrant and that they WOULD have broken down the door if the guy hadn't opened it first? Or are we again just making assumptions about what MIGHT have happened? Even if they DID have probable cause to break down the door, does anyone know why they didn't do that? And I'm not talking about guesses or hypotheses, I'm talking about facts.

12 years ago

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts

[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"][QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]
I'd don't see how the police officers are at fault. Its not unheard of for police officers get killed on these kinds of warrants so it makes perfect sense that they wouldn't identify themselves right away. If you are fearful for your life you shouldn't open the door and force a confrontation.
MrGeezer

This is true. It is also true what he did was unwise. However it is ALSO true that had he not opened the door, tried to call police with his phone and lifted the gun up as the door was broken in in fear of his life he'd still be dead. Police NEED to announce themselves. Especially that late at night in a dense city. No ands ifs or buts.

Both sides had incorrect knowledge of who was on the other side of the door. Both are at fault. Both. It is plain as day to see why both made critical mistakes that got someone killed.

Um...is there any actual evidence that the cops would have broken down the door without announcing themselves as officers, in the event that the dude didn't open the door? A) There's a HUGE difference between "knocking on a door without identifying yourself" and "breaking down a door without identifying yourself." Can we in fact definitively state that willingness to do one automatically implies willingness to do the other? B) Notice that they knocked on the door, instead of just busting down the door in the first place and catching the guy off guard. Why is that? And that's not a rhetorical question. Does anyone actually know? Does anyone know for a fact that they had probable cause to break in without a warrant and that they WOULD have broken down the door if the guy hadn't opened it first? Or are we again just making assumptions about what MIGHT have happened? Even if they DID have probable cause to break down the door, does anyone know why they didn't do that? And I'm not talking about guesses or hypotheses, I'm talking about facts.

Point is.
1.) They got the wrong house, who the **** was the dumb**** that did that?
2.) They REFUSED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, the homeowner was woken up by loud knocking, the person at his door wouldn't say who they were, and he was scared he was going to get robbed.
3.) Police say "[they] knew it was a different guy, but were reacting to having a gun pointed at [them]"

So there's an innocent guy, probably sleeping, being woken up by banging on his door at 1:30 am, and the people outside refuse to answer a simple question of "Who is it?". Homeowner gets scared, answers the door armed so he'd be able to defend himself, and is instead made swiss cheese by a group of dumb**** cops who had the wrong house. Their stupidity is only matched by the fact they said they noticed it was a different man than their suspect, but fired because they were scared of a terrified homeowner who doesn't want to get robbed.

And you see NOTHING wrong with that?!

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

Point is.
1.) They got the wrong house, who the **** was the dumb**** that did that?
2.) They REFUSED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, the homeowner was woken up by loud knocking, the person at his door wouldn't say who they were, and he was scared he was going to get robbed.
3.) Police say "[they] knew it was a different guy, but were reacting to having a gun pointed at [them]"
So there's an innocent guy, probably sleeping, being woken up by banging on his door at 1:30 am, and the people outside refuse to answer a simple question of "Who is it?". Homeowner gets scared, answers the door armed so he'd be able to defend himself, and is instead made swiss cheese by a group of dumb**** cops who had the wrong house. Their stupidity is only matched by the fact they said they noticed it was a different man than their suspect, but fired because they were scared of a terrified homeowner who doesn't want to get robbed.
And you see NOTHING wrong with that?!
Nibroc420

1) Notice how YOU also just filled in the gaps with a story that you just made up in your mind. The article doesn't say the dude was peacefully asleep, the article doesn't even state that he actually bothered to ask who was there before answering the door with a gun in his hand. The article doesn't say that the reason he had the gun was because he was afraid of being robbed (how would anyone know that?) You just filled in those gaps yourself. 2) You're really harping on the fact that the cops had the wrong door. So ****ing what? Have you ever had someone call you and it turned out that they dialed the wrong number? Have you ever gotten directions to someone's home, but you got the directions wrong and accidentally ended up knocking on the neighbor's door instead of the door of the home you were looking for? This **** happens, and is NOT sufficient cause to be greeted with a ****ing gun pointed at you. 3) And again, drop the ****ing "self-defense" angle. If he was actually afraid for his life and thought that the best course of action was to open the ****ing door, then that right there is someone who had no ****ing business owning a gun in the first place.

12 years ago

1928

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#271 iHarlequin

Member since 2011 • 1928 Posts

It's because of this sh%# that I stay away from crooks and cops alike. Both have the power and will use it at the first notice of danger -- a shame this man didn't exactly have the option to stay away from them.

12 years ago

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Point is.
1.) They got the wrong house, who the **** was the dumb**** that did that?
2.) They REFUSED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, the homeowner was woken up by loud knocking, the person at his door wouldn't say who they were, and he was scared he was going to get robbed.
3.) Police say "[they] knew it was a different guy, but were reacting to having a gun pointed at [them]"
So there's an innocent guy, probably sleeping, being woken up by banging on his door at 1:30 am, and the people outside refuse to answer a simple question of "Who is it?". Homeowner gets scared, answers the door armed so he'd be able to defend himself, and is instead made swiss cheese by a group of dumb**** cops who had the wrong house. Their stupidity is only matched by the fact they said they noticed it was a different man than their suspect, but fired because they were scared of a terrified homeowner who doesn't want to get robbed.
And you see NOTHING wrong with that?!
MrGeezer

1) Notice how YOU also just filled in the gaps with a story that you just made up in your mind. The article doesn't say the dude was peacefully asleep, the article doesn't even state that he actually bothered to ask who was there before answering the door with a gun in his hand. The article doesn't say that the reason he had the gun was because he was afraid of being robbed (how would anyone know that?) You just filled in those gaps yourself. 2) You're really harping on the fact that the cops had the wrong door. So ****ing what? Have you ever had someone call you and it turned out that they dialed the wrong number? Have you ever gotten directions to someone's home, but you got the directions wrong and accidentally ended up knocking on the neighbor's door instead of the door of the home you were looking for? This **** happens, and is NOT sufficient cause to be greeted with a ****ing gun pointed at you. 3) And again, drop the ****ing "self-defense" angle. If he was actually afraid for his life and thought that the best course of action was to open the ****ing door, then that right there is someone who had no ****ing business owning a gun in the first place.

I'm disgusting at how you're defending cops who go to an innocent man's house at unreasonable hours, refuse to identify themselves, and shoot the man because he's scared about who might be outside.

12 years ago

30051

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#273 Lonelynight

Member since 2006 • 30051 Posts

execute those fvckers. are people here really blaming the victim? for fvck sakes...

12 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Point is.
1.) They got the wrong house, who the **** was the dumb**** that did that?
2.) They REFUSED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, the homeowner was woken up by loud knocking, the person at his door wouldn't say who they were, and he was scared he was going to get robbed.
3.) Police say "[they] knew it was a different guy, but were reacting to having a gun pointed at [them]"
So there's an innocent guy, probably sleeping, being woken up by banging on his door at 1:30 am, and the people outside refuse to answer a simple question of "Who is it?". Homeowner gets scared, answers the door armed so he'd be able to defend himself, and is instead made swiss cheese by a group of dumb**** cops who had the wrong house. Their stupidity is only matched by the fact they said they noticed it was a different man than their suspect, but fired because they were scared of a terrified homeowner who doesn't want to get robbed.
And you see NOTHING wrong with that?!
Nibroc420

1) Notice how YOU also just filled in the gaps with a story that you just made up in your mind. The article doesn't say the dude was peacefully asleep, the article doesn't even state that he actually bothered to ask who was there before answering the door with a gun in his hand. The article doesn't say that the reason he had the gun was because he was afraid of being robbed (how would anyone know that?) You just filled in those gaps yourself. 2) You're really harping on the fact that the cops had the wrong door. So ****ing what? Have you ever had someone call you and it turned out that they dialed the wrong number? Have you ever gotten directions to someone's home, but you got the directions wrong and accidentally ended up knocking on the neighbor's door instead of the door of the home you were looking for? This **** happens, and is NOT sufficient cause to be greeted with a ****ing gun pointed at you. 3) And again, drop the ****ing "self-defense" angle. If he was actually afraid for his life and thought that the best course of action was to open the ****ing door, then that right there is someone who had no ****ing business owning a gun in the first place.

I'm disgusting at how you're defending cops who go to an innocent man's house at unreasonable hours, refuse to identify themselves, and shoot the man because he's scared about who might be outside.

Okay, new rule. Cops are forbidden to take any action until at least one of them has been killed on the spot. That way, they know they're not doing anything wrong. :roll:

12 years ago

6838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 6838 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] I offered a version that I think might have happened. Never claimed that you can't prove me wrong.

You offered a version that you pulled out of your fantasies and with zero evidence to support it, and claimed that that's just as valid and on equal footing with a version of events that is based on actual evidence. Like it or not, faulty evidence, unreliable evidence, and even forged evidence are still evidence. A version of a story based on EVIDENCE (whether it's unreliable or not) is always going to be on more solid ground than a version of a story that (no matter how plausible) is based on nothing more than the $*** that you imagined in your head. I shouldn't even have to explain that. "This evidence MIGHT be unreliable" or "these witnesses MAY be lying" is not a good reason for totally ignoring any evidence which doesn't support how you'd have liked things to have happened. Have EVIDENCE that witnesses are lying or that things happened contrary to how witnesses stated, then go ahead and present that evidence. But the evidence is all that anyone has to go on. Yes, "witness statements" ARE evidence even if the witnesses are lying. And no, a possible alternative version of events is NOT on equal ground, unless you've got evidence to back it up. But hey...I shouldn't be surprised. I'm talking to someone who thinks that "the person knocking on my door MIGHT be a crazed criminal" is a valid reason for answering the door guns waving. The bottom line is that even though you can't trust everything you see or hear, living in your own head is a recipe for terrible things happening. This dude answered the door like a ****ing maniac, and the best defense anyone can seem to offer for his actions is that he was afraid. We then see how that disconnect between reality and his fears ended up getting him killed. But hell...that's all speculation too. Nobody knows if the police's account is accurate. No one also knows why he answered the door while displaying the gun. No one knows if he even bothered to ASK who was there before answering the door. No one knows if he even knew that it was the cops (or assumed that it wasn't the cops). All speculation, and anyone can fantasize a version of events that fits whatever preconceived story they want to run with. Ultimately, ALL we have to go on is the evidence presented. That';s it. If you can't agree on that, then why are you even discussing this?

Calm down, little boy. How is their version backed up by evidence?

12 years ago

6838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 6838 Posts

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] 1) Notice how YOU also just filled in the gaps with a story that you just made up in your mind. The article doesn't say the dude was peacefully asleep, the article doesn't even state that he actually bothered to ask who was there before answering the door with a gun in his hand. The article doesn't say that the reason he had the gun was because he was afraid of being robbed (how would anyone know that?) You just filled in those gaps yourself. 2) You're really harping on the fact that the cops had the wrong door. So ****ing what? Have you ever had someone call you and it turned out that they dialed the wrong number? Have you ever gotten directions to someone's home, but you got the directions wrong and accidentally ended up knocking on the neighbor's door instead of the door of the home you were looking for? This **** happens, and is NOT sufficient cause to be greeted with a ****ing gun pointed at you. 3) And again, drop the ****ing "self-defense" angle. If he was actually afraid for his life and thought that the best course of action was to open the ****ing door, then that right there is someone who had no ****ing business owning a gun in the first place.

I'm disgusting at how you're defending cops who go to an innocent man's house at unreasonable hours, refuse to identify themselves, and shoot the man because he's scared about who might be outside.

Okay, new rule. Cops are forbidden to take any action until at least one of them has been killed on the spot. That way, they know they're not doing anything wrong. :roll:

Or how about they stick to the rules that they're supposed to follow? Like double-checking and identifying themselves. You fvcking idiot.

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I'm disgusting at how you're defending cops who go to an innocent man's house at unreasonable hours, refuse to identify themselves, and shoot the man because he's scared about who might be outside.

You don't even know he was scared. For all any of us knows, he could have simply been mildly annoyed at the disturbance, and getting out the gun was just a way to make him feel like a big powerful man. You're starting out deciding that the cops must be the bad guys, and then you're making up a story that supports that belief.

12 years ago

6838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 6838 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I'm disgusting at how you're defending cops who go to an innocent man's house at unreasonable hours, refuse to identify themselves, and shoot the man because he's scared about who might be outside.

You don't even know he was scared. For all any of us knows, he could have simply been mildly annoyed at the disturbance, and getting out the gun was just a way to make him feel like a big powerful man. You're starting out deciding that the cops must be the bad guys, and then you're making up a story that supports that belief.

Actually, that did happen.

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Actually, that did happen.

Have you got anything to back that up? Even one single shred of evidence that the guy was actually trying to defend himself rather than just be a big man with a gun?

12 years ago

6838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 6838 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] Actually, that did happen.

Have you got anything to back that up? Even one single shred of evidence that the guy was actually trying to defend himself rather than just be a big man with a gun?

Well, the way the poster described it did happen. They did come at unreasonable hours(1:30 in the morning), they did fail to identify themselves (as said by the cops), and the man was scared(as shown by him wielding a weapon).

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] Actually, that did happen.

Have you got anything to back that up? Even one single shred of evidence that the guy was actually trying to defend himself rather than just be a big man with a gun?

Well, the way the poster described it did happen. They did come at unreasonable hours(1:30 in the morning), they did fail to identify themselves (as said by the cops), and the man was scared(as shown by him wielding a weapon).

Him wielding a weapon only shows that he was wielding a weapon. That says absolutely nothing about WHY he was wielding a weapon. 1:30 AM may be "unreasonable hours", but you have no idea whatsoever how that relates to how he reacted. Did the lateness of the incident scare him? Did the lateness of the incident merely piss him off? You just don't know, and chances are that you never will know since the guy is dead.

12 years ago

2638

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#283 nunovlopes

Member since 2009 • 2638 Posts

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]
What part of "DON'T OPEN THE DOOR IF YOU FEEL YOU'RE IN DANGER" don't you understand? If I don't trust who's knocking at my door and I feel I'm in danger, I simply don't open the door, period, no ifs, no buts.
Only gun crazy people think it's a good idea to open the door pointing a gun. Why open the door in the 1st place?
Inconsistancy

Uhh, you're acting like 'I' opened the door, can't really know what was going through his head at that moment, how clearly he was thinking... You made the assumption that he didn't ask "who's there", when that's not mentioned in the video/article.

And I'm no gun crazy idiot, I hate guns, I don't intend on ever owning one, and I think obtaining a gun legally is far too easy in this nation.

Let me put it this way. If someone knocks at your door, and you so much as feel the need to grab a gun when opening the door, you shouldn't open the door to begin with. It's your house, you dictate if you open the door or not.

12 years ago

14681

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

Member since 2006 • 14681 Posts

[QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] I'm disgusting at how you're defending cops who go to an innocent man's house at unreasonable hours, refuse to identify themselves, and shoot the man because he's scared about who might be outside.

Okay, new rule. Cops are forbidden to take any action until at least one of them has been killed on the spot. That way, they know they're not doing anything wrong. :roll:

Or how about they stick to the rules that they're supposed to follow? Like double-checking and identifying themselves. You fvcking idiot.

You can honestly tell me that they're supposed to never make a mistake... ever? Clerical errors happen. As for not identifying themselves. Of course they didn't identify themselves, they were going after a suspected murderer. Besides, we don't even know how much of a chance they even got to identify themselves. Did the guy even ask? Or did he just throw the door open right away?

12 years ago

3894

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#285 TopTierHustler

Member since 2012 • 3894 Posts

The guy completely asked for it. Answering a door with a gun is just asking for something to happen.

If I was a cop and somebody point a gun point blank at a fellow officer, I wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet in his head.

12 years ago

2087

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2012 • 2087 Posts

this is one of the reasons why i hate cops

12 years ago

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="l4dak47"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Have you got anything to back that up? Even one single shred of evidence that the guy was actually trying to defend himself rather than just be a big man with a gun?

Well, the way the poster described it did happen. They did come at unreasonable hours(1:30 in the morning), they did fail to identify themselves (as said by the cops), and the man was scared(as shown by him wielding a weapon).

Him wielding a weapon only shows that he was wielding a weapon. That says absolutely nothing about WHY he was wielding a weapon. 1:30 AM may be "unreasonable hours", but you have no idea whatsoever how that relates to how he reacted. Did the lateness of the incident scare him? Did the lateness of the incident merely piss him off? You just don't know, and chances are that you never will know since the guy is dead.

And i suppose him being dead is some sort of excuse for the cops? You know, the ones who KILLED HIM. Timeline, as we know 100% without any question. >Man is at home, minding his own. >1:30am, Police knock on his door. >People at the door refuse to identify who they are (confirmed by police, stated in article) >Man arms himself, checks to see who's on other side of door. >Police see that it's not their suspect, but notice the gun and open fire, without telling him to drop it or anything. Police could have simply identified themselves, rather than refusing to. 1:30am is so late, that unless i was expecting someone, I'd probably arm myself if i couldn't check to see who it was. Currently the blood is on their hands, for creating a scenario where a man feels the need to defend himself, only to kill him. Do police suggest answering doors at late hours unarmed especially without the potential visitor identifying themselves? I mean, if the police and your armed, you'll get killed. But if it's not the police, and you're not armed, you might get raped/robbed/killed.

12 years ago

59765

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2002 • 59765 Posts

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="l4dak47"] Well, the way the poster described it did happen. They did come at unreasonable hours(1:30 in the morning), they did fail to identify themselves (as said by the cops), and the man was scared(as shown by him wielding a weapon).

Him wielding a weapon only shows that he was wielding a weapon. That says absolutely nothing about WHY he was wielding a weapon. 1:30 AM may be "unreasonable hours", but you have no idea whatsoever how that relates to how he reacted. Did the lateness of the incident scare him? Did the lateness of the incident merely piss him off? You just don't know, and chances are that you never will know since the guy is dead.

And i suppose him being dead is some sort of excuse for the cops? You know, the ones who KILLED HIM. Timeline, as we know 100% without any question. >Man is at home, minding his own. >1:30am, Police knock on his door. >People at the door refuse to identify who they are (confirmed by police, stated in article) >Man arms himself, checks to see who's on other side of door. >Police see that it's not their suspect, but notice the gun and open fire, without telling him to drop it or anything. Police could have simply identified themselves, rather than refusing to. 1:30am is so late, that unless i was expecting someone, I'd probably arm myself if i couldn't check to see who it was. Currently the blood is on their hands, for creating a scenario where a man feels the need to defend himself, only to kill him. Do police suggest answering doors at late hours unarmed especially without the potential visitor identifying themselves? I mean, if the police and your armed, you'll get killed. But if it's not the police, and you're not armed, you might get raped/robbed/killed.

I love how you ommitted the part where rthe man answered the door and immediately pointed his gun at the people who knocked. As long as we're going by what the article says, the article also says that the man was pointing the gun at the officers. And I'm sorry, but pointing the gun at the cops outweighs any excuse he might have had. The second that you point a gun at ANYONE, then it's a case of "you'd better shoot them before they shoot you." Guns are not ****ing toys. You don't point them at someone unless you tend to shoot. The very real consequence of this is that pointing a gun at people stands a very real chance of getting them to SHOOT YOU. When you see someone with a goddamn gun pointed at you, you freaking DON'T just go "okay, drop the gun."

12 years ago

5020

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2004 • 5020 Posts

Was it the best idea to open the door? Probably not but we'll have no idea why he did BUT...that doesn't excuse the cops royalling fouling up this "operation".

Also one fact that is being overlooked by many in this thread is that regardless of whether or not he opened the door he would've been faced with a confrontation because the police didn't identify themselves.

When you don't answer the door when police are knocking they don't just walk away and say, "Gee, I guess we'll just come back." No they breach and clear the house. Even if he had yelled for them to identify themselves (which they were deadset on not doing) once they breach the home owner is going to be facing a swarm of officers without knowing they are officers and a firefight would likely ensue.

This is just one in the long line of state-sponsored homocide by an increasingly more militarized police force:http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

12 years ago

13571

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2007 • 13571 Posts

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Him wielding a weapon only shows that he was wielding a weapon. That says absolutely nothing about WHY he was wielding a weapon. 1:30 AM may be "unreasonable hours", but you have no idea whatsoever how that relates to how he reacted. Did the lateness of the incident scare him? Did the lateness of the incident merely piss him off? You just don't know, and chances are that you never will know since the guy is dead.

And i suppose him being dead is some sort of excuse for the cops? You know, the ones who KILLED HIM. Timeline, as we know 100% without any question. >Man is at home, minding his own. >1:30am, Police knock on his door. >People at the door refuse to identify who they are (confirmed by police, stated in article) >Man arms himself, checks to see who's on other side of door. >Police see that it's not their suspect, but notice the gun and open fire, without telling him to drop it or anything. Police could have simply identified themselves, rather than refusing to. 1:30am is so late, that unless i was expecting someone, I'd probably arm myself if i couldn't check to see who it was. Currently the blood is on their hands, for creating a scenario where a man feels the need to defend himself, only to kill him. Do police suggest answering doors at late hours unarmed especially without the potential visitor identifying themselves? I mean, if the police and your armed, you'll get killed. But if it's not the police, and you're not armed, you might get raped/robbed/killed.

I love how you ommitted the part where rthe man answered the door and immediately pointed his gun at the people who knocked. As long as we're going by what the article says, the article also says that the man was pointing the gun at the officers. And I'm sorry, but pointing the gun at the cops outweighs any excuse he might have had. The second that you point a gun at ANYONE, then it's a case of "you'd better shoot them before they shoot you." Guns are not ****ing toys. You don't point them at someone unless you tend to shoot. The very real consequence of this is that pointing a gun at people stands a very real chance of getting them to SHOOT YOU. When you see someone with a goddamn gun pointed at you, you freaking DON'T just go "okay, drop the gun."

1.) regardless of what you think is okay, I'm not one to simply shrug off a "mistake" that cost a man his life. The police really ****ed up, even if the man didn't answer the door with a gun, the police were prepared to storm the house without announcing themselves as police officers. The police admitted they had no intent on ever identifying themselves. 2.) At 1:30am, i'd expect any citizen who's not expecting company to arm themselves (be that with a baseball bat, or a gun) before opening the door to strangers, especially at such late hours. Police need to think, and understand that if you aggressively bang on someone's door in the dead of night, and refuse to identify yourself, it's pretty unreasonable to believe the homeowner is just going to wait in the corner while someone tries to break in.

12 years ago

12602

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#291 Overlord93

Member since 2007 • 12602 Posts

This came to mind

12 years ago

291 results
1
2
3
4
5
6

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment