the killings of black people in usa by the police

Post Reply New Topic

is it racism or not?

why do they police have to kill them? just shoot them in the arm, leg? or use plastic bullets or electric shoot?

feels like its racism...atleast in some causes?

in western europe, we dont have this problem.

if the killings does not stop, any chance a civil war can break out?

I think when police shoot others when someone has a weapon, it's to kill and not just to incapacitate. I do not know if that is the case, but I'm to believe it is. There are power hungry cops everywhere, just happens to be in the USA that a lot of them tend to active right now and happen to be killing unarmed people of color.

Civil war wouldn't break out, that is when two parties disagree to a point where war happens.

You need to expand your information sources.

It could be in some cases, but usually not at all.

The following from Jesse Jackson was kind of interesting:




Any officer who shoots for an arm or a leg should be dismissed immediately for being totally incompetent and for putting others in danger. It is much harder to hit and is not a stopping action. That should be rather obvious at this point -- Brown was shot in the arm and it didn't even slow him down.

Aim at center of mass -- bigger target and much better at stopping them. Aiming for arms and legs makes for good tv, but lousy police work.

That's Wilson's story, but we'll never know if it's the truth thanks to the awful prosecutor.

Did the prosecutor make up his own autopsies?

An awful prosecutor is one who puts someone on trial who he believes to be innocent or who he knows is going to be found not guilty in a trial.

The prosecutor in that case made sure that the grand jury saw all of the evidence (or at least I have not heard of any evidence that wasn't shown to the grand jury) and let them decide based on the evidence. He did more than I would have had I been a prosecutor because some of the witnesses, on both sides, were obviously lying.

Here's what I was taught while serving in the military: Shoot an armed person in the arm, and he'll just use his other one to shoot you; shoot him in the legs and he can still shoot back; but shoot him in the center of mass, and the physical shock alone should stop him.

The torso is the bigger target, and oftentimes the Good Guys don't have much time to line up the perfect shot when the Bad Guy is already shooting to kill!

And that's the whole point - the Bad Guys always seem to be shooting to kill, not stun. So it is safer to authorize the Good Guys to use deadly force as well - safer for the Good Guys, and safer for any hostages and bystanders within range of the Bad Guy's gun.

So stop trying to second-guess the Good Guys when they remove the threat of an armed and violent Bad Guy. In fact, you should be grateful that there is one less Bad Guy to rob, rape, and murder you!

If aiming at the arm, about the best one could hope for is that it misses (very likely) and hits them in the chest instead.

Its still wrong to kill a person.

They should invent that thing that stormtropers in star wars has, some typ of blue energy bullet lazer that makes the attacker to sleep in 1 second.

So if someone is trying to kill you, you should not be able to defend yourself because it would be wrong to kill them?

It is even more wrong to allow another person to kill others.

Dream on. Tasers, tear gas, pepper spray, bean-bags, and other non-lethal weapons still leave their targets capable of harming or killing others.

I once saw a man who had been blinded by tear gas start firing blindly as quickly as he could. He killed one soldier and wounded another before he was killed.

Yes, I have been in actual combat, so I know how it goes, and it is never so clean and methodical as you see in the movies - not even in "Saving Private Ryan".

I strongly suggest that all of you "peacemakers" go get yourselves some real combat experience, and then you may see how truly ineffective your pacifist coddling of armed criminals really is.

Shoot his hands, both. I know it sounds silly, but its a human life we are talking about. Police should practice more on this type of actions.

The best would be if that storm-troopers star wars sleep-bullet was invented and put in use. Or maybe the police should invent a some sort of police-uniform shield that protects them from bullets.

Instead of using money on fighting in middle east, usa should use the money to invent this type of things.

I can clearly see that you have never shot a handgun.

Shoot his hands? Do you know how many people could manage to do that, especially with the adrenalin flowing when you need to defend your life? I don't know of anyone who I would expect that from. And even if they did manage to hit the hands, how many shots does it take and how many innocent bystanders get hit by all the shots that missed? Do they not deserve their own lives since they weren't even doing anything?

Sheesh!

If someone was trying to kill me, I would never concern myself with the idea of trying to save their life. As far as I'm concerned, by trying to kill me, they would have forfeited once and for all time any right they had to live.

Brown was shot in the arm several times, doing absolutely nothing.

It wasn't on purpose per Wilson, but there you go.

Killing is wrong, yes, but so is letting someone kill you. There's justifiable homicide for a reason.

It's a problem; police have and need a combat mentality, but their enemies are civilians. They perceive a threat and "neutralize" it, then when it turns out there wasn't a threat, they are protected from the consequences because they were "doing their jobs" and were afraid.
But cops do need this mentality; look at the recent random murders of NYPD officers, or Army Major Hassan's shooting rampage.