FAIL

[CarryCauseICan]

Hmm? Is this privileged information for the privileged individuals? Something the averaged American citizen need not know about their 4th amendment Right?

[Uffdaphil]

I'm giving the guy in the turret the benefit of the doubt. Picture yourself in the situation. Armed killer may be holed up in one of the houses. You spot the glint of a lens in a window overlooking your people. Would you presume it was not a weapon preparing to fire? Better to scare the bejeezus out of an unthinking onlooker than face the not illogical, potential consequences of failing to be ready to take a shot.

[gman1868]

I believe the object lesson here is, don't point things at the police, because you may not like what they point back at you.

[jshuberg]

It couldn't possibly be that he was using the magnification of his optic to get a good look at who is looking down at him. It must be that he wanted to shoot the photographer....

[NMRMN]

It couldn't possibly be that he was using the magnification of his optic to get a good look at who is looking down at him. It must be that he wanted to shoot the photographer....

Yeah that must be it... Just to get a better peek. Is that how you teach folks to use an optic in your class?

[tman]

Sometimes cops point their guns RIGHT AT people and don't shoot.

Amazing, huh?




Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

[NMRMN]

read more: http://lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson364.html

[CarryCauseICan]

Sometimes cops point their guns RIGHT AT people and don't shoot.

Amazing, huh?




Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

I'm sorry, but if I'm not a threat, I have an issue with it!

[Rip Van Winkle]

The police were looking for Tsarnaev, but everyone was a criminal as far as the cops were concerned. Contrary to what the media has been spinning, the police were not protecting anyone, nor did they intend to protect anyone except themselves. They were making a statement to anyone who was in Boston that the police were the absolute rulers and anyone who did not obey a police command completely was putting his or her life in peril.

read more: http://lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson364.html

I'm finding it harder and harder to disagree with this statement. This isn't a new phenomenon either, I first noticed it in the aftermath of the Columbine shooting where victims were left to bleed to death and students were forced to exit the building at gunpoint.

[tman]

Sometimes cops point their guns RIGHT AT people and don't shoot.

Amazing, huh?




Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

I'm sorry, but if I'm not a threat, I have an issue with it!

My first response is, "tough ****." Then I thought I might explain why law enforcement officers have their guns out and pointed sometimes even when there's no confirmed active threat. Then I realized it had been mentioned already, so I came back to my first thought.

[tman]

The police were looking for Tsarnaev, but everyone was a criminal as far as the cops were concerned. Contrary to what the media has been spinning, the police were not protecting anyone, nor did they intend to protect anyone except themselves. They were making a statement to anyone who was in Boston that the police were the absolute rulers and anyone who did not obey a police command completely was putting his or her life in peril.

read more: http://lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson364.html

I'm finding it harder and harder to disagree with this statement. This isn't a new phenomenon either, I first noticed it in the aftermath of the Columbine shooting where victims were left to bleed to death and students were forced to exit the building at gunpoint.

Suspects hiding amongs the victims.


Never happen, would it?

[XDM45]

Sometimes cops point their guns RIGHT AT people and don't shoot.

Amazing, huh?

Sent from my iPhone using that app which shall not be named.

I'm sorry, but if I'm not a threat, I have an issue with it!

My first response is, "tough ****." Then I thought I might explain why law enforcement officers have their guns out and pointed sometimes even when there's no confirmed active threat. Then I realized it had been mentioned already, so I came back to my first thought.

I agree with t-man on this one.

1) Just because you (or someone else) points your/their gun at someone or something does not automatically mean you/they are going to shoot it.

2) I/they are or aren't a threat. That's to be determined.

3) If they do or don't know me or If I do or don't know them, doesn't mean I or they are or aren't a threat. See #2.

4) Being familiar with someone doesn't mean that the person is or isn't automatically a threat. Sometimes someone closest to you is the biggest threat of all (ie domestic abuse situations for example, or kidnappers being another. Often times it's someone close to a person who harms, injures, kills, kidnaps or molests them.)

5) If you have a gun, you have more threat potential to me than someone who does not. Likewise, the same is true. If I'm armed, I expect someone else to assess me as more of a potential threat to them than someone who is not armed. It does not matter if the other person is a cop, PI, criminal, legal carrier, whoever it is. Its very possible that a criminal may not shoot you, but a cop might - given the proper scenario and situation where such a thing may occur. It probably has somewhere, sometime, but I don't have any info on that, merely a theory of potential.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet my money on the criminal shooting the law-abiding citizen before the cop would; however, my point is that anyone with a gun is a potential threat. Proper assessment is critical in determining the level of risk. If 5 cops walk down a back alley and I see them, my chances of getting shot are a lot less than if 5 members of the Vice Lords are walking down the same back alley I'm in.

6) If there is an event in a given area, be it the cops surrounding a house and they see something suspicious, they are going to react to it. They are going to check it out. That doesn't mean they are going to shoot, only check it out, make an assessment, etc.... just like we would do if there was an event in our home. I don't blame them and they shouldn't blame me. We all just want to protect ourselves and no one has something which verifies who is "good" and who is "bad" and is universally recognized in an instant by all.

7) Know that every time you are on the range, you are a possible threat to someone else, and they to you. I think most of us know and accept that. I think we also keep a watchful eye out, attention to detail and safety, we are aware that the threat is real, the risk is real, and hopefully, it's low, but we all know it's there.

Lastly, a story........ (I wrote about this before awhile ago)

About a year ago I was at a local range, and someone was at the counter paying for their range time. During the process, this person unholstered/uncased a pistol in the lobby vs at the firing line. Threat signal #1. Next, they racked the slide. Threat signal #2. Now the person behind the counter kindly corrected the person and the situation was peacefully resolved without incident. It happened very quickly, before I could react to head for the door. (option 1, escape.)

At the time, I didn't have my carry permit, so my guns were unloaded and cased, so escape was my only option at the time, and it's always the first option if possible. Now that I do have my carry permit, my first option would still be to escape and/or deescalation if at all possible; if those aren't possible, you'd better believe that at threat #2 my hand would have been on my holster and gun grip ready to draw if that person raised their gun from the low-ready position they had it held in.

I don't know if that person had a loaded magazine and/or chamber. I don't know them, and even if I did, the threat potential is still there. I'm glad the event happened and happened the way it did; while it was really a non-event in the grand scheme of things, it taught me some very valuable lessons I would not have learned because this was still a real-world situation. (I would never compare it to a shooting event, what cops or soldiers go through or anything like that, believe me.... but it was still a real-world situation, something you can only try to train for.) This event taught me things happen fast, proper assessment(s), proper reaction(s) and proper training are all critical.

We can debate all day long about what's "right" and what's "wrong" legally, morally, ethically, the pros and cons, etc etc etc etc and the end result is that if you point something unknown at someone, especially during a situation like the one in Boston, 9/11, War, a Home Invasion, etc, expect something to get pointed back at you.

I don't blame the cops in this case. I support them because I would do the exact same thing.

[jshuberg]

For those that are freaking out about this I have one question for you - is it currently illegal in the state of MN for a person to point a loaded firearm at another person if he feels threatened, but is not yet justified in using lethal force to defend himself?

Everyone with a carry permit should know this answer.

[NMRMN]

For those that are freaking out about this I have one question for you - is it currently illegal in the state of MN for a person to point a loaded firearm at another person if he feels threatened, but is not yet justified in using lethal force to defend himself?

Everyone with a carry permit should know this answer.

jshuberg -- its not the instance of the picture (although all you have to do is look at it to be offended) -- Its taking into account the whole situation. If you think a lockdown of an entire city and paramilitary invasion was justified in searching for a 19yr/old stoner cookware bomber -- then I can see how the picture is no problem.

Probably better to take this aspect of the conversation over here: viewtopic.php?f=36&t=42697

[jshuberg]

Were you equally offended by the lockdown and paramilitary "invasion" of law enforcement, Federal agents, and active duty military in response to the 35W bridge collapse?

While I agree that having a bunch of tacto-cops outside your window can be disconcerting, or the fact that they are asking people to stay inside, but they do have a job to do. Did they overreach on this occasion, from what I've read they probably did. But even so, the fact that a terrorist bad guy was hiding in a residential neighborhood meant someone was going to look out their window and see this kind of scene.