Same author, such a wide scope of opinion.
There's reaching, then there's what you're doing... which is way out there.
Thunder71 wrote:Same author, such a wide scope of opinion.
There's reaching, then there's what you're doing... which is way out there.
Collector1337420 wrote:Thunder71 wrote:Same author, such a wide scope of opinion.
There's reaching, then there's what you're doing... which is way out there.
"Wide scope of opinion."
You're a funny guy.
<<<eliminated duplicate imagery>>>
CraigJS wrote:MORON, did I spell it correctly?
xd ED wrote:Collector1337420 wrote:Thunder71 wrote:Same author, such a wide scope of opinion.
There's reaching, then there's what you're doing... which is way out there.
"Wide scope of opinion."
You're a funny guy.
<<<eliminated duplicate imagery>>>
You need to decide if your topic is the police shooting the old guy,
or
the militarization of police forces- around the world.
I do see much overlap of the 2.
Collector1337420 wrote:
Yes, there is much overlap. That's why I bring it up.
The over-zealousness of police these days is the discussion that should come from this old man being killed.
This is yet another data point in an ever increasing number of ridiculous police actions.
The ultimate question I ask is, how much do we put up with before we start pushing back?
The problem, is there are still so many people, who think there is no problem. Even on a gun forum, where people tend to be more patriotic.
If it's that bad here, just think how bad it is in the rest of the country.
"the question that really needs to be ask here is not whether this old man was innocent or whether the police gunned down an innocent man....but this: Did the police REALLY need SWAT to handle a 107 year old man with a handgun???
SWAT is WAY overused and used for the wrong reasons. It's used as more of a macho "show of force" to kill easier (one of the early criticisms of SWAT in the early 70s) now rather than an instrument to handle situations with little or no loss of life efficiently (it's original claimed intent)
It might even be said that the mere appearance of SWAT, their actions and this show of force escalated this situation to the point where it had to end in a blaze of gunfire."
Thunder71 wrote:That's the issue I have as well, you're trying to paint this story with something that just isn't there.
smurfman wrote:Let's break this down into more simple terms:
Person threatens others with a gun.
Police are then called and arrive.
Person with gun shoots through door when police attempt to make contact with him.
Police then retreat and call for a SWAT team who is equipped and trained to handle such situations.
SWAT determines person is still armed and attempt to resolve the situation with a less lethal means- tear gas.
This does not work and person then exits the room and fires at SWAT who then fire back, killing the person with a gun.
Just where any issue is I can't see it. As already mentioned, if a person threatens others with a gun and later fires on other armed people multiple times then they have to expect to be shot at in return. Age has nothing to do with it as a bullet fired from a person 107 years old is just as capable of killing another person as a bullet fired by a 7 year old. There is no mention as to the visual acuity of the individual but it does not take 20/20 eyesight to see and hit someone at house distance. I don't see an alternative in this case, unfortunately for all involved.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests