Well I wouldn't pretend to know a lot about american law but I thought it was illegal for them to pull a gun on you unless you posed a threat. As this guy wasn't even breaking the law that surely means that he wasn't posing a threat. So surely the cop broke the law immediately by pulling out his gun. I fail to see how he enforced the law when the law wasn't even broken!Sober Thal said:I am happy that this officer of the law, enforced the law.
Walking up behind someone and shooting them requires you to be a trained ninja? HOLY SHIT I CAN DO THAT?! Am I a ninja? You want me to teach you my amazing ninja skills? I NEVER KNEW I WAS A NINJA! I also know the other trick of "running up behind you and jamming a knife in your kidneys before you can pull a gun, turn around, catch the saftey and aim a shot". Its tricky but it requires the difficult skills of "running" and "randomly jamming a knife in you as fast as i can" that are reserved only for ninjas according to you. You wouldnt know. Youre not a "trained ninja" like me.CannibalRobots said:Yes, because everyone knows all criminals are trained ninjas, your ignorance amazes me.
It will be an interesting proof of concept in Texas though as it is I don't think it is replicable throughout America and especially not the rest of the world.Lil devils x said:Some schools have dealt with this by arming their staff.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2575524/Texas-school-allows-teachers-to-carry-guns-into-class.html
The public don't need guns, it encourages people to become hero's, which leads to people being killed over $50. People don't need guns, Americans seem to cling to guns like security blankets. There seems to be this paranoia that America will be invaded and every men, women and child will need to be armed in order to fend off the invaders.Reishadowen said:Making guns illegal stops only law-abiding citizens from carrying them. Criminals break the law either way, so that wouldn't really stop them. You're only making citizens helpless that way, since the police can't be everywhere at any second to stop them.omega 616 said:Sober Thal said:This guy has a gun, he isn't listening to the officer, taser the fuck head.Listen to the first 3 minutes, the rest seems to be faint whisperings and shufflings (like a phone in a pocket).SilentCom said:I didn't want to listen the whole audio recording because it was too long. Anyways, as far as I know, a license to carry a handgun is typically a concealed weapons permit therefore to have it holstered in plain view in a public area is not justified because it can antagonize or threaten others. If it was at a firing range or something, then its probably different.
On topic. The guy couldn't have been calmer and the police guy was basically sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "get on the ground! Get your hands where I can see them!" etc etc etc.
The guy even asked if he could move his foot ...
As for the laws and ins and outs of the USA and gun controle, stop carrying them. Only leads to shoot outs and higher rate of fatalities.
I am not in the force but from what I have seen they talk the situation down and only use restraining methods. I have never had a gun pointed at me but if it was I am sure I would be more anxious and nervous than if it was just a bloke talking to me.DigitalAtlas said:Well color me dazzled.The_root_of_all_evil said:SNIP.
I knew the U.S's rate was high, but never knew it was that level of high in comparison to the rest of world.
So, in the UK, do they just rely mainly on the sheer number of police officers in an area to intimidate the potential attacks? And this works?
When I was a teenager I worked for a retail drug store chain. The in-store security/loss prevention guy was a redneck who loved to wear a t-shirt that showed a picture of a cops with their guns drawn, standing next to a patrol car, and the caption "NEVER QUESTION AUTHORITY".coppah20HE said:Smart-mouthed asshole, no wonder the cop detained him.
If a police officer tells you to "jump", you don't argue, you don't even ask "how high",
You just jump.
Well, it's supposed to be anyway.Jamie Doerschuck said:Ha, ha, ha.. "Secular"... I know a large swath of the evangelical population who would love to debate with you on that. Also... A synonym for "Republicans" is "the Religious Right"..fenrizz said:Yeah...
I am not surprised by this, and I reckon the cops in question will get off scott free.
As they always seem to do over there.
The police in the US seem like they are above the law, and can nearly do as they damn well please with little to no punishment.
It's disgusting to see in a modern, secular state.
Considering that the largest city in Norway has a population of 500.000, I guess the answer is no.lemiel14n3 said:WHAT?! Have you lived in a city before? it's a dangerous place, the cops have every right to be paranoid.fenrizz said:Yeah...
I am not surprised by this, and I reckon the cops in question will get off scott free.
As they always seem to do over there.
The police in the US seem like they are above the law, and can nearly do as they damn well please with little to no punishment.
It's disgusting to see in a modern, secular state.
Counties are not always able to afford enough police. Police cannot be everywhere at once. That was the reason for arming the schools in that district. If It takes officers 45 min to respond, you can have an entire school slaughtered in that amount of time by an intruder.Treblaine said:It will be an interesting proof of concept in Texas though as it is I don't think it is replicable throughout America and especially not the rest of the world.Lil devils x said:Some schools have dealt with this by arming their staff.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2575524/Texas-school-allows-teachers-to-carry-guns-into-class.html
Texas has a very well established firearms culture meaning there is a high likelihood that someone in the teach profession is not only willing to carry a firearm but is also competent enough to use it.
I think it is a necessity that the local law enforcement is deployed to schools but in a VERY PARTICULAR capacity of primarily Perimeter defence: they man the metal detectors and patrol the perimeter fence and even road blocks to defend against "ram raids". In other words, treat schools with the same security precautions as airports.
Airports used to have very little security, but throughout the 60's and 70's after a serious of terrorist attacks law enforcement finally cottoned on an realised what a sensitive target it was and how tempting it was to those with homicidal intentions. Airports were one of the first true "gun free zones" but back in the good-ole'-days it's wasn't a political gimmick it was for real.
The same lesson must be learnt from shootings and other education establishments as these ARE "soft targets"
CAVEAT
It is very important that schools allow to continue to function as schools, the police must be there to prevent outside attack or smuggling weapons for internal attacks but the general enforcement of the school rules must remain with the teachers.
Cops are trained and experienced to detaining crack-heads, jail-birds and drunken adults... not immature children. Teachers are far better at breaking up 13 year olds having a slap fight than some cop hardened by the street. Trouble - including criminal behaviour - must be dealt with in the principal's office before being sent to the police interrogation room.
A good principal knows how to deal with a kid who vandalises property, what is the best balance, but a cop will only see a law broken and a crime to be prosecuted.
Ask any police officer, except that crazy one. LOLjpblade666 said:Ask any police officer, criminals DON'T open carry. Open carrying a gun is the exact same as having a "protected by ADT" or whatever sign on your front lawn. The one thing criminals fear more than police officers are armed civilians.
I'll give you that one.Lil devils x said:Ask any police officer, except that crazy one. LOLjpblade666 said:Ask any police officer, criminals DON'T open carry. Open carrying a gun is the exact same as having a "protected by ADT" or whatever sign on your front lawn. The one thing criminals fear more than police officers are armed civilians.
I wasn't really contesting whether it's legal or not (I think it pretty much is in (most of?) the US), just whether it's necessary.Citizen Snips said:The problem with that is that a city is no guarantee of safety and in fact may be more dangerous than rural areas.
If your home in the the city, then it is absolutely in your right to protect and defend that.
This isn't really a gray area issue. [snip]
No. That's far more illegal than an open carry.bob1052 said:I don't know anything about the gun laws in the states but shouldn't it atleast be concealed?