Police shot in Dallas

Police need to be armed because criminals are armed.  It's that simple.  And it is changing in Britain as more and more criminals are armed.

Police need to be armed because unfortunately a significant percentage of the citizenry is armed.

Well there we go. We're getting what we asked for, so guess we can't complain. Freedom's just another word for no one left to shoot.

alias said:

Police need to be armed because unfortunately a significant percentage of criminals are armed.

Fixed that for you.

Thanks.  But no, you did not.

Jackson_Fusion said:

alias said:

Police need to be armed because unfortunately a significant percentage of criminals are armed.

Fixed that for you.

alias said:

Thanks.  But no, you did not.

Jackson_Fusion said:

alias said:

Police need to be armed because unfortunately a significant percentage of criminals are armed.

Fixed that for you.

So cops carry guns because of law abiding gun owners as well as armed criminals? Yes or no?

Jackson_Fusion said:

alias said:

Thanks.  But no, you did not.

Jackson_Fusion said:

alias said:

Police need to be armed because unfortunately a significant percentage of criminals are armed.

Fixed that for you.

So cops carry guns because of law abiding gun owners as well as armed criminals? Yes or no?

Bit of a simplistic world you're asserting, isn't it? Reports say the shooter in Dallas did not have a criminal record. So prior to his murder of those police officers, he was not a criminal.

And on the flip side, if someone commits a crime once, are they always and forever a criminal?

PVW said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

alias said:

Thanks.  But no, you did not.

Jackson_Fusion said:

alias said:

Police need to be armed because unfortunately a significant percentage of criminals are armed.

Fixed that for you.

So cops carry guns because of law abiding gun owners as well as armed criminals? Yes or no?

Bit of a simplistic world you're asserting, isn't it? Reports say the shooter in Dallas did not have a criminal record. So prior to his murder of those police officers, he was not a criminal.

And on the flip side, if someone commits a crime once, are they always and forever a criminal?

He was a criminal without a record. He was building bombs in his house. He hasn't been caught doing so. He was conspiring to murder police officers. A criminal by any definition.

The distinction I made on Alias's comment is that armed citizens by that characteristic alone is not why cops are armed. An armed criminal if a citizen is an armed citizen but an armed citizen is not an armed criminal. 

Jackson_Fusion said:

paulsurovell said:

bramzzoinks said:

The left (De Blasio as a prime example) so demonize the police as a group that the more unstable are incited to acts of violence and creates general hostility that makes it more likely that police officers will be in a situation where they feel threatened to the point they see to shoot as their only option. 

This week's shootings of African Americans in Baton Rouge and St. Paul appear to have been unprovoked and without justification.

But Yes, police do find themselves in situations where they have to shoot as their only option.  However, they don't have to shoot to kill.  Here's an example that provides a stark contrast to this week's killings:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/white-georgia-man-opens-fire-on-state-troopers-dares-cops-to-kill-him-and-survives/

This is another example of people having limited experience with firearms thinking they have powers they don't. 

They are not scalpels. They are blunt instruments under stress. If a cop shoots to wound they belong in prison. Why? 

There is no place you can be shot that has a reasonable chance of stopping you that may not kill you. Put simply, there is no "safe" spot to get shot. None. NONE. It's TV nonsense.

With that established- if you are shooting to wound as your intent, the situation is not dire enough to warrant using a gun AT ALL. Firearms should only be used with there is an immediate threat to the officer or someone else. So given the first point, that all wounds can kill, to inflict them it better be under dire circumstances.

And finally- police are taught to "shoot to stop". Unfortunately as you may have guessed after the first 2 points the places people get shot that stop them reliably are also places that kill them.

The state troopers in Georgia and the grateful family of Leighton Marchetta disagree with you.

paulsurovell said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

paulsurovell said:

bramzzoinks said:

The left (De Blasio as a prime example) so demonize the police as a group that the more unstable are incited to acts of violence and creates general hostility that makes it more likely that police officers will be in a situation where they feel threatened to the point they see to shoot as their only option. 

This week's shootings of African Americans in Baton Rouge and St. Paul appear to have been unprovoked and without justification.

But Yes, police do find themselves in situations where they have to shoot as their only option.  However, they don't have to shoot to kill.  Here's an example that provides a stark contrast to this week's killings:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/white-georgia-man-opens-fire-on-state-troopers-dares-cops-to-kill-him-and-survives/

This is another example of people having limited experience with firearms thinking they have powers they don't. 

They are not scalpels. They are blunt instruments under stress. If a cop shoots to wound they belong in prison. Why? 

There is no place you can be shot that has a reasonable chance of stopping you that may not kill you. Put simply, there is no "safe" spot to get shot. None. NONE. It's TV nonsense.

With that established- if you are shooting to wound as your intent, the situation is not dire enough to warrant using a gun AT ALL. Firearms should only be used with there is an immediate threat to the officer or someone else. So given the first point, that all wounds can kill, to inflict them it better be under dire circumstances.

And finally- police are taught to "shoot to stop". Unfortunately as you may have guessed after the first 2 points the places people get shot that stop them reliably are also places that kill them.

The state troopers in Georgia and the grateful family of Leighton Marchetta disagree with you.

He was shot in the hopes that what happened to him was of less consequence than what he was likely to do to himself. He very easily could have been left dead by what they did. 

He apparently was not threatening anyone other than himself. 

Again, Paul think it through- if the use of deadly force is necessary, it's a deadly situation. If it's anything short of that a firearm should not be used. Period. 

If it is a deadly situation, police should act immediately to bring it to an end. Police are trained to shoot to stop. Not kill. Unfortunately human physiology makes damage likely to stop also likely to kill. 

If you're just trying to take them out Roy Rogers style, there must be a margin of safety. And if that margin exists, it's not time to shoot, because Roy played a gun slinger on TV. In reality Roy would have killed a lot of people unnecessarily.

There are no Star Trek set to stun phasers yet. Until there are, guns are the only reliable means of stopping someone from doing harm somewhat (and only somewhat) reliably. And when they stop they often stop forever. 

Jackson_Fusion said:

PVW said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

alias said:

Thanks.  But no, you did not.

Jackson_Fusion said:

alias said:

Police need to be armed because unfortunately a significant percentage of criminals are armed.

Fixed that for you.

So cops carry guns because of law abiding gun owners as well as armed criminals? Yes or no?

Bit of a simplistic world you're asserting, isn't it? Reports say the shooter in Dallas did not have a criminal record. So prior to his murder of those police officers, he was not a criminal.

And on the flip side, if someone commits a crime once, are they always and forever a criminal?

He was a criminal without a record. He was building bombs in his house. He hasn't been caught doing so. He was conspiring to murder police officers. A criminal by any definition.

The distinction I made on Alias's comment is that armed citizens by that characteristic alone is not why cops are armed. An armed criminal if a citizen is an armed citizen but an armed citizen is not an armed criminal. 

I don't know if he purchased his gun before or after deciding he wanted to target officers. If before, he was just an armed citizen, right?

Suppose that he changed his mind halfway through planning his ambush - still a criminal, or just another law abiding armed citizen again?

This clean distinction between criminal and citizen (especially if, as you assert, it's possible to be a criminal without a record) seems to rely on being able to read people's souls, or at least their minds.

And given police aren't mind readers...

tom said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

bramzzoinks said:

The left (De Blasio as a prime example) so demonize the police as a group that the more unstable are incited to acts of violence and creates general hostility that makes it more likely that police officers will be in a situation where they feel threatened to the point they see to shoot as their only option. 

Jeezuz...could you make a more stupid comment? 

Yup.

bramzzoinks said:

When the left governor of Minnesota says Philando Castile would not have been shot had he been white that is incendiary speculation and is as bad if not more demogogic than anything Trump has ever said. 

Jackson_Fusion said:

paulsurovell said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

paulsurovell said:

bramzzoinks said:

The left (De Blasio as a prime example) so demonize the police as a group that the more unstable are incited to acts of violence and creates general hostility that makes it more likely that police officers will be in a situation where they feel threatened to the point they see to shoot as their only option. 

This week's shootings of African Americans in Baton Rouge and St. Paul appear to have been unprovoked and without justification.

But Yes, police do find themselves in situations where they have to shoot as their only option.  However, they don't have to shoot to kill.  Here's an example that provides a stark contrast to this week's killings:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/white-georgia-man-opens-fire-on-state-troopers-dares-cops-to-kill-him-and-survives/

This is another example of people having limited experience with firearms thinking they have powers they don't. 

They are not scalpels. They are blunt instruments under stress. If a cop shoots to wound they belong in prison. Why? 

There is no place you can be shot that has a reasonable chance of stopping you that may not kill you. Put simply, there is no "safe" spot to get shot. None. NONE. It's TV nonsense.

With that established- if you are shooting to wound as your intent, the situation is not dire enough to warrant using a gun AT ALL. Firearms should only be used with there is an immediate threat to the officer or someone else. So given the first point, that all wounds can kill, to inflict them it better be under dire circumstances.

And finally- police are taught to "shoot to stop". Unfortunately as you may have guessed after the first 2 points the places people get shot that stop them reliably are also places that kill them.

The state troopers in Georgia and the grateful family of Leighton Marchetta disagree with you.

He was shot in the hopes that what happened to him was of less consequence than what he was likely to do to himself. He very easily could have been left dead by what they did. 

He apparently was not threatening anyone other than himself. 

Again, Paul think it through- if the use of deadly force is necessary, it's a deadly situation. If it's anything short of that a firearm should not be used. Period. 

If it is a deadly situation, police should act immediately to bring it to an end. Police are trained to shoot to stop. Not kill. Unfortunately human physiology makes damage likely to stop also likely to kill. 


If you're just trying to take them out Roy Rogers style, there must be a margin of safety. And if that margin exists, it's not time to shoot, because Roy played a gun slinger on TV. In reality Roy would have killed a lot of people unnecessarily.

There are no Star Trek set to stun phasers yet. Until there are, guns are the only reliable means of stopping someone from doing harm somewhat (and only somewhat) reliably. And when they stop they often stop forever. 

Marchetta actually fired at the police and was aiming a high-powered rifle at them, not at himself, when he was shot.

Many of the questionable police shootings have involved many rounds fired, so the idea of shooting to wound is not always to wound with a single shot, "Roy Rogers style."

The cops in Baton Rouge and Falcon Heights fired at very close range so in those instances disabling shots -- as in Georgia -- did not have to be Roy Rogers style.

PVW said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

PVW said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

alias said:

Thanks.  But no, you did not.

Jackson_Fusion said:

alias said:

Police need to be armed because unfortunately a significant percentage of criminals are armed.

Fixed that for you.

So cops carry guns because of law abiding gun owners as well as armed criminals? Yes or no?

Bit of a simplistic world you're asserting, isn't it? Reports say the shooter in Dallas did not have a criminal record. So prior to his murder of those police officers, he was not a criminal.

And on the flip side, if someone commits a crime once, are they always and forever a criminal?

He was a criminal without a record. He was building bombs in his house. He hasn't been caught doing so. He was conspiring to murder police officers. A criminal by any definition.

The distinction I made on Alias's comment is that armed citizens by that characteristic alone is not why cops are armed. An armed criminal if a citizen is an armed citizen but an armed citizen is not an armed criminal. 

I don't know if he purchased his gun before or after deciding he wanted to target officers. If before, he was just an armed citizen, right?

Suppose that he changed his mind halfway through planning his ambush - still a criminal, or just another law abiding armed citizen again?

This clean distinction between criminal and citizen (especially if, as you assert, it's possible to be a criminal without a record) seems to rely on being able to read people's souls, or at least their minds.

This is simple pretty simple stuff.

If someone commits murder but isn't caught, are they a criminal? 

If they regret it, are they still a murderer? 

The answers are not only my assertions and should address all your questions. 

ctrzaska said:

And given police aren't mind readers...

If a citizen doesn't have any intent to commit a crime it doesn't matter if they're mind readers or not. 

Cops don't need guns to interact with those lacking criminal intent. If it weren't for people with violent intent weapons of all sorts would be unneeded aside to deal with animals. Locks wouldn't be necessary except to keep children out of dangerous areas. All true, all worthless to contemplate.

Jackson_Fusion said:

The distinction I made on Alias's comment is that armed citizens by that characteristic alone is not why cops are armed. An armed criminal if a citizen is an armed citizen but an armed citizen is not an armed criminal. 

Unfortunately true. Maybe we could work on the gun laws,and the mis-interpreted 2nd amendment, to make it happen.

A criminal is one who commits a crime. That's clear. But is one who intends to commit a crime also a criminal?

A civilian who points a gun at a cop or any person by doing so is committing a crime. The Police shooting of such a person is justified.

The Police shooting of a person in any other situation is, at best, questionable.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

The distinction I made on Alias's comment is that armed citizens by that characteristic alone is not why cops are armed. An armed criminal if a citizen is an armed citizen but an armed citizen is not an armed criminal. 

Unfortunately true. Maybe we could work on the gun laws,and the mis-interpreted 2nd amendment, to make it happen.

You want to make people who are law abiding citizens into criminals? At least you're honest about what you are.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

The distinction I made on Alias's comment is that armed citizens by that characteristic alone is not why cops are armed. An armed criminal if a citizen is an armed citizen but an armed citizen is not an armed criminal. 

Unfortunately true. Maybe we could work on the gun laws,and the mis-interpreted 2nd amendment, to make it happen.

You want to make people who are law abiding citizens into criminals? At least you're honest about what you are.

What a lie. Read what I wrote. If the laws are changed, and the 2nd is correctly interpreted, then a gun owner would be, in fact, a criminal. As it should be.

If police fail to properly distinguish between criminals and law abiding citizens, what should our response be?

Jackson_Fusion said:

You want to make people who are law abiding citizens into criminals? At least you're honest about what you are.

You can't make a law abiding citizen into a criminal. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. If you make it illegal to own a gun effective on Monday and I get rid of my guns on Sunday I am not a criminal. If I still have them on Tuesday I am.

Would reversing Roe v. Wade and then making abortion a crime turn law abiding citizens into criminals?

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

The distinction I made on Alias's comment is that armed citizens by that characteristic alone is not why cops are armed. An armed criminal if a citizen is an armed citizen but an armed citizen is not an armed criminal. 

Unfortunately true. Maybe we could work on the gun laws,and the mis-interpreted 2nd amendment, to make it happen.

You want to make people who are law abiding citizens into criminals? At least you're honest about what you are.

What a lie. Read what I wrote. If the laws are changed, and the 2nd is correctly interpreted, then a gun owner would be, in fact, a criminal. As it should be.

Apparently reading comprehension challenges beyond constitutional issues. You want to turn people who are law abiding citizens today into criminals. What a peach!

Passing a law can make a law abiding citizen into a criminal. Witness the 18th Amendment.

De-criminalizing possession of marijuana would turn criminals into law abiding citizens.

LOST said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

You want to make people who are law abiding citizens into criminals? At least you're honest about what you are.

You can't make a law abiding citizen into a criminal. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. If you make it illegal to own a gun effective on Monday and I get rid of my guns on Sunday I am not a criminal. If I still have them on Tuesday I am.

Would reversing Roe v. Wade and then making abortion a crime turn law abiding citizens into criminals?

Oh please...This has nothing to do with abortion. It's about the concept of private citizen gun rights. I fully understand the difficulties in ex post facto laws. Those are details that deflect the argument that NO citizen should have the right to bear arms.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

LOST said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

You want to make people who are law abiding citizens into criminals? At least you're honest about what you are.

You can't make a law abiding citizen into a criminal. Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. If you make it illegal to own a gun effective on Monday and I get rid of my guns on Sunday I am not a criminal. If I still have them on Tuesday I am.

Would reversing Roe v. Wade and then making abortion a crime turn law abiding citizens into criminals?

Oh please...This has nothing to do with abortion. It's about the concept of private citizen gun rights. I fully understand the difficulties in ex post facto laws. Those are details that deflect the argument that NO citizen should have the right to bear arms.

Well, thankfully there are lots of other "details" that "deflect" that utterly radical and out of the mainstream view of civil rights, not the least of which is that almost no one shares it.

Jackson_Fusion said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Oh please...This has nothing to do with abortion. It's about the concept of private citizen gun rights. I fully understand the difficulties in ex post facto laws. Those are details that deflect the argument that NO citizen should have the right to bear arms.

Well, thankfully there are lots of other "details" that "deflect" that utterly radical and out of the mainstream view of civil rights, not the least of which is that almost no one shares it.

You might be surprised how many of us NO GUNS people exist. There is no "right" to own a gun, beyond a flawed interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Can there be exceptions to "permit" certain people to own a gun? Yes. But those are permits, not rights.

As for the other "details" that deflect the argument, they amount to millions...as in DOLLARS. Not exactly the most honest way to deflect, but certainly effective with the boorish folk who think shoot-em-ups are kinda cool.

Reality is, you're not summarily banning guns in the US.  Not now, not in the future, not ever.  Just isn't going to happen.  So we can debate this all day long as an intellectual (and I'll use the term loosely) exercise, or face reality and find another angle.

ctrzaska said:

Reality is, you're not summarily banning guns in the US.  Not now, not in the future, not ever.  Just isn't going to happen.  So we can debate this all day long as an intellectual (and I'll use the term loosely) exercise, or face reality and find another angle.

Never said it would happen, just that it should. Ever, by the way, is a really long time, so there is always hope. As for my "angle", not sure it is that, and secondly, you don't control what I say. Argue it, ignore it, agree with it, it's you're choice. It's MY choice to say it. 

paulsurovell said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

paulsurovell said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

paulsurovell said:

bramzzoinks said:

The left (De Blasio as a prime example) so demonize the police as a group that the more unstable are incited to acts of violence and creates general hostility that makes it more likely that police officers will be in a situation where they feel threatened to the point they see to shoot as their only option. 

This week's shootings of African Americans in Baton Rouge and St. Paul appear to have been unprovoked and without justification.

But Yes, police do find themselves in situations where they have to shoot as their only option.  However, they don't have to shoot to kill.  Here's an example that provides a stark contrast to this week's killings:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/white-georgia-man-opens-fire-on-state-troopers-dares-cops-to-kill-him-and-survives/

This is another example of people having limited experience with firearms thinking they have powers they don't. 

They are not scalpels. They are blunt instruments under stress. If a cop shoots to wound they belong in prison. Why? 

There is no place you can be shot that has a reasonable chance of stopping you that may not kill you. Put simply, there is no "safe" spot to get shot. None. NONE. It's TV nonsense.

With that established- if you are shooting to wound as your intent, the situation is not dire enough to warrant using a gun AT ALL. Firearms should only be used with there is an immediate threat to the officer or someone else. So given the first point, that all wounds can kill, to inflict them it better be under dire circumstances.

And finally- police are taught to "shoot to stop". Unfortunately as you may have guessed after the first 2 points the places people get shot that stop them reliably are also places that kill them.

The state troopers in Georgia and the grateful family of Leighton Marchetta disagree with you.

He was shot in the hopes that what happened to him was of less consequence than what he was likely to do to himself. He very easily could have been left dead by what they did. 

He apparently was not threatening anyone other than himself. 

Again, Paul think it through- if the use of deadly force is necessary, it's a deadly situation. If it's anything short of that a firearm should not be used. Period. 

If it is a deadly situation, police should act immediately to bring it to an end. Police are trained to shoot to stop. Not kill. Unfortunately human physiology makes damage likely to stop also likely to kill. 


If you're just trying to take them out Roy Rogers style, there must be a margin of safety. And if that margin exists, it's not time to shoot, because Roy played a gun slinger on TV. In reality Roy would have killed a lot of people unnecessarily.

There are no Star Trek set to stun phasers yet. Until there are, guns are the only reliable means of stopping someone from doing harm somewhat (and only somewhat) reliably. And when they stop they often stop forever. 

Marchetta actually fired at the police and was aiming a high-powered rifle at them, not at himself, when he was shot.

Many of the questionable police shootings have involved many rounds fired, so the idea of shooting to wound is not always to wound with a single shot, "Roy Rogers style."

The cops in Baton Rouge and Falcon Heights fired at very close range so in those instances disabling shots -- as in Georgia -- did not have to be Roy Rogers style.

I assumed it because you inferred it, but re-reading the article there is no indication that the police were shooting to wound. They were returning fire under fire. Not that it particularly matters. The guy was stopped, which is what they are trained to accomplish. 

Shooting to wound is for TV. Doesn't happen and shouldn't happen in the real world.

Meanwhile this was an extremely disingenuous statement by the President:

"He said the motives of the killer in Dallas were "very hard to untangle" but called the shooter "demented" and downplayed the potential political motivations he may have carried. The shooter allegedly voiced a desire to "kill white people" ahead of the attack, authorities have said.

"I think the danger is that we somehow suggest that the act of a troubled individual speaks to some larger political statement across the country. It doesn't," Obama said.

Referencing last year's attack on churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, Obama noted, "When some white kid walks into a church and shoots a bunch of worshipers who invite him to worship with them, we don't assume that somehow he's making a political statement."

Whoa, Whoa, that is EXACTLY what the left, and many on MOL, rushed to do after that awful event. Often with a barely contained giddiness.