Man attempts to kill artist of the controversial Muhammad cartoons, and is arrested.
- Thread starter xelios
- Start date
- Status
gutter_trash
Banned
I find it awesome that the cops shot him in the limbs, now that is good police training
BattleMonkey
Member
gutter_trash said:
Sounds like they simply missed, no military or police force teaches a person to shoot at limbs, they all teach shoot at center mass.
You don't shoot at limbs and most police forces will not teach this because it's dangerous, You have a high chance of missing and causing collateral damage and ricochets with "trick shots". It's more hazardous to try a trick shot like taking out limbs on a moving person than to shoot at center mass.
Jean-Claude Picard
Banned
BattleMonkey said:
Bullshit. It's actually preferable to take out suspects by shooting them in the leg and any military or police force trains exactly this.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
????????Jean-Claude Picard said:
No.
Count Dookkake
Member
canova said:
I am terrible at web design. Eff Allah y'all!
fastford58
Member
Jean-Claude Picard said:
Bullshit. Center of mass is the standard of training.
CharlieDigital
Banned
Salty said:
i.e. Jesus with a semi-automatic machine gun, which I'm sure I've seen plenty of times.
Ehh, the original works of Christianity and Islam are violent. The growing pains that need to happen for Islam to be more accepted by the west would essentially be Muslims ignoring parts of their religion much like Christians now ignore parts of the Old Testament or delegate them to "metaphor" status or however someone convinces rationalizes that shit.shuri said:
Of course, if one is going to discard parts of their religion they no longer believe or feel work in the times they live in, what's the point of that religion in the first place?
elrechazado
Banned
You watch lots of movies.Jean-Claude Picard said:
Enosh said:
In the (german) military, i was trained for both. Center mass for combat situations, legs for domestic guard duty.
Although they kinda admitted that shooting in the legs was 'preferable', but depending on the situation (and the shooter's skills), just hitting the target and taking it down was fine enough.
Jean-Claude Picard
Banned
Enosh said:
Of course they are. The majority of situations where police officers in civilized countries are forced to use their guns they are supposed to immobilize their targets, not to kill them. It's absurd to think they are trained to actually kill people and that it's impossible to hit anything but the torso. Why do you think warning shots exist and what's the next step after that? Head shots? You watch too many movies. :lol
chaostrophy
Member
Jean-Claude Picard said:
My understanding is that if an officer just needs to immobilize someone they'll use a tazer or pepper spray or just handcuffs- guns are considered deadly force and only used with intent to kill.
Instigator
Banned
Shiggy said:
Looks like the terrorists got to whoever was holding/hosting that contest.
Dabookerman
Member
Correct me if i'm wrong, but to the people who are against portraying Islam as violent, isn't that ironic? Considering that Islam (and Christianity) spread through blood and violence.
Jean-Claude Picard
Banned
chaostrophy said:
No, you use superior weaponry and still try to immobilize your target. Except for extreme cases it is preferable, from a public and a personal point of view, to not to kill your target.
BattleMonkey
Member
Jean-Claude Picard said:
Police are supposed to draw and fire their weapon only for the intent to kill. This is why they have tazers, clubs, pepper spray/mace if they are to immobilize. If a gun is needed to stop someone who does not pose a life threatening danger, then that police force is a joke, the gun was never needed in the first place.
Also warning shots are discouraged by pretty much all military and police forces, and they are also illegal amongst civilians. Warning shots are dangerous as the bullet has to go somewhere and the chance of hitting an innocent is always there. Fire a bullet into the air, it will come down eventually, and potentially kill someone very far away.
chaostrophy
Member
Jean-Claude Picard said:
Extreme cases are why the police have guns, and the only circumstances where they should be fired at all. Do you really think it's "preferable" or "civilized" for the police to be firing their guns trying to wound people when nobody's life is at stake?
BattleMonkey
Member
xelios said:
heh
Jean-Claude Picard
Banned
BattleMonkey said:
Huh? Most police doesn't even have this equipment. And it's certainly foolish to try to pepper spray or handcuff someone with a knife. You simply shoot him in the leg.
You also fire warning shots into the ground, Jesus. It's about the sound and penetration of a real bullet and to show your ability to actually use the gun. What idiot fires it into the sky, especially in a city?
You use a gun to SHOW that you could use a deadly force, but it's still a priority to try to not kill anybody. The toll it takes on an officer to have someone killed seems to be lost on most of you armchair sheriffs.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
Kozak said:
You pussy's need to man the fuck up, i couldn't give a toss if it offends you, i see and hear shit that offends me EVERYDAY but i don't have a whinge and cry about it. You know why? because that's life and you ain't special, afterall...there's over a billion of you.
BattleMonkey said:
No...
Practice i trained:
Step 1: "Freeze!"
Step 2: "Freeze, or i'll shoot!"
Step 3: Warning shot
Step 4: Aimed shot
Of course, shooting while amongst civilians, or in the direction of civilians is discouraged, but not firing a warning shot in general.
EDIT: also, this:
Jean-Claude Picard said:
Listen to this man!
soul creator
Member
all this talk of axe-wielding Somalis and shooting people in the limbs makes me want to play Resident Evil 5!
Jean-Claude Picard said:
Well I'm military, not police, so I'm not familiar with police protocols/ROE's.
But I can tell you that the next step after a warning shot is lethal force... And this whole thing about police being taught to use their guns to immobilize is ridiculous, they're taught the same way we are, center of mass. The only ones who are taught beyond that are snipers, who have the equipment for the precision needed.
heliosRAzi
Banned
I think Picard is fucking with you guys.
Vast Inspiration
Banned
I totally agree with all of you that freedom is speech is limitless and thats its perfectly okay to go around calling people n**gers. Wait...why did I have to censor that word? Man, Gaf is created by an illiterate moron from the stone age who doesn't respect freedom of speech!
Wait, I know Gaf isn't comparable to a modern western country and doesn't adhere to those principles. I'll just walk outside in USA or Canada or Britain and call someone a n**ger. Oh wait, thats not acceptable either. Why oh why is that word so bad? Everyone should be able to call black people that. Who the fuck cares what they think?! They'll get desensitized to it if white people bring it back!
The fact of the matter is that many of these "religious nuts" and crazy idiots who don't respect your freedom of speech are from underdeveloped nations and aren't highly educated. Its not Islam that driving them to riot or "act violently". It's because of the lack of education, poor cultural norms, and the lack of strict policing, that people think its okay to do something like burn down an embassy.
My point is that the kind of people you are vilifying for their barbaric religion, don't really derive their actions from religion. Those people will riot and act violently at political rallies, or if you bad mouth a popular singer or whatever. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT IF YOU ATTACK WHAT THEY HOLD DEAR. Are Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo proponents of violence if the people that play their games are sometimes violent and even attack (and kill) others for a videogame console. Go to a Nintendo conference and try to attack Zelda or Mario Galaxy and see how that works out for you. But its not Nintendo's fault or philosophy to condone crazy behavior (i hope).
Some of you are either truly ignorant or purposely blind and think its okay to antagonize what close to a billion people on this planet hold dear. It doesn't matter what they hold dear, if you attack it, you're going to get a bad response. Most of these people are from third world countries and have less than a grade 10 education. I'm not saying that the attacker in the OP is justified, but most of you who are in such modern and progressive countries really need to open your eyes as well. People don't like it if you attack what they hold dear. And if those people are poor and uneducated, their response is usually going to be violent or belligerent.
This idea that you need to antagonize them more to desensitize them is idiotic. And the constant claims that its their religion that all of the sudden is provoking them to become terrorists is equally moronic. As these countries develop in the next few decades and there is more education, these problems will naturally die out. For now, modern and progressive people should try to act modern and progressive and not purposely antagonize the beliefs of people who see themselves in a vulnerable position.
Wait, I know Gaf isn't comparable to a modern western country and doesn't adhere to those principles. I'll just walk outside in USA or Canada or Britain and call someone a n**ger. Oh wait, thats not acceptable either. Why oh why is that word so bad? Everyone should be able to call black people that. Who the fuck cares what they think?! They'll get desensitized to it if white people bring it back!
The fact of the matter is that many of these "religious nuts" and crazy idiots who don't respect your freedom of speech are from underdeveloped nations and aren't highly educated. Its not Islam that driving them to riot or "act violently". It's because of the lack of education, poor cultural norms, and the lack of strict policing, that people think its okay to do something like burn down an embassy.
My point is that the kind of people you are vilifying for their barbaric religion, don't really derive their actions from religion. Those people will riot and act violently at political rallies, or if you bad mouth a popular singer or whatever. PEOPLE DON'T LIKE IT IF YOU ATTACK WHAT THEY HOLD DEAR. Are Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo proponents of violence if the people that play their games are sometimes violent and even attack (and kill) others for a videogame console. Go to a Nintendo conference and try to attack Zelda or Mario Galaxy and see how that works out for you. But its not Nintendo's fault or philosophy to condone crazy behavior (i hope).
Some of you are either truly ignorant or purposely blind and think its okay to antagonize what close to a billion people on this planet hold dear. It doesn't matter what they hold dear, if you attack it, you're going to get a bad response. Most of these people are from third world countries and have less than a grade 10 education. I'm not saying that the attacker in the OP is justified, but most of you who are in such modern and progressive countries really need to open your eyes as well. People don't like it if you attack what they hold dear. And if those people are poor and uneducated, their response is usually going to be violent or belligerent.
This idea that you need to antagonize them more to desensitize them is idiotic. And the constant claims that its their religion that all of the sudden is provoking them to become terrorists is equally moronic. As these countries develop in the next few decades and there is more education, these problems will naturally die out. For now, modern and progressive people should try to act modern and progressive and not purposely antagonize the beliefs of people who see themselves in a vulnerable position.
silverbullet1080
Banned
Someone needs to DERP the cartoon.
Vast Inspiration said:
But violence is condoned in the Qur'an. Enough that these type of individuals feel justified and even that they will be rewarded, if they choose to interpret it as such or take it literally, depending on the passage. Quite different than Nintendo.
Dabookerman
Member
Vast Inspiration said:
Blasphemy is a victimless "crime". Calling someone a nigger, and you could have yourself a victim of verbal abuse.
Is it possible that there are different protocols in different countries? I'm from Denmark but have no idea how our police officers are trained. I can however tell you that Danish police doesn't have a lot of the fancy equipment mentioned earlier in this thread. Moreover the reactions to fatal shootings in this country do lead me to believe that our police isn't taught to shoot to kill.Fury.ca said:
Not a good day in general for the Islamic world propoganda wise.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8437658.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8437658.stm
Dabookerman
Member
KingGondo said:
I'm still avidly waiting on what can only be described as an epic picture.
And again, regarding extremists.
Islamists are doing fuck all to actually stop the spread of them.
I hold freedom of speech dear, very dear, close to my heart.Vast Inspiration said:
Also, no one saying they can't get angry or mad.
What they can't be is violent.
And FFS, comparing racism to blasphemy is ridiculous.
You can claim they are both bad, but drawing parallels between the Cartoon and hateful speech is baseless, it makes as much sense as saying "you're okay with the drawing of Mohammed, so that mean you're fine with screaming fire in a crowded theater".
p.s.
It may come to a surprise to you, but it's not a sin only in Islam, the fucking Ten Commandments (depending on the version) prohibits it as well.
Why did you censor "nigger"? Because it's illegal. Oh wait...Vast Inspiration said:
Freedom of speech is freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Unless you're directly inciting something that is against the law, you're legally allowed to say it. Criticizing/mocking/whatever religion is anybody's right in a true free society. If such speech--harmless speech--provokes someone to violence, the problem lies with the violent person, and that's who we should turn out attention to, not someone exercising their right to express themself no matter how controversial or offensive their expression is. If there's something that offends you so deeply, at least pretend to be a civilized human being and look away, don't be a fucking animal.
The line for freedom of speech is drawn where it directly causes harm. Move that line anywhere else because of the offended sensibilities of a large enough group of nutjobs, and you not only set a bad precedent that leads to the death of free speech, you empower people to believe they have the right to curtail everybody else's ability to express themselves freely whenever they find something offensive. Freedom of Speech--our first amendment--exists to prevent that kind of bullshit from happening.
Vast Inspiration
Banned
And Christians committed a lot of atrocities in the name of religion as well. The point is those countries and areas became more educated over the years. The middle east is still behind (that'll happen when there is constant war in the area) and its not surprise that the people there act the way they do because there is little education and the law&order is "bendable".Chichikov said:
And frankly, an insulting word is as bad as an insulting picture. Tell yourself otherwise, but people take those pictures personally, just like a black person would take that word personally. You can say its different, but its not different to these people. The fact that many of you seem to have trouble understanding that is part of the problem.
So...why don't you go ahead and use the word nigger in you everday language? I actually don't know if its illegal. If its not, then go ahead and use it. And if it is, then that goes against everything you just said. You're not fucking hurting anyone physically by calling them a nigger. But its most definitely a fucking horrible thing to say.demon said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll