6 cops shot in 3 cities overnight

Trump's behind the wheel. Don't get to do that anymore.

Yes you do when it was Obama who made it ok to kill cops.

Before Obama was elected 66% of americans thought race relations were getting better. At his exit 33%. This is all over his fucking commie door.
 
Ah, but I'm not talking about someone with a gun. That's a totally different argument. Ah, yes, I've fired a gun before. 20 years in the U.S. Army. As an Infantry soldier I fired everything we had in the armory. :)
so what kind of "Army" were you a member of? I served 16 years in the infantry, both as an enlistee and officer, and i was never taught to shoot to wound. Army training doctrine doesn't teach soldiers to shoot to wound either

You shoot to stop the threat....in the chest and follow up with one in the head if he doesn't stop.

case in point, this is my zeroing from last IWQ

C9z3UfI.jpg
 
So what kind of "Army" were you a member of? I served 16 years in the infantry, both as an enlistee and officer, and i was never taught to shoot to wound. Army training doctrine doesn't teach soldiers to shoot to wound either. You shoot to stop the threat....in the chest and follow up with one in the head if he doesn't stop. Case in point, this is my zeroing from last IWQ

How many years Enlisted? How many as an Officer? Active duty or the Reserves?

Wow, I'm impressed with the fact you actually went through all the trouble of posting your target sheet. If that's your 'zeroing' at 25 meters your weapon is already zeroed (bottom of sheet info). Nice shot group. How did you do with the 300 meter target? What did you shoot? Rifle or pistol. ...and what the fuck does your target sheet prove? Just showing off?

Did you miss the 'U.S.' in front of "Army' above and the mention of the Infantry? I served 7 years in the Infantry (11B) also as enlisted and officer. (OCS graduate). 13 in Civil Affairs (38A). Well, no shit U.S. Army doctrine doesn't teach to shoot to wound, but that is not what we are talking about is it? You are mixing apples and oranges. Soldiers in war vs cops in the street. Is that your philosophy, all threats to a police officer should be met with deadly force? A drunk guy throws a punch at a cop and the cop should shoot and kill him? Ok than, leave the mace, baton, and taser gun at home.
 
I'm not going to comment about what people felt, etc. That's an argument that will lead back to the kind of things like the incorrect post I originally commented on. My point is just that the actual result was that more cops did not die during Obama's term but the direct opposite. He had the lowest average of any president as far as the statistics I had available would show (back to 1970). I don't have anything more to add as I don't have any stakes in any American president.

Holy crap a rational post and response in the war room? Thanks,man.
 
Almost every street cop i know feels Obamas DOJ was out to get cops for using force, even righteously, which led to officers being hesitant and getting injured or killed. Not to mention the pandering to BLM, having them to the White House, etc. His reactions to Ferguson, Baltimore, etc all made cops feel like even the executive branch was pro thug.

Absolutely right. Good post. Just look at Obama's reaction when comparing the death of a black or white person, not to mention the white Americans executed by ISIS. Interesting because Obama is 50% black and 50% white.
 
I'm not going to comment about what people felt, etc. That's an argument that will lead back to the kind of things like the incorrect post I originally commented on. My point is just that the actual result was that more cops did not die during Obama's term but the direct opposite. He had the lowest average of any president as far as the statistics I had available would show (back to 1970). I don't have anything more to add as I don't have any stakes in any American president.

So when you claimed that "more cops did not die during Obama's term" were you talking about while on duty, off duty, or both combined? Does that include dying in a car accident for example? We are talking specifically about police officers who have died from being attacked by a suspect, or suspects (not all possible causes). What statistics did you have available? It would have been nice if you had provided a source for the sake of reference and verification.

So the question becomes this. Were you being deliberately misleading or unintentionally vague in your wording?

As I like to say. Context matters.

........................................


http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/29/polit...enforcement-officers-memorial-fund/index.html

Police fatality report: Car accidents among top cause of death

"...A study by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund examined the deaths of 684 police officers over a five-year period found that 272 officers died from being in an automobile crash or being struck by an automobile. A further look at these incidents found that "a large number of the crashes investigated were not related to either a call for service or a case of self-initiated activity," the report said...."


............................

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2016/09/police-are-less-safe-under-obama.aspx

Police are Less Safe Under Obama


"...WP Wonkblog: Police are safer under Obama than they have been in decades." I'm not sure what "Police" the White House and blog author Christopher Ingraham were referring to, but their assertion certainly doesn't apply to law enforcement officers serving in the United States.

The blog referenced statistics regarding all causes of police fatalities to reach its false conclusion that officers are safer under Obama. It included statistics reflecting a reduction in vehicular related deaths. Nonetheless, Ingraham wrote, "Intentional attacks on police officers are at historically low levels under President Obama." Ingraham references ambush attacks against officers and contends the "numbers are a little murkier." He goes on to state, "These (ambushes) are generally rare, with the number of officers dying in these attacks each year in the single or double digits." And his next sentence is the grand contradiction of his blog's false title: "But they (ambushes) have become slightly more common."

Slightly? Here's a slice of historical truth. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF), 64 law enforcement officers were fatally ambushed in the eight years of President George W. Bush's administration. As of July 17, 94 officers have been fatally ambushed under President Obama's ongoing eight years of office..."


 
Last edited:
How many years Enlisted? How many as an Officer? Active duty or the Reserves?

Wow, I'm impressed with the fact you actually went through all the trouble of posting your target sheet. If that's your 'zeroing' at 25 meters your weapon is already zeroed (bottom of sheet info). Nice shot group. How did you do with the 300 meter target? What did you shoot? Rifle or pistol. ...and what the fuck does your target sheet prove? Just showing off?

Did you miss the 'U.S.' in front of "Army' above and the mention of the Infantry? I served 7 years in the Infantry (11B) also as enlisted and officer. (OCS graduate). 13 in Civil Affairs (38A). Well, no shit U.S. Army doctrine doesn't teach to shoot to wound, but that is not what we are talking about is it? You are mixing apples and oranges. Soldiers in war vs cops in the street. Is that your philosophy, all threats to a police officer should be met with deadly force? A drunk guy throws a punch at a cop and the cop should shoot and kill him? Ok than, leave the mace, baton, and taser gun at home.
-10 years enlisted, the rest are ofc
-i shot 40/40 for qualification last iwq. i am also a use of force instructor for my department
-yes, my zeroing target proves that you don't shoot to "wound". you aim for center mass, not the arms or legs. did they teach you this in your "army"?
-yes, a cop can legally shoot a drunk guy who throw punches under the right circumstances 1) size or strength of the subject /officer 2) officer experience & training vs subject experience 3) # of officer vs subject.

for example, i am not going to apprehend a drunk guy by myself if i know before hand he was a former 2 x ibjjf world champion. i'll have hin at gun point before backup arrives
 
Last edited:
-yes, a cop can legally shoot a drunk guy who throw punches under the right circumstances 1) size or strength of the subject /officer 2) officer experience & training vs subject experience 3) # of officer vs subject. for example, i am not going to apprehend a drunk guy by myself if i know before hand he was a former 2 x ibjjf world champion

That is fucking amazing! A cop in California can kill a man for throwing a punch. That's California for you. My mistake -- correction. The police here in Oklahoma killed two black men for doing nothing. One shot by accident. The other shot under 'suspicion' of having a gun. There was no gun. So, why do cops carry mace, a baton, and a taser? Blacks are being shot even when there are 5 police officers present to help apprehend. I'm white by the way. Much like war and the rest of life. You live with the consequences of your actions. Right or wrong.
 
I did not catch the third city from the article. As I've said before, police officers are not totally innocent either. They have mace, a baton, a taser, other police officers, and a gun. They choose the last resort first, and to kill, not wound. My grandmother could take a good number of these individuals down with her cane, but the police choose to shoot them.
This sort of blanket statement suggests that use of force is black and white. It's not. Each case should be judged individually because the circumstances surrounding each case are different.

Sometimes it's 100% reasonable to shoot an unarmed person. Again, it depends on the circumstances, including the knowledge available to the officer at the time of the shooting, exhaustion, size/strength difference, the nature of the suspected crime, etc etc etc.

Also, I'm not sure how they do it in the Army, but I'd like some elaboration on what you meant by your clarification that cops shoot "to kill, not to wound" because it seems like you're suggesting that it's acceptable by ANY department's standards to fire a gun just to wound somebody. If you aren't intending to use deadly force, you probably shouldn't be shooting at people, right...?
 
Last edited:
Before Obama was elected 66% of americans thought race relations were getting better. At his exit 33%. This is all over his fucking commie door.

So the Trump birther movement, Fox portraying his as a communist Muslim Kenyan born traitor have nothing to do with it? No blame there at all?

Seems that race relations were made worse by biased media appealing to low information voters had an affect, even though Obama governed as a moderate.
 
I dont't agree with people hating all cops, or even harming them, but I also don't agree with cops who are power drunk. I been harassed by cops on multiple occasions. Ill continue to challenge them when they are wrong.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again: antifa and BLM are at the top of the list when it comes to domestic terrorists.

They should be treated as such and arrested on sight.
 
so what kind of "Army" were you a member of? I served 16 years in the infantry, both as an enlistee and officer, and i was never taught to shoot to wound. Army training doctrine doesn't teach soldiers to shoot to wound either

You shoot to stop the threat....in the chest and follow up with one in the head if he doesn't stop.

case in point, this is my zeroing from last IWQ

C9z3UfI.jpg

That target looks like a reindeer
 
So the Trump birther movement, Fox portraying his as a communist Muslim Kenyan born traitor have nothing to do with it? No blame there at all?

Seems that race relations were made worse by biased media appealing to low information voters had an affect, even though Obama governed as a moderate.

There is a big difference between criticizing an individual who happens to be president and an entire race. Democrats are quick to say for example that all white Trump supporters are by default racist.
 
I don't feel the need to elaborate on factors affecting use of force because of the excellent job done by protect and toothless, however, I would like to comment on the brief discussion about police being more or less safe under Obama's reign. He started off right at the gate by calling officers foolish for the way they handled a reported break-in at a black Harvard professor's residence. I give him props for trying to remedy the sitch by inviting them for beers at the White House. But that may have been the only time a police officer was invited compared to blm being invited multiple times.

If less officers were killed during his administration, it was certainly not because of any actions he took to protect officers. I don't know if any officers that felt like he had their blacks, I mean backs. Excuse me.

Anyway, I think the number of officers dying in the line of duty has been dropping since the 70s, but not because the job is so much less dangerous, but rather the improvement in equipment and tactics.

And the last 3 years of his administration saw what was referred to as the fergusson effect, in which officers definitively became less proactive. This was because of a few different reasons.

First, officers felt under attack, and not just physically, but on the news, social media, and the potus low opinion of officers. So the officers, being human, were hurt and basically said "fuck it" for a while.

When officers are being proactive, they are going specifically after the serious criminals. Big time drug dealers and gang members. Some may say that drug dealers are not "serious criminals" because they are selling a service that has a demand, it is a non violent offense, etc. but drug dealers and gangbangers are often one in the same. And I am not talking about the college kid or the hippie peddling pot. But street drugs. These guys are killers. They protect their turf with violence(see Chicago) and rob people, shoot rivals, and cops. So maybe a few less officers were killed in the line of duty because they were not going after these bad dudes.

And regardless of the numbers of police officers killed, I can't remember too many times where an officer(s) were gunned down while sitting in a patrol car/having lunch with the exception of that asshole all those years ago in Spokane wash.

Under the last few years of Obama and the proliferation of blm and an increasingly violent anti-cop movement on the internet and social media, cops became actual targets of assasination rather than a bank robber, domestic violence call, or crankhead trying to avoid jail. Being fueled by anti-cop sites such as those dickbags at copblock and other social media sites, people were whipped into such a fury, that a few of the people talking about liking cops actually went out and did it in the most cowardly way possible. They would walk up to a cop car and just start shooting. And while CNN and dick lemon were having town hall meetings to bash cops, they spent approximately two minutes talking about the murder of police officers before changing the subject to "why did these misguided souls feel threatened enough to shoot the police officers?" Because Mike brown, who died with a frown? Or Eric garner, and let us not forget the convicted sex offender and multiple felon(for robbery, sex crimes, shooting someone, multiple felon in possession of a firearm) Alton sterling, who was shot by police while trying to get rid of the illegal firearm he had and had displayed prior to police getting called about a man selling pirated cds flashing a gun. But the news and social media reports "man shot for selling cds" which angered some scumbag enough to shoot and kill three police officers. Had he shot Alton sterling instead of the cops, there would be no March, no riot, no anger, and about as much media coverage as a mouse fart. And this was weeks after Dallas, where some cockgobbler shot and killed six innocent police officers. And what were people angry with about that situation? Was it that police officers were murdered? Nope. It was because dalllad pd blew this asshole up with a robot.

My ranting point comes down to this: regardless of the numbers of police officers killed under the Obama administration, it was the manner in which they were assasinated. First in the news media and socal media, then in real life. And this train has not derailed or even slowed down. The cop hate only seems to grow and these cowardly attacks will continue. And I will say one more thing. It is never the officers that are dirty, or even the ones that are abusive or shooting people(like the tx cop that just racked up his third shooting in 18 months with the first two being fatal) it is some innocent cop(s) sitting in a patrol car.
 
This sort of blanket statement suggests that use of force is black and white. It's not. Each case should be judged individually because the circumstances surrounding each case are different.

Sometimes it's 100% reasonable to shoot an unarmed person. Again, it depends on the circumstances, including the knowledge available to the officer at the time of the shooting, exhaustion, size/strength difference, the nature of the suspected crime, etc etc etc.

Also, I'm not sure how they do it in the Army, but I'd like some elaboration on what you meant by your clarification that cops shoot "to kill, not to wound" because it seems like you're suggesting that it's acceptable by ANY department's standards to fire a gun just to wound somebody. If you aren't intending to use deadly force, you probably shouldn't be shooting at people, right...?

This is very true but so many thoughtless fools have been conditioned by the media and demagogues to believe otherwise. The cognitive disorder known as liberalism is designed for the purposes of divide and conquer.

I have seen several media reports where a suspect using a vehicle, skateboard, or a brick as a weapon was falsely described as being unarmed. In some of these fake news media outlets being unarmed is simply defined as not possessing a firearm. This is a travesty of journalism. The fact of the matter is that even the body can be used as a weapon. As fight fans we should all know and understand this. Check out the FBI homicide data table below and notice the description of what is called "personal weapons." Why don't these pitiful pseudo-journalists inform the public in a responsible and factual manner? There are also cases like Michael Brown where an unarmed suspect can be reaching for the officer's firearm as well. That still qualifies as justified homicide but the rabble-rousers and race-baiters could care less.

.........................................................................

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....able_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2009-2013.xls

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)

..........................................................................

 
Last edited:
This article is from 2007 but the findings are quite interesting. This was before the days of Eric "My People" Holder in the DOJ with his anti-cop/pro-criminal witch hunts.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-examines-police-use-of-deadly-force/

Study Examines Police Use Of Deadly Force

"..The study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics is the first nationwide compilation of the reasons behind arrest-related deaths in the wake of high-profile police assaults or killings involving Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo in New York in the late 1990s.

The review found 55 percent of the 2,002 arrest-related deaths from 2003 through 2005 were due to homicide by state and local law enforcement officers.
.."

"...Keep in mind we have 2,000 deaths out of almost 40 million arrests over three years, so that tells you by their nature they are very unusual cases," said Christopher J. Mumola, who wrote the study...."

"..The Justice Department study released Thursday suggests that most of the police killings would be considered justified, although it does not make that final determination. About 80 percent of the cases involved criminal suspects who reportedly brandished a weapon "to threaten or assault" the arresting officers..."
 
Last edited:
There is a big difference between criticizing an individual who happens to be president and an entire race. Democrats are quick to say for example that all white Trump supporters are by default racist.

Really? Which democrats say that? A majority?

Most Trump voters think Obama is a muslim.
 
Really? Which democrats say that? A majority?

Most Trump voters think Obama is a muslim.

Talking negatively about Obama is not a racial generalization. Democrats don't say terrible and inaccurate things about Trump?

This is mainstream in the left-wing circles. I could go on, and on, and on, and on with examples.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...e-than-authoritarianism-or-income-inequality/
Racism motivated Trump voters more than authoritarianism

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/13/obama-says-racism-us-surfaces-violent-opposition-p/

Obama says racism evident in ‘violent opposition’ to programs to help minorities





 
Last edited:
Back
Top