billvon 3,068 #26 September 22, 2016 >If they really want to make the police look foolish when they're in "military mode" >all they have to do is be completely non-violent and compliant. Easier said than done when the police in your area have a history of shooting nonviolent and compliant individuals. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #27 September 22, 2016 billvon >If they really want to make the police look foolish when they're in "military mode" >all they have to do is be completely non-violent and compliant. Easier said than done when the police in your area have a history of shooting nonviolent and compliant individuals. One can't change the past (recent or decades ago), only the present and the future. Never said it would be easy either as good progress and results rarely are. Bad results and digression are what's easy.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #28 September 22, 2016 Quote Easier said than done when the police in your area have a history of shooting nonviolent and compliant individuals. What a silly comment from a reasonably intelligent man.... Do you REALLY think the police didn't have a "history" of shooting people when MLK was demonstrating how to peacefully protest?Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #29 September 22, 2016 >One can't change the past (recent or decades ago), only the present and the future. Agreed. Consider the parent of a teen black kid in a place like North Carolina. Is she going to tell her son to cooperate with the police, whatever they say or do? Or is she going to tell him "you see a cop pull out a gun you get out of there!" She's planning for the future, too - and would rather her son live through it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #30 September 22, 2016 billvon >One can't change the past (recent or decades ago), only the present and the future. Agreed. Consider the parent of a teen black kid in a place like North Carolina. Is she going to tell her son to cooperate with the police, whatever they say or do? Or is she going to tell him "you see a cop pull out a gun you get out of there!" She's planning for the future, too - and would rather her son live through it. I think you mean she'll tell the child the latter in the first paragraph, but your second paragraph suggests her telling the child the former. Running from police is a bad idea for anyone, especially if their guns are drawn. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #31 September 22, 2016 >Running from police is a bad idea for anyone, especially if their guns are drawn. Again, less of a bad idea if they have a history of shooting you if you stop. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #32 September 22, 2016 billvon >Running from police is a bad idea for anyone, especially if their guns are drawn. Again, less of a bad idea if they have a history of shooting you if you stop. No, it's basic math. The risk of being shot for cooperation and compliance with an officer's instructions is magnitudes less compared to the odds of being shot resisting. What you're proposing is akin to someone pulling their main at 1000 feet or less on every jump to minimize their chance of getting hit by a plane. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #33 September 22, 2016 >What you're proposing is akin to someone pulling their main at 1000 feet or less >on every jump to minimize their chance of getting hit by a plane. Right. But if you are at a DZ that has a spate of people getting hit by GA airplanes at 1500 feet, that's going to be a harder argument to make. In that case, it would probably be best to get the GA pilots to not fly over the DZ at 1500 feet AND tell people to pull higher. Either one alone might not be sufficient. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #34 September 22, 2016 billvon >What you're proposing is akin to someone pulling their main at 1000 feet or less >on every jump to minimize their chance of getting hit by a plane. Right. But if you are at a DZ that has a spate of people getting hit by GA airplanes at 1500 feet, that's going to be a harder argument to make. In that case, it would probably be best to get the GA pilots to not fly over the DZ at 1500 feet AND tell people to pull higher. Either one alone might not be sufficient. Define spate. Still occurring or "was a problem 30+ years ago."Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 848 #35 September 23, 2016 Did you miss the news of a state court that found citizens justified for running? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #36 September 23, 2016 >Define spate. Still occurring or "was a problem 30+ years ago." Still occurring. Let's say you see a death from collision at your DZ every year or so, and across all the US DZ's you hear about such a death once a week. Sure, the statistics are still in favor of you pulling above 2500. But seeing a friend of yours killed right in front of you is going to leave an impression. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #37 September 23, 2016 billvon >Define spate. Still occurring or "was a problem 30+ years ago." Still occurring. Let's say you see a death from collision at your DZ every year or so, and across all the US DZ's you hear about such a death once a week. Sure, the statistics are still in favor of you pulling above 2500. But seeing a friend of yours killed right in front of you is going to leave an impression. Not saying that that it's not going to leave an impression, but changing one's everyday response to something much riskier to avoid a remote risk is asinine.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreeece 2 #38 September 23, 2016 billvon >Running from police is a bad idea for anyone, especially if their guns are drawn. Again, less of a bad idea if they have a history of shooting you if you stop. There's also a history of muslims crashing planes into buildings - Run!!!!Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #39 September 23, 2016 normiss Did you miss the news of a state court that found citizens justified for running? Running is similar to resisting but still could be misinterpreted as aggressive. Getting back to the math portion: Let's assume there are 100 cops. 1 will shoot a fully compliant person. 4 will shoot anyone resisting in any way. 5 will shoot anyone armed and resisting in any way. 10 will shoot anyone that is unarmed but threatening. 20 will shoot anyone that is armed but threatening. 30 will shoot anyone unarmed posing an active threat. 30 will shoot anyone armed posing an active threat. Simple odds show one's best chance is full compliance with just a 1% chance of getting the cop that shoots you no matter what you do. Additionally the only defense against that person is overpowering them and/or shooting them first, but that just makes you now a target for the other 99. Ironically those who think the worse of cops should be the ones that are the most compliant with them to avoid "giving them a reason."Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #40 September 23, 2016 Quote Police have said that Scott was shot to death Tuesday by a black officer after he disregarded loud, repeated warnings to drop his gun. Neighbors, though, have said he was holding only a book. The police chief said a gun was found next to the dead man, and there was no book. Putney said that he has seen the video and it does not contain "absolute, definitive evidence that would confirm that a person was pointing a gun." But he added: "When taken in the totality of all the other evidence, it supports what we said." Justin Bamberg, an attorney for Scott's family, watched the video with the slain man's relatives. He said Scott gets out of his vehicle calmly. "While police did give him several commands, he did not aggressively approach them or raise his hands at members of law enforcement at any time. It is impossible to discern from the videos what, if anything, Mr. Scott is holding in his hands," Bamberg said in a statement. Quote Roberts, who also watched the footage of the shooting, was asked by CNN whether she saw Scott holding a gun. "It is not a very clear picture and the gun in question is a small gun. And it was not easy to see ... so it is ambiguous," she replied When someone is holding a gun, even a "small" one, it's not very ambiguous to those involved. They are treating this like it's an NFL replay, many armed encounters are within 3 feet, within 3 seconds, many under poor lighting conditions. The NFL has 5 camera angles, excellent lighting, and still different people draw different conclusions. If you have a gun in your hand, and you are ordered to drop it by armed cops, and you refuse, they aren't gonna wait for you to point it at them. There is a high likelihood you are going to get shot. The last two incidents were both 100% preventable, and those behaviors that caused them were not precipitated by the cops, the cops reacted to them. In Tulsa the reaction appears to be incorrect, and the officer has to answer to that criminally. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #41 September 23, 2016 SkyDekker Quote If the social groups given to rioting wish for sympathy, it's in the dictionary somewhere between 'shit' and 'syphilis.' For people like you it is yes. Actually - for every one it is. You do know the alphabet don't you? You know how a dictionary works, right. I don't see how you could dispute that fact.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,068 #42 September 23, 2016 >Not saying that that it's not going to leave an impression, but changing one's >everyday response to something much riskier to avoid a remote risk is asinine. If they fully understand those risks - yes. Most people don't. A few examples. About ten years ago there was a main/reserve entanglement due to a broken riser. About half the people at my DZ disconnected their RSL's. Was that asinine? Probably, if you understood the relative risks. But many people did it anyway because many people make decisions based on avoiding the "closest" threat - and the recent fatality was closer to them. And when I spoke to them about it, none of them were fools with no clue about safety; they were just making a decision they considered rational. At a small airport I flew at once there was an accident where a pilot took off, lost power at about 800 feet and stalled while trying to turn back. He was killed. Several pilots there then decided to climb out more steeply so they'd have more altitude to make a 180 back to the runway. That was also asinine from a higher level perspective. So if we continue to see cops shooting innocent people for little to no reason, you are going to have more innocent people running away from cops. Even if statistically that's not supportable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 848 #43 September 23, 2016 Anybody else catch the city administration presser this morning? Where the mayor and the chief repeatedly say they are all about transparency? Followed by the refusal to release the videos because it will make the situation worse? Gotta wonder what's on that video... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #44 September 23, 2016 billvon So if we continue to see cops shooting innocent people for little to no reason, you are going to have more innocent people running away from cops. The man had "something" in his hands that he did not drop when repeatedly told. No book was found but a gun was. Let's not call him innocent yet.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #45 September 23, 2016 Not really.....short of it showing him come out and call the LEO MF and point the gun at them and pop off a few rounds.... it wouldn't good enough to satisfy some people. The family has already come out with "he was backing up" Like a man with a gun can't kill you backing up. The NEXT big point will be "But he wasn't pointing the gun" And of course "The police planted the gun." There are shootings that I believe are 100% wrong, but it's these gray ones (for me) that define people's positions. If you are given a lawful order to drop your gun and you don't the LEO don't have an obligation to WAIT for you to get the first shot off. I understand that these of you that watch lot's of movies can't understand that fact.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 848 #46 September 23, 2016 Nice how you prefer to simply dismiss differing opinions because "we watch lots of movies". I'm never going to understand why a guy gets murdered over a disabled car, nor one with a mental condition, but mainly because they're black and some cops are afraid of black people. It's fucking insanity. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #47 September 23, 2016 normiss Anybody else catch the city administration presser this morning? Where the mayor and the chief repeatedly say they are all about transparency? Followed by the refusal to release the videos because it will make the situation worse? Gotta wonder what's on that video... The damned fools in Charlotte need to look at how Tulsa handled it: https://news.vice.com/article/charlotte-keith-lamont-scott-tulsa-terence-crutcher-police-shooting-videos-release"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 848 #48 September 23, 2016 A video is out, lady taking the video tells the cops he has a TBI begging them to not shoot him. "He's not doing anything wrong, he has a TBI." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mirage62 0 #49 September 23, 2016 Quote I'm never going to understand why a guy gets murdered over a disabled car, Nice how you dismiss that in both cases the people chose to ignore commands give by the officer. Is that always a reason to get shot - No. But in the case of the fellow with the gun....it sure drives the odds up. Have you not noticed that in the disabled car - the officer has been charged? Does that make it right? Hell no. Btw buddy....I respect you and your thoughts and like to hear them. Nope we won't always agree.Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skycop 0 #50 September 23, 2016 https://www.facebook.com/BadgeCams/videos/1279107782121176/ This is what "small" guns can do, and how quick things can go bad. But yes, I know, the guy was running away when they shot him................... "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
