Police Fire At Hostage & Use Human Shields

[The Two Jerseys]

1. Ah, so it's okay for criminals to recklessly fire a gun at a crowd of people as long as they don't kill anyone.

2. Again, your argument is stupidly misinformed and ignorant.

1. Thank you, again, for proving your argument's ignorance. You're making this too damn easy.
2. Is No U really the best you could come up with? Come on, use the thinky box, I'm sure you could come up with something slightly more original.

The only ignorant argument here is your argument that police should let criminals spray bullets into crowds of people and not even try to stop it.

[The South Falls]

While I agree, the police horribly botched this operation, the police shouldn't be disarmed. While I'm not advocating for the police to tote AK47s and grenade belts everywhere, I think that the police's effectiveness would be diminished in these situations if they were disarmed. A hostage rescue situation should have been put into place.

[Loben The 2nd]

they couldve been poor.

Then yes, war crimes are applicable since the US has declare war on drugs and poverty.

Where the robbers uniformed combatants?

[Loben The 2nd]

1. Thank you, again, for proving your argument's ignorance. You're making this too damn easy.
2. Is No U really the best you could come up with? Come on, use the thinky box, I'm sure you could come up with something slightly more original.

The only ignorant argument here is your argument that police should let criminals spray bullets into crowds of people and not even try to stop it.

maybe its a long winded plan of making the cops look worse?

[New haven america]

1. Because it generally not the polices job to handle people like in the hypothetical you're providing? That's the job for special firearm units and the National Guard, but definitely not for any random policeman unless absolutely necessary.
2. Fucking what are you on? Have you never listened to a Wu-Tang Clan, NWA, or Tupac song? Hint: Lotta them are about police brutality, and were made in the 80's and 90's.
3. No.

1. Oh really? It's not as common as I think? All of these are about those kinds of situations.

http://www.ora.tv/newsbreaker/2013/5/7/graphic-video-suicide-cop-man-ak-47-opens-police-begs-kill-1_youhpjbkhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nLYa2T02fc
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-08-14/riverside-chp-shooting-ar15-weapon

I'm only gonna list three because I don't feel like looking for more, but there is 1 more that comes to mind that I can't remember, which is the vet shooting and killing the poor new officer in the eye and chest killing him, with a heavy weapon. So no it isn't as rare as you might think.
2. Yes because the music videos about police brutality are going to make the cops much more jumpy than a sling of cop killers /s
3. Yes.

1. Did you miss the part I mentioned in this thread where absolutely necessary? You're doing nothing but proving my point, ironically.
2. This is literally a useless point.
3. Now you're getting it.

[New haven america]

1. Thank you, again, for proving your argument's ignorance. You're making this too damn easy.
2. Is No U really the best you could come up with? Come on, use the thinky box, I'm sure you could come up with something slightly more original.

The only ignorant argument here is your argument that police should let criminals spray bullets into crowds of people and not even try to stop it.

This is the 4th time you've proved to me alone that you didn't watch the video.

We get, you're arguing about a situation you have no understanding of, I don't know why you're so adamant about telling us you didn't watch the video link in the OP.

[Fartsniffage]

1. Thank you, again, for proving your argument's ignorance. You're making this too damn easy.
2. Is No U really the best you could come up with? Come on, use the thinky box, I'm sure you could come up with something slightly more original.

The only ignorant argument here is your argument that police should let criminals spray bullets into crowds of people and not even try to stop it.

If their solution is to also spray bullets into crowds of people then it seems like the cure is as bad as the disease....

[New haven america]

The only ignorant argument here is your argument that police should let criminals spray bullets into crowds of people and not even try to stop it.

maybe its a long winded plan of making the cops look worse?

No hard to do considering the only people who died in the incident were killed by police.

Or that the police literally committed a war crime by using civilians as shields.

[Fartsniffage]

Then yes, war crimes are applicable since the US has declare war on drugs and poverty.

Where the robbers uniformed combatants?

Like the poors can afford matching outfits....

[Volinovia]

The only ignorant argument here is your argument that police should let criminals spray bullets into crowds of people and not even try to stop it.

If their solution is to also spray bullets into crowds of people then it seems like the cure is as bad as the disease....

What choice did the officers have? The suspects were shooting, if the Police did not return fire it could've cost people their lives. I am not trying to put the Police on a pedestal here. But I really think their options were slim.

[Satuga]

1. Did you miss the part I mentioned in this thread where absolutely necessary? You're doing nothing but proving my point, ironically.
2. This is literally a useless point.
3. Now you're getting it.

1. Lol, you are advocating that officers should not have AR-15's unless absolutely necessary, what do you want them to do if it is necessary just magically poof the AR-15's into existence? It's either they have the AR-15's or they don't, pick one.
2. Then we shall agree that both our points were useless.
3. No.

[Bloodshade]

Aha! Thanks! So that claim is correct. Though since they're taking cover at the back of the SUV, it's not clear that could in any way be counted as using people as human shields, though.

My problem was that they placed the civilian drivers in the crossfire which is a rather reckless, dangerous action to take. They put the lives of innocent people on the line with such an action.

It does? I'm not seeing it. Could you say about when in the video that becomes clear?

This is probably a better source. At 0:44, I could see a man sitting on the steps of the UPS vehicle but yeah, the clips aren't clear enough for us to see so I retract the bit of my statement where I say it's clear for us to see.

The timing on the first isn't clear relative to the chase, and it's certainly possible to hijack a land vehicle without taking the driver hostage, like ordering them out at gunpoint.. Much harder in an airplane or ship, though.

According to Hudak's statement, this situation was treated as a hijacking. Still, I'll just wait to hear what the conclusions of the full investigation are.

[Loben The 2nd]

Where the robbers uniformed combatants?

Like the poors can afford matching outfits....

if the commies could do it i dont see why common criminals cant!

i should open a surplus shop that caters to gangs so they can wear matching camouflage

[Fartsniffage]

If their solution is to also spray bullets into crowds of people then it seems like the cure is as bad as the disease....

What choice did the officers have? The suspects were shooting, if the Police did not return fire it could've cost people their lives. I am not trying to put the Police on a pedestal here. But I really think their options were slim.

Back off. Simple as that.

Neither side were shooting at the uninvolved so if the police get out of range then the shooting stops and a conversation can begin.

[New haven america]

1. Did you miss the part I mentioned in this thread where absolutely necessary? You're doing nothing but proving my point, ironically.
2. This is literally a useless point.
3. Now you're getting it.

1. Lol, you are advocating that officers should not have AR-15's unless absolutely necessary, what do you want them to do if it is necessary just magically poof the AR-15's into existence? It's either they have the AR-15's or they don't, pick one.
2. Then we shall agree that both our points were useless.
3. No.

1. No, I'm saying they shouldn't have AR-15's at all.
2. No no, I actually watched the video and actually know what I'm talking about, you seem to have done neither.

[Salus Maior]

Why isn't "raise the training standards of the police" not an option?

[Loben The 2nd]

Aha! Thanks! So that claim is correct. Though since they're taking cover at the back of the SUV, it's not clear that could in any way be counted as using people as human shields, though.

My problem was that they placed the civilian drivers in the crossfire which is a rather reckless, dangerous action to take. They put the lives of innocent people on the line with such an action.

It does? I'm not seeing it. Could you say about when in the video that becomes clear?

This is probably a better source. At 0:44, I could see a man sitting on the steps of the UPS vehicle but yeah, the clips aren't clear enough for us to see so I retract the bit of my statement where I say it's clear for us to see.

The timing on the first isn't clear relative to the chase, and it's certainly possible to hijack a land vehicle without taking the driver hostage, like ordering them out at gunpoint.. Much harder in an airplane or ship, though.

According to Hudak's statement, this situation was treated as a hijacking. Still, I'll just wait to hear what the conclusions of the full investigation are.

a monumental fuck up occurred.

[Loben The 2nd]

Why isn't "raise the training standards of the police" not an option?

you think some bum fuck redneck county in the middle of Alabama is going to have the standards of raising the standards of cops?

[Torrocca]

The only ignorant argument here is your argument that police should let criminals spray bullets into crowds of people and not even try to stop it.

If their solution is to also spray bullets into crowds of people then it seems like the cure is as bad as the disease....

Funnily enough, as people can see from helicopter videos of the incident, you can pretty clearly see that the only people that the robbers could shoot at were police officers to their sides, where no innocent bystanders were at. However, since the police had numerous angles on the UPS truck that lined right up with innocent bystanders and vehicles, they were the only ones shooting into crowds of innocent people.

[Volinovia]

Aha! Thanks! So that claim is correct. Though since they're taking cover at the back of the SUV, it's not clear that could in any way be counted as using people as human shields, though.

My problem was that they placed the civilian drivers in the crossfire which is a rather reckless, dangerous action to take. They put the lives of innocent people on the line with such an action.

It does? I'm not seeing it. Could you say about when in the video that becomes clear?

This is probably a better source. At 0:44, I could see a man sitting on the steps of the UPS vehicle but yeah, the clips aren't clear enough for us to see so I retract the bit of my statement where I say it's clear for us to see.

The timing on the first isn't clear relative to the chase, and it's certainly possible to hijack a land vehicle without taking the driver hostage, like ordering them out at gunpoint.. Much harder in an airplane or ship, though.

According to Hudak's statement, this situation was treated as a hijacking. Still, I'll just wait to hear what the conclusions of the full investigation are.

The Police didn't put anyone into the crossfire intentionally. They follow the suspects. The suspects stopped so they stopped and then they took the suspects down. Now I am not saying that it was a good idea for the police to hid behind civilian vehicles. But they had no other option.

[Loben The 2nd]

1. Lol, you are advocating that officers should not have AR-15's unless absolutely necessary, what do you want them to do if it is necessary just magically poof the AR-15's into existence? It's either they have the AR-15's or they don't, pick one.
2. Then we shall agree that both our points were useless.
3. No.

1. No, I'm saying they shouldn't have AR-15's at all.
2. No no, I actually watched the video and actually know what I'm talking about, you seem to have done neither.

i believe that people shouldnt have cancer.

[The Two Jerseys]

The only ignorant argument here is your argument that police should let criminals spray bullets into crowds of people and not even try to stop it.

This is the 4th time you've proved to me alone that you didn't watch the video.

We get, you're arguing about a situation you have no understanding of, I don't know why you're so adamant about telling us you didn't watch the video link in the OP.

I understand the situation perfectly: you think he police are LITERALLY WORSE THAN HITLER for trying to stop gunmen shooting at crowds of people.

[Loben The 2nd]

If their solution is to also spray bullets into crowds of people then it seems like the cure is as bad as the disease....

Funnily enough, as people can see from helicopter videos of the incident, you can pretty clearly see that the only people that the robbers could shoot at were police officers to their sides, where no innocent bystanders were at. However, since the police had numerous angles on the UPS truck that lined right up with innocent bystanders and vehicles, they were the only ones shooting into crowds of innocent people.

crowds of innocent people in cars?

[Volinovia]

What choice did the officers have? The suspects were shooting, if the Police did not return fire it could've cost people their lives. I am not trying to put the Police on a pedestal here. But I really think their options were slim.

Back off. Simple as that.

Neither side were shooting at the uninvolved so if the police get out of range then the shooting stops and a conversation can begin.

Back off? Let the suspects get away with a hostage so they can possibly kill him? Allow the suspects to get into another vehicle and elude custody? Sure they had a helicopter. But what do you think the suspects would've done to that hostage when he was no longer a pawn for them? If your wish is to stop needless deaths then they couldn't have backed off.

[Satuga]

1. No, I'm saying they shouldn't have AR-15's at all.
2. No no, I actually watched the video and actually know what I'm talking about, you seem to have done neither.

1.

1. Because it generally not the polices job to handle people like in the hypothetical you're providing? That's the job for special firearm units and the National Guard, but definitely not for any random policeman unless absolutely necessary.

Do you want to run that by me again?
2. What the fuck are you talking about? How does this particular video have to do with anti-police stigma from the 70's-10's?