Milwaukee Rioting

Lol. Maybe it wasnt the intention but i found that funny.

 

yup, and i killed him.

 

Smith, the deceased, had been arrested 13 times.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that Smith was also charged in a shooting and was later charged with pressuring the victim to withdraw testimony that identified Smith as the gunman. The charges were dropped because the victim recanted the identification and failed to appear in court http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2016/08/14/milwaukee-officials-call-calm-unrest/88716610/

 

What is it that Smith's sister wants "justice" for?

Where's the "oppression" in this, Alderman Rainey?

Smith ran “a few dozen feet” and turned toward the officer while holding a gun.
“It was in his hand. He was raising up with it,” http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2016/08/14/milwaukee-officials-call-calm-unrest/88716610/

 

yea lets start a riot because a black cop killed a thug and beat up any white people we see. These black lives matter people are fucking scumbags.

 

No it isn't obvious. You can.put a guy down by shooting him in the arm or leg.

 

What if you shoot him in the leg but hes still able to fire his weapon and he killed the cop? Go back to playing call of duty little buddy.

 

If shot in the hand, the hand goes stiff and will not be able to aim properly. Another shot can make it completely unfunctional. Back it with a few shots in the legs, and the culprit goes down and his arms can be pinned down effectively so as to neutralise the danger of being shot at.

The arms and legs are shot at, a number of times, but still the guy can live. And it is any day better than being dead which would be a travesty of justice, especially if the guy was innocent.

A police officer can start practicing it on dummies till he can do it with precision rapidly any time.

 

Dude, are you actually serious?

 

Can you point out any logical or tactical loophole in what i wrote !

This is obviously the right procedure, the so-called culprit gets immobilised, and at the same time no one gets dead from getting shot in the arms or legs.

This is what the police can do in a scenario where they think they can get shot at and suspects the culprit is armed. Wearing of armour or kevlar can also dispel much of the fear of the police that they may be shot at and killed.

The important thing is ensuring that no life is lost.

 

LOLz

Aim for the hand


Side on, a 2cm wide moving target, shoot with a handgun at how ever far away, sometimes in the dark and if you miss the guy might shoot you in the head


Can I point out any logical loophole?

Again, are you actually serious?

 

So far I’ve been in complete support of the officer involved protests by BLM but this case in Milwaukee is both puzzling and disturbing.
A Black Police officer confronts an armed black suspect and was forced to shoot and kill him – I don’t have a problem with that.



Hotwater

 

You can put this for general scenarios while in the open at light , in close encounters.

Also a male hand would measure more than 5 cm at the least. An average marksman would not fail to shoot it. This itself could have saved a lot of lives rather than impulsive shooting.

The black dude who was selling film cd's could have been taken out in this manner. I just don't understand why the two policemen shot him in the body when they could easily shoot him in the arms and legs at such close distance to immobilise him, especially after tackling him down.

 

You must know more details than me? What if he didn't have the gun in his hand, committed no other crime than having that gun and was shot dead while running away from his car and the cops. Do you really think standard procedure should be shoot to kill in such situations?

 

If there is a gun involved they (the cops) are trained to shoot to kill...


If there isn't a gun involved, well..... the officer only needs to feel "in fear of his life" <----- That's the problem bit that get's used all to often.




Welcome to the U.S.A.

 

This is a high capacity mag, and even though I hate these thugs I still don't think the tool (firearm not the thug) should be blamed or banned. Because consistency.



Stolen?! No way.

 

Impeding race war?

WWCMD (what would charles manson do)

 

Quite the upstanding citizen....

 

He could have been, if not for systemic racism. Probably.

 

Do you think "systemic racism" caused all his priors too?