Guns, guns, guns

[HibsMax]

You just cannot make this stuff up.

LINK (http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/us/tulsa-police-shooting-eric-harris-deputy-charged/index.html)

[Hibrandenburg]

No need to make it up Max. This isn't the first case of accidental death or injury caused by firearms and it won't be the last. If you've got lots of guns out there then expect lots of accidents with guns, especially in tense situations. Even in the military where they're supposed to be experts with guns accidents happen. It's like cars, the more cars you have on the road the more car accidents you'll have, only cars have an other purpose than killing where as guns don't.

[HibsMax]

No need to make it up Max. This isn't the first case of accidental death or injury caused by firearms and it won't be the last. If you've got lots of guns out there then expect lots of accidents with guns, especially in tense situations. Even in the military where they're supposed to be experts with guns accidents happen. It's like cars, the more cars you have on the road the more car accidents you'll have, only cars have an other purpose than killing where as guns don't.
Agreed, but when someone who is entrusted with our safety mistakes a firearm for a taser, that somehow (to me) seems more incredulous. As for your last point, you're forgetting about target shooting. :wink:

[silverhibee]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3029597/Cop-charged-black-man-s-murder-opening-fire-eight-times-shooting-ran-away-saying-did-felt-threatened.html

[--------]

Agreed, but when someone who is entrusted with our safety mistakes a firearm for a taser, that somehow (to me) seems more incredulous. As for your last point, you're forgetting about target shooting. :wink:

The fact that he mistook his gun for his tazer isn't what astonished me, Max. He was 73, in a high-stress situation, and old guys sometimes make mistakes. I'm an old guy myself, these days. We forget things. We get confused.

So actually, the real question here is whoever thought it was OK to give the old coot a uniform, a tazer, a gun, handcuffs, and the authority of the Tulsa County Sheriff's Department and let him loose on the street in the middle of a major arrest? And why?

$2,500 to re-elect the Sheriff? 'Frequent contributions' to the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office? I smell bribery and corruption.

It appears from the report that the guy was a wannabe with money, who bought the right to go about in a uniform, carrying weapons, and entitled to challenge members of the public and tazer them, shoot them, whatever, just because he was one of the good ol' boys of the Sheriff's Department - who at the point of the report were still defending the silly old man.

Except he's NOT just a silly old man. He's the CEO of an insurance company - and he's paying big bucks to the Sheriff's Office and he's running around in police cruisers gunned up and ready to go.

I don't know exactly what second-degree manslaughter is, nor whether our hero is guilty, innocent, or unfit to plead through mental incapacity.

Or perhaps the potential hero of a new cop show on Fox?

Whatever - he'll get off. He's white, he's a CEO which means he has money and a good lawyer, and he's a frequent contributor to the local Sheriff's retirement fund.

No brainer - he's innocent, I tell you - INNOCENT!

PS: I watched 'Justified' through all its seasons, and loved it, but at times I thought, 'You know, they're really taking this too far,' - like when it turned out that the County Sheriff was actually a wanted fugitive from years back? Or when the judge took off his robes and he's only got a pair of Speedos on? Or when the other sheriff was the son of the boss who controlled all the moonshine and crystal meth production in Harlan County?

Now I'm thinking that it was actually a reality documentary about law-enforcement in the USA.

And to think I laughed at Cletus in 'The Dukes of Hazzard' .... :devil:

[HibsMax]

The fact that he mistook his gun for his tazer isn't what astonished me, Max. He was 73, in a high-stress situation, and old guys sometimes make mistakes. I'm an old guy myself, these days. We forget things. We get confused.

So actually, the real question here is whoever thought it was OK to give the old coot a uniform, a tazer, a gun, handcuffs, and the authority of the Tulsa County Sheriff's Department and let him loose on the street in the middle of a major arrest? And why?

$2,500 to re-elect the Sheriff? 'Frequent contributions' to the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office? I smell bribery and corruption.

It appears from the report that the guy was a wannabe with money, who bought the right to go about in a uniform, carrying weapons, and entitled to challenge members of the public and tazer them, shoot them, whatever, just because he was one of the good ol' boys of the Sheriff's Department - who at the point of the report were still defending the silly old man.

Except he's NOT just a silly old man. He's the CEO of an insurance company - and he's paying big bucks to the Sheriff's Office and he's running around in police cruisers gunned up and ready to go.

I don't know exactly what second-degree manslaughter is, nor whether our hero is guilty, innocent, or unfit to plead through mental incapacity.

Or perhaps the potential hero of a new cop show on Fox?

Whatever - he'll get off. He's white, he's a CEO which means he has money and a good lawyer, and he's a frequent contributor to the local Sheriff's retirement fund.

No brainer - he's innocent, I tell you - INNOCENT!

PS: I watched 'Justified' through all its seasons, and loved it, but at times I thought, 'You know, they're really taking this too far,' - like when it turned out that the County Sheriff was actually a wanted fugitive from years back? Or when the judge took off his robes and he's only got a pair of Speedos on? Or when the other sheriff was the son of the boss who controlled all the moonshine and crystal meth production in Harlan County?

Now I'm thinking that it was actually a reality documentary about law-enforcement in the USA.

And to think I laughed at Cletus in 'The Dukes of Hazzard' .... :devil:

There wasn't even any grounds for him to use his taser on the guy. He was already subdued and did not appear to be struggling (which is probably difficult with a police officer kneeling on your head!). I agree with everything you said, the whole situation seems ridiculous. I just hope he doesn't get off. He killed a guy and as such should pay the penalty. I hope the media doesn't let this go.

As for Justified, I've seen the first episode but nothing more. I have it on Netflix to watch at some point. Looks good and I like Tim Elephant (a humourous way of me saying I can't spell his name).

[HibsMax]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3029597/Cop-charged-black-man-s-murder-opening-fire-eight-times-shooting-ran-away-saying-did-felt-threatened.html

Funny how the officer says he feared for his life after he lost control of his taser. I guess it's OK for cops to use tasers on people but when it's the other way around, it's life-threatening? I suppose it is without proper training but still. It is possible that during a scuffle Scott did knock the taser to the ground but he did not appear to be in control of it and certainly wasn't posing any threat to the officer's life. He was running away.

[(((Fergus)))]

Note to self: when selling firearms illegally, make sure there are no cops about and, if busted, don't run. Possibly consider alternative career.

[--------]

There wasn't even any grounds for him to use his taser on the guy. He was already subdued and did not appear to be struggling (which is probably difficult with a police officer kneeling on your head!). I agree with everything you said, the whole situation seems ridiculous. I just hope he doesn't get off. He killed a guy and as such should pay the penalty. I hope the media doesn't let this go.

As for Justified, I've seen the first episode but nothing more. I have it on Netflix to watch at some point. Looks good and I like Tim Elephant (a humourous way of me saying I can't spell his name).


Oh, it's worth a watch, Max. In fact, I'd say it's awfy, AWFY guid.

PS. You can't spell 'humorous' either, mate. :devil:


I should also make it clear that I do NOT consider either 'Justified' or 'The Dukes of Hazzard' to be realistic representations of the way either the US Marshal Service or the usual County Sheriff's Office operate in the USA.

[HibsMax]

Oh, it's worth a watch, Max. In fact, I'd say it's awfy, AWFY guid.

PS. You can't spell 'humorous' either, mate. :devil:


I should also make it clear that I do NOT consider either 'Justified' or 'The Dukes of Hazzard' to be realistic representations of the way either the US Marshal Service or the usual County Sheriff's Office operate in the USA.
After living here for over 17 years I find myself adding in "U"s all over the place, even if it's not correct. Auto-correct is just as dangerous as Manual-uncorrect. :)

[--------]

After living here for over 17 years I find myself adding in "U"s all over the place, even if it's not correct. Auto-correct is just as dangerous as Manual-uncorrect. :)


"Two nations separated by the same language" I think George Bernard Shaw said.

I used to be an English teacher and would get all wound up about "Americanisms" and how they weren't "proper English".

Then I realised that most British criticism of the USA probably stems from jealousy. It irritates me when my spell-checker wants me to spell words like "realise" and "standardise" and so on with a "z" - which Americans call a "zee" and British call a "zed" - and US cop shows that take me from the discovery of the body to arrest of the perpetrator and a cosy summing-up back at the cop-shop in less than 40 minutes make me wonder what happened to the human attention-span, I now realise that US TV and British TV each has its share of crap, and each has produced series as good as any drama on screen anywhere. And some of the best of British TV has reached the States and been welcomed.

And believe me, Max, the US has no monopoly on nasty, venal or just plain STOOPID cops. I worked for the police in Edinburgh for three years a while back, and some of the officers I encountered then shouldn't have been let out without their keepers.

And as for bad shootings, Google "Harry Stanley" - shot for carrying a chair-leg wrapped in a plastic bag while speaking with a Lanarkshire accent - is a prime example.

The Crown accepted that they acted in self-defence, but since they challenged him from behind and 15 feet away, and all he did was turn round.

He wasn't even fully turned round. :dunno:

Turning round they presumably considered a hostile movement. NOT turning round would have got him shot for not responding to the challenge, I guess.

The "investigation" process was extremely unsatisfactory and many people reckon the two cops, and Inspector and a PC, were so pumped up and high on adrenalin they were just itching to have a go. And they were allegedly specially-trained firearms officers.

As were the squad who gunned down Jean Charles de Menezes - in a case of mistaken identity.