I'm not debating that. I realize that.
But you don't need to kill the hell out of the guy and shoot 9 people in the process.
Shooting by empire state building.
- Thread starter asterwald
- Start date
But you don't need to kill the hell out of the guy and shoot 9 people in the process.
Thanks for admitting you hastily jumped the gun and posted something completely wrong in post #8, now if only canada man will fess up to being an idiot in post #12. As for the murderer having caused harm, I think we can all agree that murder is wrong, water is wet, and fire is hot.
I'm still waiting for you to admit you didnt know the difference between a serial and a spree killer.
You go first
What this thread has made apparent is that there are a number of very dishonest people here who, every time a white guy is charged with a shooting, are going to try and use that individual case to downplay the general statistics that white people are less likely to commit these crimes than other racial groups. It is dishonest and slimy and on full display in posts #8 and #12 and really by implication in Carling's post as well.
I dunno what you're getting at, because the vast majority of times a spree- or serial killer is a white guy. First thing that came to mind when I heard it on the news was either a muslim gone bananas, or another pissed off white guy.
And also it doesnt matter if he's technically not a spree killer because he indirectly caused 10 innocent bystanders to be shot (even if he didnt shoot them himself). 5 of those 10 bystanders couldve easily been killed had those cops been better shots
Because from the context of Buttercup's question, legal possession, was implied. The question doesn't make much sense otherwise.
The general rule in the U.S. is that you may only use deadly force if deadly force is being used against you or another person e.g. Mad stabber, rushes towards your co-worker screaming "die you &^%$#@!" waving a butcher's knife, the general rule is yes you can shoot them to protect your co-worker, even if you are not yourself being threatened.
Last edited:
Yup looks white to me too. However since this guys shooting (1 guy he killed) there were probably 100+ black people shootings since in the usa. Those don't really get reported though, unless its in a busy mall like the eaton center etc...I dunno about you fuji, but the shooter (Jeffrey Johnson) looks white to me:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...-deserved-a-nice-girlfriend-article-1.1144265
This goes back to the homeless man in Michigan thread, but this isn't unexpected.
No, the NYPD didn't shoot 9 innocent bystanders. They shot 2. And bullet ricochets and spalling (bits and pieces of concrete hit by bullets, either missed shots or through-and-throughs) caused the rest of the injuries.
This wasn't a great performance by the NYPD, but it wasn't a horrible one, either. The suspect was in a crowd. He was alerted just as much as the cops were by the construction worker's yelling. He pulled his gun.
Yes, the police have training and you expect them to do better. But I think too many people have unrealistic expectations of just how good cops (and military personnel) should be. It's like you expect, demand even, that in an out-of-the-blue emergency situation every single shot should be perfectly accurate and there should be no overreaction.
Professional athletes get paid millions of dollars, train their entire lives, are in the best physical condition of anyone in the world, have all the time in the world to prepare, THEIR LIVES ARE NOT IN DANGER, and they're not perfect. The top 3 point shooter (percentage wise) in the NBA this past season only hit 47.2% of his three point shots. The best (overall) field goal percentage shooter in the NBA only hit 67.9% of his field goals. The current batting average leaders in MLB are only hitting in around 34% of their at-bats. Drew Brees "only" connected on 71.2% of his passes. Take away the handful of guys in the NHL last season who only took one shot and the scoring percentage of the best NHL players is down in the mid-20s.
Shooting a gun isn't any easier than shooting a basketball, throwing a football, hitting a baseball, or shooting a puck. And none of those other things are done WHILE YOUR LIFE IN IN JEOPARDY AND IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION.
Yes, you hold the cops responsible for shooting civilians. Yes, those civilians will get a nice big payday from the city of New York. But it is unrealistic to expect the police to be perfect in these situations.
No, the NYPD didn't shoot 9 innocent bystanders. They shot 2. And bullet ricochets and spalling (bits and pieces of concrete hit by bullets, either missed shots or through-and-throughs) caused the rest of the injuries.
This wasn't a great performance by the NYPD, but it wasn't a horrible one, either. The suspect was in a crowd. He was alerted just as much as the cops were by the construction worker's yelling. He pulled his gun.
Yes, the police have training and you expect them to do better. But I think too many people have unrealistic expectations of just how good cops (and military personnel) should be. It's like you expect, demand even, that in an out-of-the-blue emergency situation every single shot should be perfectly accurate and there should be no overreaction.
Professional athletes get paid millions of dollars, train their entire lives, are in the best physical condition of anyone in the world, have all the time in the world to prepare, THEIR LIVES ARE NOT IN DANGER, and they're not perfect. The top 3 point shooter (percentage wise) in the NBA this past season only hit 47.2% of his three point shots. The best (overall) field goal percentage shooter in the NBA only hit 67.9% of his field goals. The current batting average leaders in MLB are only hitting in around 34% of their at-bats. Drew Brees "only" connected on 71.2% of his passes. Take away the handful of guys in the NHL last season who only took one shot and the scoring percentage of the best NHL players is down in the mid-20s.
Shooting a gun isn't any easier than shooting a basketball, throwing a football, hitting a baseball, or shooting a puck. And none of those other things are done WHILE YOUR LIFE IN IN JEOPARDY AND IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION.
Yes, you hold the cops responsible for shooting civilians. Yes, those civilians will get a nice big payday from the city of New York. But it is unrealistic to expect the police to be perfect in these situations.
Well unfortunately we don't have shooting stats for cops. And you won't find any arguments that even pro athletes don't shot 100% or even near it but to say they aren't under pressure is false. In basketball you are usually moving (not spot up) and a defender or two is in your face. Same goes for football drew brees is throwing the ball while line backers and defensive ends are trying to tackle him.... meanwhile the reciever is being defended as well. But this is beside the point as no one suggested that pros should be perfect.
Not take the average joe and put him at qb..... if he doesn't trip him self doing a three step drop, fumble theball from the centre, he still needs to read the defense and get the ball off accurately while under pressure (both physical ie blitz and mental the crowd and self imposed pressure etc).
So yes avg joe as cop should fail but a pro cop should perform better.
If 9 injuries and deaths if considered good then there is room for improvement.
People laugh at shaq and dwight howard but even shooting 50% free throws is not easy for an avg guy who doesn't play. But guys like Calderon and NAsh have shot high 80s low 90s for stretches.
No one is downplaying the stress and difficulty of the situation.
But again you are freaking out for no reason as no one says the cops should be perfect.
1.) I am not saying pro athletes are under NO pressure. I'm saying they're not under life-or-death pressure. Which is a completely different level of pressure than "oh noes, millions of people are watching me eff up" pressure.
2.) I'm not freaking out. But some of you DO seem to think the cops should be perfect. Absent that, the level of excellence you expect the cops to achieve is still quite high. I'm not saying the NYPD handled the situation well: I'm saying they handled the situation within the margin of error for that particular scenario.
Name your favorite pro athlete. Go up to him at a random time, with no warning, and shove a football/baseball/baseball bat/basketball/hockey stick in his hands and make him shoot/throw/bat at a specific target in a crowd like the NYPD cops did. What are his chances of hitting the target and hitting nobody else?
When a violent incident at a crowded NYC landmark occurs, there's a range of outcomes possible. To expect the NYPD to not shoot anybody other than the suspect is a little much. Watch the video. It's friggin' chaos.
Frankly, it's like the idiots who think they could have/should have taken out the lunatic in Aurora, CO, the other month. Really? In a crowded theatre, flashing lights, booming sound system, screaming and yelling all around you, you're saying any of you would be able to take a single pin-point shot that wouldn't hit anybody but your target?
I don't care how much training you go through, this isn't sidling up to the alley at the range and taking a few shots at a Q target.
When a violent incident begins, bad things are going to happen. It sucks. It's horrible. But our society is so divorced from that violent reality that we also don't know how to react to it when it does occur.
Let's see, first you claimed it was a mass killing by a white guy, but you didn't really know that, and then it blew up in your face. And that made it apparent that your whole reason for pointing it out was that you want to perpetrate the myth that white people are somehow more likely than others to commit spree/serial/mass killings. In reality they are less likely than others to do so, and the only reason why most such crimes in the US are committed by whites is because there are more whites. Blacks and other minorities are far more likely to commit these crimes. But you don't like that, so you go around highlighting ever individual one-off case of a white guy because--why? Because you're discredited.
Then when you're caught out doing all this monkey business you try and salvage it by saying he is responsible for all the people injured, as if that makes the act just like a spree killing. What a retarded thing to say.
Keep it up! You are discrediting yourself more and more with every post.
Then when you're caught out doing all this monkey business you try and salvage it by saying he is responsible for all the people injured, as if that makes the act just like a spree killing. What a retarded thing to say.
Keep it up! You are discrediting yourself more and more with every post.
Hey, a Chinese woman walked into a school earlier in the week, poured gasoline all over three people, and lit them on fire, killing them. I guess I will follow PCM's logic and say that means all Chinese women are spree killers. Because you know, citing a single individual case that happens to be in the news this week is a GREAT way to make these points. Right PCM?
No, when the story first came out the details in the media were still sketchy. It appeared to be a spree killing, but we'll never know if the cops prevented more killings by this guy or if he was planing on stopping at just one murder.
Also you sound really butthurt in this post, fuji. I guess taking your lumps with that serial killer study took a toll on you. You'll get over it, no worries :happy:
Oh wow, you really are butthurt :biggrin1:
