How about you go read some case law and see where the police have and been cleared of shooting unarmed people. Police have shot and even killed people who have presented what they thought was a firearm or knife and been cleared. If they believe their life, or the general public's life is being threatened given the totality of the circumstances, they do shoot. Oh that's right. You don't research anything.
22 killed, dozens wounded across several locations in Lewiston, Maine: Live updates
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Even worse, he was under significant psychiatric care last year but the NRA types think that isn't a reason to take away his guns.
Avoiding the question? Lam knew the guy was low threat and had no reason to shoot him. Why do you think he should have been killed for pointing a cell phone.
BTW. Quoting cases where cops accidentally shot unarmed people just goes to show how bad an idea it is for more civilians to carry.
Another guy who believes Lam is superhuman and has eyesight that isn't affected by extreme pressure and can spot whether or not someone has a gun from 30 ft away when they are making drawing motions toward them. Great. You realize that even if Minassian turned his back and started walking towards the truck with nothing in his hands and was shot, police would be justified? Of course you don't because you don't do any research. Your also continue to prove you have no connection to reality if you think that someone who just committed mass murder is "low threat."
Just because cops accidentally shot unarmed people does not have any correlation to civilians carrying. There's no research to prove it.
This is Canada. There is no concealed carry, so it's not even an issue.
Last edited:
And another guy that blows smoke out his ass, thinking that just because guys spend their weekends on a range shooting paper, that they would do better. And had to be shown, numerous times even with training. Many don’t and are just human.
.Also thinks he know exactly what was or wasn’t going through Lams mind, or that cops gets medals, doesn’t have access to his personal file to know if there’s a letter or not. Also thinks the mtps has influence over foreign media, etc and so on. Doesn’t know what audio exculpatory is, etc doesn’t know what suicide by cop is, that you can see what is or isn’t in a persons hand ( apparently doesn’t know what tunnel vision is either) etc and so on. When asked why Lam turned the siren off, couldn’t answer ( see below). Nor what the use of force model is, or how that would be used in reports…and had to open source google….Nor can he grasp that at the end of the day, the right decision was made, hence all the headlines and praise.
While he himself is capable of research and see just how many foreign media outlets and experts chimed in on it. Maybe this RCMP officers who studies UoF thoughts
COMMENTARY: Why didn’t the Toronto police officer shoot? I have some ideas - National | Globalnews.ca
Glenn Hanna, a former police officer who now studies police issues, including use of force, says the Toronto van attack situation is a case study on how things can go right.
globalnews.ca
Nor has he done much research on people in the US shooting other people.
Last edited:
Still haven't talked to an operational Toronto Police officer about what really happened....And another guy that blows smoke out his ass, thinking that just because guys spend their weekends on a range shooting paper, that they would do better. And had to be shown, numerous times even with training. Many don’t and are just human.
.Also thinks he know exactly what was or wasn’t going through Lams mind, or that cops gets medals, doesn’t have access to his personal file to know if there’s a letter or not. Also thinks the mtps has influence over foreign media, etc and so on. Doesn’t know what audio exculpatory is, etc doesn’t know what suicide by cop is, that you can see what is or isn’t in a persons hand ( apparently doesn’t know what tunnel vision is either) etc and so on. When asked why Lam turned the siren off, couldn’t answer ( see below). Nor what the use of force model is, or how that would be used in reports…and had to open source google….Nor can he grasp that at the end of the day, the right decision was made, hence all the headlines and praise.
While he himself is capable of research and see just how many foreign media outlets and experts chimed in on it. Maybe this RCMP officers who studies UoF thoughts
COMMENTARY: Why didn’t the Toronto police officer shoot? I have some ideas - National | Globalnews.ca
Glenn Hanna, a former police officer who now studies police issues, including use of force, says the Toronto van attack situation is a case study on how things can go right.
Nor has he done much research on people in the US shooting other people.
Still warping the narrative too. I never at any time said guys who spend their weekends on the range would do better. I said they are not at as much of a disadvantage as you may think.
No one knows what was going through Lam's mind except Lam, but his actions are recorded. He should have shot to stop the threat, just like the use of force model allows, but couldn't because he was so incompetent with his pistol, he didn't even carry it with a round in the chamber. He was a traffic officer at the time, which is a dangerous job, so why didn't he have a loaded gun? Of course that's something you won't see in the articles. But after multiple attempts of me telling you not to believe me and actually find an operational Toronto Police Officer to ask, you won't do it because you are just like basketcase and never get out behind the keyboard and despite allegedly being a gun owner, never go to the range. If you did, you would know that the vast majority of police only practice once a year, and that is to qualify shooting maybe 250 rounds in half a day, shooting standing still at paper stationary target!
I answered whey Lam turned the siren off, but apparently you didn't read. After over 18 seconds of delaying shooting, even though someone was threatening him, his brain finally caught up to the situation and he realized he couldn't be heard. You conveniently gloss over the fact that if Lam was as switched on as you think, he should have turned off the siren rolling up on scene.
There's lots of "experts" out there that are interviewed all the time. Doesn't mean they are right. Look at how many "experts" there are out there commenting on the Ukraine and Isreali war, analysing and guessing what they are going to do. None of them have a line to the flag officers. The reason the press is interviewing these "experts" is because they can't get ahold of the people who are making or have made the decisions. The media never published that Margaret Trudeau and Belinda Stronach were sluts, but everyone who knew a little bit about their real life knew.
You keep believing I don't know what it's like to be under high stress situations. I know have have, and I know what happens to me, unlike you who just reads about it and just spews out what it's like based on articles, and if it's not exactly like the articles, well, the guy must be lying, even though everyone experiences stress differently.
Lam was lucky things worked out in his favour and wasn't killed. And as I've said previously, luck plays a role.
Get a range membership, get out of the house and occasionally to shoot that firearm that you allegedly have, which I highly suspect is a bolt action hunting rifle with only one box of ammunition you haven't shot in years and talk to people. It's a perishable skill.
Last edited:
This whole story is mind blowing. He threatened to shoot up the army reserve, people warned that he was having mental health issues, the police were notified....and they just let him go on? Pretty incredible.
And you know the NRA's solution to these atrocities is to have more armed people. Like, that wouldn't make things worse. First, studies have shown that people do not react quick enough to prevent this sort of thing. And, when they do...what are the odds they hit the gunman? In most cases, even professionally trained police miss, like the famous case of the Empire State Building shooter. Gunman blasts his ex-wife, and responding officers fire something like 16 times, killing him and wounding 9 bystanders...
And you know the NRA's solution to these atrocities is to have more armed people. Like, that wouldn't make things worse. First, studies have shown that people do not react quick enough to prevent this sort of thing. And, when they do...what are the odds they hit the gunman? In most cases, even professionally trained police miss, like the famous case of the Empire State Building shooter. Gunman blasts his ex-wife, and responding officers fire something like 16 times, killing him and wounding 9 bystanders...
The local police really dropped the ball. I looked up the size of the police department. It's tiny. Also whenever I see "Sherriff's" office, I cringe because the way some of those offices are set up, the Sherriff is elected, and he just hires his buddies as deputies in some areas. Some of those hicktown police forces in the U.S. even use part time officers or have officers do a year on the street before they go off to an academy. It's craziness down there.
The vast majority of police officers do not practice. Ammunition and range time is expensive, especially if you need a firearms instructor. Taxpayers don't like it if the police are spending a lot of time and money training when they should be out on the streets. Police operate under a union environment, so not many practice on their own time because they aren't getting paid. Usually the province or state only requires police officers shoot once a year. That's why it's more likely the police get lucky rather than being skilled when it comes to a gunfight. When I see the odd occasional police officer show up for a competition shoot, they place in the bottom third and then don't show again because they're no good at it because they only shoot 250 rounds a year or about 2% of what some competitive shooters shoot.
More armed people isn't necessarily the answer. Just like the police, most people don't practice. The gun is the cheapest part of shooting. The ammo, training and accessories is what is expensive. The amount of time for me to prepare my equipment, travel to the range, clean and put away my equipment equals or exceeds the amount of live fire time. 9mm is almost $300 for 500 rounds, and you can go through that in a morning. 5.56 is pretty much a $1 a round, and 308 is $2. I lucked out with my Olympic and Pan Am shooting coach because he's an Anesthesiologist and doesn't need the money, so I get precision shooting coaching for free.
The average cost of a competition pistol before it was banned with magazines and optic and shooting rig would be around the ballpark of $4,000 if you got a CZ Shadow 2 with a Trijicon SRO and a ghost gear holster and belt. Less than half the price of that setup is the gun. If you were a serious competitor, you would shoot more money than that in ammo within a year even if you reloaded because some of those guys shoot 15,000 rounds a year.
That's why most people sit behind a keyboard and play armchair warrior instead of getting out to the range to practice. It's even worse for the amount of time you need if you shoot competition. You spend the vast majority of the time just standing around and waiting because stages are shot individually. That means if your group has 10 guys, 90% of the time you aren't shooting. It's even greater than that if you include taping the targets, setup and teardown. God forbid you are in a group where someone is using the competition to test his equipment and spends all his time trying to get the gun running... With all that time waiting, you can meet some great people, get shooting tips, and it's also where you really learn what happened at a police shooting when you do encounter a police officer who actually is there on his own time. Sure, there are some idiots, but anytime you get a group of people together there will be one.
A lot of these competitions are set up by volunteers. I don't want to criticize them because some of these competitions wouldn't exist without them, but they are normal people with normal jobs, so you have to go in realizing things are not going to run as smoothly if you were on a military range. Even organizations like IPSC, which I think has turned into a bit of a cash grab depend heavily on volunteers.
Last edited:
Right. And that despite officers here( one that studies police issues annd UoF) you so full of it, it’s kind of comical.
and abroad chiming in. Your answer is talk to “operational officers” who weren’t there either…how convenient for you…..
And don’t let some facts get in your way either poor boy.. Change your story of often?
Either way, it’s clear you don’t actually know much about policing, or paper not shooting back..
Right. And that despite officers here and abroad chiming in. Your answer is talk to “operational officers” who weren’t there either….
And don’t let some facts get in your way either poor boy..And as far as the siren goes. Bzzz
Wrong. It’s so Manassain can hear him. They can suffer audio exculpatory symptoms too when stressed out..A deescalation thing you clearly know squat about.
There's two stories here. One that Lam is supremely confident and capable and doesn't even need to follow procedures and have a working gun, and another story where through dumb luck and fortune, Lam was able to make an arrest without getting himself killed.
I'll go with the story from the rank and file Toronto Police officers I've met in person.
You also seem to think the police practicing shooting 250 rounds a year puts them at an elite level above others, and completely ignore that they qualify shooting at paper, which does not shoot back.
I've never changed my story. I've always said Lam was incompetent and lucky. This is at least the third time you're warping the narrative.
Last edited:
1) Lam. You’ve demonstrated how little you know. What makes you think your assessment is accurate. Especially given international headlines, commentary/assessment by experts?
2) can’t read or remember you own words? They are right above. Target shooters would be better qualified to neutralize a target. Despite having no training coping with that kind of stress. And despite the fact, even those with intensive training….
3) not sure what else you think I’ve warped except maybe CCW. But in your words, “your a fool if you stake your life on police”..
Warping the narrative again.
Talk to an operational Toronto Police Officer for the real story. You think I'm hypothesizing Lam didn't have a round in his gun? This has got to be the fourth or fifth time I've told you to do so, not depend on me and not recycle what some academic has written or someone who is not even in the country has written based on information Toronto Police leadership is willing to release.
At no time did I say target shooters would be better qualified at neutralizing a target. For the third time, I said civilian shooters may not be at as much of as a disadvantage as you might think and that an IPSC shooter is more likely to neutralize the target than a police officer. Given the average police officer only shoots once a year standing still and is shooting at a piece of paper, this is accurate. I never said at any point about a civilian being better qualified, but I will now.
Given that your average IPSC shooter puts through around 5,000 rounds a year and the good ones shoot 15,000 to 20,000 rounds, and all practice moving while shooting, shooting at moving targets, practice reloads on the move, shooting from cover and they have to pass a test once a year as well as attend a minimum number of competitions to keep their black badge status versus the vast majority of police officers who shoot 250 rounds at a stationary paper target once a year, an IPSC shooter would pass police shooting qualifications pretty easily. IPSC shooters practice both live fire and dry fire on top of shooting in competitions. They shoot all the time versus police. FYI, in case you didn't know, Bob Vogel is an IPSC shooter who instructs police.
You can't seem to get through your head that the average police officer doesn't shoot that much and only shoots to meet mandatory testing requirements. What exactly is it that makes you think a police officer who shoots between 2 to 5% the amount of an IPSC shooter has a better chance? SWAT teams are usually the only police officers who are very proficient with their firearms because a third of their time is spent training.
Also FYI, Lanny Bassham, an Olympic small bore rifle shooter who has no law enforcement experience and has never shot anyone or seen combat has made a career teaching elite law enforcement, special forces military and others how to deal with extreme performance stress. "For the past 40 years, he has provided "Mental Management" training programs to clients including PGA Tour golfers, Miss America finalists, CEOs, US Navy SEALs, SWAT teams, and the FBI.[5]" Of course names like Bassham and Miculek aren't familiar to you because you don't really shoot. You just happen to allegedly have a firearms license and maybe own a gun and likely don't have a range membership.
Toronto Police Officers aren't some elite force. Most don't keep in excellent shape, most don't shoot, most don't practice a martial art and most don't go do scenario training on days off. They are regular people who go do a job and come home to their families and have regular hobbies.
You ARE a fool to stake your life being saved by police. It seems to be missed by you 11 people were killed and 15 injured prior to the police even showing to deal with Minassian.
Every time you warp what I say it takes away from your credibility.
Last edited:
The U.S is so screwed up at this point it's not even funny. Like this story came and went like it was nothing. They absolutely refuse to fix the problem.
911 happened and now there's no chance in hell you can hijack a plane, and you can't get a truck anywhere close to the world trade center if it has anything explosive in it. Literally gets detected like blocks away or something like that. Yet, more people have gotten killed by these mass shootings then the 911 attacks.
One of the kids that was shot in the Parkland shooting (practically got his ankle blown off) was interviewed and he's like "I'm still pro gun". It's literally going to take one more really big one that sets a new record where like 200 or 300 people get killed, and maybe they'll start taking it seriously.
I doubt it. If things didn't change after Sandy Hooks....I can't see a mass shooting that would make a difference. I mean, the Vegas shooting six or so years ago killed 61 people and injured over 800....And that was one dude. Some Americans love their guns more than they love their children...
No, just human and competent. Don't know where you get the idea that cops should shoot first and ask questions later.
