Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Lawsuit Filed
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="trekrok" data-source="post: 3975501" data-attributes="member: 6668"><p>I'd be surprised if a payment isn't made here, not a great look. Got a little aggressive for putting something in his mouth. Were they trying to get him to spit it out or what? I mean, what's the purpose of taking it to that level in this situation?</p><p></p><p>Random thoughts.</p><p></p><p>Two cops should be able to subdue a guy that's on the ground without shooting him, generally.</p><p></p><p>I'd be pretty concerned about firing 3 shots at the guy with kids strolling all around. But he probably knew there wasn't any danger to bystanders, right?</p><p></p><p>Article said they didn't render aid because of possible danger from occupants in the car. But looks like to me that the shooter wasn't paying any attention to the car for the most part. The partner could have covered the car while they at least acted like they were trying to render aid? Optics would have been better.</p><p></p><p>A cop would never actually draw their weapon in that situation would they? I mean, if you are losing the wrestling match, wouldn't you be concerned the gun would be taken from you? So, I assume perp was trying to get his gun?</p><p></p><p>Probably not a good idea to give a statement at the scene with any details. IE don't say someone jumped out of the car, when camera says he got yanked out.</p><p></p><p>Bad deal.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="trekrok, post: 3975501, member: 6668"] I'd be surprised if a payment isn't made here, not a great look. Got a little aggressive for putting something in his mouth. Were they trying to get him to spit it out or what? I mean, what's the purpose of taking it to that level in this situation? Random thoughts. Two cops should be able to subdue a guy that's on the ground without shooting him, generally. I'd be pretty concerned about firing 3 shots at the guy with kids strolling all around. But he probably knew there wasn't any danger to bystanders, right? Article said they didn't render aid because of possible danger from occupants in the car. But looks like to me that the shooter wasn't paying any attention to the car for the most part. The partner could have covered the car while they at least acted like they were trying to render aid? Optics would have been better. A cop would never actually draw their weapon in that situation would they? I mean, if you are losing the wrestling match, wouldn't you be concerned the gun would be taken from you? So, I assume perp was trying to get his gun? Probably not a good idea to give a statement at the scene with any details. IE don't say someone jumped out of the car, when camera says he got yanked out. Bad deal. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Lawsuit Filed
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom