And he refuses to admit that those assumptions were 100% wrong (IN HINDSIGHT). Not trying to blame the cop for those assumptions, but taking that statement of fact concerning those assumptions and trying to move it forward in a discussion is impossible with such a moron.

 

-----signature-----

The assumptions were 100% CORRECT in the moment, which is the only condition under which those assumptions should be judged. If you two weren't such a couple of monkeys you'd understand that.

And if it's a closed minded perspective to think that a cop or anyone else has the right to defend themselves when presented with a threat to their lives, then so be it, but I consider the right to defend your own life as something that is fundamental. I understand that you two idiots don't think so, but your lack of understanding of this basic tenet of humanity is more evidence of the fact that neither of you are any more coherent than swirly.

 

-----signature-----

You are 100% right, IF YOU ARE TRYING TO JUDGE THE COP.

and for the alskdnf woeiuhg pdivjnTH time, we aren't.


We are trying learn (foreign concept to you obviously) from the situation because in hindsight we KNOW FOR A FACT that those assumptions were 100% WRONG.

Obviously you have no qualms about living in a society that cares so little for life that it is 100% acceptable to take the life of a child based on 100% faulty assumptions. Some of us aren't.

 

-----signature-----

The situation had to be handled in the moment because there was an imminent threat of lethal violence. That is indisputable. There was no reasonable way of knowing that the kid held a pellet gun and not a real handgun in that scenario.

You cannot judge these scenarios on the merits of facts that could not have been known in the moment.

I said before, a metal detector in the school would likely have prevented this situation, then I added later that if the kid were really bent on "suicide by cop" he could have just as easily walked up to cops on the street and began threatening them with the gun there, and would have likely met the same outcome.

Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp? What do you think there is to be learned from it?

 

-----signature-----

It is not correct to assume that a kid will pull a gun at school, let himself get isolated, wait until the cops show up, and then start their rampage.


The cops put themselves in the situation where they had to defend themselves with no other options.

 

-----signature-----

JFC you are a brain dead effing moron....

 

-----signature-----

So the cops should have just let him be? They should have just backed off and let this kid wander around, maybe go into a classroom and start shooting in there? Can you even picture this scene? I have pictured it happening in my own high school or my girlfriend's son's school, and none of those pictures leads me to believe that IMMEDIATELY forcing the kid with the gun to drop it was anything other than the correct decision.

 

-----signature-----

Yeah, we know.

Further, the society we live in values the lives of people who have not threatened other peoples lives more than the lives of those who have. I'm perfectly OK with that and in fact, I'm more than OK with that, I think it is paramount and would be screaming to the high Heavens if it were not so. If you are NOT OK with that, then YOU are part of the problem.

 

-----signature-----

So now you may be finally getting it. Their first priority is to secure the area. If there is no way to quickly secure the situation without initiating conflict then so be it. The point is that initiating conflict can put everyone at risk so it has to be considered with thought.


The outcome of this situation was determined before the kid pointed the gun at the cops.

 

-----signature-----

The only person trolling here is you.


You keep going back to the same ole shit over and over and over and over and over....


You are a effing moron.

 

-----signature-----