Support NeoGAF

[Count Dookkake]

If the picture is so upsetting to your god, then let him deal with it.

 

[KHarvey16]

And Christians committed a lot of atrocities in the name of religion as well. The point is those countries and areas became more educated over the years. The middle east is still behind (that'll happen when there is constant war in the area) and its not surprise that the people there act the way they do because there is little education and the law&order is "bendable".

And frankly, an insulting word is as bad as an insulting picture. Tell yourself otherwise, but people take those pictures personally, just like a black person would take that word personally. You can say its different, but its not different to these people. The fact that many of you seem to have trouble understanding that is part of the problem.

So to summarize: they just don't know any better. Nice thought there Kipling.

Also, to combat car thieves I recommend we abolish cars.

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Isn't Jesus regarded as a prophet? If so where's the rage?

yes he is and I'm pretty sure that his face is always covered up in islamic art. it's possible that they just gave up on that point since he's obviously a major christian figure and there's like a thousand pieces of art with his picture on it in every single church.

 

[Chichikov]

And Christians committed a lot of atrocities in the name of religion as well. The point is those countries and areas became more educated over the years. The middle east is still behind (that'll happen when there is constant war in the area) and its not surprise that the people there act the way they do because there is little education and the law&order is "bendable".

And I would have issues with anyone trying to justify or understand those atrocities just as much as I have with you right now.

And frankly, an insulting word is as bad as an insulting picture. Tell yourself otherwise, but people take those pictures personally, just like a black person would take that word personally. You can say its different, but its not different to these people. The fact that many of you seem to have trouble understanding that is part of the problem.

So...why don't you go ahead and use the word nigger in you everday language? I actually don't know if its illegal. If its not, then go ahead and use it. And if it is, then that goes against everything you just said. You're not fucking hurting anyone physically by calling them a nigger. But its most definitely a fucking horrible thing to say.

Nigger is used in everyday language much more than pictures of Mohammed.
There were art exhibits that used it, there are published books with it on the title and I'm pretty sure that vast majority of American students read it in school in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn.

But in any case, the problem is not in the world in and by itself, the problem is with racism.
Let me demonstrate -
Nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger nigger.

What we have here is blasphemy, which is a completely different issue than racism (if you're not sure how, I'll be happy to elaborate, but I have to believe it's obvious).
You can say it's just as bad as racism, and I will challenge you on that assertion, but you cannot draw the conclusion that these cartoons are wrong based on the general rejection of racism in western culture.

 

[YoungHav]

That cartoon is stupid and offensive but seriously? Muthafuckers should get over it. That old man should get his gun license and that stupid fucker attacker should have been shot dead.

 

[Vast Inspiration]

And I would have issues with anyone trying to justify or understand those atrocities just as much as I have with you right now.

Okay...
I assume you support further antagonizing the Muslims with deliberate blasphemous materials "shoved down their throats" like many of the people here have proposed.

Go right ahead. I'm just saying don't act like shocked assholes when they "retaliate". Because you seem to have an issue with trying to understand WHY these atrocities happen.

My other point was that those that are jumping up to make snide remarks like "religion of peace lol" are idiots because these people from 3rd world countries act like this for anything they believe in. They'll have violent riots when it comes to politics or family feuds or over movie stars and singers. Blaming the religion is a sign of stupidity. Blame the lack of education.

But once again...you have a problem with trying to understand WHY things happen, so again I assume you (and others like you) don't really give a shit.

 

[KHarvey16]

Don't you get it guys? We need to hold them to different standards because they are dumb. We can't expect them to act civilized.

 

[Chichikov]

Okay...
I assume you support further antagonizing the Muslims with deliberate blasphemous materials "shoved down their throats" like many of the people here have proposed.

Go right ahead. I'm just saying don't act like shocked assholes when they "retaliate". Because you seem to have an issue with trying to understand WHY these atrocities happen.

My other point was that those that are jumping up to make snide remarks like "religion of peace lol" are idiots because these people from 3rd world countries act like this for anything they believe in. They'll have violent riots when it comes to politics or family feuds or over movie stars and singers. Blaming the religion is a sign of stupidity. Blame the lack of education.

But once again...you have a problem with trying to understand WHY things happen, so again I assume you (and others like you) don't really give a shit.

Nice of you to cling to one (probably poorly chosen) word on my post, and ignore everything else.
If it wasn't clear, I meant "understand" as in accepting these atrocities.

I'm pretty sure everyone here understand why they are angry, it's blasphemy.
What I am unwilling to accept is that it's a good idea (as you suggests) to limit my free speech in order to not upset ignorant people.
And for the record, there are millions and millions of ignorant Jews, Christians, Buddhists etc.
They sometime get pissed at other people's speech, but you'll be hard pressed to find someone making apologies for them around here.

p.s.
As a person who grew up in the Middle East, I think I have a pretty damn good understand of the "why", I just refuse to accept it.

 

[demon]

So...why don't you go ahead and use the word nigger in you everday language? I actually don't know if its illegal. If its not, then go ahead and use it. And if it is, then that goes against everything you just said. You're not fucking hurting anyone physically by calling them a nigger. But its most definitely a fucking horrible thing to say.

I can't say that I use the word nigger too often, but I find comfort in the fact that if I choose to use it, while I may face social repercussions, I can't get arrested by the police.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Okay...
I assume you support further antagonizing the Muslims with deliberate blasphemous materials "shoved down their throats" like many of the people here have proposed.

Go right ahead. I'm just saying don't act like shocked assholes when they "retaliate". Because you seem to have an issue with trying to understand WHY these atrocities happen.

My other point was that those that are jumping up to make snide remarks like "religion of peace lol" are idiots because these people from 3rd world countries act like this for anything they believe in. They'll have violent riots when it comes to politics or family feuds or over movie stars and singers. Blaming the religion is a sign of stupidity. Blame the lack of education.

But once again...you have a problem with trying to understand WHY things happen, so again I assume you (and others like you) don't really give a shit.

The guy from the attempted Detroit bombing wasn't an exactly an illiterate mental child of the 3rd world.

I'm African American, I've been called a nigger before, and not in the nice kind of way. If I had snapped and hit the guy, or beaten him with a baseball bat, or fire-bombed his car, or shot him in the face, I'd be in jail. The idea that people in this country hate me just for the color of my skin, and do so publicly (like the KKK), does not inspire me to travel hundreds of miles to visit physical harm upon them. I've seen people get into racially charged fights and riots in the states. Most of the time, people know where to draw the line.

It's not illegal for them to be ignorant and hateful, provided they don't incite violence against me or my family, or stop me from living my life productively (discrimination).

The problem as it stands is that not only is a twisted version of Islam being used as justification for violence from the 3rd world, but that it's a self-reinforcing institution that rejects education, modernization, assimilation, and compromise. Again, through violence.

The rest of the world isn't the problem. Non-violent muslims are not the problem. Personal responsibility has to be a factor at some point.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If the picture is so upsetting to your god, then let him deal with it.

This

It's sad that a loud minority is able to constantly embarrass the entire religion on a world stage

 

[xelios]

Okay...
I assume you support further antagonizing the Muslims with deliberate blasphemous materials "shoved down their throats" like many of the people here have proposed.

Go right ahead. I'm just saying don't act like shocked assholes when they "retaliate". Because you seem to have an issue with trying to understand WHY these atrocities happen.

My other point was that those that are jumping up to make snide remarks like "religion of peace lol" are idiots because these people from 3rd world countries act like this for anything they believe in. They'll have violent riots when it comes to politics or family feuds or over movie stars and singers. Blaming the religion is a sign of stupidity. Blame the lack of education.

But once again...you have a problem with trying to understand WHY things happen, so again I assume you (and others like you) don't really give a shit.

It has nothing to do with being uneducated, unless uneducated includes the Muslim scholars who have stated the penalty for leaving Islam or insulting the prophet, or less, is appropriately death; the judges who have ruled that the sentence for such is death--even that if an apostate's children do not accept Islam when they come of age they should also be put to death:

This man has committed apostasy; he must be given a chance to repent and if he does not then he must be killed according to Shariah.
As far as his children are concerned, as long as they are children they are considered Muslim, but after they reach the age of puberty, then if they remain with Islam they are Muslim, but if they leave Islam and they do not repent they must be killed and Allah knows best.

Link

These are the people telling them it's OK. There's a treasure trove of such garbage quotes out there from educated Muslim scholars and judges, concerning everything from apostasy to blasphemy, adultery and homosexuality. "Religion of peace lol" is certainly appropriate when it is currently the most violent religion in the world, used to call for the most death sentences of any religion for the most crimes by far, based on texts from the Qur'an and hadith--not thin air.

Calling people assholes for being shocked that someone wants to murder another because they don't believe in Islam anymore, don't agree that Muhammad was a prophet, or simply because they offend you or Islam is a sign of stupidity. Or expecting that free speech should be limited as a remedy.

I don't think the average Muslim is violent, but that's not really the issue. If the Islamic world wants to be seen as something other than the current stereotype, then more scholars and people in power are going to have to more openly admonish acts like this and incite less violence themselves, to the point where the extremists don't feel they're justified and encouraged anymore.

 

[whitehawk]

The officer then shot the man in a knee

Ouch..

 

[Al-ibn Kermit]

I can't say that I use the word nigger too often, but I find comfort in the fact that if I choose to use it, while I may face social repercussions, I can't get arrested by the police.

As far as I know, I don't think any fatwas or government action was taken over this. The people who are actually acting and sounding violent are probably just a (vocal) minority. This reaction is probably no worse than what we'd see in the US if say the New York Times made a comic about Jesus being terrorist and a pedophile.

 

[Deku]

is the cartoon mentioned.

there's more than that right?

 

[Salty]

As far as I know, I don't think any fatwas or government action was taken over this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

 

[Deku]

As far as I know, I don't think any fatwas or government action was taken over this. The people who are actually acting and sounding violent are probably just a (vocal) minority. This reaction is probably no worse than what we'd see in the US if say the New York Times made a comic about Jesus being terrorist and a pedophile.

there's almost no equivalency here. Jesus is mocked and made fun of in western culture openly.

I doubt this 'vocal minority' would tolerate mocking of Muhammad by Muslims and non Muslims in the context of popular culture, literature and the arts.

 

[xelios]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

"Mohammed Yousaf Qureshi, prayer leader at the historic Mohabat Khan mosque in the northwestern city of Peshawar, announced the mosque and the Jamia Ashrafia religious school he leads would give a 1.5 million rupee reward and a car for killing the cartoonist of the prophet pictures that appeared first in a Danish newspaper in September.

"Whoever has done this despicable and shameful act, he has challenged the honor of Muslims. Whoever will kill this cursed man, he will get one million dollars from the association of the jewelers' bazaar, one million rupees from Masjid Mohabat Khan and 500,000 rupees and a car from Jamia Ashrafia as a reward," Qureshi said.

"This is a unanimous decision by all imams (prayer leaders) of Islam that whoever insults the prophet deserves to be killed and whoever will take this insulting man to his end, will get this prize," Qureshi said.

Wow, really.

 

[Vast Inspiration]

Don't you get it guys? We need to hold them to different standards because they are dumb. We can't expect them to act civilized.

Don't worry, with comments like these, I don't hold you to any higher of a standard either.

 

[Milk Lizard]

there's more than that right?

That is the only one he made. The newspaper wanted peopel to send in drawings of him as no one they approached to do it wanted to (in fear) and every picture here is from a diffrent artist. They are however only trying to kill one guy. :lol

(from wiki)

I think we just didnt expect a huge reaction at all, Denmark is such a non religious country. I cant think of anyone I know who is christian and both the guys from the middle east (went to school with iranian and iraqian guy) dont believe either, both of them are pretty embarrassed by this which is pretty sad as they have nothing to do with it but people judge them anyway.

 

[KHarvey16]

Don't worry, with comments like these, I don't hold you to any higher of a standard either.

Well at least your foolishness is consistent! Always a silver lining.

 

[Chichikov]

The people who are actually acting and sounding violent are probably just a (vocal) minority. This reaction is probably no worse than what we'd see in the US if say the New York Times made a comic about Jesus being terrorist and a pedophile.

You are wrong.

This reaction is probably no worse than what we'd see in the US if say the New York Times made a comic about Jesus being terrorist and a pedophile.

The New York Times published several articles about the Christ myth theory (the idea that Jesus was never a real person, regardless of his divinity), there were many books, papers and movies about it. It is also taught in quite a few universities across the US.
As for the reaction to it, well, I'd say the fact that you've never heard of any of this should give you pretty good idea.

p.s.
People have called Jesus a pedophile, homosexual and a murderer.
Look it up.

 

[elrechazado]

That is the only one he made. The newspaper wanted peopel to send in drawings of him as no one they approached to do it wanted to (in fear) and every picture here is from a diffrent artist. They are however only trying to kill one guy. :lol

[IM]http://i48.tinypic.com/2z5ne48.png[/IMG]

(from wiki)

Don't forget that during the "outrage" that was sweeping worldwide, a few danish muslim clerics decided the cartoons weren't offensive enough, so they inserted 3 of the most "offensive" ones (mohamed as a pig for example) and then used them to rile up their supporters to rage and murder.

So imams can make mohamed comics and it's cool, but only if it's to manufacture outrage.

 

[Milk Lizard]

p.s.
People have called Jesus a pedophile, homosexual and a murderer.
Look it up.

and you can even find that picture of Muhammed modified on ED with Jesus and him doing all kind of nasty stuff.

 

[Kaeru]

12+ years and lifetime deportation I hope.. 12+ years in Somali prison sounds better. Wait, better not, he's probably a hero there.

Prisons? In Somalia?

Surely you jest.

 

[Kaeru]

As far as I know, I don't think any fatwas or government action was taken over this. The people who are actually acting and sounding violent are probably just a (vocal) minority. This reaction is probably no worse than what we'd see in the US if say the New York Times made a comic about Jesus being terrorist and a pedophile.

Ever heard of the Da Vinci code? Very controversial, turned out to be a hit and loved by many, both the book and the movie.

And Muhammed did marry a 6 year old and consumed the marriage at 9, thats in the Hadiths.
Find me a (holy) scripture that mentions Jesus being intimate with a preteen and then we can discuss

Also Muhammed waged war in a terroristlike manner, he was a wargeneral for christs(!) sake.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

You are wrong.


The New York Times published several articles about the Christ myth theory (the idea that Jesus was never a real person, regardless of his divinity), there were many books, papers and movies about it. It is also taught in quite a few universities across the US.
As for the reaction to it, well, I'd say the fact that you've never heard of any of this should give you pretty good idea.

p.s.
People have called Jesus a pedophile, homosexual and a murderer.
Look it up.

There's also,

One of the most popular US novels of the decade portrayed Jesus as a father, and the catholic church as a group of murderous misogynists.

Was there outrage? Sure. But I was still able to buy Dan Brown's newest novel for my parents for Christmas, Tom Hanks gets to keep mailing in performances in the semi-decent adaptations, and Ron Howard gets to keep funding his next real Oscar-bait.

And as I posted before,

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages...._collections/team_kick_ass/GI_Joe_17_0617.jpg

 

[POWERSPHERE]

How are they so sure it's THAT Muhammad?

 

[Salty]

So imams can make mohamed comics and it's cool, but only if it's to manufacture outrage.

Cartoon pretty much sums it up, as Iran responded by having a Holocaust cartoon conference. They viewed this as a way of getting back at Europe... which is ironic considering who carried out the Holocaust, but I guess people like to shit on Jews when they get upset.

 

[Chichikov]

There's also,

http://www.wired.com/news/images/full/davinci_code_f.jpg

One of the most popular US novels of the decade portrayed Jesus as a father, and the catholic church as a group of murderous misogynists.

Was there outrage? Sure. But I was still able to buy Dan Brown's newest novel for my parents for Christmas, Tom Hanks gets to keep mailing in performances in the semi-decent adaptations, and Ron Howard gets to keep funding his next real Oscar-bait.

And as I posted before,

http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages...._collections/team_kick_ass/GI_Joe_17_0617.jpg

True, but I'd rather not use Dan Brown to support my position .
And we can probably spend a good number of pages just listing unfavorable depictions of Jesus in American cartoons.

 

[Boogie]

I'd bet they just shot at him as opposed to aiming for his leg or hand especially.

This. If you think they were aiming specifically for the limbs, you're a moron.

I find it awesome that the cops shot him in the limbs, now that is good police training

You = moron.

Bullshit. It's actually preferable to take out suspects by shooting them in the leg and any military or police force trains exactly this.

You= moron.

Of course they are. The majority of situations where police officers in civilized countries are forced to use their guns they are supposed to immobilize their targets, not to kill them. It's absurd to think they are trained to actually kill people and that it's impossible to hit anything but the torso. Why do you think warning shots exist and what's the next step after that? Head shots? You watch too many movies. :lol

You= moron.

Specifically, in Canada at least, warning shots do not exist. They are specifically prohibited in Canadian police policy. Probably similar in other jurisdictions.

Now, some here are saying that some European forces are instructed to shoot for limbs. I am skeptical that this is the case, but if that is true, it is and utterly foolhardy and dangerous policy to do so.

No, you use superior weaponry and still try to immobilize your target. Except for extreme cases it is preferable, from a public and a personal point of view, to not to kill your target.

No. Whether the target of a shoot lives or dies is irrelevant to the officer making the shot. All that matters is stopping the threat, and the only rational, logical way of doing that is aiming centre of mass, and, in some circumstances for SWAT-style units, head shots.

Police are supposed to draw and fire their weapon only for the intent to kill.

No. We are trained to shoot to stop the threat, not to shoot to kill. There is a difference.

Also warning shots are discouraged by pretty much all military and police forces, and they are also illegal amongst civilians. Warning shots are dangerous as the bullet has to go somewhere and the chance of hitting an innocent is always there. Fire a bullet into the air, it will come down eventually, and potentially kill someone very far away.

This is absolutely correct, however.

Huh? Most police doesn't even have this equipment. And it's certainly foolish to try to pepper spray or handcuff someone with a knife. You simply shoot him in the leg.

Essentially every police force in North America is outfitted with pepper spray, batons, guns, and many with tasers. European police forces also are usually so equipped.

Are you just a troll?

You also fire warning shots into the ground, Jesus. It's about the sound and penetration of a real bullet and to show your ability to actually use the gun. What idiot fires it into the sky, especially in a city?

You use a gun to SHOW that you could use a deadly force, but it's still a priority to try to not kill anybody. The toll it takes on an officer to have someone killed seems to be lost on most of you armchair sheriffs.

Stop talking out of your ass.

I'm not an "armchair sheriff", I'm the real McCoy. So, that said, what are your professional qualifications, Captain?

 

[Milk Lizard]

This. If you think they were aiming specifically for the limbs, you're a moron.



You = moron.



You= moron.



You= moron.

Specifically, in Canada at least, warning shots do not exist. They are specifically prohibited in Canadian police policy. Probably similar in other jurisdictions.

Now, some here are saying that some European forces are instructed to shoot for limbs. I am skeptical that this is the case, but if that is true, it is and utterly foolhardy and dangerous policy to do so.



No. Whether the target of a shoot lives or dies is irrelevant to the officer making the shot. All that matters is stopping the threat, and the only rational, logical way of doing that is aiming centre of mass, and, in some circumstances for SWAT-style units, head shots.

You= moron.

Sorry but that had to be done. Denmark (where this fucking is) the police are actually instructed to do exactly what they did and this is about what happened here right ? If you want to discuss Canadas police make another thread.

Edit : Also warning shots dont have to be into the air you know...

 

[Boogie]

No...

Practice i trained:

Step 1: "Freeze!"
Step 2: "Freeze, or i'll shoot!"
Step 3: Warning shot
Step 4: Aimed shot

Of course, shooting while amongst civilians, or in the direction of civilians is discouraged, but not firing a warning shot in general.

EDIT: also, this:



Listen to this man!

You're not a police officer.

If faced with a deadly threat, you won't have time to go through all of steps 1 through 3. Maybe get off a police challenge before firing, but a warning shot? GTFO with that shit.

 

[KHarvey16]

You= moron.

Sorry but that had to be done. Denmark (where this fucking is) the police are actually instructed to do exactly what they did.

Edit : Also warning shots dont have to be into the air you know...

According to....?

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

You= moron.

Sorry but that had to be done. Denmark (where this fucking is) the police are actually instructed to do exactly what they did.

So if the guy came at the cops doing cartwheels and jumping jacks would they still try to aim for his hands, feet, arms, and legs?

The degree of difficulty in trying to non-lethally wound a violent perp is absurdly high, especially if they are charging, fleeing, or in the process of harming another individual.

And there is no guarantee that a shot to the leg or arm would not result in the loss of life or limb.

 

[Boogie]

You= moron.

Sorry but that had to be done. Denmark (where this fucking is) the police are actually instructed to do exactly what they did and this is about what happened here right ? If you want to discuss Canadas police make another thread.

Edit : Also warning shots dont have to be into the air you know...

that has been asserted a couple of times in this thread, but I have not seen it quoted in a link, or what the source of that assertion is.

In any case, if that is true, then the policy in Denmark is irrational and dangerous to the safety of the police and the public.

For reasoning, read this article:

Real life is not television
By Dave Brown

When police are forced to resort to deadly force, there are necessary consequences. This is Canada after all, and we would not tolerate the indiscriminate use of any level of force on the part of the people who are supposed to be there to protect us, let alone the highest level of force that it is possible for a police officer to employ. Trust me; no one takes this lightly.

On the other hand, it is about time we got rid of all those myths that have built up over the years on the use of force by police. Life is not television and this is not some “Dirty Harry” movie; this is real life.

In real life, if you pull a knife on the police, you will be shot. There are no alternatives. There is no Taser; no baton; no pepper spray; no intermediate force option in the world that would reliably protect an officer or bystanders from a knife attack in a dynamic situation. It is simple science – the assailant is acting, and the police officer is reacting. Action always trumps reaction, and it has long been documented and understood that an assailant can travel a distance of over seven meters and stab a person in less time than it takes to react, draw and fire a sidearm.

So why not shoot for the arm or a leg as many people think would be possible? Well, we need to put this myth to bed once and for all. Sure, Olympic handgun target shooters at the absolute top of their game can put all ten shots into the 2.6 centimeter ‘10’ ring of a paper target at 20 meters, but they have ten minutes to do this, not fractions of a second. Plus, their target is not moving … nor is it trying to kill them.

A bullet must necessarily follow some simple laws of physics as it speeds through the air at two times the speed of sound. The slightest misalignment of the sights on that handgun result in not only missing a small and moving portion of a target, it results in missing the target entirely. Unlike television, once that bullet is fired, it must hit something. That ‘something’ might be another person; another officer; another vehicle two kilometers down the road with your mother/father/child/spouse/etc. in it.

Once that bullet is fired, no force on the face of the earth can bring it back again.

Police officers must shoot for the center-mass of the deadly threat; there is no other location that would be scientifically, morally or legally justified.

Police officers do not shoot to wound, nor do they shoot to kill. They shoot for only one purpose – to stop. When they are forced to employ deadly force, they must do it in such a way that it stops the threat as quickly and efficiently as possible without putting themselves or anyone else in any greater danger.

One other reason that police officers cannot shoot for an arm or a leg is that it would have little effect anyway. Again, this is not television. In real life, when people get shot, they don’t fly backwards like they were kicked by a horse. It is just not physically possible. In fact, in many cases, they don’t even know they are shot, meaning they are still a threat to life.

One of the survival mechanisms of the human body has often been termed the “fight or flight syndrome” and this dictates that in high stress situations, all blood flow concentrates into the center-mass of the body. The body is preparing itself for battle by reducing blood flow to the extremities and also by introducing adrenalin into the bloodstream to act as painkiller. This simply means that a person could literally be shot in the arm or the leg and not feel a thing. They could still be a threat.

Ever hear stories of people in combat who have their arm or leg blown off and don’t even know it until after the battle is over? This is why police officers are trained to shoot for center mass; any shot to an extremity would fail to stop a threat. With an edged weapon such as a knife, an assailant could easily travel seven meters before they even knew they were shot.

As for hitting them in the leg and bringing them down; even the best handgun shooters in the world couldn’t consistently make a shot like that – even if the target was perfectly stationary and not trying to kill them.

Police officers already have a difficult enough job. We should be necessarily examining their actions whenever they use force, but we should also be using facts to do so, not some myth or television mentality.

 

[Milk Lizard]

According to....?

According to me. There has been many cases like this here where it has been discussed endlessly as the danish media doesn't have anything better to do.

Pretty recently there was a case where the police shot and killed a guy in a stolen car and God there was a lot of discussion, if you can actually read danish you can read this article and look up some of stuff it states.

http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/article1262958.ece

 

[Jin]

Edit : Also warning shots dont have to be into the air you know...

Where, exactly, is the other alternative to the air? In the ground where the bullet can ricochet?

 

[KHarvey16]

According to me.

Unless that article is citing police policy, that's not gonna be enough.

 

[Boogie]

Where, exactly, is the other alternative to the air? In the ground where the bullet can ricochet?

:lol Indeed. In training, we even fired at angles into the ground to demonstrate how bullets ricochet along certain surfaces.

"Warning shots" :lol

Good fucking grief.

According to me.

Oh, pardon me, constable Milk Lizard.

There has been many cases like this here where it has been discussed endlessly as the danish media doesn't have anything better to do.

Pretty recently there was a case where the police shot and killed a guy in a stolen car and God there was a lot of discussion, if you can actually read danish you can read this article and look up some of stuff it states.

http://ekstrabladet.dk/112/article1262958.ece

Well, we don't speak Danish. Spell it out for me.

also, what Kharvey said.

Again, if it is the case, my bad. That doesn't stop it from being an illogical, dangerous policy.

 

[Milk Lizard]

So if the guy came at the cops doing cartwheels and jumping jacks would they still try to aim for his hands, feet, arms, and legs?

The degree of difficulty in trying to non-lethally wound a violent perp is absurdly high, especially if they are charging, fleeing, or in the process of harming another individual.

And there is no guarantee that a shot to the leg or arm would not result in the loss of life or limb.

No if they are in a position where they cant do anything but try to kill the guy it's ok. That is exactly what that story i linked to you is about, when is it ok ? This guy threw an axe on them and then they felt they could easily get him down without killing him and they did.

that has been asserted a couple of times in this thread, but I have not seen it quoted in a link, or what the source of that assertion is.

In any case, if that is true, then the policy in Denmark is irrational and dangerous to the safety of the police and the public.

For reasoning, read this article:

Why should i read that ? I dont make the fucking rules and I still dont care about Canada. :lol

Seriously I dont give a shit about your rules, what I am saying is they did what they were told to and did the right thing. The politics or whoever make the rules for the police can discuss that but the officers doing what they did were right. I dont know why the rules are like that but I know they also do that some places in the US for example.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I love watching Boogie do this EVERY time the subject comes up. He should have a stickie.

 

[lunarworks]

If the picture is so upsetting to your god, then let him deal with it.

That's what I don't understand. Is your all-powerful god that powerless that he needs you to defend him from drawings?

 

[Boogie]

Why should i read that ? I dont make the fucking rules and I still dont care about Canada. :lol

Seriously I dont give a shit about your rules, what I am saying is they did what they were told to and did the right thing. The politics or whoever make the rules for the police can discuss that but the officers doing what they did were right. I dont know why the rules are like that but I know they also do that some places in the US for example.

Laws of physics and human physiology do not acknowledge the arbitrary political boundaries of nations.

Read the effing article.

I'm off for now, dinner and UFC watching. Toodles.

 

[KHarvey16]

they felt they could easily get him down without killing him and they did.

How do you know this?

what I am saying is they did what they were told to

Or this? What are you reading that we aren't?

 

[Bidermaier]

If the picture is so upsetting to your god, then let him deal with it.

God is an abstract idea. It is not a magical invisible guy with superpowers.
Get over it.

Where did you learn the concept of god from? Devil May Cry series?

 

[KibblesBits]

God is an abstract idea. It is not a magical invisible guy with superpowers.
Get over it.

Where did you learn the concept of god from? Devil May Cry series?

Are you for real?

 

[Combichristoffersen]

Unless that article is citing police policy, that's not gonna be enough.

Well, we don't speak Danish. Spell it out for me.

I can read Danish fairly decently, and the article states thus (my translation might be a bit rusty)

The rules state that if police officers are in a dangerous situation, they have to draw their weapon. But they must, given it is possible, fire a warning shot beforehand

And if shots are fired against a person, the officers must aim for non-vital body parts like arms or legs

I don't really know how the fuck they're supposed to fire a warning shot before drawing the weapon, but that's what the article says.

 

[K.Jack]

This dudes address is still on the books?!

It's time to go "off the grid" sir.

 

[Count Dookkake]

God is an abstract idea. It is not a magical invisible guy with superpowers.
Get over it.

I am over it. Been over it for decades. It's the believers that need to get the message.

Where did you learn the concept of god from? Devil May Cry series?

From church.

I have no idea what Devil May Cry is about.