View Full Version : This man just threatened law abiding citizens.
http://www.gunssavelife.com/?p=4552
I hope it's all hot-air and bullshit.
Fear mongering.
It seems like a lot of undercover cops would be getting shot using this asshole's "shoot first ask questions later" approach. He didn't say that they would shoot someone pointing a firearm. He said that they would shoot anyone holding a firearm. Luckily, most Chicago PD will probably shoot as well as NYPD.
Alaskapopo
01-11-13, 05:31
Fear mongering.
It seems like a lot of undercover cops would be getting shot using this asshole's "shoot first ask questions later" approach. He didn't say that they would shoot someone pointing a firearm. He said that they would shoot anyone holding a firearm. Luckily, most Chicago PD will probably shoot as well as NYPD.
Actually a lot of undercover cops and plain clothes cops do get shot. Its a real problem. While I don't like his wording what he says is true. If you point a gun at me or don't drop it when I order you to you have a very good chance of getting shot. Hesitation kills officers and citizens for that matter when faced with a lethal threat. Now obviously I disagree with his notion that armed citizens are bad. But they should get some training and they should have their guns put down by the time uniformed officers arrive and they should be 100% compliant to any orders given by the arriving officers for their own safety and for that of the officers.
Pat
montanadave
01-11-13, 08:33
I get the point the chief is trying to make but he comes off (at least in this article, which admittedly is not written to place him in a favorable light) like a frickin' stormtrooper.
And I agree with the previous comment. If I'm ever in a situation where I have drawn my concealed weapon, I'm going to make every effort to insure that my gun is NOT in my hand when the good guys show up.
**** this dude. He needs to do his damn job better. Murder capital of the country and he wants to come out with some outspoken shit like this?!
I'm just short of enraged.
Alaskapopo
01-11-13, 12:15
**** this dude. He needs to do his damn job better. Murder capital of the country and he wants to come out with some outspoken shit like this?!
I'm just short of enraged.
Its not his fault that its the murder capital of the country unless you think he is the one actually murdering everyone. Again I don't agree with his anti gun attitude but what he said about not pointing your gun at a police officer is very correct. Although what he said did not need saying as its common sense. (not pointing a gun at a police officer part)
Pat
Its not his fault that its the murder capital of the country unless you think he is the one actually murdering everyone. Again I don't agree with his anti gun attitude but what he said about not pointing your gun at a police officer is very correct. Although what he said did not need saying as its common sense. (not pointing a gun at a police officer part)
Pat
did you even read the article ?
if so quote me where he said POINTING !!
in their hand & pointing are not the same thing
Alaskapopo
01-11-13, 14:28
did you even read the article ?
if so quote me where he said POINTING !!
in their hand & pointing are not the same thing
True but its not a good idea to be holding a pistol when the police arrive and if you don't drop it when I tell you to yes you have a good chance of getting shot depending on the exact circumstances. Its not like you have a sign around your neck saying your a good guy and not the bad guy.
Pat
True but its not a good idea to be holding a pistol when the police arrive and if you don't drop it when I tell you to yes you have a good chance of getting shot depending on the exact circumstances. Its not like you have a sign around your neck saying your a good guy and not the bad guy.
Pat
Quit being an apologist. Seriously, it's getting to be disgusting. The idiot in the article never said anything about pointing. It's beyond clear he's an elitist prick who thinks that firearms belong in the hands of "trained" officers and he went as far as to threaten them.
Any argument otherwise is attempt at emotional rhetoric.
In addition, yes, it's very much his fault that the murder rates are that high. It's very clear that murder and crime rates are tied to gun ownership. He has a very staunch stance of believing citizens should not be allowed to carry, therefore he IS a huge part of the problem, especially when he advocates shooting legally-armed citizens in the name of reducing crime.
Alaskapopo
01-11-13, 14:49
Quit being an apologist. Seriously, it's getting to be disgusting. The idiot in the article never said anything about pointing. It's beyond clear he's an elitist prick who thinks that firearms belong in the hands of "trained" officers and he went as far as to threaten them.
Any argument otherwise is attempt at emotional rhetoric.
In addition, yes, it's very much his fault that the murder rates are that high. It's very clear that murder and crime rates are tied to gun ownership. He has a very staunch stance of believing citizens should not be allowed to carry, therefore he IS a huge part of the problem, especially when he advocates shooting legally-armed citizens in the name of reducing crime.
If you truly believe that your are truly ignorant. The people responsible for the murders themselves are the ones to blame not the chief of police. Blaming the police chief for the murder rate is pure emotional rhetoric and its on par with those who blame guns for the murder rate. And read my post I did not apologize for him and I said I don't agree with his stance on guns.
Moose-Knuckle
01-11-13, 16:47
Again I don't agree with his anti gun attitude but what he said about not pointing your gun at a police officer is very correct. Although what he said did not need saying as its common sense. (not pointing a gun at a police officer part)
Pat
It was his delivery Pat.
Alaskapopo
01-11-13, 17:55
It was his delivery Pat.
I agree and I said about the same in my first reply to this thread. my quote " While I don't like his wording what he says is true".
Pat
Suwannee Tim
01-11-13, 20:40
Quit being an apologist......
Go troll somewhere else son. Damn.
after a few innocent people get shot I think the police are going to slide down the public trust scale even farther than they seem to have slid recently in places like that !
the fact he mentioned even if they are legal for some reason he thinks his training is better and makes them some kind of superior people ?
he even states yeah their will be tragedies !
I have no respect for folks like this who think they are above the law and on top have some kinda superiority complex
Officer Safety does not come before personal liberty.
PA PATRIOT
01-12-13, 00:46
Officer Safety does not come before personal liberty.
Keep Dreaming, lets see how that works out for you should you do something dumb with a firearm in a officers presence. That officer is going to do what ever legally possible to protect him/her self and go home at the end of his shift and thats a absolute!
Since when does another's personal liberty of a owning/carrying a firearm out weigh a officers right to continued long life?
I'M 110% Pro 2nd but some of the dumb anti police comments I've seen on this forum lately is starting to make me lose some faith in the membership and for the cause.
Alaskapopo
01-12-13, 00:49
Officer Safety does not come before personal liberty.
Depends on what you mean by that. I can stop and frisk for weapons if I have reasonable suspicion a crime has occured or is about to occur or for my safety if I am having to interview you. That is something the courts have upheld in Terry vs. Ohio. It has to be reasonable. I can't just stop you because I feel like it and search you for weapons. But generally yes a valid officer safety concern outweighs your personal liberty at least in the short term and that is backed by court decision.
Basically just use common sense and don't be waiving a gun around when the officers show up. (ie don't be a retard)
Pat
CarlosDJackal
01-12-13, 09:50
Chicago, Illinois. 'Nuff said!! :rolleyes:
I'm sick of the anti-LEO rhetoric on this forum as well, but this asshat is giving ALL LEO's a bad name. His radio interview might've had a glimmer of truth if some citizen with a gun acts foolishly. But let's face facts. This was a political lapdog who thinks only the police are competent to own firearms (coming from a cop who allegedly tried to shoot out street lights while drunk). He was intentionally trying to fearmonger the worst possible (and mostly unlikely) scenario in order to maintain a separation between LEO's and the citizens they police. It's rank hypocrisy and it's a clear case of unprofessional conduct. As a law enforcement administrator, he's supposed to be a voice of reason. His statements were histrionics at best. :mad:
Good grief. Reading this thread makes you think that all LEO are trigger happy nut jobs with a shoot first ask questions later mentality. If you follow some of the logic from this thread then the citizen should probably go ahead and shoot the cop first to make sure he doesn't get trigger happy and interfere with the citizen's "right to continued long life". Absolutely ridiculous. :blink:
Alaskapopo
01-12-13, 17:55
Good grief. Reading this thread makes you think that all LEO are trigger happy nut jobs with a shoot first ask questions later mentality. If you follow some of the logic from this thread then the citizen should probably go ahead and shoot the cop first to make sure he doesn't get trigger happy and interfere with the citizen's "right to continued long life". Absolutely ridiculous. :blink:
You got this idea based on what one chief said?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.