ReeferMadness

Cable is a massive scam. Pay $30 - $100 or more per month for content that is paid for through advertising. I've enjoyed Netflix but we're starting to run out of interesting things to watch. They don't add content fast enough. Also, there have been series that we started to watch and then had to buy the last season or two; because Netflix won't commit to when or if they will get them. I can't wait until more content is available on the web.

Ducked for cover??? If you were going to duck for cover, would you lie on your back with your legs exposed and twitching? You're not really a cop at all. You're an SIU officer. I can tell by your sense of logic.

I admit that in almost every high profile case I'm aware of, the police have somehow gotten away with killing people, even when it's obvious to most observers that it wasn't necessary. Does that constitute a bias?

The Cons will just use this as another wedge issue for raising funds. It's like like the long gun registry.

He's on his back, Derek. What do you think? To me that means he was shot. If he's shot at close range with a hollow point bullet, he's unlikely to be moving that quickly.

In an ideal world, maybe. I have very little confidence that SIU will get to the heart of the matter.

And what about the last 6 shots, while he's lying on his back?

That's pretty much the essence of what AW was claiming. 25% of shots hit their targets (or something like that). Not very impressive if that's what happened here. 15 feet away, stationary target with nowhere to move.

From a position of laying on his back?

Ross McLean said that each decision should be considered separately by SIU. Should the shooting have started at all? (ie was there a sufficient attempt to defuse the situation without shooting)? Once the first 3 shots were fired, was it necessary to keep keep shooting ? Was it necessary to deploy the taser?

And what does Justin Bieber have to do with arts & culture?

Maybe, they should just starting issuing knives to police officers instead of firearms. They're obviously much more dangerous.

Do you actually read the links or just chuck them out there and hope someone else can explain them to you? BC uses a carbon tax and the link you provided was for cap and trade. The author of your article said nothing bad about a carbon tax; and stops just short of actually suggesting it:

Yes, there is some pretty disgusting stuff out there. :huh:

If he attempts to leave the bus, you ressess his ability to cause harm and act appropriately. Presumably, a bullet wound is going to slow him down, unless he really in the reincarnation of Bruce Lee. Maybe you can use the taser at that point. What you don't do is shoot him while he's down.

I don't know. Presumably, neither do the cops. But he's down. Do you wait at least long enough to determine if he poses a threat or just keep on blasting away?

Perhaps what you meant to say is "The US is nuts to develop shale oil and gas". Shale Oil is No Threat to Oil Producers.

OK, this poor kid is on his back so it's fair to assume he's been hit at least once. Now Officer Trigger Happy has 3 options: He can shoot him some more to finish him off He can wait for the taser and use it to make the kid drop the knife He can wait him out and/or talk him down until the kid drops the knife So what do the cops choose? They elect both of the most violent options. First they shoot him some more and then they tase him. Unbelievable!! What's even more unbelievable is you trying to justify this execution on the basis that it was more humane.

Thank you Dr. Shady for that brilliant and scholarly input. I'm sure that economists will be studying your advice for years to come.

Oh, now I get it. You're saying they had to kill the guy so that they could administer first aid. That makes much more sense than waiting for a guy who's been shot to put the knife down. Or waiting for the taser to arrive. Are you a cop, Derek? It seems like you and Officer Trigger-Happy think alike.

One more time. He's down. His legs are in the air. Is he going to kill someone at a distance of 15 feet with a knife? Same question for you, AW. I can't tell if you just don't want to address the question or if you're being deliberately obtuse.

A guy 15 feet away on his back is a threat to 22 armed police? Maybe we need to strart issuing police little tanks to drive around in so they won't feel so vulnerable.

You haven't addressed the question. Sammy is on his back. Maybe he's still holding the knife but he's on his back. Are you telling me that he is putting 22 armed police in mortal danger?

Of course. If you see a guy wandering around with a pig-sticker in one hand and his dick in the other, you should draw the conclusion that he is the reincarnation of Bruce Lee and immediately shoot to kill. Although, from AW's comments, if you shoot to kill, you will miss most of your shots so you should actually try to miss which will cause you to shoot your opponent through the heart or between the eyes. Got it?

Apparently not anyone. Or maybe some people don't have the required ounce of humanity.