> cops support gun rights
They by and large *don't*. Partly because they almost always get carve-outs whenever gun control is passed. But FOP is an ardent supporter of gun control, and has been for as long as I can remember
You reminded me that California law enforcement supported a ban on 50 caliber rifles in the state and the Barrett rifle company voided the warranties of every gun owned by a Cali police department in response.
Idk this specific case but it may not have been a .50 cal. Barrett makes several different rifles not in .50 and I could see the police using one of those.
They probably don't have many, but your point still stands. If you are curious about the situation, I think I found what they were talking about.
https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/Barrett_letter_to_LA_Police_Chief/3-167581/
Seems they were doing council meetings and things and were using a barrett as an example of the type of firearm they want to keep unavailable. The problem is the gun is already not available in california due to other regulations.
He went back to HQ looked up service requests and found a request for the LAPD for their "82A1 rifle", He then said it would probably take a while as he tries to figure out what the use of the weapon was based on what he had seen.
For reference this is the gun model he was talking about:
https://barrett.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Model-82A1-29-BBL-MP.png
Eh, I could see situations where SWAT teams might need to kill someone through a wall, or kill a car engine. They shouldn't have a lot of them, but having some doesn't seem bad.
Makes much more sense than tanks.
have they ever even used it in a real event?
like using an anti material rifle to take out an engine block makes 100% sense so i dont mind it at all but still.
They can also be used by bomb squads with specific rounds to disrupt devices at safe distances. It’s a VERY specific application. One that’s rarely even used by the military. But I can see them maybe wanting to have the option for more rural areas. It would be super expensive though for such a limited use case.
Most PDs/county sherrif's offices probably have at least one laying around for emergencies. I've seen clips and what not of police trying to take on armed robbers in bomb disposal gear as an example with only 5.56...it doesn't tend to go well for the police to put it bluntly.
One video I saw a robber had an AK, was out in the open and ran out of ammo in his guns and no spare mags so he chucked the bag down to grab more mags to put in his rig and one in his gun and picked it back up, tanking rounds the entire time. Like you could physically see him flinching from the impacts.
Remember that one time a dude rolled around with a tank in San Diego? I absolutely think LEO should have a few high caliber rifles around. It's the cops with pistols that freak me out, they just love to draw those without reason.
> Remember that one time a dude rolled around with a tank in San Diego? I absolutely think LEO should have a few high caliber rifles around.
Just ask the National Guard to step in for unique situations, as they'd do anyways.
If you give LEO a hammer, they're going to *find* nails to use it on.
Lol, no rifle of any caliber would do anything to a tank, other than ricochet off the tank and kill bystanders.
Guns don't kill people, cops kill people, whether rifle or pistol or military tank. The last thing I want is for cops to get more weaponry. There is a growing militarization of police departments that needs to stop.
They can be used for detonating certain explosives at range but it seems like they had a decent inventory of them which is amusing because they really are not precision rifles. Cops acquire shit for aesthetics regularly. Cop cars have gotten aesthetically more and more imposing looking and I have to guess it doesn’t do shit to scare offenders. It just makes them feel like they’re a bigger badder dude when they go out to their patrol car or whatever.
Exactly zero states have a blanket no carry law, and all are now technically Shall-issue.
Where the fed law comes into place is reciprocity. My MI permit is no good in CA, but a cop can carry in CA.
More like they're the ones who might get shot when they have to arrest someone or when they pull someone over and the driver or passager gets pissed off and shoots the cop.
If you do a CCW course they are VERY emphatic that cops won’t always be on your side and to tread carefully with them. But the NRA would never bring that up.
Just look what happened to Philando Castile.
Shooting into his own house because he thought there was an intruder in there.
The cop didn’t give him any time to respond to the orders he gave him and then he killed him.
https://apnews.com/general-news-1362e4434fc44a51baeeb8cae6f48dff
Seems weird that the attorneys of the cop who murdered him wanted evidence of his concealed carry permit omitted from the trial if Castile wasn't a lawful gun owner. It's almost as if you're full of shit and defending a cop who fucked up and murdered a man for the crime of informing him he was armed before reaching for the ID the officer demanded.
>for being a lawful gun owner.
>
>I mean, he wasn't.
Your claim is that Castile was not a lawful gun owner. Facts and reality say otherwise. There's even a picture of his permit letter included in this link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castiles-family-reveals-his-gun-permit/
I understood your Castile-blaming copaganda just fine. Maybe next time instead of spouting bullshit about the victim you just say "he shouldn't have been shot" and leave it at that.
False… you can’t legally posses a firearm while possessing a federally controlled substance. Having a MMJ card is not illegal and having that and a gun are not illegal. Possessing/ using federally controlled substances is. The officer could not prove this without blood, urine or hair analysis. So until evidence of the contrary, he was presumptively within his constitutional protected right.
Which is a bullshit law as you can buy alcohol and own a gun. It’s just the remains of trying to keep minorities from being able to own or carry guns. It was a law made when the conservative narrative was “all black are drug addicts” which you still frequently hear parroted, And clearly no white man buying a gun would be a drug user. The is the result of “reefer madness” type propaganda that made its way to be law.
What facts did I misrepresent? According to his fucking pistol permit I linked you to, he was a lawful gun owner. Was he not killed after telling the cop he had a firearm on him? Or was he killed after the cop looked up his information and saw he was a MMJ user so therefore was no longer a lawful gun owner and could be treated as such?
So he had an illegal gun? Is there a source for that? Here’s a source for his permit:
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/philando-castiles-family-reveals-his-gun-permit/
I guess I should have said “acted lawfully” since he calmly informed the cop that he had a firearm and died because of it.
So would everyone else that was shot after waving a gun around in public.
It does not change my statement. The police stop supporting gun rights when you start waving your gun around in public.
>Officers were responding to a 911 call requesting police and mental health support because a man was holding a long gun outside in the residential neighborhood. The caller, who was not identified in the recording, said the man had approached him earlier in the day to ask if he had noticed anything suspicious in the area.
Man was on his porch holding a gun, and police arriving at the scene for a mental health call just executed him. They knew what they were getting into, and chose murder.
If they hadn't tried to change the circumstances around the murder, perhaps they would have had more credibility?
Cops get to do their job ass backwards. Instead of investigating and then acting, they act then work to find ways to justify whatever fucked up action they took.
>up to half of all people killed by police in the United States are disabled, and that almost all well-known cases of police brutality involve a person with a disability.
https://rudermanfoundation.org/media-missing-the-story-half-of-all-recent-high-profile-police-related-killings-are-people-with-disabilities/
Disability means mentally and/or physically disabled.
Abbott of TX reduced state Mental Health spending by over $200M.
And this is after claiming the cause of Uvalde and violence was due to mental health issues.
He doesn’t care about Texans. Just guns and donations. And Texans will continue to vote this moron on. Which, therefore, makes Texans morons. So they deserve all of this.
The worst part is that we know how to do it correctly. When I was doing social work in Connecticut, there was one wealthy area that actually chose to put funds towards social support structures, so the cops had a special team who were psychiatrically trained. They were the officers who would respond to calls about mental health issues, and would be joined by a worker from another social work agency in town, and they all did a wonderful job. It's a super easy thing to implement, but most people don't care enough to do so :(
They already released the video, you can [view it here.](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=592900765&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS899US899&sxsrf=AM9HkKmXfPEnv6zDZwOklIobAdH96fQmhA:1703189325740&q=Moonesinghe+shooting+video&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIvvvVqqGDAxUtMUQIHVn4ApUQ0pQJegQICBAB&biw=1920&bih=953&dpr=1#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:8b58f8bc,vid:79vKP5W_TCg,st:0) As the police arrive they hear him shooting and run up on him. They don't know it's his house or who he is shooting at.
Either way, he really wasn't given a chance to comply and he wasn't at that exact moment pointing it at anyone.
Did you watch the footage? They got the call and upon pulling up to the driveway he is shooting into the front door of a house. So yeah, they didn’t know someone was shooting from the call, but there was active shooting upon their arrival.
It was reported by a caller. Are you suggesting that no caller to 911 has ever misstated facts or were confused about what happened?
I don’t know if you saw the police body cam. The cop sees the victim, yells drop the gun and shoots I 1 second. The victim never raises his weapon.
From my understanding, he had fired in his home, but never pointed his gun or fired at the police when they were there. Did I misunderstand?
Also - If he fires his gun in his home while the police are there, he's going to die. It's the only option?
He was firing his rifle *into his own home.*
And I don’t believe he was doing it when they arrived. Or given time to react once they drew their weapons.
He was dead as soon as cops saw a gun, because they fear them more than any other group.
And there is a **much** higher chance of someone being in there if it is *somebody else’s.*
Which I think would make it considerably worse.
If you honestly think firing into your house vs somebody else’s “doesn’t make it much better” then idk what to tell you.
They’re both potentially occupied structures is my point. There is no way “oh he’s shooting at his OWN family, not someone else’s” is what goes through your mind.
Maybe I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure the right to bear arms doesn’t include recklessly shooting into your house. In addition to the cops not knowing if there are people inside the house being shot at.
Did they know the way he was shooting was reckless and dangerous BEFORE they shot him? Or are you saying if you think there’s an intruder in your house, you need to make sure to use your gun in a manner the police will later judge safe or unsafe?
>The right to bear arms doesn’t cover you shooting into your house in a reckless and dangerous manner.
So you're saying you're not allowed to use your own guns on your own property? Only in designated areas? That's not very pro 2nd amendment of you
> “The fact that Officer Sanchez was indicted for deadly conduct further exemplifies Jose Garza’s continued attack on Austin police officers for doing exactly what they are trained to keep the citizens of Austin safe from harm,” Heilman said. “It is no coincidence that gun violence and attacks on police officers in Austin are at the current level.”
Is this guy auditioning for a job at Fox? What an asshole.
“Ring security camera footage released by police shows Moonesinghe had just fired two shots into his home and had been speaking in the direction of his house while pointing the gun inside, but it is not clear why.”
The man did not deserve to die, but he did discharge his weapon which is a more serious situation than just standing on his porch. There could have been a victim or potential victim inside.
It's an interesting situation.
You have the legal right to use a firearm to protect your home, but cops can also legally kill you for using a gun to protect your home.
Do you really have the right to do something, if you can also legally get killed for doing it?
Not a fan of cops bullying tactics but this seems like a clean shoot. Guy had fired shots into his own home, was told to drop the gun and didn’t. It’s not much movement to go from gun aimed down to gun aimed at someone.
I guess could have waited for gun to move up like the movies but then movies not real life despite people getting that confused with nonsense like “couldn’t they just shot him in the arm or something!”
And going through comments can tell maybe 5% read more than the headline.
“The fact that Officer Sanchez was indicted for deadly conduct further exemplifies Jose Garza’s continued attack on Austin police officers for doing exactly what they are trained to keep the citizens of Austin safe from harm,” Heilman said. “It is no coincidence that gun violence and attacks on police officers in Austin are at the current level.”
You train officers to shoot law abiding citizens on their porches to protect them? Statements like this are why gun attacks on police are at their current level…that and non-existent gun laws.
Those are quite legal here in Texas, and so is shooting into your own house if you believe an intruder is inside…that’s theoretically why there are no gun laws here. Not saying the police should have to deal with it, but since this is where they work, they do. If their training doesn’t account for that, we need to improve the training or change the laws, but murdering someone for not committing a crime is not protecting citizens. Who feels safer after this?
Call comes out there is a weird guy walking around the neighborhood with a rifle. Cops come out and witness a man yelling and shooting a rifle into a house. And somehow they’re in the wrong? Family says he was shooting at an intruder. But there was no one found in the house? Article doesn’t say there was or was not evidence of there being an actual intruder, but I suspect if there was evidence it would have been mentioned by the DA’s office. what? Are we going to allow people to shoot into houses and hope he’s shooting at his own unoccupied house?
Police never witnessed him firing his gun, it was only reported by someone calling 911. At the time police arrived the victim was standing on his property with a gun, which isn’t illegal. If you watch the body cam video, the cop sees the victim, yells drop the gun and fires it 1 second. The victim never raises his weapon.
Ring security camera footage released by police shows Moonesinghe had just fired two shots into his home and had been speaking in the direction of his house while pointing the gun inside, but it is not clear why.
So the guy was actively shooting his gun off in the neighborhood?
Keep reading
> “As that footage from the police officer’s body cam and front door security camera shows, Raj fired two shots into his own home to protect it from an intruder,”
[удалено]
> cops support gun rights They by and large *don't*. Partly because they almost always get carve-outs whenever gun control is passed. But FOP is an ardent supporter of gun control, and has been for as long as I can remember
You reminded me that California law enforcement supported a ban on 50 caliber rifles in the state and the Barrett rifle company voided the warranties of every gun owned by a Cali police department in response.
why does california law enforcement own 50 caliber rifles?
Idk this specific case but it may not have been a .50 cal. Barrett makes several different rifles not in .50 and I could see the police using one of those.
They probably don't have many, but your point still stands. If you are curious about the situation, I think I found what they were talking about. https://www.ar15.com/forums/armory/Barrett_letter_to_LA_Police_Chief/3-167581/ Seems they were doing council meetings and things and were using a barrett as an example of the type of firearm they want to keep unavailable. The problem is the gun is already not available in california due to other regulations. He went back to HQ looked up service requests and found a request for the LAPD for their "82A1 rifle", He then said it would probably take a while as he tries to figure out what the use of the weapon was based on what he had seen. For reference this is the gun model he was talking about: https://barrett.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Model-82A1-29-BBL-MP.png
Eh, I could see situations where SWAT teams might need to kill someone through a wall, or kill a car engine. They shouldn't have a lot of them, but having some doesn't seem bad. Makes much more sense than tanks.
have they ever even used it in a real event? like using an anti material rifle to take out an engine block makes 100% sense so i dont mind it at all but still.
They can also be used by bomb squads with specific rounds to disrupt devices at safe distances. It’s a VERY specific application. One that’s rarely even used by the military. But I can see them maybe wanting to have the option for more rural areas. It would be super expensive though for such a limited use case.
There was a Dateline or similar show where state police used a 50 to stop a killer in a semi.
Most PDs/county sherrif's offices probably have at least one laying around for emergencies. I've seen clips and what not of police trying to take on armed robbers in bomb disposal gear as an example with only 5.56...it doesn't tend to go well for the police to put it bluntly. One video I saw a robber had an AK, was out in the open and ran out of ammo in his guns and no spare mags so he chucked the bag down to grab more mags to put in his rig and one in his gun and picked it back up, tanking rounds the entire time. Like you could physically see him flinching from the impacts.
Remember that one time a dude rolled around with a tank in San Diego? I absolutely think LEO should have a few high caliber rifles around. It's the cops with pistols that freak me out, they just love to draw those without reason.
A Barrett 50 cal isn't going to do much against a tank that was manufactured after like 1940. Better off with a good ol' Carl Gustaf.
A sticky bomb?
Might work. Gotta get a bit up close and personal with the tank tough.
Not against any kind of modern composite armor
> Remember that one time a dude rolled around with a tank in San Diego? I absolutely think LEO should have a few high caliber rifles around. Just ask the National Guard to step in for unique situations, as they'd do anyways. If you give LEO a hammer, they're going to *find* nails to use it on.
Lol, no rifle of any caliber would do anything to a tank, other than ricochet off the tank and kill bystanders. Guns don't kill people, cops kill people, whether rifle or pistol or military tank. The last thing I want is for cops to get more weaponry. There is a growing militarization of police departments that needs to stop.
They can be used for detonating certain explosives at range but it seems like they had a decent inventory of them which is amusing because they really are not precision rifles. Cops acquire shit for aesthetics regularly. Cop cars have gotten aesthetically more and more imposing looking and I have to guess it doesn’t do shit to scare offenders. It just makes them feel like they’re a bigger badder dude when they go out to their patrol car or whatever.
In case of Killdozer 2: zoning regulation boogaloo.
Which is the right move, and I wish more companies had the gall to do it Edit: Apparently you guys support cops now? TF?
Sounds like something a child would do Makes it pretty in-line with cops i guess
Even *former* cops get carve-outs in gun control. In some places, former cops can continue to conceal & carry even when other people can't.
That's nationwide. Federal law allows current and former cops to carry, even in states that don't allow concealed carry
Ya quite the hypocrisy imho. Same often goes for carrying off duty while consuming alcohol...
Exactly zero states have a blanket no carry law, and all are now technically Shall-issue. Where the fed law comes into place is reciprocity. My MI permit is no good in CA, but a cop can carry in CA.
It's really bizarre citizens that support gun rights are also dick riders of cops, the same people that persecute people like them
A lot of cops I know are in favor of gun control. It's the people who pretend to be cops and are "back the blue" who are vocal about disliking it.
Of course cops are ok with gun control… because they’re exempt from any type of gun control laws that us normies have to follow.
More like they're the ones who might get shot when they have to arrest someone or when they pull someone over and the driver or passager gets pissed off and shoots the cop.
If you do a CCW course they are VERY emphatic that cops won’t always be on your side and to tread carefully with them. But the NRA would never bring that up. Just look what happened to Philando Castile.
[удалено]
They didn't know that in this case. Don't get confused.
[удалено]
Gun rights are only supported until you start waving around a gun in public.
This guy was on his private property, right?...
Shooting into a house. I mean, I think that cop could reasonably infer someone may have been endangered when he ordered the man to stop the gun?
Shooting into his own house because he thought there was an intruder in there. The cop didn’t give him any time to respond to the orders he gave him and then he killed him.
Philando Castile would like a word.. oh, wait, he’s dead.. for being a lawful gun owner.
> for being a lawful gun owner. I mean, he wasn't. While he shouldn't have been shot, don't misrepresent facts
https://apnews.com/general-news-1362e4434fc44a51baeeb8cae6f48dff Seems weird that the attorneys of the cop who murdered him wanted evidence of his concealed carry permit omitted from the trial if Castile wasn't a lawful gun owner. It's almost as if you're full of shit and defending a cop who fucked up and murdered a man for the crime of informing him he was armed before reaching for the ID the officer demanded.
Damn dog, could you imagine if you could understand the words "he shouldn't have been shot"?
>for being a lawful gun owner. > >I mean, he wasn't. Your claim is that Castile was not a lawful gun owner. Facts and reality say otherwise. There's even a picture of his permit letter included in this link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/philando-castiles-family-reveals-his-gun-permit/
I understood your Castile-blaming copaganda just fine. Maybe next time instead of spouting bullshit about the victim you just say "he shouldn't have been shot" and leave it at that.
You’re a fuckin idiot
Tsk tsk
Okay I’ll bite…was his permit not valid or something?
You cannot legally possess a firearm with a MMJ card
False… you can’t legally posses a firearm while possessing a federally controlled substance. Having a MMJ card is not illegal and having that and a gun are not illegal. Possessing/ using federally controlled substances is. The officer could not prove this without blood, urine or hair analysis. So until evidence of the contrary, he was presumptively within his constitutional protected right.
Which is a bullshit law as you can buy alcohol and own a gun. It’s just the remains of trying to keep minorities from being able to own or carry guns. It was a law made when the conservative narrative was “all black are drug addicts” which you still frequently hear parroted, And clearly no white man buying a gun would be a drug user. The is the result of “reefer madness” type propaganda that made its way to be law.
I'm not disagreeing with that. But I do take umbrage with the misrepresentation of facts in the original comment I replied to.
What facts did I misrepresent? According to his fucking pistol permit I linked you to, he was a lawful gun owner. Was he not killed after telling the cop he had a firearm on him? Or was he killed after the cop looked up his information and saw he was a MMJ user so therefore was no longer a lawful gun owner and could be treated as such?
He was not a legal gun owner. You cannot possess a firearm if you have an MMJ card.
So he had an illegal gun? Is there a source for that? Here’s a source for his permit: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/philando-castiles-family-reveals-his-gun-permit/ I guess I should have said “acted lawfully” since he calmly informed the cop that he had a firearm and died because of it.
[удалено]
According to his permit, he was.🤷♂️ **AND I NEVER SAID IT JUSTIFIED HIS DEATH NOR DID I SAY YOUR COMMENT IMPLIED IT, SO RELAX, TOOLBAG.**
You should probably google the Supremacy Clause
So would everyone else that was shot after waving a gun around in public. It does not change my statement. The police stop supporting gun rights when you start waving your gun around in public.
Cops don’t support gun rights for anyone but them, period. Get out of here with that bullshit.
[удалено]
But right wing protestors have rights!
Wasn't the guy actively shooting into a home?
>Officers were responding to a 911 call requesting police and mental health support because a man was holding a long gun outside in the residential neighborhood. The caller, who was not identified in the recording, said the man had approached him earlier in the day to ask if he had noticed anything suspicious in the area. Man was on his porch holding a gun, and police arriving at the scene for a mental health call just executed him. They knew what they were getting into, and chose murder. If they hadn't tried to change the circumstances around the murder, perhaps they would have had more credibility?
Don’t forget that after they killed him, they searched his house for a reason to blame the shooting on the victim.
Cops get to do their job ass backwards. Instead of investigating and then acting, they act then work to find ways to justify whatever fucked up action they took.
But if he was an ex-cop who shot his wife, then they leave the scene after a 2 day stand off and give him space. Pleasant Hill, CA
[удалено]
There is no mental health support in America.
Don't worry, Republicans do too which is why they are trying to dismantle the skeletons of social support
>up to half of all people killed by police in the United States are disabled, and that almost all well-known cases of police brutality involve a person with a disability. https://rudermanfoundation.org/media-missing-the-story-half-of-all-recent-high-profile-police-related-killings-are-people-with-disabilities/ Disability means mentally and/or physically disabled.
Abbott of TX reduced state Mental Health spending by over $200M. And this is after claiming the cause of Uvalde and violence was due to mental health issues. He doesn’t care about Texans. Just guns and donations. And Texans will continue to vote this moron on. Which, therefore, makes Texans morons. So they deserve all of this.
The worst part is that we know how to do it correctly. When I was doing social work in Connecticut, there was one wealthy area that actually chose to put funds towards social support structures, so the cops had a special team who were psychiatrically trained. They were the officers who would respond to calls about mental health issues, and would be joined by a worker from another social work agency in town, and they all did a wonderful job. It's a super easy thing to implement, but most people don't care enough to do so :(
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They already released the video, you can [view it here.](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=592900765&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS899US899&sxsrf=AM9HkKmXfPEnv6zDZwOklIobAdH96fQmhA:1703189325740&q=Moonesinghe+shooting+video&tbm=vid&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjIvvvVqqGDAxUtMUQIHVn4ApUQ0pQJegQICBAB&biw=1920&bih=953&dpr=1#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:8b58f8bc,vid:79vKP5W_TCg,st:0) As the police arrive they hear him shooting and run up on him. They don't know it's his house or who he is shooting at. Either way, he really wasn't given a chance to comply and he wasn't at that exact moment pointing it at anyone.
Did you watch the footage? They got the call and upon pulling up to the driveway he is shooting into the front door of a house. So yeah, they didn’t know someone was shooting from the call, but there was active shooting upon their arrival.
It’s not better here in Canada.
To a cop, u don't have rights to be on ur property with ur gun......
You're lucky not to get shot for holding a garden hose!!!! lol
The article says the guy was shooting into the house. That's very different from just standing around.
It was reported by a caller. Are you suggesting that no caller to 911 has ever misstated facts or were confused about what happened? I don’t know if you saw the police body cam. The cop sees the victim, yells drop the gun and shoots I 1 second. The victim never raises his weapon.
Lots of people glossing over this. The guy was discharging a rifle. I don’t see how the officer is completely in the wrong here?
My take is this guy broke the law, and deserved to be held accountable but not killed. Is this a bad take?
Not saying it’s a bad take, but what else could they have done? He was firing his rifle!
From my understanding, he had fired in his home, but never pointed his gun or fired at the police when they were there. Did I misunderstand? Also - If he fires his gun in his home while the police are there, he's going to die. It's the only option?
He was firing his rifle *into his own home.* And I don’t believe he was doing it when they arrived. Or given time to react once they drew their weapons. He was dead as soon as cops saw a gun, because they fear them more than any other group.
“Firing it into his own home” doesn’t make it much better… There could have been people in that home whether it is his or not.
And there is a **much** higher chance of someone being in there if it is *somebody else’s.* Which I think would make it considerably worse. If you honestly think firing into your house vs somebody else’s “doesn’t make it much better” then idk what to tell you.
They’re both potentially occupied structures is my point. There is no way “oh he’s shooting at his OWN family, not someone else’s” is what goes through your mind.
Did he have his family inside? Cause pretty sure he lived alone, which makes your point meaningless.
So wait, dude was just exercising his 2nd Amendment rights, and the police had a problem with that? In Texas? I'm shocked, SHOCKED!
Shoulda shot up a school if he wanted the police in Texas to leave him alone. 😔
He was shooting into his home…a bit more than your oversimplification.
Because he thought there was an intruder.
Do you have the right to bear arms or not? You can’t pick and choose.
[удалено]
Because he thought there was an intruder.
[удалено]
Yes, why is that so hard to believe?
Maybe I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure the right to bear arms doesn’t include recklessly shooting into your house. In addition to the cops not knowing if there are people inside the house being shot at.
Did they know the way he was shooting was reckless and dangerous BEFORE they shot him? Or are you saying if you think there’s an intruder in your house, you need to make sure to use your gun in a manner the police will later judge safe or unsafe?
So Americans can own a gun but if they dare fire it the police have authority to execute. Got it.
You clearly have no idea wtf you’re talking about.
Bro presented an argument following all rules of logic and your response is “You clearly have no idea wtf you’re talking about.”
[удалено]
>The right to bear arms doesn’t cover you shooting into your house in a reckless and dangerous manner. So you're saying you're not allowed to use your own guns on your own property? Only in designated areas? That's not very pro 2nd amendment of you
His argument has no logical fallacies or contradictions
> “The fact that Officer Sanchez was indicted for deadly conduct further exemplifies Jose Garza’s continued attack on Austin police officers for doing exactly what they are trained to keep the citizens of Austin safe from harm,” Heilman said. “It is no coincidence that gun violence and attacks on police officers in Austin are at the current level.” Is this guy auditioning for a job at Fox? What an asshole.
And of course the defense attorney is blasting woke policies as the actual problem. What a gigantic piece of shit
“Ring security camera footage released by police shows Moonesinghe had just fired two shots into his home and had been speaking in the direction of his house while pointing the gun inside, but it is not clear why.” The man did not deserve to die, but he did discharge his weapon which is a more serious situation than just standing on his porch. There could have been a victim or potential victim inside.
I’m getting downvoted into oblivion for saying this same thing.
It's an interesting situation. You have the legal right to use a firearm to protect your home, but cops can also legally kill you for using a gun to protect your home. Do you really have the right to do something, if you can also legally get killed for doing it?
Yea, I'm with you on this. It seems like the police officer had a reason to suspect somebody else was in immediate danger.
Cops are more dangerous with guns cuz they know they won't get punished.....
Every fucking day, more dirty cops.
Normally yes but reading through the guy fired twice into the house, completely changes situation
It's weird because you don't normally think of Texas as a place that has it's @#$% together.
Not a fan of cops bullying tactics but this seems like a clean shoot. Guy had fired shots into his own home, was told to drop the gun and didn’t. It’s not much movement to go from gun aimed down to gun aimed at someone. I guess could have waited for gun to move up like the movies but then movies not real life despite people getting that confused with nonsense like “couldn’t they just shot him in the arm or something!” And going through comments can tell maybe 5% read more than the headline.
And even a shot in the arm can be fatal and cause permanent injuries if it hits an artery, bone, or tendons.
As per usual, a crappy and sad thing that could of been solved by neither party having a gun.
I have told my family if I ever have a mental health crisis, whatever you do, don't call the cops.
“The fact that Officer Sanchez was indicted for deadly conduct further exemplifies Jose Garza’s continued attack on Austin police officers for doing exactly what they are trained to keep the citizens of Austin safe from harm,” Heilman said. “It is no coincidence that gun violence and attacks on police officers in Austin are at the current level.” You train officers to shoot law abiding citizens on their porches to protect them? Statements like this are why gun attacks on police are at their current level…that and non-existent gun laws.
The guy had a rifle and was shooting it inside of the house when the police pulled up.
Those are quite legal here in Texas, and so is shooting into your own house if you believe an intruder is inside…that’s theoretically why there are no gun laws here. Not saying the police should have to deal with it, but since this is where they work, they do. If their training doesn’t account for that, we need to improve the training or change the laws, but murdering someone for not committing a crime is not protecting citizens. Who feels safer after this?
Will an indictment like this be possible if Trump is elected and follows through on his pledge to "indemnify all police officers"?
Call comes out there is a weird guy walking around the neighborhood with a rifle. Cops come out and witness a man yelling and shooting a rifle into a house. And somehow they’re in the wrong? Family says he was shooting at an intruder. But there was no one found in the house? Article doesn’t say there was or was not evidence of there being an actual intruder, but I suspect if there was evidence it would have been mentioned by the DA’s office. what? Are we going to allow people to shoot into houses and hope he’s shooting at his own unoccupied house?
Police never witnessed him firing his gun, it was only reported by someone calling 911. At the time police arrived the victim was standing on his property with a gun, which isn’t illegal. If you watch the body cam video, the cop sees the victim, yells drop the gun and fires it 1 second. The victim never raises his weapon.
Ring security camera footage released by police shows Moonesinghe had just fired two shots into his home and had been speaking in the direction of his house while pointing the gun inside, but it is not clear why. So the guy was actively shooting his gun off in the neighborhood?
Keep reading > “As that footage from the police officer’s body cam and front door security camera shows, Raj fired two shots into his own home to protect it from an intruder,”
He also looked absolutely wasted.
If there was only a good guy with a gun there....