other weapons kill too. people throw fist sized stones or in the recent news a fire extinguisher then they get shot and other people say you shouldn't have shot him.

Damn it rocks, sticks, fire extinguishers, any thing with weight that is through or slung at a human can kill them. so if you don't want to get shot don't throw sh!t!

I will tell you to put it down if you proceed to launch it at me you will get shot.

flame away!

No flaming here. I don't care what you do to me if it can cause harm to me or my family I'll shoot you.

This brings to mind all those folks who complain about the Palestinians who get killed while throwing rocks at armed Israelis.

Hey! Wake up!! If you don't wanna get killed, don't try to hurt someone!  My favorite proposal on this front is to have the Israelis respond "in kind".  If the Palestinians want to throw rocks, then the Israelis should return fire with rocks.  How about a B52 bomb-bay full of them!!  

Aw, forget it. Someone will complain anyway.

Speaking of flames, those fire bombs that many protesters use are pretty dangerous as well.  Most riot police don't respond force on force in reality.  They have training and equipment to reduce the danger, so there is a good reason not to just fire on individuals in a riot.  I do know of instances where troops using the "plastic bullet" type ammo would score a hit on a raised firebomb before it was thrown.  That makes for a mess, and is a bit more politically acceptable.  

Still, riot control is just that, CONTROL.  You control the level of violence that occurs.  It's probably impossible to stop that sort of behavior during a riot.  You just try to minimize it to where it's controlled.  If someone throws a bottle, even a firebomb at a group of riot police, who have protective clothing, fire extinguishers, and training and the police respond by firing into the crowd (even if it's only at the thrower) the escallation could result in loss of control of the crowd.  While it can end a riot pretty quick, it may not be the most effective way to handle the situation.  It's sort of like arresting foks at a rock concert for pot.  Cops might do it for a reason to run a particular guy in, but they aren't just going to go through the long line into the colosieum and start busting people.  

I still like the plastic bullet through the firebomb though.

Ross

Hey, I agree with you all 100%,...

But, this is America, and try getting that past a jury of liberal morons.  9 times out of 10, you will either go to jail, or at least pay restitutions to the family of the attacker.

Even the cops are not immune to this.

Example, in CO a few days ago, a guy had mugged a lady, police chased him, the guy try to run down a couple officers and of course got shot in the process.  The press and the public are all bitching "they didn't have to kill the guy."

"he was such a nice young man, he ONLY had x number of prior convictions and a crack problem..."

Here's a better one, check out this moron:  [url]http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,11%257E71582,00.html[/url]

This fellow got into a fight with a man, the man pulled a gun, and while the two were struggling for the gun, police shot and killed the gunman.

He says that the police didn't have to kill the man.  That's gratitude for ya.

awhile back there was a shooting here in lawton where a guy who was being chased by an officer ran around a corner turned around and as the cop reached the corner jumped out at him..yup got shot in the head all he had in his hand at the time were a pair of dark sunglasses and this was at night the Oklahom bureau of Investigations found it a legal shoot. but people in the city kept on complaining that why did he have to shoot him in the head not in the chest? Lawton P.D. uses Glock21's with hydro shox in the 165 or 185 grain choice. I dont think it would have made much of a difference but people just like to b1tch about something

My favorite is "why couldn't you just shoot the tires out?", or "why couldn't you shoot him in the arm/leg, or shoot the gun out of his hand???"

[V] [V] [V] [V] [V]


I hope some of you guys aren't as eager to live up to your words as you are in typing them.

If you think that someone throwing a rock at you normally justifies lethal force, you need to re-evaluate.  Would you shoot a whino if he threw an old bottle of MD20/20 in your general direction.  After all, it "could" have hurt you.  It seems that the "Contempt of Cop" disease, is also a problem in the civilian community.

If you carry a gun, you should reserve it for emergencies, and not for scenarios where there are alternate means of escape.  I agree that if this happens in you home, the rules change a bit.

What would you guys be saying if this was a rock throwing pro life protester that was shot in front of an abortion clinic?  

Of course there are other courses of action especially against a drunk but if a person is advancing on me and threatening me and if other means are available I will use them but in a riot situation with 1000plus possible aggressors........

I will not die in the ghetto today I will go home and break bread with my family..BURN

becosue that sh*t only works in hollywood. that and if i miss and hit someone im in deep crap. so why not just aim for a center of mass and STOP the sob instead of wounding him and making a bad situaton worse

say i hit the tires he spins out and goes verring off into a school yard and hits a ton of little kids gues who gets  sued ME the guy that shot the tire instead of the perp

Hey I'm on your side!  I was making fun of the "shoot the tires" people.

didnt mean to sound like i was attacking u sorry if i came off that way