No your point is simply too stupid for me to care

we seem to have some low t small penis ****s spilling out from the misc firearms crew thread

shoo cucks

His point is so stupid you have been completely unable to refute it. Got it.

Nah, you clearly missed the point as you posted a nonsensical response.

And if you really didn't care, you wouldn't have bothered responding at all.

Its ok, everyone is already quite aware that you're incredibly insecure. Have a good night!

Different situation. If two guys are fighting, you can't know who is right, but if a cop is pinned down according to the LAWS, the cop is right, and in almost all cases no sane human being would attack a cop on duty.

If you do stupid ****, be prepared to get shot.

Won't leave my house without my XDM9 strapped to my side.

hows it feel to live in a sh*thole

Brah, I can read your original post, and look your avatar, and just from that information know almost entirely how your thought process works, be very accurate about your opinion on 95% of topics, I even knew you would respond to my post with a snide comment like that.

You're the kinda guy I play poker against, and read like a book.

I watched the video again to confirm my thoughts.

The attacker is clearly not even looking at his surrounding, it's obvious the hero said something to draw his attention as he approached, resulting in the attacker look in his direction. The hero could have approached from behind, and/or just said nothing, ran at the guy, knocked him off the cop. What I just said isn't advanced, nor does it take training to achieve, any no body can break up a fight relatively easy, especially when it's an immediate 3vs1, and likely soon to be even better than.

Not to mention there was a 4th guy approaching the scene.

And people are telling me "Oh, you must be Chuck Norris", as if rugby tackling a guy takes any sort of skill, as if it takes incredible technique or skill, as if there are not 3 fully grown men on the scene to subdue 1 guy.

You guys are treating this like it's rocket science.

Yeah because coming up to the cop by surprise and not giving the officer a chance to communicate something to the private citizen is really super duper smart.

No, there aren't three fully grown men on the scene to subdue the guy. There is the officer, and there is the attacker. That's it, unless and until one other person takes action.Assumingthere aren't other attackers you don't know about.

Wrong. Most police are against armed civilians. hell, cops dont even want armored truck drivers to be armed. Its sad

Cops only think of themselves nowadays. No honor like back in the day

BrahPlease making sht up like usual

How do you know whats going on tho? In a situation like that i would call for backup and not get involved unless i saw the whole thing and would help the correct party.

How would you know the cop didnt just murder someone or went full retard? Like that one cop who got 500 years for chit loads of rapes. Nowadays who the fuack knows...

You are an idiot. Literally none of the hundreds of cops i know believe this

Most state laws don't require that you "know" what is going on, they deal with what a reasonable person would believe based on what they observed.

Some states don't do it that way, and only allow use of force in defense of a third party if the third party could have used that same level of force...must more risky to act on behalf of another in a jurisdiction like that.

Know your state's laws.

yes because the places where you can't carry a gun are the most glorious Utopians with the lowest violent crime rate

Thats why its best to call for backup and stay safe. You dont know wtf happen and better to not make it even worse

Unless you saw it from the beginning and know whos good/bad

the fact you think youneedto carry a gun whenever you leave your house shows two things

1) where you live is a sh*thole full of low lives (you also live there so guess what that makes you!)

2) youre a pussy

That's why you need to know your state's laws and act in accordance with them, and be reasonable.

Your opinion may be that standing there watching while not taking any intervening action is best, for you. Other people may not agree and may choose differently, and Thank God there are some people who will take necessary action.

No one would have needed to die if we banned pinning cops to the ground

the freedom to choose to carry a gun =/= 'needing' to carry a gun.

you sound like you got pistol whipped as a child

its ok, tune in to MSNBC and rachael maddow will make it all better, i heard shes great with a strap-on

sounds like youre taking full advantage of the freedom to be a cuck b*tch too

If you want to take the safest possible approach, shoot the guy, and don't stop shooting until you're out of bullets. I agree.

I'm just giving my opinion of what I'd do if I was in hero's shoes, at least what I like to think i'd do, I can understand being in that situation and theorizing are two different things.

So i'm saying I'd do that, you're saying you'd shoot him. I agree your option is safer, that's unarguable.

By the end, the attacker is clearly just sitting on the officer with his hands off of the officer, talking with the hero.

I can't see how it was necessary to kill him, I really can't.

Yep, once he failed to respond to verbal commands and then the cop told me to shoot him it would've been a bullet in the head.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-15803860

Poverty UK cops couldnt stop 1 guy with a knife and received serious injuries. So tell me again how crime doesnt happen where you live moron

today i learned linking an article from a random country provides proof there is crime somewhere else in the world

A guy who's getting his ass kicked and telling you to shoot the guy who beat him up is not a good person to listen to, especially in the heat of the moment.

You guys really elevate the power of a cop, I mean some guys ITT are confusing the rules of the law with what's right morally.

It's shocking, some of you guys are talking as if for example you KNEW for 100% you could stop the attack without any injuries, that you'd STILL shoot the guy, BECAUSE it's allowed within the law.

Carry this badboy

"a guy"

Nobody is confusing rule of law with what is morally right.

Nice straw man too.

No moron its that crime will occur regardless of gun laws you idiot. Crime happens just as much in the UK and AUS where they banned guns. Remember the whole fact that the few thousand years before guns were invented there was still crime. God damn you are one of the most beta biches i have ever seen

amazes me that someone of your low intelligence is allowed to own firearms