Well, the point is to take him out and subdue him without giving him a chance to defend himself. Being a clothed officer and doing this makes this possibility not possible. And therefore if you do approach him dressed as an officer, it gives him a chance to defend, and his defense is a gun... it's clearly safer to approach not in uniform.

The clip even shows this is the case, also watch the clip again, you'll see the barrel of the gun is literally pointing directly at one officer at one point. They're lucky none of them got shot.

Anyway, it's without question that subduing him in civilian clothing is safer. This isn't even arguable. I mean the CIA do this stuff all the time. In fact imagine some CIA bro's tailing a target in a uniform that let the person they wanted know who they were. That's clearly silly. This case is literally the same, except it's not cia bro's, it's police bros. The logic is the same though.

This situation is different from pulling over law abiding citizens without wearing identifying police uniforms, due to the fact they know the person is a criminal.

I don't like authorities having any more power than they need to... but I have no issue with them wearing civilian clothing to take down a known criminal.

But even with all this said, and you live in a world of paranoia... and using your own arguments against you here... you said you're not even inclined to pull over if a cop car turns on their lights to pull you over. Then why would you be any more likely to believe a clothed cop subduing a person at a gas station is in fact actually a cop, and not a criminal wearing cop clothing?

You go with probabilities, maybe 1 in 1000 times you'll get juked, and a criminal is pretending to be a cop. Or you just assume the person presenting as a cop is not a cop, hit the gas... get into a a situation where actually cops are now chasing you down the highway at 100miles per hour.

Your arguments just seem unreasonable to me. Sure it's possible a guy subduing another guy in a gas station while shouting "I'm an undercover cop, he's a criminal"... is juking you, and he's actually a criminal that is kidnapping a guy. But surely you don't think that's as likely as the guy actually being a cop by any close margin. Especially given the fact that this altercation would last all of 10 seconds before actual clothed officers came rushing into the gas station. But what, the clothed officers rushing in are actually criminals dressed as cops... and there's this conspiracy to kidnap this poor fellow at the gas station? It's just an absurd way to go about life. Possible? Sure. Likely? Not even close.

Nah anyone that puts a gun to a dogs head deserves to be filled with lead.


Negged you dumb *******

Nah anyone that puts a gun to a dogs head deserves to be filled with lead.


Negged you dumb *******

Literally retarded and arguing against an unargued point

Quote where I said he didn't deserve to be shot.

Neg me every time you can, bitch boy. Care = 0. Literally 0. Literally stroking my cock and flicking pre-cum over your avatar right now.

Next time you're hanging out with friends that aren't prudes... try this.

Learn how to put someone in a full nelson.
Walk up behind your friend when they're not expecting it an put them in a full nelson.

They're not getting out of it in 30 seconds, their response to resist isn't going to be instant either, they'll literally be in a dominated position before they even know what has happened.

An unsuspecting target is a sitting duck, you don't just turn into Neo from the matrix and respond with instant perfect defense... if you're unsuspecting, you're entirely ****ed. Even the best Ju-Jitsu players in the world would be ****ed if another competent person got the jump on them while they didn't expect it. Utterly ****ed, there's literally not even a defense to be had. Just ****ed.

Neg me every time you can, bitch boy. Care = 0. Literally 0. Literally stroking my cock and flicking pre-cum over your avatar right now.

And this is alarming and speaks to a philosophical problem with American policing. The police are not the CIA. They are not at war with the citizens of their communities. I'm sure there are some really terrible citizens in those communities, but this kind of comparison is just a little too authoritarian for me. "The CIA do this stuff all the time" isn't convincing, that's terrifying.

I know you're being earnest, but can you think of a difference between a public gas station and a non-lit rural road, as it pertains to the safety of a single female passenger?

LOL I"m fine if they seem unreasonable, I'm really enjoying this chat even if what you're saying isn't quite clicking for me either but it's just a chat and you're a nice fellow to converse with

Can you share more about my living in a world of paranoia? This is gaslighing, light. I am not crazy. The dude I mentioned above was fired and subsequently arrested for the crimes I said he committed. It's not paranoia when time and time again these guys make the dumbest, most impulsive choices on the planet.

I think this is a funny time to mention my own father, a retired fed, has drilled into my brain all of the above.

Not saying you have paranoia, just saying it's paranoid thinking to assume that if a person in a cop car flashing their lights to pull you over... to assume they're not actually a cop. Chances of them being some criminal in a cop car is like a million to 1, compared to it most probably being a cop. Not saying you should pull over either, do what you want. But I'm with you on how you don't like authority having power, etc. The last time a cop tried speaking to me with an authoritive tone, I acted like they weren't even there. They're just people. And I don't even care for 'the law' if I'm honest, the law is just made by people, and there's nothing to say that I should respect law... just other people saying I should respect law. Anyway, this is a whole other topic.

The cia comparison was an analogy. And the police were actually at war with that perticular citizen in a sense. Not with all citizens... but they needed to use force on that particular citizen.. which is essentially going to war with that particular citizen. So in these specific cases... police appearing as citizens is justified. The only thing they'd be doing is stepping on a criminals rights perhaps. But it's a criminal.

Imagine there was a school shooter or something, and there was a cop in non cop attire... do you care if the cop gets to shooter in a full nelson? The wanted criminal isn't a school shooter... but he was a threat to society. I'm curious why it matters for you if they're in uniform or not when they're taking out a KNOWN criminal. Not to be confused with them not being in uniform for everyday policing with law abiding citizens. There is a difference there

If I saw this I would assume it was a kidnapping, and I would respond.

I'm also trying to imagine the absolute meltdown that would have happened if in your scenario, if he hip threw the guy, or if the guy actually trained and pushes a nose through a skull. I really don't grasp the whole concept of plain clothes taking police actions. It seems like a really good way to get shot in the head, like that poor kid who basically got car jacked by a cop and the cop fired a bunch of rounds into his car when the kid (rightfully!) sped away. Poor dear thought he was being kidnapped.


especially at a gas station. I'm probably most aware of my surroundings when pumping gas.

That's actually not my assumption! I should have been more clear. Whether or not they are a cop or not, I do not trust anyone with a gun, male or female, to stop my vehicle in the middle of nowhere.

Can you think of the difference between an active school shooter and a man walking through a gas station parking lot with a slurpee? I'm not being sarcastic, I don't know if we are thinking about this in the same way.

That kid didn't think he was being car jacked.he ran away and got away from the same same cop the day before.but no he shouldn't of shot that kid.but let's not pretend the kid didn't know what he was doing.

Yeah, well, I don't blame you for not wanting/not pulling over in the middle of nowhere... just because it's a cop pulling you over, there's still a chance they'll get you in a full nelson. I get that. Especially as a woman. If I was a woman, I'd be paranoid all the time of being put in a full nelson.

The man walking through the gas station parking lot with a slurpee is much easier to take out without anyone getting injured or killed. My analogies are extreme, but they're only extreme to more easily prove a point. That's the point of an analogy. I used to analogy to show that there's obviously times were it's appropriate to take out a criminal while not wearing police attire.

Let me ask you this, just to be clear -

Do you think police should never be allowed to take down a criminal without first informing the criminal that they are the police?

I can’t think of a better way for police to be on their bull**** again and claim victimhood and compensation for their own retarded fuk ups. To answer your question, yes. My perspective is protecting the police from themselves. They’re too stupid to do it for themselves and I prefer not paying outrageous settlements for these men.

There's many situations where it's advantageous for society as a whole if police go undercover. I will have to disagree with you on this one.

Imagine there was a serial full nelson rapist on the loose, and the only way to catch him(or her, I guess) was to have an undercover officer pose as a potential victim. You'd be against that? Wouldn't be possible to catch said Full Nelson serial rapist if the police identify themselves as police to lure said person into a bust.

Police are allowed to do undercover operations, but they are heavily scrutinized. You have to be aware of the possibility of entrapment and also of people using it as an excuse to cover for crime since there is no way for citizens to understand who is and is not legitimate. It is harder to fake a legitimate uniform and badge. You also need to consider the officer's safety. We impose high penalties for the murder of officers, but if an officer is in plain clothes, there is nothing to deter his murder in the context of criminal activity beyond that of an ordinary citizen.

It's a risk assessment thing.

There's risk with every option.

My argument is the way they handled it enabled more risk, than if they subdued the guy in civilian clothing. My analogy using how the cia dress as civilians to take down targets was to prove that this is true. If it was safer and more effective for them to wear CIA attire to take down a target, then they would. We can all understand and agree that it's clearly fking stupid for the CIA to wear CIA attire when taking down a suspect... but we seem to have a blindsight with our thinking here (at least in this thread), in agreeing that it's safer and more effective to take down a target while wearing civilian clothing.

If this WAS NOT the case, why don't the CIA take down their targets while wearing CIA attire?

The answer is obviously... it's not effective, nor safe to do so.

Same applies here.

What exactly do you think the CIA does? The CIA ARE civilians. That's the entire point. They use military operatives sometimes, but they are a civilian organization. And they don't generally try to nab bad guys like you see in the movies. IRL, CIA are the bad guys and funnel money around working closely with organized criminals and mercenaries overseas to get what they want done.

I swear analogies go over your guys heads. I'll use none known labels/organizations.

Team A uses 'X Method' on a person because it's the maximally effective and safest way to achieve their goal.
Team B wants to achieve the same goal as Team A, team A are sitting out for the day.

Should Team B use 'X Method' too, if their goal is to maximally effectively and maximally safely achieve their goal?

Except I am arguing Team A's alleged method actually isn't maximally effective. You think Team A uses this method because you see it in movies. This method actually carries with it profound risks, which is why Team B does it the way they have done it.

One of them nearly got shot the way they did it. Literally a hair away from not existing anymore.

I really don't know how it can be argued that getting that guy in a full nelson isn't safer. Or even literally a few of them tackling him with zero warning... either option is safer.

Tell me, literally just tell me how the method they used is safer, let me lay it out -

POINT GUN AT MAN
GIVE HIM TIME TO REACH FOR HIS GUN
ALLOW HIM TO POINT GUN AT ONE OF YOU

Really, tell me how the fuk that is safer.

On a population level, over a large number of situations, police who are not clearly identified as law enforcement are more likely to be inadvertently killed while performing raids.

Raids are not the same as this scenario.

Tell me how a raid is the same as this scenario.

Literally.

Literally put yourself in a full nelson right now, and tell me how those two scenarios are the same.

They were right to inform him they were police. They were right to pursue. When he drew a gun, they should have shot him. Like the moment they saw a gun drawn, they should have absolutely lit him up.

I agree, shoulda shot him the moment he pulled a gun. I think they waited to long.

They were not right to inform him they were police, they were incredibly foolish and put their lives in more danger than necessary to do so.

And they put that poor dogs life in danger.

No. If they had not told him they were police, he could have argued he was being harassed and threatened and that he thought he was being robbed or would be murdered. In fact, the fact that he ran and drew a gun could actually be defended IF they didn't identify themselves as officers and weren't wearing uniforms, which is my entire point.

Fleeing and drawing a gun are appropriate if an armed group of men in normal clothes approach you with guns drawn, aggressively. If they are unambiguously police, it is no longer appropriate.

It ain't about the dog. It's that he could have shot someone. The dog doesn't matter at all.

No, no.

They don't approach him in normal clothing with guns drawn.

**** me, that's the point... he doesn't know he's getting approached at all before it's too late and he's in a full nelson.

Why the fuk would they approach him in the same way but in normal clothing? That's retarded.

I'm done... jsut fkin done.

Logic zero, actually minus zero.

You know when you divid zero by zero in a calculator and the calculator is like "you fkin moron, makes no sense"

That is how I feel right now. But not that you're a moron, or the fkin part. You seem nice.

Just a bit **** with this

I'm gone. Bye.

After the fact. The point is he is a SUSPECT. They could have a mistaken identity or may inadvertently have the wrong guy out there. Any number of things can happen which could spiral out of control if it isn't clear they are cops and acting with authority.