Punk uses potato as silencer...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I never said it was ok for innocent people to get killed. I'm just saying that for every mistake made, there are many more where the cops have the right house and make a legit bust and arrest. We just don't hear about when the police do their job correctly. We, more than not, only hear about it when the cops mess up.
 
The potato silencer idea was from a book.

I'll have to think a long time to remember the title. I believe it was an IRA assassin who used a potato at the end of his .22lr pistol to supress the shot.
 
Five Feet?

"I shot three or four times," Garland said. Although less than five feet separated the two men, only one round struck Johnson, who began screaming for help.
Only five feet?

Dude.

Time for a little trip to the range.

And a pistol course.

Luck will only carry you so far.
 
After reading this I have gotten a couple of more guns put out, and placed them around my house inside of books made for that purpose, and a few good locations, plus a potato peeler just in case:cool:
 
why were those criminals not charged with attempted murder.

Shooting a gun at a person is (unless it is in self defense)attempting to kill them in my book
 
If you are going to serve a high risk warrant or do a bust, every second counts and waiting 5 minutes after announcing your presence can get some good cops killed.

This is a bit silly, but I would agree that it should be protocol for PO's to turn their lights in line with your front door, that way you know its a PO breaking into your house...Obviously if it is a sneak attack, there should be one guy waiting back in the car for a signal to turn them on right as someone is breaking in the door.

But I have to ask, what PO is going to bust in your door if you have not done anything wrong?

Call me crazy, but if someone busts open my door in the middle of the night, I am shooting first and asking questions later. God help me and the innocent cop that gets killed over some prank call or misunderstanding(wrong address etc.)

why were those criminals not charged with attempted murder.

The question of the day. :confused:
 
Well, a lot of high risk warrants are usually served by a detective and the SWAT team so they don't always lights they can kick on. Also, they tend to repeatedly identify themselves as police as they come busting through the door.

I guess all I was trying to say is that mistakes happen. Of course when they happen like that, mistakes can get innocent people killed.

Look at it this way though, if you were told that there is a guy on the other side of the door you are looking at who has killed several people in the recent past and will most likely shoot you the moment you go through the door, then in retrospect you find out you went in the wrong door, you only have your training and judgement to go on. Sometimes, training and judgement based on inaccurate intel results in innocent people getting caught in the crossfire.

It's not like the cops think things like "This guy is just a regular guy who hasn't committed a crime any worse than a speeding ticket, but I just want to bust in there and shoot anything that moves because my mommy didn't hug me enough".
 
That's the problem with no-knocks: mistakes DO happen, criminals DO use the same tactics, and innocent people DO get scared silly/hurt/killed...

If we applied the same reliability standards to no-knocks as we do to our choice of defensive arms, no-knocks would've ended long ago. There are FAR to many places in the current system for them to fail.

High risk situations? Sure. What about the folks who have been injured or killed because the cops were at the wrong address (for whatever reason)? Do they get explained away as "omelets and eggs"?

And is that attitude proper, when you aren't talking "officer safety", but "evidence safety"? Let's be honest: most of the time, the justification for a no-knock is to keep evidence from being destroyed, NOT to "improve officer safety"...

Ok... off my soapbox now...
 
Oleg I very much like the concept, but I think I would use the term "hardened criminals" or similar instead of "gangbangers". That person looks like a gangbanger as much as I look like a chihuahua. A criminal that could pull off that look probably has some funds and knowledge, unlike your typical GBer.
 
we did not have to do this 40 years ago. what changed? criminals were every bit as dangerous back then.
Criminals now days are more cowardly than before. Fist fights don't settle man-to-man scores anymore. Crooks hide behind family members and execute others (and cops) only when they know the victim or their families are unable to defend themselves. They quickly give up when they know they have a justified beatdown coming. They run for hours on end, endangering everyone around, even when they know they can never getaway from a police persuit with a helo involved. They probably learned all this from their parent, who after their arrest/conviction/death claim "he was a good boy and never did anything wrong. Let's blame society/police/abuse/lack of a second parent, etc."

I know I got my woopings from my Dad when I was wrong. And when the cops came to the house for things we did, we were made to stand front and center to take our licks. Criminal households these days aren't like the old days. Deny, lie, shift blame is the game today.

There is a substantial difference between a warrant service and a visit.

In CA, unless there is some high level of risk, or exigency/urgency, warrants have to wait after 10pm until morning. I don't think any cop would dive through a window under threat of gunfire to save any evidence. Maybe save a life, but not evidence. Just some clues to tell the difference- should a pre-pubencent on your porch starts yelling in a cracking voice "Police! Open up! We'll shoot!" grab your gun.

Justin
 
Never seen any evidence that the potato silencer works. Doesn't make any scientific sense to me. Probably just an urban legend. The one that really DOES work (up to 10mm that I know of) is wrapping a towel around the barrel.
 
I never said it was ok for innocent people to get killed. I'm just saying that for every mistake made, there are many more where the cops have the right house and make a legit bust and arrest. We just don't hear about when the police do their job correctly. We, more than not, only hear about it when the cops mess up.
You don't hear about it when most people do their job right. Screw ups are what makes the news. Devon Hester running back a punt for a TD is the exception where doing your job right makes the news.

So what level of police mistakes (or malfeasance as in the recent Atlanta case) are acceptable to you? 1 in 3? 1 in 10? Or is it always Ok as long as it happens to someone else and not you?
 
On second thought, why get (or stay) involved in this at all?
 
Last edited:
I knew Oleg wasn't cop bashing because the hat on the person in the poster says, "SVAT"

This could also mean that the budget-constrained department bought surplus hats from an agency in Minsk.

Said agency laid off their entire "SVAT" team, and now solely focuses on "plotting beeg trouble for Moose and Squirrel"...
 
Oleg's post comes awful close to cop bashing by some definitions here. He may have to ban himself.

On some sites maybe. But, that's pretty mild for THR.
 
Scalloped Potatoes with Ham.

Maybe they could try a hunk of ham to go with their potatoes. You've certainly heard of "Silence of the Hams".
 
Roccobro wrote:

I know I got my woopings from my Dad when I was wrong. And when the cops came to the house for things we did, we were made to stand front and center to take our licks. Criminal households these days aren't like the old days. Deny, lie, shift blame is the game today.

Sounds like the MO of the Clinton household.
 
So what level of police mistakes (or malfeasance as in the recent Atlanta case) are acceptable to you? 1 in 3? 1 in 10? Or is it always Ok as long as it happens to someone else and not you?

What is acceptable to me personally is irrelevant. Again, I did not say killing an innocent was OK. What I am saying is mistakes happen. People screw up.

Welcome to the real world.

Things don't always go as planned and sometimes people get hurt or killed. If it were a perfect world, we wouldn't need law enforcement because everyone would obey the laws. But it's not a perfect world, so we have law enforcement who, like everybody else on this planet, are human beings who make mistakes and screw up. Some are corrupt, like in any organization, but not all.

Up until recently, this forum had a steady flow of cop bashing and a lot of people seeming to claim that all cops are just jack booted thugs with a badge and a gun who are out solely to screw with the lives of the law abiding citizens of this country. I'm glad the moderators got tired of that paranoid BS because "The man is out to get me" statements just make people, who just happen to come across the forum while surfing, think we are all just foil hat wearing nuts who have dangerous guns and its only a matter of time before we use those guns to shoot at random people.

Police officers screw up like everybody else. They have a tough job. They go to work every day knowing that there is a chance that they might not make it home again because some crackhead who doesn't want a speeding ticket decides to put a bullet in their chest when the police officer was making a "routine traffic stop".

I'm not excusing the mistakes that are made. I just accept the fact that s**t happens. If it happens to me some day, so be it.
 
Up until recently, this forum had a steady flow of cop bashing and a lot of people seeming to claim that all cops are just jack booted thugs with a badge and a gun who are out solely to screw with the lives of the law abiding citizens of this country. I'm glad the moderators got tired of that paranoid BS because "The man is out to get me" statements just make people, who just happen to come across the forum while surfing, think we are all just foil hat wearing nuts who have dangerous guns and its only a matter of time before we use those guns to shoot at random people.

It also had people: stating they were pro-cop 100% of the time, regardless of the facts; people who equated non-cops with animals who would bite the hand that fed them; and people who would lie about being the first ones to denouncue a bad cop, and yet would never enter a thread in which actual police abuse was shown.

If we want to deal with historical problems, we need to deal with all the facts.
 
As I said: if we applied the same reliability requirements to no-knocks that we apply to our choice of defensive weapon, then such raids would've gone the way of the dodo (as they're about as reliable as the Lorcin y'all laughed about at the pawn shop).

Since they ARE so dangerous (for both the police and the citizenry at large), don't y'all think pushing for curbs on their use might be a good idea?
 
yes, that's true.

I'm not personally saying that cops are right all the time and when there is actual abuse by the police, then the cops deserve to be punished. All I was saying is there is a difference between making a mistake and intentionally causing harm to one who doesn't deserve it.
 
Originally posted by USAFNoDAK: Roccobro wrote:

I know I got my woopings from my Dad when I was wrong. And when the cops came to the house for things we did, we were made to stand front and center to take our licks. Criminal households these days aren't like the old days. Deny, lie, shift blame is the game today.

Sounds like the MO of the Clinton household.

Not to mention the Republican party in my opinion.

Seriously though so many generalizations were being made without any evidence to back them up. Does anyone have evidence that criminals today are more violent then before? How about the claims put forth in the quote above? That criminals parents are criminals. If we go with that line of thought then we could kill every criminal and live within a crime free society as it seems that criminals breed.
 
Originally posted by OpFlash: Oleg I very much like the concept, but I think I would use the term "hardened criminals" or similar instead of "gangbangers". That person looks like a gangbanger as much as I look like a chihuahua. A criminal that could pull off that look probably has some funds and knowledge, unlike your typical GBer.
What is your typical gangbanger? How do they look?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top