NYPD pulls you over - you know the drill. [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : NYPD pulls you over - you know the drill.


Gallium
10-04-2012, 17:33
Yeah, play seriously stupid games with ESU out on warrants' arrests and you're going to bag an all expense one way paid trip to Darwin Island.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-shot-police-laguardia-airport-article-1.1174664

MasterShake
10-04-2012, 17:35
Get butt naked?

concretefuzzynuts
10-04-2012, 17:51
That was a poorly written article. What has happened to journalism?

boozer
10-04-2012, 18:24
"Note to self",

When being pulled over at five a.m. while speeding, don't reach for my drill, no matter how appropriate it may seem.

skew12
10-04-2012, 18:33
Completely justified IMO.

And wtf did that last paragraph have to do with anything?

Detectorist
10-04-2012, 19:08
I'm not so sure that should be considered a good shoot. Many folks get nervous when stopped by a cop.

Patchman
10-04-2012, 19:11
Alcohol only increases stupidity. That cop asleep in the back seat needs to go.

*ASH*
10-04-2012, 19:17
should have tea bagged them

Patchman
10-04-2012, 19:19
I'm not so sure that should be considered a good shoot. Many folks get nervous when stopped by a cop.

Maybe some people do, but clutching a drill next to you like a security blanket won't ease the nervousness any. Trust me on this one. :supergrin:

Anyway, of all the things that end up under a car seat, how'd a drill get there? Cord or cordless? Crazy. Crazy. Crazy. And tragic.

nursetim
10-04-2012, 19:20
Suicide by cop maybe?

PaulMason
10-04-2012, 19:24
"Note to self",

When being pulled over at five a.m. while speeding, don't reach for my drill, no matter how appropriate it may seem.

A throw down drill?

I think NYC might be paying out some money on this one.

boomhower
10-05-2012, 05:46
Dude runs, refuses to stop, only does so once blocked by another unit, instead of putting hands up reaches for an object under his seat.(last part depending on who you believe) Certainly not the actions of a normal person.

KalashniKEV
10-05-2012, 07:31
I'm seriously doubting he went for the DeWalt after being pulled over by an unmarked car.

Also, worth noting is that a lot of the unmarked cars are foreign made beaters that look nothing like a police car. My father was Queens Narcotics for almost his whole career and drove a Suzuki Grand Vitara for a good part of it.

m2hmghb
10-05-2012, 07:39
I'm seriously doubting he went for the DeWalt after being pulled over by an unmarked car.

Also, worth noting is that a lot of the unmarked cars are foreign made beaters that look nothing like a police car. My father was Queens Narcotics for almost his whole career and drove a Suzuki Grand Vitara for a good part of it.

Did you notice it was ESU? They don't do stakeouts they use unmarked to roll up to a house to do a warrant. I don't doubt he reached down for something one bit, hell the drill could have hit his leg when he stopped, we don't know.

JBnTX
10-05-2012, 07:46
There's something seriously "wrong" with that entire story.
There's something we're not being told, or somebody's lying?

..

KalashniKEV
10-05-2012, 07:48
Did you notice it was ESU? They don't do stakeouts they use unmarked to roll up to a house to do a warrant. I don't doubt he reached down for something one bit, hell the drill could have hit his leg when he stopped, we don't know.

Yeah, noticed that of course. I think that they were probably out of their lane doing a "reckless driving" traffic stop and that's part of what lead to the bad EOF.

After that it's time to get the witness out of the car and off the scene and get creative. Most likely the drill was in the trunk or not in the car at all.

PaulMason
10-05-2012, 07:51
There's something seriously "wrong" with that entire story.
There's something we're not being told, or somebody's lying?

..

Unless they can show a jury that the driver was seriously stoned, based upon the article, NYC will be paying.

Who is going to believe a military reservist is going to pull an electric drill from under his seat when being stopped by a emergency services van and a police officer with a gun.

What was the driver thinking he would accomplish with the drill? Pull it out and say to the police "Stop or I'll drill you!" The police then have a good laugh and let him go.

TBO
10-05-2012, 07:57
Unless they can show a jury that the driver was seriously stoned, based upon the article, NYC will be paying.

Who is going to believe a military reservist is going to pull an electric drill from under his seat when being stopped by a emergency services van and a police officer with a gun.

What was the driver thinking he would accomplish with the drill? Pull it out and say to the police "Stop or I'll drill you!" The police then have a good laugh and let him go.

How about Eric Scott, the "squared away West Point military Vet" who was a pain med abuser shot dead at Costco after pulling his concealed carry permit pistol on the cops?

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

PaulMason
10-05-2012, 08:00
How about Eric Scott, the "squared away West Point military Vet" who was a pain med abuser shot dead at Costco after pulling his concealed carry permit pistol on the cops?

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Yes, how about Eric Scott? Tell us how the facts in that case relate to what we currently know about the New York case.

KalashniKEV
10-05-2012, 08:20
Yes, how about Eric Scott? Tell us how the facts in that case relate to what we currently know about the New York case.

It's similar in that police gunned down a (in this case, former) member of the military and then went on the record with fraudulent testimony.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/slaying-of-army-veteran-shocks-friends-98223884.html

The witnesses saw no gun in hand, no gun on the ground. Police destroyed the tapes and said he came out brandishing a gun to cover up a bad EOF.

Later, the pain meds thing was thrown on, because... well... it's something. If it wasn't that it would have been "Suspected Child Pornography" for a GGW or Raven Riley video on his home computer. It is critical to assassinate the victims character in public to chase away any potential supporters seeking justice.

Also the "Coroner's Inquest" proceedings in Las Vegas are a clown court- they have never ever come across a bad shoot since their inception in 1976 after reviewing hundreds of cases.

Mushinto
10-05-2012, 10:03
Insufficient information in poorly written story.

Anyone who can decide who was right after reading this article, had it already decided before they began reading.

Patchman
10-05-2012, 10:03
Unless they can show a jury that the driver was seriously stoned, based upon the article, NYC will be paying.

Who is going to believe a military reservist is going to pull an electric drill from under his seat when being stopped by a emergency services van and a police officer with a gun.

What was the driver thinking he would accomplish with the drill? Pull it out and say to the police "Stop or I'll drill you!" The police then have a good laugh and let him go.


The "witness" in the car is partial. She served the driver and the other passenger shots of cognac before they got into the car. I'll bet it didn't stop at just one or two shots of cognac either.

I believe in NY there is law making it unlawful for a bartender to knowingly serve a drunk... much less let him drive.

This same witness also admitted that they were going to pull over but then the traffic opened up and the driver took off again.

Military reservist drinking shots of cognac don't make bad decisions? Hell, even SF qualified, West Pointer full of pain medications makes bad decisions.

PaulMason
10-05-2012, 10:18
The "witness" in the car is partial. She served the driver and the other passenger shots of cognac before they got into the car. I'll bet it didn't stop at just one or two shots of cognac either.

I believe in NY there is law making it unlawful for a bartender to knowingly serve a drunk... much less let him drive.

This same witness also admitted that they were going to pull over but then the traffic opened up and the driver took off again.

Military reservist drinking shots of cognac don't make bad decisions? Hell, even SF qualified, West Pointer full of pain medications makes bad decisions.

You're a little of the way there.

NYC will need to convince a jury that the driver somehow was so impaired/hallucinating/paranoid that he thought it was a good idea to reach under his seat and pull out an electric drill against an armed police officer.

That two passengers got in the car with him doesn't make it sound that way.

I think NYC will be paying out some $.

zoyter2
10-05-2012, 11:19
Insufficient information in poorly written story.

Anyone who can decide who was right after reading this article, had it already decided before they began reading.

I was on the verge of trying to find out how to post a 3 option poll..

1) I am an idiot and always swear cops are dirty no matter what.

2) I am an idiot and always swear cops are righteous, no matter what.

3) THAT was an article in a real news source? How pitiful.

Altaris
10-05-2012, 11:44
Insufficient information in poorly written story.

Anyone who can decide who was right after reading this article, had it already decided before they began reading.


I agree. I am still trying to figure out what actually took place in that poorly written story.

AK_Stick
10-05-2012, 12:02
You're a little of the way there.

NYC will need to convince a jury that the driver somehow was so impaired/hallucinating/paranoid that he thought it was a good idea to reach under his seat and pull out an electric drill against an armed police officer.

That two passengers got in the car with him doesn't make it sound that way.

I think NYC will be paying out some $.



Not to mention, an NYPD officer is stating they just shot him, with no mention him pulling a drill, or any sort of issues.

I think they're going to lose this one, though it sounds like the guy wasn't the brightest bulb either.

TBO
10-05-2012, 12:21
It's similar in that police gunned down a (in this case, former) member of the military and then went on the record with fraudulent testimony.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/slaying-of-army-veteran-shocks-friends-98223884.html

The witnesses saw no gun in hand, no gun on the ground. Police destroyed the tapes and said he came out brandishing a gun to cover up a bad EOF.

Later, the pain meds thing was thrown on, because... well... it's something. If it wasn't that it would have been "Suspected Child Pornography" for a GGW or Raven Riley video on his home computer. It is critical to assassinate the victims character in public to chase away any potential supporters seeking justice.

Also the "Coroner's Inquest" proceedings in Las Vegas are a clown court- they have never ever come across a bad shoot since their inception in 1976 after reviewing hundreds of cases.

You are as polished as Obama at making up "facts".

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Beware Owner
10-05-2012, 12:42
I was on the verge of trying to find out how to post a 3 option poll..

1) I am an idiot and always swear cops are dirty no matter what.

2) I am an idiot and always swear cops are righteous, no matter what.

3) THAT was an article in a real news source? How pitiful.

Unfortunately, most people here only opt for 1 or 2.

Glocksanity
10-05-2012, 15:01
Cops serve the state, not the people.

Patchman
10-05-2012, 15:49
NYC will need to convince a jury that the driver somehow was so impaired/hallucinating/paranoid that he thought it was a good idea to reach under his seat and pull out an electric drill against an armed police officer.

That two passengers got in the car with him doesn't make it sound that way.

I didn't realize the sleeping cop made any statements that made the papers. I'm guessing she was more "passed out" than "sleeping." In any case, what's she going to say... that yeah the driver was drunk but she didn't do anything to stop him from driving?

As for the bartender, what's she going to say except he didn't appear drunk? Otherwise she broke the law by serving to a drunk.

So for both of them, they'd have every reason to say he didn't look drunk to them.

Peace Warrior
10-05-2012, 16:31
There's something seriously "wrong" with that entire story.
There's something we're not being told, or somebody's lying?

..
Me too. The Cop who shot this guy also cost the taxpayers $285,000 for "jumping the gun" before.

I highly doubt you reach for a drill when three people, two of which have rifles, already have the drop on you. I'm leaning towards another mistake made by the shooter as he has done similar in the past, but no one has all the facts yet.

Eurodriver
10-05-2012, 16:37
Innocent man murdered in cold blood by the boys in blue...again.

Is anyone surprised? Just lock the thread already. Cops can do no wrong.

RussP
10-05-2012, 16:42
It's similar in that police gunned down a (in this case, former) member of the military and then went on the record with fraudulent testimony.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/slaying-of-army-veteran-shocks-friends-98223884.html

The witnesses saw no gun in hand, no gun on the ground. Police destroyed the tapes and said he came out brandishing a gun to cover up a bad EOF.

Later, the pain meds thing was thrown on, because... well... it's something. If it wasn't that it would have been "Suspected Child Pornography" for a GGW or Raven Riley video on his home computer. It is critical to assassinate the victims character in public to chase away any potential supporters seeking justice.

Also the "Coroner's Inquest" proceedings in Las Vegas are a clown court- they have never ever come across a bad shoot since their inception in 1976 after reviewing hundreds of cases.Wow...I'm with TBO...You are as polished as Obama at making up "facts".You certainly have a whole lot more information than anyone else about the Scott case. Where did you read all that information? Please, do share your sources.

ChinaCave
10-05-2012, 16:50
PSA -

If you Drink, don't drill (http://home.earthlink.net/~foghornj/drinkand.html)

PaulMason
10-05-2012, 17:02
I didn't realize the sleeping cop made any statements that made the papers. I'm guessing she was more "passed out" than "sleeping." In any case, what's she going to say... that yeah the driver was drunk but she didn't do anything to stop him from driving?

As for the bartender, what's she going to say except he didn't appear drunk? Otherwise she broke the law by serving to a drunk.

So for both of them, they'd have every reason to say he didn't look drunk to them.

Are you talking about the cop waving her creds outside the window before the shooting, mentioned in the story?

What they will say is that the driver didn't appear drunk to them or they wouldn't have gotten in the car and tried to prevent him from driving if he did.

I don't think 'drunk' is the threshold. NYC will need to convince a jury that the driver somehow was so impaired/hallucinating/paranoid that he thought it was a good idea to reach under his seat and pull out an electric drill against an armed police officer. A blood test should help to clear that up.

Glocksanity
10-05-2012, 17:23
Innocent man murdered in cold blood by the boys in blue...again.

Is anyone surprised? Just lock the thread already. Cops can do no wrong.

Pretty much.

They came out guns blazing. For a guy who cut them off.

Cops protect and serve their masters, not the people. They are the front line of protection for the politicians and their elite controllers.

TBO
10-05-2012, 17:26
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/TheeBadOne/TBO/bigmouth.gif

Glocksanity
10-05-2012, 17:38
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v90/TheeBadOne/TBO/bigmouth.gif

That gif conjures up images of paid shills trolling forums with propaganda talking points.

All these cops with so many posts, when is there time to actually work?

Angry Fist
10-05-2012, 17:45
TBO is an internet cop. You'll never see his hat. :tbo:

Ohio Copper
10-05-2012, 17:58
Cops-1
Idiot -0

Same tired story, same players.


Sent from my PKE meter.

Gallium
10-05-2012, 17:58
I suspect fracking is going to get a 2nd look here in NY.

Ohio Copper
10-05-2012, 17:58
That gif conjures up images of paid shills trolling forums with propaganda talking points.

All these cops with so many posts, when is there time to actually work?

It's tough having four days off every other week...


Sent from my PKE meter.

mymini40
10-05-2012, 17:59
Cops arent always right.Nice shooting at an unarmed civilian.Good work!

PaulMason
10-05-2012, 18:15
How many cops does it take to throw a man down the stairs???













None. He fell.

Peace Warrior
10-05-2012, 18:33
How many cops does it take to throw a man down the stairs???

None. He fell.

:rofl:

Peace Warrior
10-05-2012, 18:35
Yeah, play seriously stupid games with ESU out on warrants' arrests and you're going to bag an all expense one way paid trip to Darwin Island.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/man-shot-police-laguardia-airport-article-1.1174664
I was making tea and missed it the first couple times.

I NOW see what you did there (i.e., the title).

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

TBO
10-05-2012, 18:52
I used to be amused by the "does it make sense" crowd, not any more.
I understand that thought process from those w/o relevant experience, but the failure to learn has to be an intentional refusal.

Look how many times in a thread dealing with people's actions /reactions we here that line by the usual suspects, only to have news updates provide information that substantiates the official line.

Most recently, the handcuffed guy who shot himself in the back of a squad. Pages of accusations /assumptions, yet no learning from that, or other cases. Just the same biased (no longer ignorant) statements /claims.

jmho

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

PaulMason
10-05-2012, 19:03
I used to be amused by the "does it make sense" crowd, not any more.
I understand that thought process from those w/o relevant experience, but the failure to learn has to be an intentional refusal.

Look how many times in a thread dealing with people's actions /reactions we here that line by the usual suspects, only to have news updates provide information that substantiates the official line.

Most recently, the handcuffed guy who shot himself in the back of a squad. Pages of accusations /assumptions, yet no learning from that, or other cases. Just the same biased (no longer ignorant) statements /claims.

jmho

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

No disagreement with most of that. "but the failure to learn has to be an intentional refusal" isn't what it is about.

But we can only go with the info we have.

If we waited for the official ruling, what would we we talk about? We would have to look at the first report, then somehow wait for the final ruling, post that and then discuss. Look someplace else then the net if you want such reasonable behavior.

TBO
10-05-2012, 19:15
No disagreement with most of that. "but the failure to learn has to be an intentional refusal" isn't what it is about.

But we can only go with the info we have.

If we waited for the official ruling, what would we we talk about? We would have to look at the first report, then somehow wait for the final ruling, post that and then discuss. Look someplace else then the net if you want such reasonable behavior.

That's not really what I'm taking issue with.
It's the intentionally disingenuous "why would a person.... Does it make sense a person..." etc.

You don't have to be a Cop to know there's no limit to what people may do, or how they'll react.
Read/watch news, AND remember.

Face eating Miami Zombie
Man injects narcotics into his unit
Man puts acid in his own eye
Woman kills full term mother, cuts baby out and takes it
Female astronaut wears diapers on cross country trip to kill lover of her man

Etc etc etc.

As a Cop you see even more. How about a guy eating his outran feces in a criminal court hearing. Was he crazy? Nope, just trying for a mistrial and set up a crazy man defense.

People do the damndest things, all the time.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

PaulMason
10-05-2012, 19:22
That's not really what I'm taking issue with.
It's the intentionally disingenuous "why would a person.... Does it make sense a person..." etc.

You don't have to be a Cop to know there's no limit to what people may do, or how they'll react.
Read/watch news, AND remember.

Face eating Miami Zombie
Man injects narcotics into his unit
Man puts acid in his own eye
Woman kills full term mother, cuts baby out and takes it
Female astronaut wears diapers on cross country trip to kill lover of her man

Etc etc etc.

As a Cop you see even more. How about a guy eating his outran feces in a criminal court hearing. Was he crazy? Nope, just trying for a mistrial and set up a crazy man defense.

People do the damndest things, all the time.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Good points. And it is difficult to know a person's motivation when posting - honest, have an agenda or ignorant of human behavior. I think that only comes out after several posts. Few people are good at hiding their intentions.
A person has to sift through a lot of shift to find a gem on a forum. And people who have those gems usually get tired of posting them and leave.

TBO
10-05-2012, 19:31
:cheers:

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

Peace Warrior
10-05-2012, 20:09
I used to be amused by the "does it make sense" crowd, not any more.
I understand that thought process from those w/o relevant experience, but the failure to learn has to be an intentional refusal.

Look how many times in a thread dealing with people's actions /reactions we here that line by the usual suspects, only to have news updates provide information that substantiates the official line.

Most recently, the handcuffed guy who shot himself in the back of a squad. Pages of accusations /assumptions, yet no learning from that, or other cases. Just the same biased (no longer ignorant) statements /claims.

jmho

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2
Great point. :whistling:

Even detectives never try to consider all the angles in events they investigate. In fact, they always go with the first thing their told by the actors "that are left" and run with it. Good thing too as no one wants detectives to intentionally refuse to learn so they believe what their told first. Yeah, that makes good sense... :upeyes:

TBO, to tackle it mentally, look at it this way, people will pick a side, just like you will pick a side. No one is right or wrong until the all facts come in. Then it is okay to admit to being wrong. It's not refusing to learn, it is choosing a side based on limited facts. Life experiences and prejudices come into play as well, but we are all only human.


ETA
That's not really what I'm taking issue with.
It's the intentionally disingenuous "why would a person.... Does it make sense a person..." etc.

You don't have to be a Cop to know there's no limit to what people may do, or how they'll react.
Read/watch news, AND remember.

Face eating Miami Zombie
Man injects narcotics into his unit
Man puts acid in his own eye
Woman kills full term mother, cuts baby out and takes it
Female astronaut wears diapers on cross country trip to kill lover of her man

Etc etc etc.

As a Cop you see even more. How about a guy eating his outran feces in a criminal court hearing. Was he crazy? Nope, just trying for a mistrial and set up a crazy man defense.

People do the damndest things, all the time.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2
mea culpa. never mind.

Ohio Copper
10-05-2012, 20:12
Great point. :whistling:

Even detectives never try to consider all the angles in events they investigate. In fact, they always go with the first thing their told by the actors "that are left" and run with it. Good thing too as no one wants detectives to intentionally refuse to learn so they believe what their told first. Yeah, that makes good sense... :upeyes:

TBO, to tackle it mentally, look at it this way, people will pick a side, just like you will pick a side. No one is right or wrong until the all facts come in. Then it is okay to admit to being wrong. It's not refusing to learn, it is choosing a side based on limited facts. Life experiences and prejudices come into play as well, but we are all only human.

What?


How many investigations have you been a part of?


Sent from my PKE meter.

Peace Warrior
10-05-2012, 20:13
What?


How many investigations have you been a part of?


Sent from my PKE meter.
Not as many as you.

Ohio Copper
10-05-2012, 20:18
Not as many as you.

Obviously.


Sent from my PKE meter.

Patchman
10-05-2012, 20:25
Great point.

TBO, to tackle it mentally, look at it this way, people will pick a side, just like you will pick a side. No one is right or wrong until the all facts come in. Then it is okay to admit to being wrong. It's not refusing to learn, it is choosing a side based on limited facts. Life experiences and prejudices come into play as well, but we are all only human.


ETA

mea culpa. never mind.


Life experience or relevant experiences?

If I'm the son of a MD, and have been a patient all my life, does it make me qualified to criticize the technical aspects of medical procedures?

If I've flown hundreds of hours as a passanger, does it qualify me to criticize a pilot's technical skills or the aircrew's?

And so on and so on and so on...

Ohio Copper
10-05-2012, 20:27
Life experience or relevant experiences?

If I'm the son of a MD, and have been a patient all my life, does it make me qualified to criticize the technical aspects of medical procedures?

If I've flown hundreds of hours as a passanger, does it qualify me to criticize a pilot's technical skills or the aircrew's?

Brother, please don't think about what he posts too much, it causes the brain to bleed!


Sent from my PKE meter.

Peace Warrior
10-06-2012, 13:22
Life experience or relevant experiences? ...
Answered in a word, "Yes."

One is a subset of the other, int his case, one's relevant experiences are a subset of one's overall life experiences.

However, the posters on this thread, which I was referring to in post, may not all have the relevant experiences on which to weigh the known facts, and this fact is what I was trying to point and delineate to TBO PRIOR to having read his follow up post.

... If I'm the son of a MD, and have been a patient all my life, does it make me qualified to criticize the technical aspects of medical procedures?

If I've flown hundreds of hours as a passanger, does it qualify me to criticize a pilot's technical skills or the aircrew's?

And so on and so on and so on...
Touch down! This is precisely what I was alluding to and think maybe you either either misread/misinterpreted what I wrote, or you have an axe to grind.

If the former, no harm no foul, if the latter, please PM me and we can "clear the air" like rational adults.

Peace Warrior
10-06-2012, 13:24
Brother, please don't think about what he posts too much, it causes the brain to bleed!


Sent from my PKE meter.
Maybe OBVIOUSLY his maturity level and mental acumen is higher than your demonstrated 7th grade level rhetoric and interpersonal skill set.

BAILIFF
10-06-2012, 14:13
Me too. The Cop who shot this guy also cost the taxpayers $285,000 for "jumping the gun" before.

Using Court awards history as a measure of ANYTHING in NYC is an exercise in futility.

A suit brought against the NYPD in, let's say, the Bronx, is much easier to resolve by settling for a percentage of the amount originally sought because the chance of the City prevailing is miniscule, based on jury nullification.

There's a certain rude term for taking a flyer on these cases, the plaintiff (and his mouthpiece) are almost always assured of a payday.

Patchman
10-06-2012, 15:56
Answered in a word, "Yes."

One is a subset of the other, int his case, one's relevant experiences are a subset of one's overall life experiences.

Touch down! This is precisely what I was alluding to and think maybe you either either misread/misinterpreted what I wrote, or you have an axe to grind.

If the former, no harm no foul, if the latter, please PM me and we can "clear the air" like rational adults.

There is neither misunderstanding nor an axe to grind.

Just pointing out to (whoever cares) that life experience does not necessarily equate to relevant experience... especially when it comes to critiquing technical matters.

For example, I eat 3 square meals a day, every day, for the past 52 years. So my life experience allows me to pronounce a (food item) delicious or not. However, I wouldn't have the relevant experience to criticize the cook's technical skills, choice of equipment, etc...

Detectorist
10-06-2012, 16:05
There is neither misunderstanding nor an axe to grind.

Just pointing out to (whoever cares) that life experience does not necessarily equate to relevant experience... especially when it comes to critiquing technical matters.

For example, I eat 3 square meals a day, every day, for the past 52 years. So my life experience allows me to pronounce a (food item) delicious or not. However, I wouldn't have the relevant experience to criticize the cook's technical skills, choice of equipment, etc...

it really doesn't take an Einstein to realize that something ain't kosher. An unarmed citizen was shot to death. It used to be that the joke among cops was that the BG made a suspicious move, so that's why he got shot.

I think that there is a higher level of justification and scrutiny needed when the victim was unarmed.

I wasn't there, but neither the cops on here. We'll see what the investigation uncovers.

Ohio Copper
10-06-2012, 21:26
it really doesn't take an Einstein to realize that something ain't kosher. An unarmed citizen was shot to death. It used to be that the joke among cops was that the BG made a suspicious move, so that's why he got shot.

I think that there is a higher level of justification and scrutiny needed when the victim was unarmed.

I wasn't there, but neither the cops on here. We'll see what the investigation uncovers.

Second guessing gets officers killed every year. It's not difficult to keep your hands in plain view while on a traffic stop.


Sent from my PKE meter.

Detectorist
10-06-2012, 23:22
. It's not difficult to keep your hands in plain view while on a traffic stop.


Sent from my PKE meter.

It is if one is distracted, drunk, didn't understand the cop's orders, or nervous.

We'll see what the investigation says.

Ohio Copper
10-07-2012, 04:20
It is if one is distracted, drunk, didn't understand the cop's orders, or nervous.

We'll see what the investigation says.

That we will.


Sent from my PKE meter.

DanaT
10-07-2012, 04:57
I was on the verge of trying to find out how to post a 3 option poll..

1) I am an idiot and always swear cops are dirty no matter what.

2) I am an idiot and always swear cops are righteous, no matter what.

3) THAT was an article in a real news source? How pitiful.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

That was a hard read. Still not sure what the article said. Seems someone was shot. Road rage. Shoplifting. Illegal passing.

But I cant really tell what happened. I do know the author should be charged with murdering the English language.

DanaT
10-07-2012, 05:04
For example, I eat 3 square meals a day, every day, for the past 52 years. So my life experience allows me to pronounce a (food item) delicious or not. However, I wouldn't have the relevant experience to criticize the cook's technical skills, choice of equipment, etc...

How ever if you owned the business the cook was cooking at (sorta like the citizens of the USA own the govt) and he was employed by you (sorta like cops are employed by the citizens) you are rightly able to judge the outcome of the cooks skills, choice of equipment, etc to determine if that is they type of cook you want and if that is the type of restaurant you want.

Since you have never been the president of the USA, a congressman, senetor, city manager, etc, you lack the life experience to judge them therefore you should not be allowed to vote and critique their performance. I seriously hope you are abstaining from voting in November.

Just pointing out to (whoever cares) that life experience does not necessarily equate to relevant experience... especially when it comes to critiquing technical matters

I am just pointing out that while your life experiences let you form an opinion about the president, your relevant experience when critiquing technical matters related to the office of the president is ZERO. Therefore by your own words, should not be forming an opinion on the President much less give any input such as voting.

DanaT
10-07-2012, 05:23
That's not really what I'm taking issue with.
It's the intentionally disingenuous "why would a person.... Does it make sense a person..." etc.

You don't have to be a Cop to know there's no limit to what people may do, or how they'll react.
Read/watch news, AND remember.

Face eating Miami Zombie
Man injects narcotics into his unit
Man puts acid in his own eye
Woman kills full term mother, cuts baby out and takes it
Female astronaut wears diapers on cross country trip to kill lover of her man

Etc etc etc.

As a Cop you see even more. How about a guy eating his outran feces in a criminal court hearing. Was he crazy? Nope, just trying for a mistrial and set up a crazy man defense.

People do the damndest things, all the time.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

And yet you refuse to learn that most people dont do any of the following

Face eating Miami Zombie
Man injects narcotics into his unit
Man puts acid in his own eye
Woman kills full term mother, cuts baby out and takes it
Female astronaut wears diapers on cross country trip to kill lover of her man

You pointed out 5 nut jobs.

So, since you claim that based upon these 5 people cops should suspect all people are that way.

Now lets assume that there is one cop for every 5 citizens.

I take a recent news story of a CONVICTION. It was cop named Drew Peterson. Since you have projected that cops should suspect all citizens of being crazy based upon your sample, then should project that all cops should be suspected of being murderers because I pointed out a conviction.

You cant seem to get it through your head that there are bad cops just like there are bad people. You project the image that you think it is acceptable for cops to do bad things and or make mistakes costing people their lives because of previous run-ins with bad people.

DanaT
10-07-2012, 05:40
Cops can do no wrong.

And TBO said you (and me and others) are incapable of learning.

Seems we learn quite well.

DanaT
10-07-2012, 05:41
People do the damndest things, all the time.



Like getting involved in a road rage incident and pulling guns on people?

Mushinto
10-07-2012, 08:58
How ever if you owned the business the cook was cooking at (sorta like the citizens of the USA own the govt) and he was employed by you (sorta like cops are employed by the citizens) you are rightly able to judge the outcome of the cooks skills, choice of equipment, etc to determine if that is they type of cook you want and if that is the type of restaurant you want...

Just because you have a RIGHT to judge someone, does not mean you have the knowledge to do it.

Same with voting, actually.

The first amendment acknowledges the right to free speech. It is the person who is charged with exercising it intelligently

DanaT
10-07-2012, 09:09
Just because you have a RIGHT to judge someone, does not mean you have the knowledge to do it.

Same with voting, actually.

The first amendment acknowledges the right to free speech. It is the person who is charged with exercising it intelligently

Are you saying that citizens have the RIGHT to judge police and other government officials and their conduct in performing the jobs?

SCSU74
10-07-2012, 09:21
Unless they can show a jury that the driver was seriously stoned, based upon the article, NYC will be paying.

Who is going to believe a military reservist is going to pull an electric drill from under his seat when being stopped by a emergency services van and a police officer with a gun.

What was the driver thinking he would accomplish with the drill? Pull it out and say to the police "Stop or I'll drill you!" The police then have a good laugh and let him go.

It doesn't matter what the object ended up being. If in the officers mind at the time he believed the driver to be reaching for a firearm that's really all that matters. An officer isn't going to wait to have a gun pointed at him until he decides to fire. Lesson of the story is dont reach for things under the seat after running from the police.


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

zoyter2
10-07-2012, 11:18
It doesn't matter what the object ended up being. If in the officers mind at the time he believed the driver to be reaching for a firearm that's really all that matters. ...................................

WTH? You REALLY think that the officers "beliefs" are "really all that matters?" You do realize that just "thinking" your life is in danger does NOT legally entitle you to shoot someone?

M&P Shooter
10-07-2012, 11:29
A young soldier dead and once again a NYPD officer at the front of a questionable shooting. It's very sad but I have lost 100% faith in police years ago:crying:

Mushinto
10-07-2012, 11:37
Are you saying that citizens have the RIGHT to judge police and other government officials and their conduct in performing the jobs?

Of course they do.

It's just that many of them are too ignorant to know what they're talking about.

DanaT
10-07-2012, 11:37
WTH? You REALLY think that the officers "beliefs" are "really all that matters?" You do realize that just "thinking" your life is in danger does NOT legally entitle you to shoot someone?

Has anyone who ever shot someone in a unjustified manner every told and untrue story to try and make someone believe that the shooting was justified?

I am confused. If evidence surround contradicts a shooters story of a justified shooting, are we to take the word or the shooter that it was justified because of what the shooter believed?

Mushinto
10-07-2012, 11:39
... I am confused. If evidence surround contradicts a shooters story of a justified shooting, are we to take the word or the shooter that it was justified because of what the shooter believed?

People shouldn't confuse words in a newspaper article with evidence.

DanaT
10-07-2012, 11:40
Of course they do.

It's just that many of them are too ignorant to know what they're talking about.

So you are saying citizens are too ignorant to know that if outcome X is not what they want from their police force but the police force uses methods that produces outcome X, then it is the citizens who are ignorant for not following what the police want? I would argue it is the other way around. The police need to use methods that are consistent with what society wants the outcomes to be.

DanaT
10-07-2012, 11:41
People shouldn't confuse words in a newspaper article with evidence.

People shouldnt add words. I never said anything about a newspaper article.

TBO
10-07-2012, 12:32
Sausage-

Everyone likes the finished product, but nobody is looking back inside the butcher shop to see how it's made.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

TBO
10-07-2012, 12:35
And yet you refuse to learn that most people dont do any of the following

Face eating Miami Zombie
Man injects narcotics into his unit
Man puts acid in his own eye
Woman kills full term mother, cuts baby out and takes it
Female astronaut wears diapers on cross country trip to kill lover of her man

You pointed out 5 nut jobs.

So, since you claim that based upon these 5 people cops should suspect all people are that way.

Now lets assume that there is one cop for every 5 citizens.

I take a recent news story of a CONVICTION. It was cop named Drew Peterson. Since you have projected that cops should suspect all citizens of being crazy based upon your sample, then should project that all cops should be suspected of being murderers because I pointed out a conviction.

You cant seem to get it through your head that there are bad cops just like there are bad people. You project the image that you think it is acceptable for cops to do bad things and or make mistakes costing people their lives because of previous run-ins with bad people.

This is all your projection.
Being almost to biased to function is seemingly a lifestyle for some.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

DanaT
10-07-2012, 12:43
This is all your projection.
Being almost to biased to function is seemingly a lifestyle for some.

Sent from the toe of my jack boot using Tapatalk 2

How is that bias issue of yours treating you?

Mushinto
10-07-2012, 13:56
So you are saying citizens are too ignorant to know that if outcome X is not what they want from their police force but the police force uses methods that produces outcome X, then it is the citizens who are ignorant for not following what the police want? I would argue it is the other way around. The police need to use methods that are consistent with what society wants the outcomes to be.

First part: I didn't say that. I don't even know what you mean.

Second part. Citizens (collectively) have the right to determine government outcomes. Methods, however, are the province of the law and professionals. I won't take a vote on how I can defend myself.

SCSU74
10-07-2012, 22:39
WTH? You REALLY think that the officers "beliefs" are "really all that matters?" You do realize that just "thinking" your life is in danger does NOT legally entitle you to shoot someone?

Totality of circumstances... It's not just "thinking" any one thing.

1. Failing to stop
2. Digging around under seat
3. Coming up with an object that resembles a gun


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

SCSU74
10-07-2012, 23:06
So you are saying citizens are too ignorant to know that if outcome X is not what they want from their police force but the police force uses methods that produces outcome X, then it is the citizens who are ignorant for not following what the police want? I would argue it is the other way around. The police need to use methods that are consistent with what society wants the outcomes to be.

Because that would work well. I'm sure there would be a long line of people wanting to go to jail against their will...


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

DanaT
10-07-2012, 23:24
Totality of circumstances... It's not just "thinking" any one thing.

1. Failing to stop
2. Digging around under seat
3. Coming up with an object that resembles a gun


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

I wonder how much people would scream if my profession was allowed to make mistakes that killed people??? I wonder if we could get by withe the "totality of circumstance" leading us to believe what we were doing was acceptable when people died because of our errors.

Oh wait. Here is an example:

http://us.cnn.com/2012/10/07/health/meningitis-exposure/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Its just a simple mistake.

Or wait

http://www.chrsonline.ca/files/cjc220467_gillis_simpson.pdf

Somehow the government thinks that 0.0095% of devices experience a random memory error is unacceptable. This means 99.999905% the time the there is no mistake, but lets hold my profession accountable when 9.999905% the job was done correctly.

You guys are simply laughable.

As I said, anyone involved with in unjustified shooting will make a story to make it seem justified. I dont care if it is a cop or a citizen. Cops are just a little better trained and what to say and get to control the investigation. The cops right now just know if they say "I thought I saw a weapon" or "my life was in danger" they mostly get away with it.

As for this case,I think the drill is immaterial. What was or was not under the seat the cop couldnt have seen. The cops justification was "he was reaching under the seat".Of course he knows to say that. It is something that cannot be proven nor disproved but the police (just like GT LEO) give him a free pass as soon as he says that. He knows the drill. Now, if a photo comes up where the guys hands are on the steering wheel like the witnesses claim, then there will be a problem.

Persnally, I wasnt there. But the story of "reaching for a drill" seems pretty far fetched to me. It seems like the drill is a cover story. And none of the GT LEO were there either. They just like the LEO version of the story that he was going for a gun (which wasnt there) because otherwise they cant justify the shooting and it is murder. The LEO dont want this because they want their brothers to have their back if they make a bad shoot.

But when they get some silly string on the them, we get LEOs that post pictures of some silly string flying and using silly string as a justification to beat people. Iranian police do the same thing.

It all comes down to LEO wanting other LEO to have their back if it is a good shoot or a bad shoot. Damn what really happened.

DanaT
10-07-2012, 23:26
Because that would work well. I'm sure there would be a long line of people wanting to go to jail against their will...


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

Well,there is your problem. You believe the people are subservient to the police. The police serve the government and the last I checked in the USA the government is the citizens.

TBO
10-08-2012, 00:18
How is that bias issue of yours treating you?
It's yours, own it.

http://i48.tinypic.com/1539mva.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/o89a8y.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/11iiuxs.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/30wntb6.jpg

SCSU74
10-08-2012, 00:27
I wonder how much people would scream if my profession was allowed to make mistakes that killed people??? I wonder if we could get by withe the "totality of circumstance" leading us to believe what we were doing was acceptable when people died because of our errors.

Oh wait. Here is an example:

http://us.cnn.com/2012/10/07/health/meningitis-exposure/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Its just a simple mistake.

Or wait

http://www.chrsonline.ca/files/cjc220467_gillis_simpson.pdf

Somehow the government thinks that 0.0095% of devices experience a random memory error is unacceptable. This means 99.999905% the time the there is no mistake, but lets hold my profession accountable when 9.999905% the job was done correctly.

You guys are simply laughable.

As I said, anyone involved with in unjustified shooting will make a story to make it seem justified. I dont care if it is a cop or a citizen. Cops are just a little better trained and what to say and get to control the investigation. The cops right now just know if they say "I thought I saw a weapon" or "my life was in danger" they mostly get away with it.

As for this case,I think the drill is immaterial. What was or was not under the seat the cop couldnt have seen. The cops justification was "he was reaching under the seat".Of course he knows to say that. It is something that cannot be proven nor disproved but the police (just like GT LEO) give him a free pass as soon as he says that. He knows the drill. Now, if a photo comes up where the guys hands are on the steering wheel like the witnesses claim, then there will be a problem.

Persnally, I wasnt there. But the story of "reaching for a drill" seems pretty far fetched to me. It seems like the drill is a cover story. And none of the GT LEO were there either. They just like the LEO version of the story that he was going for a gun (which wasnt there) because otherwise they cant justify the shooting and it is murder. The LEO dont want this because they want their brothers to have their back if they make a bad shoot.

But when they get some silly string on the them, we get LEOs that post pictures of some silly string flying and using silly string as a justification to beat people. Iranian police do the same thing.

It all comes down to LEO wanting other LEO to have their back if it is a good shoot or a bad shoot. Damn what really happened.

Because I'm sure at your job if you make a mistake you have to worry about being killed and never seeing your family again. Your right we should compare our professions more...


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

SCSU74
10-08-2012, 00:30
Well,there is your problem. You believe the people are subservient to the police. The police serve the government and the last I checked in the USA the government is the citizens.

I don't believe people are subservient to police. I do believe people strongly dislike being told what they're are doing is wrong. No matter how policing is conducted people are going to be upset because they are being limited in their actions to do as they please.


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

Detectorist
10-08-2012, 00:32
Totality of circumstances... It's not just "thinking" any one thing.

1. Failing to stop
2. Digging around under seat
3. Coming up with an object that resembles a gun


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

If the officer actually saw the drill, that changes everything. On the other hand, we may learn other facts later as newspaper articles are notoriously horrible in getting their facts straight, especially on the first article about an incident.

Patchman
10-08-2012, 04:55
I wonder how much people would scream if my profession was allowed to make mistakes that killed people??? I wonder if we could get by withe the "totality of circumstance" leading us to believe what we were doing was acceptable when people died because of our errors.

Somehow the government thinks that 0.0095% of devices experience a random memory error is unacceptable. This means 99.999905% the time the there is no mistake, but lets hold my profession accountable when 9.999905% the job was done correctly.


Your fame on GT is designing a medical devise, right? Are you saying the FDA(?) holds you to a unacceptably high standard?

But even before the FDA tests your devise, don't you have all the time you want and you need to put your design on paper? Engineering designs are done in pencil (or today's computer equivalent) so that you can erase your mistakes. So that you can work, rework, re-rework the design for as long as you need. Time enough to think, rethink, re-rethink the design through.

Then you get to build a prototype. And you get to test the prototype. Time enough to test it, retest it, re-retest it. Any problems, go back to redesign. Time enough to think, rethink, re-rethink the problem(s) through.

Assuming the prototype works to your satisfaction, lets try it out on lab mice or monkeys. When they don't die in 60-days or 90-days or 2-years or whatever, then let's try on human test groups. When the human test group don't die in 60-days, or 90-days or 2-years or whatever, then maybe the FDA will give it it's approval.

So how much time (in terms of years) from the pencil-to-paper phase until FDA approval? How many peer reviews? How often do designers ask for opinions from co-workers or others? And we're talking about a mechanical devise, right? Oh BTW, you know the FDA holds medical devises to the highest standards. Only the finest metals, materials and manufacturing standards will do.

And even after a devise hit the market but real world problems surface (but how can that be!?!), the devise can be withdrawn and redesigned!

On any call for police service, within 5 seconds of the LEO getting there, the LEO may be dead. Or be force to take a life. No luxury of time. No luxury of "designing" or redesigning the situation on paper. No luxury of peer review. No luxury of getting PRIOR approval.

In short, LEOs don't have the luxury of what you have: (1) time, (2) opportunity to go back and do redesigns, (3) opportunity to submit plans for a peer review, (4) opportunity to test out the plans, and (5) receive prior approval before acting. It also goes without saying, in many LE situations there are no do-overs.

DanaT, your post is disappointing because you know better.

SCSU74
10-08-2012, 09:09
Your fame on GT is designing a medical devise, right? Are you saying the FDA(?) holds you to a unacceptably high standard?

But even before the FDA tests your devise, don't you have all the time you want and you need to put your design on paper? Engineering designs are done in pencil (or today's computer equivalent) so that you can erase your mistakes. So that you can work, rework, re-rework the design for as long as you need. Time enough to think, rethink, re-rethink the design through.

Then you get to build a prototype. And you get to test the prototype. Time enough to test it, retest it, re-retest it. Any problems, go back to redesign. Time enough to think, rethink, re-rethink the problem(s) through.

Assuming the prototype works to your satisfaction, lets try it out on lab mice or monkeys. When they don't die in 60-days or 90-days or 2-years or whatever, then let's try on human test groups. When the human test group don't die in 60-days, or 90-days or 2-years or whatever, then maybe the FDA will give it it's approval.

So how much time (in terms of years) from the pencil-to-paper phase until FDA approval? How many peer reviews? How often do designers ask for opinions from co-workers or others? And we're talking about a mechanical devise, right? Oh BTW, you know the FDA holds medical devises to the highest standards. Only the finest metals, materials and manufacturing standards will do.

And even after a devise hit the market but real world problems surface (but how can that be!?!), the devise can be withdrawn and redesigned!

On any call for police service, within 5 seconds of the LEO getting there, the LEO may be dead. Or be force to take a life. No luxury of time. No luxury of "designing" or redesigning the situation on paper. No luxury of peer review. No luxury of getting PRIOR approval.

In short, LEOs don't have the luxury of what you have: (1) time, (2) opportunity to go back and do redesigns, (3) opportunity to submit plans for a peer review, (4) opportunity to test out the plans, and (5) receive prior approval before acting. It also goes without saying, in many LE situations there are no do-overs.

DanaT, your post is disappointing because you know better.

Excellent post!


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

SCSU74
10-08-2012, 09:11
If the officer actually saw the drill, that changes everything. On the other hand, we may learn other facts later as newspaper articles are notoriously horrible in getting their facts straight, especially on the first article about an incident.

Ya I understand that. And video may surface proving the officer is full of it. I was just expanding on the officers version of events. It irritates me when people can't understand why someone got shot because they only did this one thing or only had a drill etc.


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

DanaT
10-08-2012, 09:28
Your fame on GT is designing a medical devise, right? Are you saying the FDA(?) holds you to a unacceptably high standard?

But even before the FDA tests your devise, don't you have all the time you want and you need to put your design on paper? Engineering designs are done in pencil (or today's computer equivalent) so that you can erase your mistakes. So that you can work, rework, re-rework the design for as long as you need. Time enough to think, rethink, re-rethink the design through.

1) FDA does not run a single test. They do not test anything. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

2) You think time is unlimited? Typical burn rate for a small project is around $500k to $2M a month. How many people/companies do you think like to waste that much money per month waiting?? Do you really think time is free and unlimited?


Then you get to build a prototype. And you get to test the prototype. Time enough to test it, retest it, re-retest it. Any problems, go back to redesign. Time enough to think, rethink, re-rethink the problem(s) through.

See above. You think time is free?

Assuming the prototype works to your satisfaction, lets try it out on lab mice or monkeys. When they don't die in 60-days or 90-days or 2-years or whatever, then let's try on human test groups. When the human test group don't die in 60-days, or 90-days or 2-years or whatever, then maybe the FDA will give it it's approval.


You obviously have not seen the difference in size between a mouse and a person. Most devices are bigger than a mouse and awefully difficult to put in mice. Next, you obviously can see the differences in anatomy between a monkey and a person. Also, how much feedback does a moneky give? And how many monkeys do you think there are for testing? Do you think monkeys (and dogs) come free and in unlimited supply (especially study control grade animals)?



So how much time (in terms of years) from the pencil-to-paper phase until FDA approval? How many peer reviews? How often do designers ask for opinions from co-workers or others? And we're talking about a mechanical devise, right? Oh BTW, you know the FDA holds medical devises to the highest standards. Only the finest metals, materials and manufacturing standards will do.

Again you dont get the process. Typically they go into humans in very early stages. There are many humans implanted before approval comes. Again, time is money. Do you think that the financing comes free? Waiting for FDA / CE Mark is free?

And even after a devise hit the market but real world problems surface (but how can that be!?!), the devise can be withdrawn and redesigned!

Wow. Totality of circumstances, huh? Only what is known or believed at the time is tested/designed/fixed/evaluated. Does that mean if I didnt know a tantalum capacitor fails when exposed to hydrogen and trace hydrogen is in the device that since I "didnt know at the time" (totality of circumstances) that is an acceptable failure.

I love the "it can be withdrawn and replaced." I am sure you would feel that way if it was a pacemaker in your chest. Well, if it fails to work, you may not really mind the explant part. Your family might not be so happy with the result of such failure, but you probably dont know a difference at that point.

On any call for police service, within 5 seconds of the LEO getting there, the LEO may be dead. Or be force to take a life. No luxury of time. No luxury of "designing" or redesigning the situation on paper. No luxury of peer review. No luxury of getting PRIOR approval.

In short, LEOs don't have the luxury of what you have: (1) time, (2) opportunity to go back and do redesigns, (3) opportunity to submit plans for a peer review, (4) opportunity to test out the plans, and (5) receive prior approval before acting. It also goes without saying, in many LE situations there are no do-overs.

DanaT, your post is disappointing because you know better.

Again, you seem to not understand that time is unlimited.

In general I follow a very simple rule before I evaluate if I will sign on the line for a device and release it. Would I want it in my mother.

So lets take that basic way at looking at your 5 second situation. Would you find it acceptable if it happened to your mother?

DanaT
10-08-2012, 09:40
Ya I understand that. And video may surface proving the officer is full of it. I was just expanding on the officers version of events. It irritates me when people can't understand why someone got shot because they only did this one thing or only had a drill etc.


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

And why is the what the officer believe relevant?

It is assumed in this case that he was "running from police" and therefore he deserved it. What I read is that an unmarked car car started chasing him and he thought it wasd a road rage incident.

Would you be supportive if a citizen shot a cop in an unmarked car if the car was chasing the citizen, block him in, the driver saw a man come out of the car with a gun, and shot the officer dead? Totality of the situation. If the person believed the person was not an officer, and fired thinking their life was in danger later to find out it was an officer, is that acceptable. And before you say "they know it is a cop"....

http://www.9news.com/news/article/240457/222/Deputies-on-guard-after-fakecop-assaults-woman

Unmarked cars are not readily distinguishable.

Where I live, the law is even pretty clear what it takes before someone can elude

42-4-1413. Eluding or attempting to elude a police officer

Any operator of a motor vehicle who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe has violated a state law or municipal ordinance, who has received a visual or audible signal such as a red light or a siren from a police officer driving a marked vehicle showing the same to be an official police, sheriff, or Colorado state patrol car directing the operator to bring the operator's vehicle to a stop,


I wonder why this is in the law?? Maybe because unmarked cars there is ambiguity if the car is actually a police car?? But "people should know" and "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

Patchman
10-08-2012, 10:04
1) FDA does not run a single test. They do not test anything. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

2) You think time is unlimited? Typical burn rate for a small project is around $500k to $2M a month. How many people/companies do you think like to waste that much money per month waiting?? Do you really think time is free and unlimited?




See above. You think time is free?




You obviously have not seen the difference in size between a mouse and a person. Most devices are bigger than a mouse and awefully difficult to put in mice. Next, you obviously can see the differences in anatomy between a monkey and a person. Also, how much feedback does a moneky give? And how many monkeys do you think there are for testing? Do you think monkeys (and dogs) come free and in unlimited supply (especially study control grade animals)?





Again you dont get the process. Typically they go into humans in very early stages. There are many humans implanted before approval comes. Again, time is money. Do you think that the financing comes free? Waiting for FDA / CE Mark is free?



Wow. Totality of circumstances, huh? Only what is known or believed at the time is tested/designed/fixed/evaluated. Does that mean if I didnt know a tantalum capacitor fails when exposed to hydrogen and trace hydrogen is in the device that since I "didnt know at the time" (totality of circumstances) that is an acceptable failure.

I love the "it can be withdrawn and replaced." I am sure you would feel that way if it was a pacemaker in your chest. Well, if it fails to work, you may not really mind the explant part. Your family might not be so happy with the result of such failure, but you probably dont know a difference at that point.



Again, you seem to not understand that time is unlimited.

In general I follow a very simple rule before I evaluate if I will sign on the line for a device and release it. Would I want it in my mother.

So lets take that basic way at looking at your 5 second situation. Would you find it acceptable if it happened to your mother?


Again, DanaT, I'm disappointed at your response.

Yes, your time is not free because medical devises are so related to big $$$. I understand that.

So, typically, how much time elapses from when an idea (for a medical devise) is put on paper until it's on the market? How many peer reviews? How many lab testing on subjects?

How long is the typical design to market time? 5 seconds? 5 minutes? 5 months? 2 years? 5 years?

On a police call, a LEO has, maybe 5 seconds, before life or death can occur. If the LEO has 5 minutes to ponder, the LEO has a luxury.

And of course, YOU know the typical LEO is not as well educated or as smart or as worthy or as well $compensated$ as the typical medical devise designer, right? :whistling:

Patchman
10-08-2012, 10:24
1) FDA does not run a single test. They do not test anything. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Wow, you mean the FDA just relies on the designer's data? So who's watching the henhouse?

You think time is unlimited? Typical burn rate for a small project is around $500k to $2M a month. How many people/companies do you think like to waste that much money per month waiting?? Do you really think time is free and unlimited?




See above. You think time is free?

I'm glad time is money. That sound quite mercenary. But I like it because I've always said, LE should command fees based on lives saved, cases solved, property returned to happy owners who want to reward the good police work, etc...



You obviously have not seen the difference in size between a mouse and a person. Most devices are bigger than a mouse and awefully difficult to put in mice. Next, you obviously can see the differences in anatomy between a monkey and a person. Also, how much feedback does a moneky give? And how many monkeys do you think there are for testing? Do you think monkeys (and dogs) come free and in unlimited supply (especially study control grade animals)?

"Study control grade" animals? I didn't know about that.





Again you dont get the process. Typically they go into humans in very early stages. There are many humans implanted before approval comes. Again, time is money. Do you think that the financing comes free? Waiting for FDA / CE Mark is free?

Why would I need to "get" (understand) the process? I have life experience. I need nothing more.



Wow. Totality of circumstances, huh? Only what is known or believed at the time is tested/designed/fixed/evaluated. Does that mean if I didnt know a tantalum capacitor fails when exposed to hydrogen and trace hydrogen is in the device that since I "didnt know at the time" (totality of circumstances) that is an acceptable failure.

I love the "it can be withdrawn and replaced." I am sure you would feel that way if it was a pacemaker in your chest. Well, if it fails to work, you may not really mind the explant part. Your family might not be so happy with the result of such failure, but you probably dont know a difference at that point.


I actually wrote "withdrawn and REDESIGNED." The patient who has the defective devise, let him/her pay for the upgrade! I understand how marketing $$$ works!


Again, you seem to not understand that time is unlimited.

In general I follow a very simple rule before I evaluate if I will sign on the line for a device and release it. Would I want it in my mother.

So lets take that basic way at looking at your 5 second situation. Would you find it acceptable if it happened to your mother?

So you mean no mothers using you devise has ever had any negative effects? I'm glad.

So how many of your devices have been sold to date? I'm sure it's comparable to the number of LE encounters that has occurred in the same time period. Right?

DanaT
10-08-2012, 11:04
Wow, you mean the FDA just relies on the designer's data? So who's watching the henhouse?


Yes. The FDA only relies on manufacturers data and clinical trial data. Who watches the hen house? The FDA. That is EXACTLY why they dont conduct testing. If they were to conduct testing, then they would be a biased reviewer. The FDA doesnt care a company is in business or out of business. They are tasked with protecting the public from unsafe devices/drugs.

To put this in perspective, this would be the equivalent to an independent review board reviewing all use of force cases against police and independent review board having no vested interest in protecting the police, they only concern is the safety of public.



I'm glad time is money. That sound quite mercenary. But I like it because I've always said, LE should command fees based on lives saved, cases solved, property returned to happy owners who want to reward the good police work, etc...

I guess you would shoot a few less and beat a few less people because they probably wont give you a tip...





"Study control grade" animals? I didn't know about that.

Animals of known genealogy that are disease/defect free must be used. They must have carefully controlled diets/housing/etc during their life. You dont want the animal to bias the study.


Why would I need to "get" (understand) the process? I have life experience. I need nothing more.

And just like judging police work, in many cases that is what is needed. You probably can figure out that just with your life experience that a pacemaker that quits working within a year, isn't correct. You can probably figure out that a pacemaker lead that punctures the heart and causes a patient to bleed to death isnt quite correct. You can probably even extrapolate that a drug that gives 92 people meningitis isnt quite right.

Are you claiming that you are not qualified to make a judgement on whether 90 some people contract meningitis drug is acceptable or are only MDs capable of making such a determination?

[/QUOTE]I actually wrote "withdrawn and REDESIGNED." The patient who has the defective devise, let him/her pay for the upgrade! I understand how marketing $$$ works![/QUOTE]

That is not actually how it works. There is no "withdrawn" in medical devices for a defective product. It is called a RECALL and that can put most manufacturers out of business. And patients NEVER pay for an upgrade. Their lawyers get the company to pay for the "upgrade" to a defective device and some extra money (normally in the millions)




[/QUOTE]So you mean no mothers using you devise has ever had any negative effects? I'm glad.[/QUOTE]

That depends upon your specific question. I HAVE worked on devices that failed. However, I did not design them nor sign off an approval to release them or the design. In fact, the most serious defect I ever dealt with, I actually STOPPED the shipment (more than $5M in devices were scrapped) and a recall was initiated. This was not politically popular as at the time the company was being bought and it had serious consequences on the sale price (and the executive's bonuses). The executives were pushing to have the failures hidden until after the sale was completed.


So how many of your devices have been sold to date? I'm sure it's comparable to the number of LE encounters that has occurred in the same time period. Right?

Anywhere from 0 (they get implanted in January) to thousands a months. I think you would be surprised the shear magnitude of medical devices used per day in the USA. I would even say that people have more contact with medical devices and drugs than LEO have contact with people. If you add up all class 1, class 2, and class 3 devices, LEO contact is orders of magnitude less.

DanaT
10-08-2012, 11:19
So, typically, how much time elapses from when an idea (for a medical devise) is put on paper until it's on the market? How many peer reviews? How many lab testing on subjects?

First, you have define what you mean by "medical device." Do you mean class 1, 2, or 3? They are all medical devices regulated by the FDA. As an example, a Bandaid is medical device and regulated by the FDA. So is a pacemaker. You probably can figure out that something like a bandaid is quicker than a pacemaker.



How long is the typical design to market time? 5 seconds? 5 minutes? 5 months? 2 years? 5 years?


The range that I do (class 3). 3 months to 3 years.

But if there is an FDA problem, by law only 30 calendar days to respond. This means if there is a failure, then a resolution is required in 30 days.

How long have I had to solve problems in a surgery? Probably about as long as the typical LEO has. When a patients head is cut open and they are under general, you dont get time.

As an example, I had to deal with making a hole in the head of a patient with about a 23mm thick calcified skull. Doc wanted a solution NOW even though he did not prepare with an MRI and knowing skull density and thickness before surgery.

Time to market is not the same as time to human trials.



On a police call, a LEO has, maybe 5 seconds, before life or death can occur. If the LEO has 5 minutes to ponder, the LEO has a luxury.

At times that can be true. At other times, I believe that adrenalin and mob mentality can actually cause the problems. Sometimes, taking a little extra time helps the outcome.

And of course, YOU know the typical LEO is not as well educated or as smart or as worthy or as well $compensated$ as the typical medical devise designer, right? :whistling:

I highly suspect that. Go look at educational requirements and salaries.

cowboy1964
10-08-2012, 14:23
I love all you folks that can pronounce this a good, clean, shoot. Were you there?

Yeah, I always reach for my power drill when I'm pulled over :whistling:

Peace Warrior
10-09-2012, 06:21
Using Court awards history as a measure of ANYTHING in NYC is an exercise in futility.

A suit brought against the NYPD in, let's say, the Bronx, is much easier to resolve by settling for a percentage of the amount originally sought because the chance of the City prevailing is miniscule, based on jury nullification.

There's a certain rude term for taking a flyer on these cases, the plaintiff (and his mouthpiece) are almost always assured of a payday.
I'll take your word on it as I have no clue.

Peace Warrior
10-09-2012, 06:29
There is neither misunderstanding nor an axe to grind.

Just pointing out to (whoever cares) that life experience does not necessarily equate to relevant experience... especially when it comes to critiquing technical matters.

For example, I eat 3 square meals a day, every day, for the past 52 years. So my life experience allows me to pronounce a (food item) delicious or not. However, I wouldn't have the relevant experience to criticize the cook's technical skills, choice of equipment, etc...
Good point,. I understand, but I wasn't running the logic out to negate your point to an exacting degree, just more so to provide some reason.

badge315
10-09-2012, 06:37
On a police call, a LEO has, maybe 5 seconds, before life or death can occur. If the LEO has 5 minutes to ponder, the LEO has a luxury.

And of course, YOU know the typical LEO is not as well educated or as smart or as worthy or as well $compensated$ as the typical medical devise designer, right? :whistling:

Without making any judgements on this specific shooting, are you asserting that it's OK for law enforcement officials to occasionally kill innocent people by mistake and that we should simply chalk it up to "**** happens"?

TBO
10-09-2012, 07:26
Please, you've been around long enough to know that's not what he meant.

DanaT
10-09-2012, 07:50
Please, you've been around long enough to know that's not what he meant.

Yes. Lets expand on what we KNOW someone means.

If there was a video that surfaced of me punching a women in the face and knocking her down, would you say it is justified?

What if there was a video of the lady spraying some silly string and it got on me before I punched her. Would you post said video of that as justification for punching her.

If you, as a police officer, witnessed me getting some silly string sprayed on me and walked over and punched the women in the nose, knocking her down, would you arrest me and recommended charges be brought against me or would you let me walk away and say she deserved it.

I just curious as to what we KNOW.

My person opinion on what I BELIEVE you would do in the last case is immediately handcuff me and recommend assault charges to the DA. But maybe I am wrong. It has happened once in my life.

badge315
10-09-2012, 08:08
Please, you've been around long enough to know that's not what he meant.

Here's what I know...that LEOs make mistakes and occasionally, innocent people lose their lives as a direct result of those mistakes.

Here's something else I know...that LEOs will never, ever admit to being wrong when speaking to a non-LEO in an official capacity. :upeyes:

Beware Owner
10-09-2012, 08:17
Here's what I know...that LEOs make mistakes and occasionally, innocent people lose their lives as a direct result of those mistakes.

Here's something else I know...that LEOs will never, ever admit to being wrong when speaking to a non-LEO in an official capacity. :upeyes:

Wrong, there have been a couple of actual men here who have the nads to admit when they, or one of theirs, is/are wrong. They're not out there in droves, but there are one or two of them.

TBO
10-09-2012, 08:36
There's no shortage of posts where LEO's have pointed out conduct that isn't above board.
Never seems to get referenced though (thanks BO for being honest and acknowledging it).

diamondd2
10-09-2012, 08:40
Heard on the news this morning that there is going to be a grand jury investigation into this shooting. Police commissioner Kelly said NYPD has not talked to detective for his side of the story (not good for the detective). Witness says hands were on the steering wheel and the shooting was road rage provoked.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Beware Owner
10-09-2012, 08:55
There's no shortage of posts where LEO's have pointed out conduct that isn't above board.

Never seems to get referenced though (thanks BO for being honest and acknowledging it).


Any time, buddy.

I find it humorous when I've been called a cop hater or whatnot for not being particularly partial, then to have others point at my avatar as if it were supposed to make me hate cops when I'm not, well, particularly partial. I realize that the police is an organization of PEOPLE, where, just like everywhere else, you have the good, the bad, and the ugly. I have high respect for people who know how to speak as adults, I have especially high respect for police officers who are down to earth and keep their composure while being tested. It's hard for anyone to do at times, so I admire that characteristic in anyone, specially in jobs that deal with the public. :upeyes: Honestly, sometimes it's just tiring to see how these issues are polarized, people looking to blame cops before they even know what's really going on, and others trying to defend cops even if evidence is not beyond reasonable doubt in favor the offending cop. This cop/civilian (cops are civilians, too, but you get the drift) rift must stop. Really. Cops wouldn't be so defensive if people weren't attacking them all the time, and people wouldn't be so distrustful if cops didn't cover up for their own who disregarded their badge of honor. It has to start somewhere. It might as well start here.

DanaT
10-09-2012, 09:11
It might as well start here.

Well, officers...anyone one of you who wants to join my beer summit Saturday...beer is on me...

http://www.stuttgarter-zeitung.de/media.media.a550dc94-fb2c-488f-b05f-21516c148c80.normalized.jpeg

(I better be careful..there may be one that actually shows up at Stuttgarter Volksfest "Wasen"). I guess if they do, I will buy the beer. This aint no Obama beer summit with one small beer and photos. This is many big beers and no photos.

badge315
10-09-2012, 09:14
Wrong, there have been a couple of actual men here who have the nads to admit when they, or one of theirs, is/are wrong. They're not out there in droves, but there are one or two of them.

There's no shortage of posts where LEO's have pointed out conduct that isn't above board.
Never seems to get referenced though (thanks BO for being honest and acknowledging it).


I specifically said "in an official capacity"...none of the LEOs who frequent this forum are commenting in an official capacity.

For example, when a deputy or municipal LEO rolls up on me and informs me that I am legally required to check in with his jurisdiction before commencing a surveillance, he's wrong...period. Yet not once - in 20 years of working as a PI - has even one of them admitted he was in error. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

Beware Owner
10-09-2012, 09:17
I specifically said "in an official capacity"...none of the LEOs who frequent this forum are commenting in an official capacity.

For example, when a deputy or municipal LEO rolls up on me and informs me that I am legally required to check in with his jurisdiction before commencing a surveillance, he's wrong...period. Yet not once - in 20 years of working as a PI - has even one of them admitted he was in error. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

I've had cops admit to me they were wrong. Twice, actually.

Dragoon44
10-09-2012, 09:49
Much of the problem in understanding what happens in dynamic encounters is that people with no experience default to a "I wouldn't do that, so this guy must not have either." mode of thinking.

But any Cop with more than 6 months on the job can relate incidents were people did incredibly foolish things during tense encounters.

I stopped a guy once for an expired tag. Walked up to his window and asked for drivers license and registration. The guy just stares at me wide eyed like he is panicked for a few seconds then suddenly lunges across the seat and reaches under the passenger side seat.

Fortunately when I yelled "Don't move" he froze and looked back over his shoulder and saw the muzzle of the .357 mag I was carrying. he followed my commands to SLOWLY remove his hand from under the seat.

In his hand was his wallet, apparently he thought it was a good idea to suddenly lunge for it.

People will do unfathomable things under stress and trying to judge their actions by what you would or wouldn't do in a given situation simply denies the reality of what often happens.

Gallium
10-09-2012, 09:55
I specifically said "in an official capacity"...none of the LEOs who frequent this forum are commenting in an official capacity.

For example, when a deputy or municipal LEO rolls up on me and informs me that I am legally required to check in with his jurisdiction before commencing a surveillance, he's wrong...period. Yet not once - in 20 years of working as a PI - has even one of them admitted he was in error. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.


In general, cops don't admit to shortcomings and **** ups on open forums like these, where much of their energies is spend on rectifying a whole lot of misconceptions.

And I don't blame em, because sometimes a small crack in the door leads to a whole lot more of stupid.

I have been fortunate enough in life to get "behind the curtain" for many aspects of life, where frank conversations would surprise most of us.

There is a reason why SOME COPS think IAB cops are a bit scummy, and why SOME COPS - with a few years on think bosses are fat turds who don't know how to run things.

Someone else before me said it best. All human organizations constitute of humans. The best filtering systems in the world cannot effectively screen out a turd from LE, Medicine or Science.

If those screens are not 100% effective against turds, what kinds of screen rates do you think they have against pondscum, stains and parasites?

DanaT
10-09-2012, 10:01
In his hand was his wallet, apparently he thought it was a good idea to suddenly lunge for it.

People will do unfathomable things under stress and trying to judge their actions by what you would or wouldn't do in a given situation simply denies the reality of what often happens.

Such unfathomable things such as get their license, registration, and insurance for the officer during a traffic stop. I am sure that it is an atypical reaction for someone pulled over for a traffic stop to proactively try and cooperate and have what the officer will be asking for available for the officer.

Me, I do the unspeakable crime of having my wallet under my butt in my pants pocket or in the center console. I even have the audacity to place the registration and insurance in the center console or the glove box.

Dragoon44
10-09-2012, 10:02
I wonder how much people would scream if my profession was allowed to make mistakes that killed people??? I wonder if we could get by withe the "totality of circumstance" leading us to believe what we were doing was acceptable when people died because of our errors.

.

Please, do enthrall us with all the life or death decisions you have had to make in your profession. having only fractions of a second to make those decisions under high stress encounter at O' dark thirty.

DanaT
10-09-2012, 10:03
Please, do enthrall us with all the life or death decisions you have had to make in your profession. having only fractions of a second to make those decisions under high stress encounter at O' dark thirty.

go back and read the posts.

Gallium
10-09-2012, 10:03
Please, do enthrall us with all the life or death decisions you have had to make in your profession. having only fractions of a second to make those decisions under high stress encounter at O' dark thirty.


He already gave a couple of examples, which are valid.

I know you haven't had your metamucil or ran anyone over yet today, but please do try to keep up. :tongueout:

Dragoon44
10-09-2012, 10:15
go back and read the posts.

Read mine again, Here I will help you out


life or death decisions you have had to make in your profession. having only fractions of a second to make those decisions under high stress encounter at O' dark thirty.

oh and though it was clearly implied let me specify, the stakes are not your job or your career (those are secondary) it's your life.

Dragoon44
10-09-2012, 10:17
He already gave a couple of examples, which are valid.

I know you haven't had your metamucil or ran anyone over yet today, but please do try to keep up. :tongueout:

Which ones showed having to make life or death decisions in fractions of a second at O'dark thirty during a high stress encounter?

Dragoon44
10-09-2012, 10:22
Oh and just for the record, I am not defending this shoot. I don't think there is enough REAL information to decide good shoot or bad shoot from this poorly written article.

Gallium
10-09-2012, 10:25
Which ones showed having to make life or death decisions in fractions of a second at O'dark thirty during a high stress encounter?


When you say "life and death", do you specifically mean HIS LIFE or DEATH? Because in my experience, it is not all of the times police officers are not leveraging their lives when they pull a gun on someone. Maybe even less than 1/2


He gave a case where a MD wanted info on drilling into someone's skull. If that is not life/death, nothing is.


:cool:

Gallium
10-09-2012, 10:27
Oh and just for the record, I am not defending this shoot. I don't think there is enough REAL information to decide good shoot or bad shoot from this poorly written article.

<<<< Didn't think you were defending the shoot.


<<<< Don't think most folks either way are "defending" the shoot.

I think most LE in this thread so far are attempting to show how a good day can go to crap in an instant, and how quickly the tide can change in any dynamic situation.

Non LE folks don't want to hear any of that crap. Why couldn't you shoot him in the leg or shoot out the tire and call in a K9 unit?

SCSU74
10-09-2012, 10:32
When you say "life and death", do you specifically mean HIS LIFE or DEATH? Because in my experience, it is not all of the times police officers are not leveraging their lives when they pull a gun on someone. Maybe even less than 1/2


He gave a case where a MD wanted info on drilling into someone's skull. If that is not life/death, nothing is.


:cool:

Because that's even remotely similar... Wrong answer and he's still feet up in his office drinking tea. As an aside, even with a decision like drilling into a skull it isn't a split second decision. You have the luxury of thinking it over or asking another opinion etc. also, the decision isn't being made in the early hours of the morning when you may be tired, stressed, or whatever else


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

SCSU74
10-09-2012, 10:33
<<<< Didn't think you were defending the shoot.


<<<< Don't think most folks either way are "defending" the shoot.

I think most LE in this thread so far are attempting to show how a good day can go to crap in an instant, and how quickly the tide can change in any dynamic situation.

Non LE folks don't want to hear any of that crap. Why couldn't you shoot him in the leg or shoot out the tire and call in a K9 unit?

Shoot him in the leg... Hahahahaha


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong

Dragoon44
10-09-2012, 10:38
When you say "life and death", do you specifically mean HIS LIFE or DEATH? Because in my experience, it is not all of the times police officers are not leveraging their lives when they pull a gun on someone. Maybe even less than 1/2


He gave a case where a MD wanted info on drilling into someone's skull. If that is not life/death, nothing is.


:cool:

seems obvious to me that if the MD had time to contact him to obtain info then the situation was not a life or death situation that was playing out in fractions of a second.

And that makes all the difference in the world.

As far as whose life is at stake in this scenario, it is BOTH.

If during a high stress encounter like this one. the "suspect" (For lack of a better word) makes a move consistent with going for weapon then the life or death decision is, Do I hold my fire hope the next thing I see is not the muzzle flashes of the shots that may kill me, or do I shoot him now.

Gallium
10-09-2012, 10:38
Shoot him in the leg... Hahahahaha


Sent from my iPhone... which probably auto-corrected something wrong


Sarcasm. Set your detectors to a very sensitive level, or you're gonna miss a lot of stuff!

:cool:

Gallium
10-09-2012, 10:41
seems obvious to me that if the MD had time to contact him to obtain info then the situation was not a life or death situation that was playing out in fractions of a second.

And that makes all the difference in the world.

As far as whose like in this scenario it is BOTH.

If during a high stress encounter like this one. the "suspect" (For lack of a better word) makes a move consistent with going for weapon then the life or death decision is, Do I hold my fire hope the next thing I see is not the muzzle flashes of the shots that may kill me, or do I shoot him now.


I've been on the wrong side of a gun at LEAST 3 times, more if you count where I was not the intended target, and I've been in situations where gunshots were exchanged, and I'm still here standing (read carefully!).

I've also been in "life and death" situations where someone else's life hung in the balance. The size of the stains in my underpants or the level of stress was not measurably different.

Yeah, I was scared ****less in each and every instance - even when I knew I was going home that night.

- G