rigorousintuition.ca

Lesson:
If you are an unarmed person in the presence of multiple law enforcement officers, do not make them "feel threatened"

Lesson:
If you are a woman in a roomful of men, do not make them "feel horny"

Canadian_watcher » Mon May 27, 2013 12:39 pm wrote:Lesson:
If you are an unarmed person in the presence of multiple law enforcement officers, do not make them "feel threatened"

If you are an unarmed person in the presence of multiple armed persons — law enforcement persons, or otherwise — do not make them "feel threatened."

Yeah. That's probably pretty good common sense.

Simulist » Mon May 27, 2013 2:42 pm wrote:

Canadian_watcher » Mon May 27, 2013 12:39 pm wrote:Lesson:
If you are an unarmed person in the presence of multiple law enforcement officers, do not make them "feel threatened"

If you are an unarmed person in the presence of multiple armed persons — law enforcement persons, or otherwise — do not make them "feel threatened."

Yeah. That's probably pretty good common sense.

it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.

Canadian_watcher » Mon May 27, 2013 12:48 pm wrote:

Simulist » Mon May 27, 2013 2:42 pm wrote:

Canadian_watcher » Mon May 27, 2013 12:39 pm wrote:Lesson:
If you are an unarmed person in the presence of multiple law enforcement officers, do not make them "feel threatened"

If you are an unarmed person in the presence of multiple armed persons — law enforcement persons, or otherwise — do not make them "feel threatened."

Yeah. That's probably pretty good common sense.

it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.

Yeah. It's just SO ridiculous... (You could probably laugh yourself silly over it.)

All kinds of shit that happens in life is pretty ridiculous — and, just think, most of it happens quite naturally and without any evil, overarching conspiracy making it happen.

it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.

I agree this was handled terribly by the FBI. If it was intended to be a hit then it would have been handled "professionally".
But putting my self in the shoes of the agent, if the perp has the intent to kill, then in that split second I am shooting to kill.

Burnt Hill » Mon May 27, 2013 1:01 pm wrote:

it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.

I agree this was handled terribly by the FBI. If it was intended to be a hit then it would have been handled "professionally".
But putting my self in the shoes of the agent, if the perp has the intent to kill, then in that split second I am shooting to kill.

But that isn't conspiratorial enough!

Everything happens for a reason — and that reason always has something to do with the Rothschilds or something.

I know, we have gone from "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to extraordinary claims = certain conspiracy, no evidence needed.
I am not saying that's how you operate C_w. But it is why I often play devils advocate.

Burnt Hill » Mon May 27, 2013 3:19 pm wrote:I know, we have gone from "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to extraordinary claims = certain conspiracy, no evidence needed.
I am not saying that's how you operate C_w. But it is why I often play devils advocate.

I appreciate a devil's advocate POV.

I wonder though, if it isn't a bit of an extraordinary claim on the part of the FBI that this unarmed guy was able to threaten the life of the officers to the extent that he had to be fatally shot in order to stop him. Where's the evidence?

Simulist wrote:
Everything happens for a reason — and that reason always has something to do with the Rothschilds or something.

If by that you mean, that this entire incident isnt the result of the insanity of an elite few who run this assylum, its not such a big leap.

If youre looking at the bigger picture for example, you might ask why the guy was a suspect in a crime involving that disgusting, yet cancer curing drug called cannabis?

In a sane world, run by sane people for example, there wouldn be such insane drug related death and murder. But of course that doesnt help money suppyly, which is the food of the people who do the bidding for the control system.

Its pretty clear we do have a disgustingly evil control system. If its not cenrally organised by the select few who run the control system, then it's certainly effictent enough to be

As for the shooting. Its strikes me as distinctly strange and (quite possibly) extremely convenient, despite the consideration of this mans apparently violent history.

Canadian_watcher » Mon May 27, 2013 4:25 pm wrote:

Burnt Hill » Mon May 27, 2013 3:19 pm wrote:I know, we have gone from "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" to extraordinary claims = certain conspiracy, no evidence needed.
I am not saying that's how you operate C_w. But it is why I often play devils advocate.

I appreciate a devil's advocate POV.

I wonder though, if it isn't a bit of an extraordinary claim on the part of the FBI that this unarmed guy was able to threaten the life of the officers to the extent that he had to be fatally shot in order to stop him. Where's the evidence?

They have certainly left themselves open to questioning on how they handled this situation. Which is also why I don't think it was a "hit".
General arrogance and numbers may have caused them to leave their guard down, giving Todashev the opportunity to do something stupid, and they responded with force.

Burnt Hill » 27 May 2013 19:34 wrote:

stickdog99 » Mon May 27, 2013 3:07 pm wrote:Ten FBI agents go to interview a guy, and they end up shooting him dead instead.

If they didn't mean to kill him, that is an extraordinary FAIL.

The fact they sent 10 agents (is that a fact?) from different jurisdictions makes it less likely that they were there to do a "hit".
Now if these 10 agents start dropping....
I surely don't want to be defending the FBI, it just seems to me more likely that it played out the way it was reported.
Have we connected the two FBI helicopter casualties directly to Tamerlans capture?

You mean the two agents who reportedly died from the impact of hitting the ocean? Their unit was involved in the arrest of the younger Tsarnaev. Nobody has reported anything further. So if you want to be a coincidence theorist, have at it.

Burnt Hill » 27 May 2013 20:01 wrote:

it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.

I agree this was handled terribly by the FBI. If it was intended to be a hit then it would have been handled "professionally".

But putting my self in the shoes of the agent, if the perp has the intent to kill, then in that split second I am shooting to kill.

How do you know it was not handled professionally by a single agent whose bosses wished to send a message that the FBI means business and can get away with anything it wants?

stickdog99 » Mon May 27, 2013 4:43 pm wrote:

Burnt Hill » 27 May 2013 19:34 wrote:

stickdog99 » Mon May 27, 2013 3:07 pm wrote:Ten FBI agents go to interview a guy, and they end up shooting him dead instead.

If they didn't mean to kill him, that is an extraordinary FAIL.

The fact they sent 10 agents (is that a fact?) from different jurisdictions makes it less likely that they were there to do a "hit".
Now if these 10 agents start dropping....
I surely don't want to be defending the FBI, it just seems to me more likely that it played out the way it was reported.
Have we connected the two FBI helicopter casualties directly to Tamerlans capture?

You mean the two agents who reportedly died from the impact of hitting the ocean? Their unit was involved in the arrest of the younger Tsarnaev. Nobody has reported anything further. So if you want to be a coincidence theorist, have at it.

Yes I am aware that they were members of the "Hostage Rescue" team. I just don't know if they were in Boston for that situation.
That and I thought it was Tamerlan, the older brother, that the team helped apprehend.
* they= the two agents who have since perished

stickdog99 » Mon May 27, 2013 4:46 pm wrote:

Burnt Hill » 27 May 2013 20:01 wrote:

it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.

I agree this was handled terribly by the FBI. If it was intended to be a hit then it would have been handled "professionally".

But putting my self in the shoes of the agent, if the perp has the intent to kill, then in that split second I am shooting to kill.

How do you know it was not handled professionally by a single agent whose bosses wished to send a message that the FBI means business and can get away with anything it wants?

By a single agent with 9 accomplices who have agreed to go with the knife wielding story?

Burnt Hill » 27 May 2013 20:58 wrote:

stickdog99 » Mon May 27, 2013 4:46 pm wrote:

Burnt Hill » 27 May 2013 20:01 wrote:

it's ridiculous is what it is. Officers are trained to work under pressure, threat, stress and out and out hostile and violent situations without killing people - killing is a last resort. All manner of other options are available to officers, particularly when they outnumber the suspect/interviewee/passerby by ten to one. Or even two to one.

I agree this was handled terribly by the FBI. If it was intended to be a hit then it would have been handled "professionally".

But putting my self in the shoes of the agent, if the perp has the intent to kill, then in that split second I am shooting to kill.

How do you know it was not handled professionally by a single agent whose bosses wished to send a message that the FBI means business and can get away with anything it wants?

By a single agent with 9 accomplices who have agreed to go with the knife wielding story?

Nobody has agreed to go with any story other than unnamed spooks "leaking" crap to the media, and even 2 of them have since backtracked.

When the actual story comes out, I suspect that just one or two agents will have witnessed the deadly altercation.