Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Various strawmen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 2Many
    replied
    Here I again inject some facts into this discussion. Newhall incident:

    Perpetrators: Twinning and Davis.

    Officers: Patrol 1 = Frago and Gore; Patrol 2 = Alleyn and Pence.

    1. Perps are intercepted by Patrol 1.

    2. Perps feign cooperation. Officer Frago has shotgun. Officer Gore does a pat-down on Davis.

    3. Due to poor awareness, Twinning shoots Frago with a .375mag.

    4. Officer Gore tries to shoot Twinning with his service revolver. Davis turns around and shoots him at point-blank with a .38 Spc.

    5. Patrol 2 (Officers Alleyn and Pence) arrives for assistance.

    6. Perps empty their revolvers at Patrol 2, then obtain new weapons from their car: Davis gets a shotgun and Twinning gets a 1911.

    7. Officer Alleyn blasts away with a Remington 870. Error one: he pumps the gun so fast that he racks unfired shells out of it. Needless to say, he's quickly out of ammo and transitions to his revolver.

    8. Officer Alleyn killed by Davis and his shotgun.

    9. Officer Pence fires at Twinning with his revolver, but misses. Twinning shoots back, and Officer Pence is hit.

    10. Officer Pence tries to reload his revolver. Error two: he does a range reload, dropping the spent brass into his right hand, and pocketing it. Too slow. Twinning sneaks up on him and shoots him point-blank.

    A third patrol then arrived, and the perps fled the scene.

    There was a bystander, Gary Knees, who attempted to help Officer Alleyn. But his story has been omitted for brevity.

    Source: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Newhall+shootout and the ones in my previous post.

    Leave a comment:


  • Foolish
    replied
    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    :toothy10::5geezer::new_blueg:glasses6::toothy10:: tinfoil:
    Is this post an example of an

    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    IQ 10 point lower than Hamsters
    or is it an attempt to

    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    get a post count.
    Either way you are still a fucktard and simple logic is still just out of reach for you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Burningman
    replied
    Originally posted by ChenPengFi View Post
    I just wanted to point out that this is the wrong formula.
    That describes force.
    Kinetic energy is usually expressed as 1/2 Mass x Velocity squared.

    Sorry, carry on.
    If thats the case, it makes TFT look even more useless because of their emphasis on transfering mass in a strike. Bruce Lee got it right when he described a punch as a whipping action, picking up the most speed.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoonDog
    replied
    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    Ok point by point , I wasnt there so but this much I know , the first 2 were executed prretty quickly so chances there wasnt chance to engage in a lengthy combat situation. The 3rd officer If Im correct had a shot gun and the 4th officer we can agree had the brass.
    Again, cite your sources since you were not there!



    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    Ok the point is it doesnt matter if one or all 4 retained the brass at least 1 did . And the procedures at the range in that agency and other police agencies were forever changed as a direct of that incident . Yes other tactical mistakes were made .
    Yes it does matter. If three did not follow the training of holding onto the brass, then it shows that most do not fall back onto poor training habits. Can you grasp that. I am not saying that the ONE who held his brass did not fall back onto poor training. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the assertion that you always will fall back onto your training. The evidence so far shows that only 25% of those involved in this case fell back onto holding brass in their hand. That means 75% did not.

    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    Every cop alive has made tactical mistakes and its by the grace of god that more of us arent killed or injured.
    True and never in question.

    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    So why you so bent on how many officers did that . Does it matter . The point I think illustrates the premise that you will fall back on your training. So why cant you admit that and move one.
    See above. Why are you so adamant to hold this view in light of contrary evidence? Why should I admit that one falls back on training methods when YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE. You asked for us to research it. I did and based on my research, I find that only one officer fell back on this training method. No other officer involved did.

    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    Why do you think all the Bullshidos in here are so onboard with the Matt Thorton credo of Alive training.
    Because it works and makes sense


    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    Thats why we have so many debates and so on about the usefullness of Kata and what not
    Because people like you do not grasp the concept of alive training.

    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    So I think you are thinking too small minded. I think the account of this tragedy underscores my points.
    How so? THe officers used bad tactics. I have stated that. However, your point was that the officers died because the chose to fall back on the police academy training of collecting your shells.

    Question, how many shells did the officer have in his hand?

    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    And the difference of Paul Bunyan is 4 LEOs didnt die in 4 and half minutes .
    So what? You provided the analogy. Why do 4 LEOs have to die now? You did nothing to refute the rebuttal of the analogy. Instead you turned it back into a matter of you being a LEO.

    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    I think I made my point and my case.
    You haven't. You provided no evidence and have been shown how based on the research done, the evidence tells a different story than what you stated. How does that prove your point?

    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    And 1 other point .
    A cop will see things differently than a civilian and a veteran officer will see things differently than a rookie .
    Since you see things differently, is that why you cannot address the points but just cling to "I'm a Cop. Believe me."

    Leave a comment:


  • SoylentNinja
    replied
    and this is why nobody takes you seriously on this forum...

    Leave a comment:


  • foxguitar
    replied
    Originally posted by Foolish View Post
    Yes, I am Foolish for attempting to argue with a fucktard like you. LET'S TRY CAPS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS THOUGH. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

    NOW LET'S MAKE IT BOLD. YOU STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

    You are obviously too fucking stupid to understand that your word doesn't mean shit without backing it up. If you were to tell me what color panties you were getting all in a bunch I would have to ask for pictures. If you were to tell me which beach you got the sand in your vagina from I would have to ask for sworn statements from several witnesses.

    You fail at logic and the sad part is you are too fucking stupid to realize it.
    :toothy10::5geezer::new_blueg:glasses6::toothy10:: tinfoil:

    Leave a comment:


  • Foolish
    replied
    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    I THINK YOUR NAME SAYS IT ALL , FOOLISH , FITS YOU

    WHEN YOU GROW A BRAIN WE CAN DISCUSS THIS OK , CASEY JONES :new_blueg
    Yes, I am Foolish for attempting to argue with a fucktard like you. LET'S TRY CAPS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS THOUGH. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

    NOW LET'S MAKE IT BOLD. YOU STILL DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

    You are obviously too fucking stupid to understand that your word doesn't mean shit without backing it up. If you were to tell me what color panties you were getting all in a bunch I would have to ask for pictures. If you were to tell me which beach you got the sand in your vagina from I would have to ask for sworn statements from several witnesses.

    You fail at logic and the sad part is you are too fucking stupid to realize it.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheMightyMcClaw
    replied
    You know, I really hate to derail threads I haven't contributed to much with petty grammar complaints, but these problems are becoming quite bothersome. So please, forgive me while I point out a few reoccurring problems.
    When using a contraction, such as "wasn't" or "don't" an apostrophe ( ' ) should be placed between the letters removed.\
    Right: ...the point is it doesn't matter if....
    Wrong: ...the point is it doesnt matter if....
    Second, punctuation marks such as commas and periods are placed directly after the word that precedes them; there should be no space in between.
    Right: End of story.
    Wrong: End of story .
    Finally, interrogative sentences should end with question marks, not periods.
    Right: So why you so bent on how many officers did that?
    Wrong: So why you so bent on how many officers did that .

    Anyways, like I said, I hate to derail. Hopefully we can resume this discussion with a writing style that's easier on the eyes.

    Leave a comment:


  • foxguitar
    replied
    Originally posted by Foolish View Post
    So if being a lumberjack doesn't mean that he has the final word on Paul Bunyan what is the difference? Is it just the fact that there were LEO deaths means we should just accept your word without any evidence?

    If that is the case, I work for the railroad and there was once this guy named John Henry. He was born with a hammer in his hand. He spent his life putting down rail. Of course we all know he dug a tunnel faster than a steam hammer. You can't question my story because he collapsed and died after he finished the tunnel.

    I think you are unquestionably proving that you have no training in general logic to fall back on.

    I THINK YOUR NAME SAYS IT ALL , FOOLISH , FITS YOU

    WHEN YOU GROW A BRAIN WE CAN DISCUSS THIS OK , CASEY JONES :new_blueg

    Leave a comment:


  • Foolish
    replied
    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    And the difference of Paul Bunyan is 4 LEOs didnt die in 4 and half minutes .
    So if being a lumberjack doesn't mean that he has the final word on Paul Bunyan what is the difference? Is it just the fact that there were LEO deaths means we should just accept your word without any evidence?

    If that is the case, I work for the railroad and there was once this guy named John Henry. He was born with a hammer in his hand. He spent his life putting down rail. Of course we all know he dug a tunnel faster than a steam hammer. You can't question my story because he collapsed and died after he finished the tunnel.

    I think you are unquestionably proving that you have no training in general logic to fall back on.

    Leave a comment:


  • foxguitar
    replied
    Originally posted by BoonDog View Post
    Why did it get testy?

    Your premise is faulty. That is what I am trying to point out to you. You keep saying it does not matter how many of the officers were found with brass in their hands. It is VERY relevant, especially for your premise. In the case you mentioned, without any citation still after being asked for it many times, one report mentions only one officer having brass in his hand.

    Now to help you understand this, I will try and point out why it matters. If only one did this, then the other three officers did not do this. They did not fall back on the training in the crisis. This story, as presented, blows a huge hole in your premise.

    Can you rebut any of my argument with a valid rebuttal or new evidence.

    AND stop doing the appeal of "I'm a Cop, you must believe me."

    PS
    As to your lumberjack analogy, if I were a lumberjack and told you the legend of Paul Bunyan and you questioned it, I better be able to say more than "I'm a lumberjack, you must believe me even though you provide contrary evidence."

    Ok point by point , I wasnt there so but this much I know , the first 2 were executed prretty quickly so chances there wasnt chance to engage in a lengthy combat situation. The 3rd officer If Im correct had a shot gun and the 4th officer we can agree had the brass.

    Ok the point is it doesnt matter if one or all 4 retained the brass at least 1 did . And the procedures at the range in that agency and other police agencies were forever changed as a direct of that incident . Yes other tactical mistakes were made .

    Every cop alive has made tactical mistakes and its by the grace of god that more of us arent killed or injured.

    So why you so bent on how many officers did that . Does it matter . The point I think illustrates the premise that you will fall back on your training. So why cant you admit that and move one.

    Why do you think all the Bullshidos in here are so onboard with the Matt Thorton credo of Alive training. Thats why we have so many debates and so on about the usefullness of Kata and what not

    So I think you are thinking too small minded. I think the account of this tragedy underscores my points.

    And the difference of Paul Bunyan is 4 LEOs didnt die in 4 and half minutes .

    I think I rest made my point and my case. And 1 other point .
    A cop will see things differently than a civilian and a veteran officer will see things differently than a rookie .

    So When I ask you if you are a LEO its not to say im cool and you are not . Its to gauge your life experience when it comes to a tactical police situation, Just like surviving a military battle there is no way to describe it to another person and do it justice , but some one was in battle will instantly know exactly what the person is talking about.

    End of story .

    Fuck being a cop Id rather be retired .
    Last edited by foxguitar; 8/02/2009 6:02pm, .

    Leave a comment:


  • BoonDog
    replied
    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    ]Ok Im done Ive said my piece , Im sorry it got testy , but I stick to my premise you do what you are trained to do in a crisis.
    Why did it get testy?

    Your premise is faulty. That is what I am trying to point out to you. You keep saying it does not matter how many of the officers were found with brass in their hands. It is VERY relevant, especially for your premise. In the case you mentioned, without any citation still after being asked for it many times, one report mentions only one officer having brass in his hand.

    Now to help you understand this, I will try and point out why it matters. If only one did this, then the other three officers did not do this. They did not fall back on the training in the crisis. This story, as presented, blows a huge hole in your premise.

    Can you rebut any of my argument with a valid rebuttal or new evidence.

    AND stop doing the appeal of "I'm a Cop, you must believe me."

    PS
    As to your lumberjack analogy, if I were a lumberjack and told you the legend of Paul Bunyan and you questioned it, I better be able to say more than "I'm a lumberjack, you must believe me even though you provide contrary evidence."

    Leave a comment:


  • foxguitar
    replied
    Originally posted by BoonDog View Post
    Well, that is your opinion and you can think what you want. I do not have to provide proof to you. Don't you know who I am?


    See what I did there? I argued just like you.

    no you need practice , theres only one FOXGUITAR LOL




    And your point? I don't care. You can attend all the seminars and read all the books you want. That does not make your post any more right. In fact it has nothing to do with your post. Also, you are not the only one on here with experiences in life.

    Yeah but you are arguing about something you have no knowledge about , If you were an experience lumberjack and I came on here telling you about lumberjacking it would be silly on my part would it not .
    And if you dont think 28 years as a LEO and countless seminars counts for anything then I guess you dont think your martial arts instructors experience and time spent account for anything.


    But if only one did it and it was so ingrained, does that mean the other three had poor training? The other three died and did not hold onto their spent rounds. Why are they dead if holding spent rounds is what caused them to not be able to have good tactics?

    It was ingrained , it was taught at their academy , these were young inexperienced officers . And after that the training in the range procedures as well other tactics were changed as a result



    And you were asked to provide proof that the four cops, as you claimed, died because of training methodology on the range. You have provided no evidence to your claim. All you have said is that you read books, attended seminars, and are a cop, so we should believe you. You have not argued against any of the evidence provided against your statements, nor have you grasped what the issue is being addressed.

    What difference if it was one or all 4 , The point being there "officer" if it cost one of them valuable seconds to re-load and contributed to his or their death then it was a fatal mistake.

    Im not to criticize these 4 poor officers who made the ultimate sacrifice but there were as in most Police deaths tactical mistakes made.

    the whole point and Ill repeat it was to show how you react as you are trained when it comes down to brass tacks. what point with that do you or any rational person have a problem with.

    The point was one or more officers had spent cartridges on them when they were found as they were taught at their range . END OF STORY


    So, if I disagree with you, I must not be a LEO. That is a piss poor way to argue. Also, the evidence is contrary to your notion. Argue against the evidence provided or provide rebuttal evidence. That is all I have ever asked of you. Is that so hard for you?
    well I dont mind you disagreeing or anybody disagrees thats cool , maybe im a little sensitive ok if so I aplogize for that .

    And if you or not a LEO isnt relevant , again the point is to agree with the OP and illustrate the point with a tragic circumstances.

    Their deaths as the FBI shoot out in Miami changed Police tactics , As did the Scott Gadell shooting in NYC . NYPD went to speed loaders after he was killed while attempting to reload

    Ok Im done Ive said my piece , Im sorry it got testy , but I stick to my premise you do what you are trained to do in a crisis.

    Leave a comment:


  • BoonDog
    replied
    Originally posted by foxguitar View Post
    Well are you or not , if so wheres your proof , and if you are how long ,
    Well, that is your opinion and you can think what you want. I do not have to provide proof to you. Don't you know who I am?


    See what I did there? I argued just like you.


    Originally posted by foxguitar
    Ever read the books on surviving street encounters , well not only did I read it I attended their seminars , These are professionals who disect incidents where LEOs are killed.
    And your point? I don't care. You can attend all the seminars and read all the books you want. That does not make your post any more right. In fact it has nothing to do with your post. Also, you are not the only one on here with experiences in life.

    Originally posted by foxguitar
    whether it was one or all 4 , At least one did that and perhaps that cost him valuable seconds which cost him his life.
    But if only one did it and it was so ingrained, does that mean the other three had poor training? The other three died and did not hold onto their spent rounds. Why are they dead if holding spent rounds is what caused them to not be able to have good tactics?

    Originally posted by foxguitar
    And the whole point of all this was to agree with the OP that you refer to your training in a crisis situation.
    And you were asked to provide proof that the four cops, as you claimed, died because of training methodology on the range. You have provided no evidence to your claim. All you have said is that you read books, attended seminars, and are a cop, so we should believe you. You have not argued against any of the evidence provided against your statements, nor have you grasped what the issue is being addressed.

    Originally posted by foxguitar
    but you as a "LEO "would know that wouldn't you ?
    So, if I disagree with you, I must not be a LEO. That is a piss poor way to argue. Also, the evidence is contrary to your notion. Argue against the evidence provided or provide rebuttal evidence. That is all I have ever asked of you. Is that so hard for you?

    Leave a comment:


  • foxguitar
    replied
    Originally posted by BoonDog View Post
    By your story, the cops died because they were trained to hold their brass when reloading. However, there is only evidence of one cop holding brass. That is 1 of the four. The other three officers did not do this. If training caused it, does that mean the others did not follow proper training? I doubt that Police training on picking up brass had much to do with why the lost the gun battle. Other tactics mattered even more.

    You now look like a worse idiot for saying the following

    And the whole point was to agree to what the OP said about you refer to your training in a crisis situation and if you are a LEO I want proof or stfu


    and when question after someone tried to look it up as directed BY YOU



    You also point out that the surviving gunman stated that the officers got careless. Now cite where the cause of the death was from the police being trained to pick up their brass.

    You assume I have never been an officer or that I am not even one now. Just because I do not have a tag does not mean that I am not an officer.

    Well are you or not , if so wheres your proof , and if you are how long ,

    Do you carry automatics , Because if you carried revolvers and trained on them prior to speed loaders which btw were faster than the pouch were still cumbersome in a combat situation.

    Ever read the books on surviving street encounters , well not only did I read it I attended their seminars , These are professionals who disect incidents where LEOs are killed.

    And one case study they conducted was the Newhall incident. They are the ones who hammered the point that the officers were trained to catch their brass , whether it was one or all 4 , At least one did that and perhaps that cost him valuable seconds which cost him his life.

    Ok and I doubt you are a LEO without proof. and security guard at walmarts dont count.

    And the whole point of all this was to agree with the OP that you refer to your training in a crisis situation but you as a "LEO "would know that wouldn't you ?
    Last edited by foxguitar; 8/02/2009 2:42pm, .

    Leave a comment:

Collapse

Edit this module to specify a template to display.

Working...
X