Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Active Self Protection" channel.

@Zlurz "bring peace and calmness to whatever is happening" - How do they bring peace other than projecting force? "that is absolutely ridiculous" - But it isn't. All law is backed by violence.
3
Sko Bird how the fuck am I supposed to know he's 15? Verbal warning? So he can pull out a gun and fire in the direction of the sound?
2
***** Maybe you don't know where your daughter goes at night. I don't have to sneak into my house at 4AM because my parents know where I am and trust me, if I ever have a daughter she doesn't need to fucking break into my house and sneak around like a burglar. She can use the front door like a regular fucking person.
2
. ?? . You're still an anomaly after 5 shootings. Other officers have 0 to 1.
2
. ?? . You're deflecting, and no I don't. When seconds count cops are hours away.
2
. ?? . Tons of people in prison over one action.
2
@Roman Perez thin blue line profile pic telling us out it is.
2
It's not ridiculous. How do you "reassure" your safety without the use of force? What plethora of other reasons? How is it irresponsible from a self-defense channel? If it's about self-defense, then call. The attacker doesn't deserve a second thought. He waived his rights away.
2
Sko Bird >"But you just sound so emotional talking about this and trigger happy like, yeah cant wait to shoot someone when they enter my house!! wohoo" What do you want me to do with that information? Call it a Strawman fallacy? Tell you that you can't possibly figure out the tone of a conversation from text alone (I was thinking with incredulity, which you mistook for emotion)? Tell you that you're projecting your own mental issues onto other people? How is it desirable to shoot someone? Just for starters, the dead body and the blood stains will be a bitch to pay for the clean up, not to mention that you take a hit on the resale value of your property. Oh, there's also the fact that you may face legal issues, which even if you win it costs a lot of money. Stop assuming other people don't think.
1
gwl78 name that country, then. People always say that, but never the country they reside in so that nobody can look up how violent it is.
1
@worsethanjoerogan8061 you do realize that departments which don't want a bad name go back and review an officer's track record, right?
1
Their profession is using force on behalf of a state. All law is backed by violence.
1
@pimar5654 Violence is their first resort because threat of violence is still a use of violence. Who would follow the law if everyone knew cops couldn't land a hand on you? The state holds the monopoly on violence, making it a violent institution. It's a brutal system under a thin veneer of civility.
1
@pimar5654 Don't "whatever" me like a teenage son. You're telling cops only make sure people follow the law, but then won't answer when I ask you how would they accomplish that if they were not allowed to use violence. Next time just say "oh you're right".
1
. ?? . Mans just said cops should kill 50% of the people they encounter.
1
But that's a fact. The state can only enforce law through violence. After you call the police, you have no control over the situation. Maybe you want things to deescalate, but the person you called the cops on for whatever reason decides to start attacking the cops. You need to be aware of the possibilities.
1
@christian-gu5oq so people can kill people by proxy by claiming they have a gun.
1
@mrskunk4732 That's not enough. Texts about a gun don't actually mean there's a gun.
1
@mrskunk4732 Guess I should call the cops on you for making bombs, and they don't even investigate if you're building bombs. That's what you're defending. Not no proof. No investigation at all. Just capital punishment on the spot.
1
@mrskunk4732 "there was reason to believe he had a gun" - Belief someone has a gun isn't justification for a shoot. If he was out of line, stop defending his actions. "Guess if there is no evidence you wouldn't believe a rape victim right?" - Huh, there needs to be an investigation. What you're defending is believing someone is a rapist and gunning him down on the spot without making sure he actually did anything.
1
When cops do things like these it validates the people resisting.
1
@wanderingandroid And now this cop ran his gun and there may be people who might want to join the game too. Do you see the issue?
1
It's 100% right. All the state has is force. All law is backed by force. If you call the cops, consider that violence will be used to deal with the situation, and how much violence will be out if your control.
1
Better trained oppressors is not a thing worth bragging about.
1
@acealban It is the case. New Zealand is becoming a little weird, Australian and UK cops are jackbooted thugs.
1
@lmaoroflcopter that's how police works anywhere in the world. All law is based on violence.
1
@DaddyBear3000 The UK is no different. Protection and defense is achieved through force. However, people have too high of an opinion about UK cops. I've been there and they grab the MP5s over anything.
1
@lmaoroflcopter I'm not American. It's definitely the case. Watch some footage from other countries. Look at the French cops rushing into a house to beat down a rapper in his studio or whatever. Or the Canadian cops who tackled a woman into the ground because of her Star Wars cosplay having a blaster. Cops without violence are just parking inspectors.
1
@Zoroaster4 "I almost never am calling for them to use force to protect me. A lot of the time it's because I need an officer to reiterate to them that their choice is either live peacefully in the house or live however they want in a mental hospital or jail." - That is a threat of violence, which is violence. You're still calling the state to come on down and tell people that if they don't correct their behavior, they'll have force used against them. It's amazing, you're actually making Correia's point for him but can't even see it.
1
@lmaoroflcopter It is the case. A less lethal round is a form of violence. They're not exceptions, they're reality. You're simply denying the everyday reality. If you think policing is about de-escalation, then prohibit police from touching anyone. They're barred from using force. Do it. If you think the way you claim to think, you can't claim this is a ridiculous idea. "You call 911 to have someone with authority beyond your own to resolve a situation" - Yeah, force. Authority is derived from force, the government holds a monopoly over it. If you live in a place where government doesn't have authority, that's a place where the monopoly on violence is contested. Due to insurgency, warlords, civil war, whatever. "Yes the resolution may result in a violent action being taken, but that is not the intent of policing." - You're just splitting hairs. If you're calling 911 you're calling for government force. You can say that's not the intent, but the intent is just about political correctness. If you were calling people without the authority to use force, it would be useless.
1
@Zoroaster4 No, we don't. To point at a badge and say "I will use force if necessary" to make people comply is simply put coercion. If I hold a knife at someone and ask for a wallet, I can't tell the judge "I didn't start stabbing so there's no crime", it's still robbery with a deadly weapon. All law is backed by violence. You can comply, if you don't then force will be used against you and if you resist that force the guns will blaze.
1
@lmaoroflcopter No, I'm not assuming anything. If you're calling 911, you are calling people to use violence in your behalf. Period. "Resolve a situation" is just a politically correct way of saying it. If it was just about "resolving situations" you could call anyone else. A teacher. A judge. The mayor. But you call the people with the badges. Really gets the nogging jogging, people say it's not about asking for state violence but you call the people who are tasked with performing violence on the state's behalf. Hmmmmmm.
1