"The Truth About Guns Reaches a New Low in its Anti-Cop Bashing"

Centuriator

Centuriator

Dude...you're being very un-Dude.
Banned !
Full Member
Minuteman
Jul 3, 2012
2,798
1,631
Middle 'Merica!
#1
If you guys are familiar with the blog site, The Truth About Guns, you may have noticed that Robert Farago, the site's owner, has a real axe to grind against law enforcement. At every possible opportunity he is bashing the police, to a point that can only be described now as an obsession.

He reached a new low with a post in which, based on his extensive personal background in law enforcement, firearms training and criminal investigation [sarcasm there folks] he provides his readers with his "speculations" on what happened in the Michael Brown shooting.

Read it for yourself.
 
#2
Aww man. I don't really like TTAG (too many commenters who think "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" shouted over and over is a legal argument), but I like people being willing treat the police with the skepticism merited for the part of government with guns pointed at the citizenry. How is this one going to go?

This is no small point. If Officer Wilson drew his weapon on an unarmed man, even after being assaulted, even while being assaulted, he was clearly, legally in the wrong. Officer Wilson would have been responsible – on more than one level – for everything that happened subsequently.

Nope, nope, nope, nope. Wrong. It is entirely possible that deadly force can be justified against an unarmed assailant, especially if he is 290 lbs. and/or going for your gun. I'm not saying this shooting was justified, because nobody (nobody) knows that yet, but that statement is pants on head crazy.
 
#4
Eh, the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect is doubtful under Tennessee v. Garner, but if Brown did turn around and charge the cop (if) that is a possibly different story.
TimeWillTell said:
To add to Tacos, the cop has the right to pursue the assailant (and possibly use deadly force) while the average joe legally does not.
Click to expand...
 
#5
TacosGigante said:
Eh, the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect is doubtful under Tennessee v. Garner, but if Brown did turn around and charge the cop (if) that is a possibly different story.
Click to expand...

Well yes it's not just justified to use deadly for just because they are police. But as you said if Brown turned around and charged him he is justified. But the police chasing isn't justification for the suspect to turn around and try to defend himself. It's different. If a civilian chases legally the suspect could argue they turned around to defend himself. It's a matter of cause.
 
#6
Interestingly, in theory at least, in Texas there is a right for a citizen to defend themselves against a police abuse of power. So if a cop were to manifest an intent to use deadly force unjustifiably the citizen could defend themselves. Of course, lots of luck with the trial after, or making it to the trial in one piece.

TimeWillTell said:
Well yes it's not just justified to use deadly for just because they are police. But as you said if Brown turned around and charged him he is justified. But the police chasing isn't justification for the suspect to turn around and try to defend himself. It's different. If a civilian chases legally the suspect could argue they turned around to defend himself. It's a matter of cause.
Click to expand...
 
#7
TacosGigante said:
Interestingly, in theory at least, in Texas there is a right for a citizen to defend themselves against a police abuse of power. So if a cop were to manifest an intent to use deadly force unjustifiably the citizen could defend themselves. Of course, lots of luck with the trial after, or making it to the trial in one piece.
Click to expand...

That is very interesting. Not something I'd try except in extreme cases that I know has extensive video documentation. Regardless, I was just trying to point out that the police can pursue suspects without fault. I don't think many would argue the potential legal issues of shooting a fleeing subject in the back or one that has turned to surrender.
 
#8
I always wondered about that if you are say, target shooting on your own property, and an officer came onto your property drew down on you for no "immediate apparent reason". Could you defend yourself??
I am sure at that point it would be you or him..??
 
Last edited:
#9
Agreed. I would say I hope this doesn't turn into Martin and Zimmerman pt.2 with people making wild assumptions based on facts not in evidence, but we are already well past that. It would have been good to have a calm conversation about police militarization, police-community relationships, and pre- and post- shooting protocol, but instead we have this shit storm.

TimeWillTell said:
That is very interesting. Not something I'd try except in extreme cases that I know has extensive video documentation. Regardless, I was just trying to point out that the police can pursue suspects without fault. I don't think many would argue the potential legal issues of shooting a fleeing subject in the back or one that has turned to surrender.
Click to expand...
 
#10
the once-ler said:
I always wondered about that if you are say, shooting on your own property, and an officer came onto your property drew down on you for no "immediate apparent reason". Could you defend yourself??
I am sure at that point it would be you or him..??
Click to expand...

Shooting as in against an assailant? If threat neutralized then put gun down. If it all happens simultaneously then heck I have no idea but that's probably a good question...
 
#11
the once-ler said:
I always wondered about that if you are say, target shooting on your own property, and an officer came onto your property drew down on you for no "immediate apparent reason". Could you defend yourself??
I am sure at that point it would be you or him..??
Click to expand...

In theory you have a right to preserve your life against either government tyranny (if the cop was acting in his official capacity and under orders) or police abuse (if the cop was abusing his authority outside his orders) or this guy trying to kill you (if he was acting in his personal capacity because he hated you personally), but lots of luck at trial.
 
#12
TacosGigante said:
Agreed. I would say I hope this doesn't turn into Martin and Zimmerman pt.2 with people making wild assumptions based on facts not in evidence, but we are already well past that. It would have been good to have a calm conversation about police militarization, police-community relationships, and pre- and post- shooting protocol, but instead we have this shit storm.
Click to expand...

Agreed, convos that need to be had. I will stop short of giving my opinion on the many factors that contributed to why everything got out of hand so fast and we lost an opportunity for serious discussion. And we are definitely into Zimmerman pt 2. It's sad.
 
#13
See, if only the rest of the country was like the Hide what a peaceful paradise it would be. *Checks thread about SCAR 17s* ...Never mind.

TimeWillTell said:
Agreed, convos that need to be had. I will stop short of giving my opinion on the many factors that contributed to why everything got out of hand so fast and we lost an opportunity for serious discussion. And we are definitely into Zimmerman pt 2. It's sad.
Click to expand...
 
#16
I live in Arizona and we have a no retreat law here, in other words you do not have to retreat if someone comes at you and you believe they wish to harm you. Having said that, if I'm in my drive way and an unarmed man starts running towards me and I shoot him dead am I in trouble? Do I have to prove that that person meant to use deadly force against me? I don't think it should be any different whether your a citizen or a police officer? Did this officer reach for his firearm when he could have reached for his pepper spray or a taser? Certainly a face full of pepper spray would have given this officer the advantage and been able to arrest this guy? I don't want to sound like I'm taking sides cause I'm not, just posing some questions. Was the escalation of force protocols followed properly here? Did the officer know for sure this man was unarmed? It will be interesting to see the final outcome of the investigation.

The people who are rioting really don't give a shit about the dead guy, they just want an excuse to act like the trash, thieves and scum they are.
 
#17
Any shooting involving a cop is all the same in the aspect of the truth will NEVER be reveled to the general public. However, when it comes to a shooting involving a CC holder, then EVERYTHING is released to the public. I don't know why people are so glued to their boob tubes over whether the cop was wrong or right in the case that started this whole mess because either way you WON'T EVER hear the truth. I myself couldn't care less. A dead thief is a dead thief in my eyes no matter who killed it. All I'm saying is quit being so quick to believe what the MSN has to say because they're all about ratings and that's ALL they care about. Also, as far as the autopsy thing goes, once again don't believe ANYTHING the MSN has to say because guess who controls what the autopsy rep has to say about the body in question? ;)
 
Last edited:
#18
Amsdorf said:
If you guys are familiar with the blog site, The Truth About Guns, you may have noticed that Robert Farago, the site's owner, has a real axe to grind against law enforcement....
Click to expand...
He also is prone to pontificating about matters he knows exactly FUCK ALL about. The primary function of his web site seems to me to be filling us all in on the latest bug he has up his ass, whether we care or not.
 
Last edited:
#19
Exactly 20 years ago I was sitting through a trial that received a fair amount of press coverage. Prior to the trial the peanut gallery had been trying to piece together the story. Now here we were in federal court with mounds of testimony and documentation gushing forth. Reporters hounded us in the evening at the hotel bar and at dinner to try and get a little more scoop. They sat and scribbled notes all day long. And yet, to my astonishment, when I would read their articles I often wondered what proceedings they were reporting on. There was no way anyone not in the courtroom could get an idea about what was going on by paying any attention to the press. Unfortunately, without actually hearing or reading the testimony there was no other way to gather the facts.

Fact checking studies often show that 50%, or more, of what is reported by the news is just plain wrong. It is my own observation that many people (if not most) seek out news sources that serve to confirm their own agenda. To say I am jaded about what is presented as "news" is an understatement. The mindless blather put forth in this TTG piece serves no constructive purpose other than to get a few more hits on his site. I suspect the totality of findings by the various investigating bodies will serve to undermine the current body of conjecture. At some point in the future, when and if all of it is available, it will be up to us to find it and sift through it as few news sources have any incentive to do so.
 
Last edited:
#21
MosesTheTank said:
Exactly 20 years ago I was sitting through a trial that received a fair amount of press coverage. Prior to the trial the peanut gallery had been trying to piece together the story. Now here we were in federal court with mounds of testimony and documentation gushing forth. Reporters hounded us in the evening at the hotel bar and at dinner to try and get a little more scoop. They sat and scribbled notes all day long. And yet, to my astonishment, when I would read their articles I often wondered what proceedings they were reporting on. There was no way anyone not in the courtroom could get an idea about what was going on by paying any attention to the press. Unfortunately, without actually hearing or reading the testimony there was no other way to gather the facts.

Fact checking studies often show that 50%, or more, of what is reported by the news is just plain wrong. It is my own observation that many people (if not most) seek out news sources that serve to confirm their own agenda. To say I am jaded about what is presented as "news" is an understatement. The mindless blather put forth in this TTG piece serves no constructive purpose other than to get a few more hits on his site. I suspect the totality of findings by the various investigating bodies will serve to undermine the current body of conjecture. At some point in the future, when and if all of it is available, it will be up to us to find it and sift through it as few news sources have any incentive to do so.
Click to expand...

If you dont mind me asking sir, are you a lawyer? Just wondering why else you would sit through a trial between that and jury duty? Thanks.
 
#22
Adding my two cents..

We all cannot forget that the police walk right into harms way every time they apprehend or approach anyone on the street.
Not saying everyone is a threat, but everyone they approach is a possible threat.
They run to "danger" not away from danger.
When approaching anyone they have to keep in mind they are there to protect the public, as well as maintaining their own safety.
We all have seen it where a policeman or woman have attempted to question or apprehend someone and the person has fought back or try to run.
The police officers job is control the situation, aka put the person in handcuffs or chase down the subject. Those two things can cause it to escalade.
I'm no police officer and have no training in dealing with what they do.
There are an endless ways it can end up so it is the police officers job to take the (offensive) approach in things.
Every day the officer has do their job. Some guy with a gun? He/she goes toward that subject.
Pulls someone over and that someone could very well kill you or others? He/she goes toward that subject.
It is so easy for people to lie and complain and blame the police, until they are the ones who have to apprehend someone that is deemed a threat to yourself.
I know for a fact if someone that was 290 lbs and 6'4 coming after me to harm and possibly kill me, I would squeeze until the threat is gone.
That would not only protect me, but for anyone else if this person decides to kill me and anyone else who gets in his way for his escape.
 
#23
This event was handled poorly by the local police, it looks like a justified shoot but there was a lack of info from the chief about the circumstances and what I believe an over reaction by the police during the first part of the riots. Cops should not get special treatment under the law,they are not special. its a shitty job for sure, but thi8s is where all the you tube videos that show cops shooting homeless people on a mountain, shooting at a family in a car etc etc comes into play.People dont trust the cops automatically anymore. I don't, unfortunately. The standard for a cop to shoot someone is not to protect their safety, hell its a pretty safe job, not even in the top 10 of most dangerous, the standard should be the same for a cop as it is for Joe citizen, which I think it is in most of the country.

The 10 Deadliest Jobs:

1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers
 
#24
Forgetful Coyote said:
If you dont mind me asking sir, are you a lawyer? Just wondering why else you would sit through a trial between that and jury duty? Thanks.
Click to expand...

Once upon a time. I am referring to a trial that was the first of 11 in a row that sprung from a body of about 200 suits filed. There were hundreds more waiting in the wings. Decisively winning those 11 helped dissipate the rest. The massive scale of the litigation attracted the press like flies. It also attracted a strange sort of groupie that was neither legal nor media. They were usually found squatting around the plaintiff's side of the room, chewing on the proceedings like khat. They would appear at a trial in NC, then pop up three months later in Puerto Rico or Hawaii. Some of them were quoted in news stories. One of these groupies became so knowledgeable about the subject matter he became employed as a consultant to a plaintiff's firm. Though the result was an embarrassing shambles for him, the pinnacle of his career occurred when he was deposed. For the groupies this was akin to a musician headlining at Carnegie Hall. The end of his employment was because for all of his time spent sitting at trial, pouring over news clippings, and having drinks with the various plaintiffs, he only listened to what he wanted to hear. And what he wanted to hear was any bit of information that would portend the doom of the defendant, my client. This was the only information that filtered through the density of his cranium where it was then processed by circuits with soldering so faulty a fire would result if pushed to hard. And this was the sort of information the plaintiffs so badly wanted to hear. As we prevailed in one trial after the next the desperation for such information grew, as did the importance of the groupie. Then the more often, and more feverishly, the groupies would scribble notes and pass them to attorneys as the turnstile at the witness stand swung back and forth. I believe that this was the neanderthal version of what today we would call a blogger, and his readership.

At least mainstream media must make the effort to appear to have done their homework before turning in their writing. Bloggers only need to spew. The audience that needs affirmation of their own opinions will come, and maybe click on a few adds while they are there. In this piece by Robert Farago he throws "Speculative Analysis" into the headline. The "speculative" part of it pokes me in the eye like so many executives who use thinly veiled self-deprecation that I know precedes an immediate opportunity for self-promotion. The "analysis" part of it is a bad joke.

Media and bloggers (increasingly difficult to differentiate) gravitate towards a music that sounds the trumpets of doom. The "search for the truth" is a quaint paraphrase for incompetence. To sell and to win. That is the point. It is a land of make-believe, a work of the imagination, shaped by the emotion of the present and situated somewhere over the rainbow of a deconstructed past.

“…Of comfort no man speak:
Let’s talk of graves, of worms, and epitaphs;
Make dust our paper, and with rainy eyes
Write sorrow on the bosom of the earth.
Let’s choose executors, and talk of wills…
For God’s sake, let us sit upon the ground,
And tell sad stories of the death of kings.”
—William Shakespeare

The last time I entered a law firm as an employee Clinton was about to appoint Madeleine Albright as first female US secretary of state and the Taliban had finally taken Kabul.
 
Last edited:
#25
Army Jerry.

I would agree that those jobs are deadly and dangerous.
But put in perspective that police officers are going against the top predator on this earth. Us humans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
2024 Legion Memorial Run and Gun, Honoring the Fallen as a Family
Replies
9
Views
704
FatBoy
F
PatMiles
January 6 committee withdraws subpoena against President Donald Trump
Replies
5
Views
1K
DIBBS
DIBBS
PatMiles
Will the Supreme Court put a stake through the heart of gun control?
Replies
19
Views
3K
acudaowner
acudaowner
G
Lavish spending by NRA executives
Replies
49
Views
2K
Graywolf.260
Graywolf.260
Blue Sky Country
"Will Not Prosecute". Soros-funded Dem prosecutors allow criminals to operate with no fear of jail.
Replies
10
Views
1K
theLBC
theLBC
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts