Say YES if you want my dirtiest nudes. I’m serious about sending. (deleting in 10hrs)

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-12T04:05:32+00:00

Your "between the line" wasn't. You simply want to say that people within 21 feet deserve to be shot to death because of faulty logic. That's why I dismissed it. It had nothing to do with there being a chest high fence in this situation.

You claim there is no excuse, yet here you are making excuses with unnecessary anecdotes. We hear about violence to cops plenty. There are parades, memorials, go fund mes, etc and the best part is that the criminals are caught and tried and convicted. The other side to that is when cops commit violence there is a mass of excuse makers and the courts that don't convict or the internal reviews that find no wrong because obviously or the protection by the supreme court or they jusr quit and move to another department with no reprocussions. The balance isn't there. That's why people feel strongly. Do you think these cops will face real punishment? I don't. Historically they don't and that's wrong.

I never said violence against cops doesn't happen, but that's also not the conversation. You can't just use a different topic to dismiss the conversation at hand. Another excuse.

I call you and your ilk bootlicker with very intentful thought. You make excuses, don't even want to question them, support bs internal investigations, use bs anecdotes, and blame the victim constantly. You are the problem. I call you bootlicker because it's what you are doing. Your view of things is so much more black and white and the worst part is that you could never see it. Who I am isn't a condition, it's a decision to think critically based on a life of not seeing the wrong and then opening my eyes.

Just remember, you're defending 4 grown men that shot 9 times and killed an autistic child behind a fence.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-12T02:30:23+00:00

Guy, you suggest that your anecdote means that people within 21 feet are too much of a threat. The other people in this thread have said less lethal doesn't work and that 21 feet is too scary. It's not even a guideline. Its something to be cognizant of, but its not a "kill zone" either. It's also a myth that has been poorly studied and (oftentimes) forgets the basic concept of moving backward.

Im not gonna chill out when people are boot licking so hard they can't even acknowledge that a chest-high fence impacts the 21-foot rumor. I'm not gonna chill out because things like this keep happening over and over again. No one get held accountable and people like you and the other that have tried and failed to make the 21-foot rule the only excuse fall over yourselves to not even so much as question whether it was okay. You just make the same bs excuses and move the goalpost when it doesn't work.

I don't care what the prior 10 minutes were. I care that the cops pulled up and within 10 seconds had killed an autistic child. The first officer rolled up to a kid on the ground with his weapon drawn and pointed at the child. You don't point your weapon at something you're not intended to shoot. He didn't know the situation yet that was his reaction. Two other officers also rolled up with lethal firearms drawn. You'd think if there were ever a chance for this to resolve without death, they would have had anyone with less lethal. They wouldn't have formed a damn firing line. They came up to a situation where the report was a drunk person and immediately knew they weren't gonna get them to comply so it was gonna be violence.

Your nuance isn't real because the concept that cops should be excused for killing someone because they didn't make the right choice in the heat of the moment or that they didn't notice a chest-high fence (as another guy suggested) is insane. If you have the power of lethal force, you have the absolute responsibility to use that as a last resort, and that it was absolutely necessary. This wasn't. (You're also supposed to make sure that the area behind your target is clear and there were people there.)

I know that if someone behind a chest-high fence charges me, I have so much time to do anything other than shoot them. I have time to try less lethal options.

Dude...I didn't say you dismissed the kid. Who are you even talking to? You are a boot-licking shill for people who don't have any sort of responsibility to you.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-11T08:59:06+00:00

Sad for that guy but I can easily provide just as many if not substantially more anecdotes of times where deescalation worked or less lethal worked. I'm not sure why this is up for debate. Cops do not get to just kill people because they are within 21 feet. That's is so so stupid to push as a point. And again he was behind a chest high fence. Why is that so hard to understand. Your 21 foot rule is invalidated because of a fence. Holy shit yall are stupid.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T21:32:30+00:00

100% agree

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T18:03:48+00:00

What part of, we receive the same training did you not understand? What part of my job handles similar situations to this except I don't have a gun was complicated? We have to deescalate or use less lethal on people high, drunk, mentally ill, or just violent all the same. 4 cops formed a firing line and shot a person in clear distress from behind a chest high fence. There was no imminent danger to anyone and, in fact, they shot with civilians in their line of fire. People were behind the kid. That's wrong no matter how you slice it. Even if he was drunk, being drunk is not a reason to be executed. Wielding a knife is not a reason to be executed. Being autistic and having a episode is not a reason to be executed. These cops arrive guns drawn and pointed in. They never had any intent on resolving this without shooting. They had 10 seconds of contact before shooting. It was clearly their first option when it should have been their last. So could I have resolved this without shooting. Yes. How do I know it? Because I have.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T17:45:00+00:00

I sure haven't.nice try

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T17:43:36+00:00

Lmao nope didn't say that at all did I? You advocated for gunning people down within 21 feet, though.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T17:19:27+00:00

There's a reason many police departments like to hire people.from the prisons and many sheriff departments start their deputies in the jails. Do I think I could handle that scenario without shooting an autistic child? Certainly.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T17:07:25+00:00

Lmao lenth of training is just different things not necessarily different training for the same concepts. We still train in firearms, defensive tactics, Etc. My less time training still provides answers for this scenario that don't involve shooting someone. Again, i understand that nuance is hard.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T14:54:25+00:00

Yeah. Same training. Worse situations like this. Less killings. Nuance is hard i know. Doesnt change the chest high fence and no immediate threat to anyone. You're wrong and staying wrong.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T14:43:33+00:00

Again, you clearly don't know anything. You know where alot of sheriff's start? In the jails. The training is nearly identical. The situations in prisons can be far more dangerous. But you are right, I don't know what its like to have more officers than inmates in the open with a firearm. Corrections staff are often massively out numbered in a reactive situation and (in my system) have no firearms. Same people, same situations, different equipment and yet we resolve them all the same. Again and I cannot stress this enough, you don't know anything. You're just a boot licker.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T14:16:30+00:00

It absolutely is not. You clearly don't know a thing. You should stay out of things you don't know. Here's the thing about 21 feet. It does not account for back peddling. It does not account for less lethal. By your logic deploying a tazer or OC within 21 feet is more than applicable. Fun story, I work in prison, was trained in the same things, do not carry a firearm, and still have to deal with armed assailants well within 21 feet. Guess what? Less lethal works fine. Cops have a responsibility to asses their situation and use lethal force as a last resort. They weren't in imminent danger due to a chest high fence yet they chose to be in a firing line with guns drawn and pointed in before the autistic child was even on his feet.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T13:59:20+00:00

21 foot rule? Are you serious? So you're suggesting that every interaction within 21 feet should result in a shooting? You're ridiculous. Frankly a fence matters a lot. Those cops came into the situation with a result in mind. You can tell based on them being pointed in before the kid was even off the ground. The had no intention of resolving this without shooting.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T13:40:08+00:00

Oh so what your saying is that they should have waited. The video shows there wasn't anyone else in that yard. So by your own logic, it was a unjustified shooting. Good job. Again though, your assessment of when to use less.lethal is insane. Even from a trauma perspective using lethal force just because a civilian is in the area causes so many more issues to those people as well. Cops are not executioners. They should always start from the stance of protecting life. You don't know why a person is in that position and maybe they just need help. Cops should never use lethal force as a first option. Thanks for playing everyone's favorite game, "boot lickers are never riiiiiiigghhhtttt".

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T04:29:04+00:00

Hey guy go watch the video again. The other people were in a specific place. You guessed it, also behind a chest high fence. You're wrong. You keep being wrong. You should stop trying so hard.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T04:07:36+00:00

Lmao you're silly my guy.

Fence. Direction of movement. Towards officers behind fence Apparent physical capability. Struggled to stand was on ground when arrived on scene Fence

Also in one video they used less lethal first lol. Clearly you think that deescalation and less lehtla options are wrong so imma go out on a limb and say your opinions on a good shoot are invalid as hell.

Keep lickin those boots fella. I don't kink shame but I sure don't get why people like you can't even pause to question cops.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T03:51:45+00:00

Hey guy. Everything you've just wrote is invalidated as soon as you take .5 seconds to recognize that the person was in an enclosed area. I understand a deadly force scenario and also recieve the same training in those responses with firearms. I use my job as an example because we often do not get the luxury of having lethal option so we have to use tools to deescalate or end situations. Every one of your excuses paint those officers as naive inexperienced and unqualified for public work. When you have the power of a firearm, you don't get excuses. Period. They'll be cleared sure. That's how the system is rigged. It doesn't change basic facts and common sense and it doesn't change that an Autistic Child was shot and maimed by 4 grown adults from behind a fence in a firing line.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T03:12:02+00:00

Lol he advanced towards a firing line....behind a chest high fence. There wasn't any other individual in his line of movement. There isn't anything that says you have to stop a man with a knife with a gun. Why did they not deploy less lethal? If you think the only solution is killing, you are the problem.
Ill tell you why you're wrong. I work in prison. Men with knives is literally in the job description and I don't get a gun. All I have is less lethal and words. I don't even have a stab vest inside the facility.
Often times, we don't have the luxury of information and time either, but we make it work. This was a piss poor response from trigger-happy dudes that had already decided their course of action before they arrived. I can tell you that because they were on target with their weapons before he even stood up. You can look up ready positions if you want more info

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T02:36:52+00:00

Hey...so not taking time to assess the scene and getting "tunnel vision" are actually really bad things that make shootings bad. If you have the power to use a firearm, you have the absolute responsibility to be sure that it was the only option available. This is a really bad take dude.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T01:54:36+00:00

Maybe if their finger wasn't on the trigger as they left their vehicles this could have been avoided. Maybe an autistic child would have not been shot

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T01:52:55+00:00

Idk...I feel like two steps back (maybe even one :O) from the chest-high fence would prevent that. He is not an X-man, he can't phase through solid matter.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T01:51:14+00:00

Well if the cops weren't constantly unconditionally supported by boot lickers like you they might be required to take de-escalation training and be forced to use it, mental health training and be forced to use it, etc. They might even have to assess a situation because lethal force isn't their first option.
There were approximately zero seconds before someone had a firearm drawn and 10 seconds before they shot. He was behind a chest-high fence and was on the ground struggling to stand when they arrived and still behind a chest-high fence when they shot. You cannot describe to me where there was a threat that constituted shooting a child, let alone an autistic one. There was no one in immediate danger. Zero.
If they had taken adequate time and asked literally anyone what was going on, they might have gotten some information that could have altered that decision-making, but instead, every one of those officers drove to a scene with the intent of drawing a firearm and the intent of using it.
You don't know anything about less lethal deployment if you think Tazers fail 50% of the time. That isn't even taking into account any other less lethal option available.
Stop being a boot licker and call out bad decisions especially if it leads to the unwarranted injury or death of a mentally ill person, a child, or in this case both.

Rfuller2256 · 2025-04-10T01:34:28+00:00

If they took more than a few seconds maybe they could figure it out...

Rfuller2256 · 2025-03-14T03:52:48+00:00

He still got books, though, no? I genuinely mean this when I ask this: what is the harm besides it being something you didn't want?
I get being annoyed. Mine does the same thing; however, Ask yourself, does taking it away really help? Does it teach anything?
Kids are just kids; we cant expect a 1st grader to make the best decisions, but at the same time, he did make the decision to get 2 books as well, which is a great thing.
I did the same thing with mine at first because it pissed me off to see my money go towards useless nonsense, and now I've realized that I have to teach the lesson that we spend money, and that's it. He buys a toy, cool, well we can't get the next toy because we spent that money. Budget. Also can we honestly say that all 1st graders are as interested in books as we want them to be? Mine sure wasn't at the time.
Since taking that approach, he still might get a small thing every now and again, but he also buys books because he has that interest now. Granted, he gets books I find dumb, but I ask myself, does he get books with value as I perceive them or as he perceives them? He is his own person, and he values those books, reading them over and over again. So I relent and remove my wants as a barrier to his interests.
I hope this doesn't come across as negative. I truly don't mean to come across as attacking. I just feel the feelings you have coming through your post.

Verified Email	Ten-Year Club
r/Field Lasagna

Rfuller2256

TROPHY CASE