Police Officer fired for not shooting an armed man.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

Yep, one was mentally ill and the other was a domestic violence case. Suicide by cop is not a thing here for rather obvious reasons that UK police are trained professionals who are not trigger happy like your cops are.
Much harder to get killed by police here but easy in the US, hence why you have the phenomenon of suicide by cop and we don't.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

1st - you just agreed with the very statement you called a crock. It is not the cop's place to diagnose. It is the cop's job to protect the public, and that means from armed people who are presenting a threat.

The cop who shot and killed a man from behind did in fact "diagnose" -- and he wasn't protecting the public.

2nd - If you are holding a gun in your had and start flicking your wrist where the gun points towards people, then you are a threat . . .

"If" is a mighty big word. A mighty big weasel word. The officer who was fired obviously did not perceive him as a threat. Just the cops who recklessly inserted themselves into the situation.

... there is no interpretation involved.

Obviously there was, since not everyone -- not even every LEO -- on scene interpreted it the same. Nor was there any indication from the article that the officers who came later even knew about the "flicking" -- whatever that means. For all I know it was a nervous tic...

The gun being unloaded is NOT evidence unless he walked over and showed the cop it was unloaded before anything else happens.

And you know damn well that I said the "evidence" was that he never pointed the gun at the cop... and the proof was that the gun was unloaded. Big difference between evidence and proof, and I have no doubt you know that difference very well, and yet you deliberately and knowingly confused the two (as well as my words).

If you and your family are walking down the street and someone pulls a gun on you, are you going to assume that it's unloaded or loaded? (Clear and present danger).

The gun wasn't pointed at anyone. Very big difference between seeing someone with a gun -- which I see all the time -- and someone pointing a gun at me. And again, you know that, and yet you still try to confuse the issue.

3rd - Yes, you understand the concept: we all have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness . . . UNLESS we infringe upon others' rights to same.

Nope. First and foremost, we all have the inalienable right to life even if/when we infringe on others' rights. That's why they are "inalienable". Second, no one has the right to take another life; they do, however, have the right to protect their own life and limb, and if lethal force is required/used, they have the legal right provide an affirmative defense to justify their use of lethal force to protect their life/limb. They still killed someone. They still violated that person's right to life.

By waving the gun around, this man was threatening others' lives. He obviously had the intent to get the cops to shoot him. Guess what, they did.

So now it's "waving" the gun around, not just "flicking" his wrist? That wasn't in the article...

4th - Yes the vast majority of cops are good people and good cops. In any given profession there is around 3% whom are "bad apples", that statistic drops in LE. But had this cop did what he did and the suspect walked away and shot someone else, you would all be criticizing the cop for not doing his job and calling him one of the bad cops.

No, I would never criticize anyone for doing whatever they could to respect and protect life. Please don't presume to tell me what I would think or say under any circumstances. You can only speak for yourself. And that statement only speaks for you.

5th - Shooting someone who is waving a gun around is not murdering in cold blood as you put it.

Again, the victim was not waving a gun around. Second, waving a gun around is not threatening anyone. Pointing a gun is a threat. Pulling the trigger is an attempt. The only person who pointed a gun at anyone and pulled the trigger was the cop.

If said person does not want to be shot, they can put down their weapon.

And the next logical progression to that logic is that if a person does not want to be shot by a cop they should just GIVE UP THEIR WEAPON. Because with your logic, to hell with our right to bear arms, because by golly gee if a cop knows you have a weapon you must be a threat and therefore they have to kill you.

And where could it possibly go from there.... hmmm... I have arms too -- two of 'em -- sticking right out of my shoulders... does that make me armed and dangerous? Should I just cut those off too???

But again we come back to the fact that this man wanted to die.

No diagnosing there... But even if true, no one was under any obligation to oblige his wishes.

So, obviously you do not stand behind a cop who also would like to enjoy the right to live.

I'm pretty sure EVERY cop would like to enjoy his/her right to live. That's not the issue and you know it. Because pretty much every ONE would like to enjoy his/her right to live. But the cop doesn't have any more rights than the average Joe (or Jo) on the street.

And I did note that you completely ignored that I said I would stand right beside any cops demanding better equipment, training or anything that would protect both their life and the public.

It seems you just want the "right" to kill at will while hiding behind a badge and a gun.

Have a good day.

a reply to: cuckooold

Even crazier that they guys that killed the suspect didn't get rewarded. But one of the few cops that actually had the info and was dealing with the suspect elected not to shoot. Kudos to him for his judgement.

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

Apparently this is where the disconnect is .....the cop was not a liability to everyone around him he was a liability to his colleagues, he was not a liability however to the people that he took an oath to protect and serve...so one could argue he was "for the people" I realize you will not accept it but the shoot first and ask questions later scenario is what will lead to an all out war between the people and the police....that scenario is not very desirable for either party....

They attempted to talk him down, his response was to attempt to get the officer to shoot him. If he wanted to live he could have disarmed himself.

The problem is it's not this simple... The man clearly had some serious mental problems going on and was not capable of making a rational decision. Another good example where officers need better training on deescalatiom and dealing in high stress situation with people who are not in the right mindset.

One attorney told him the best he could hope for was to ask to resign instead of being terminated.

“But I told [the attorney] ‘Look, I don’t want to admit guilt. I’ll take the termination instead of the resignation because I didn’t do anything wrong,’ ” Mr. Mader said. “To resign and admit I did something wrong here would have ate at me. I think I’m right in what I did. I’ll take it to the grave.”

This guy has got some integrity

a reply to: charolais

This guy has got some integrity

It would seem integrity is an unwanted attribute on the force ..... i would donate if this guy if this guy started a gofundme...

unlawful termination....4 million if I'm on jury