Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

reply to post by mistafaz


Wow... that is the entire topic of discussion of this thread. Hello!!!!

Should the cop faced such threats, he should not be acting alone anyway and should always call for backup of special police forces whom are specially trained to handle such clowns.

Yeah, that works.

My cousin and his friend were at the friend's house with his friend's mother and little sister. A local gang who'd been harrassing my cousin about having to join (he refused. He is half white, half latino, and both gangs insisted he should be with them -- this is in a reasonably nice middle class neighborhood in Ventura CA mind you) started cruising by slowly and then finally stopped and said they were coming in and would shoot anybody they found if my cousin and his friend didn't come out. At that point, once they said something, the mother called the police, and since a little girl and mom were the others in the house, the boys (age 17) hoped the cops would come very soon.

The cops sat two blocks away waiting for at least 4 squad cars to be available I think it was, because they weren't going to get themselves shot -- that was policy.

There was nothing the boys could do, they tried to stall, the cops wouldn't come, the mother re-called.... time passed... and finally when the others were trying to kick in the door they voluntarily went out, afraid of what would happen if they came in with the women there, and locked the door behind them.

Five minutes of hopeful talking didn't improve things and it ended up in a fist fight attack -- the five guys in the car against my cousin and his friend.

One of the guys in the car had a gun, and pulled it out to use it in the middle of the fight when the friend hit him from behind, my cousin and he struggled for it on the ground, and in the end, the gun fired when my cousin was on the ground rolling having gotten it and the guy who'd had it was just rolling away -- it hit him in the side/back. He was fine, but still, it was a shooting.

Of course when it came to court it didn't matter that they'd called the police (more than once), told them the situation, that they had no gun of their own, that it was that guy's front yard, that it was 5 against 1 in a visiting car, or that it was a struggle for the other guy's gun. What mattered was that my cousin, the blonde kid who wouldn't join the mexican gang despite he is latino on his dad's side, showed up in jail suit, shaved head and a mexican name accused of being part of a "gang fight" and having "shot someone in the back" and not surprisingly, a court with zero belief in his relative innocence in the larger situation.

The arresting officers told my aunt later that he did himself a great deal more damage by talking to the cops and being honest frankly about too much and if he'd have shut up and waited for an attorney he would have been better off. He was 18 by the time it was over; he went to prison. He was actually a sweet kid until then. Prison did not improve him, there's a surprise.

It's always so helpful when law enforcement "won't get involved" in things and "wait" for the city to have enough extra personnel to get around to maybe helping out someone calling for help.

I would rather have an active duty officer making the best decisions he can and actually PRESENT, then have the cops sit around blocks away waiting to see whether enough are free, or SWAT is available, or whether a couple kids are even worth all that effort.

RC

Originally posted by alexhiggins732
reply to post by mistafaz

 

Wow... that is the entire topic of discussion of this thread. Hello!!!!

Yes, I know. But you've asked when is it allowable for an officer to "SHOOT TO KILL." I want to know is where you get the idea that they have that right. An officer never shoots to kill, it goes against all their training and department policy. When a threat causes an officer to use their firearm, when the totality of the circumstances permits them to, it's to "eliminate the threat" (persons or actions) and in doing so can in instances result in the death of the suspect. When that happens did the suspect need to die? Maybe, maybe not it depends on the totality of the circumstances. But there is no law broken when the officer has no INTENT to kill the person in the course of their duties when they used their firearm in the attempt to "eliminate the threat."

reply to post by RedCairo


On a case to case basis, and there will be many differig cases:-

1. Cops are a limited force, and there is no way possible for them to respond to every emergency. Superman or Marvel heroes do not exists in real life.

2. You were faced with a threat, but you had a door in between. You knew full well they will live up to their threat. Barricade the door, or hide in some strong room. That would have been a better defense position and wait out, the cops will come.

You or anyone else are unarmed and SHOULD NEVER confront armed men. Your life is more precious than that.

3. However, a confrontation ensured. In the mix up, it becomes one's word against another in a democracy. What's done is done. There is no way that I can turn back time, but may such experiences be a reminder to all to do the necessary and right thing, more so if one is not armed.

Do not be a hero. But if one persist to be one, and feel that there are no other choices, then he alone must live up to his responsibilities of his own actions, and not blame anyone else for his choice or the path he took and must accept either the accolades or the scorn heaped.

But then again, who am I to judge others? All I know is that the gift of life is precious and any action to snuff it out must be seriously taken into heavy consideration and must be absolutely neccessary where no other choices are avaliable.

Usually i support any bill that removes Authority from police officers and government. While there are many good and honest LEO's out there; there are too many who are corrupted by the power they are entrusted with.

This bill however is just flat out stupid. Sometimes mortally wounding a person is the only way to resolve a situation. It's the sad and horrible truth.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
Cops, in Ca anyway, are trained there is only one reason to use deadly force: to stop...

If shooting results in a fatal wound so be it, but the intent is not to kill or wound.. just stop.

Requiring cops to aim for flailing extremities in a stressful life or death encounter is asking for more shots to be fired as officers cap rounds off center trying to nail a wing or leg.. nailing a suspect center-mass is hard enough.

Like so many other people in this thread, you are talking about shooting extremities, but the legislation doesn't say that:
www.nypost.com...

THE PROPOSAL

Section of Assembly Bill A02952

“A police officer or peace officer . . . uses such force with the intent to stop, rather than kill . . . and uses only the minimal amount of force necessary to effect such stop.”

THE CURRENT LAW

Section of state Penal Law S 35.15(2)(a)(ii)

“A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person . . . unless: he or she is . . . a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter’s direction.”

It mentions minimal force, not extremities.

I always wondered why some cops seem to aim for center mass if they could just wound a suspect, especially if the guy is 30 or 40 feet away and coming at you with a knife. Your first shot doesn't need to be at center mass. But after a few shots if he's still coming at you with the knife and getting close enough to use it, then a center mass shot to take him down certainly seems justified. The point is, that doesn't need to be the first shot you try at 30 feet away. Now if he's got a gun it's another story.

Also, do you see the problem with the current law?

If someone running towards a cop with a knife, the cop is allowed to do one thing. But if that same person is running at you with a knife, you aren't allowed to defend yourself like the cop is? WHAT????

So some type of change to the current law is needed.

They don't need to start shooting at extremities though if they are trained to hit center mass, because they have a hard enough time even hitting that larger target:

In fact, NYPD officers and detectives hit their targets only 17 percent of the time

17 percent? I would have guess they'd land at least one shot in 3 or 4. That's pretty low, about one shot in 6 hits the target!

lol This bill is useless.

When a police officer is in the field, he/she won't be thinking about this bill.

reply to post by xXxtremelySecure
I'm with the officers on this one. If someone has a gun on me, I will not worry about placing rounds anywhere except center mass. DRT is the consequence for a wielding criminal, because at the end of the night, I will go home.

reply to post by xXxtremelySecure


....and in New Hampshire,

House Bill 160 is currently bottled up in the Senate Judiciary Committee. This critical reform measure could be considered by the committee sometime next week.

Simply put, HB160 would allow a person to brandish a firearm in response to a forceful threat. State Senator Robert Letourneau (R-19) will be offering an amendment to strengthen the measure.

reply to post by RedCairo


cops are not above the law
they arent even the law
cops dont give out sentences
cops dont have a right to kill

seams many people forget that ,.

every arrest a cop makes is the equalient of a civil arrest, nothing magical
only differance is that an officer has taken an oath and advertizes his/hers position of belief with a badge.

on an other side note if cops are afraid of doing their job in the first place they should switch jobs because it affects their ability to do their job properly.

im not even gonna go into the numerous cases where officers has drawn and shot first only to ask questions later because they where in shock or trauma or powertripping.

ive seen my fare share of people in the force who would have been better of schooling kids at a kindergarden or as a gymteacher at a school.


killing a killer makes you a killer ,
belief that it does not makes you a hypocrit
in other words it makes you no better
then dhamer or kemper or any other
nut job that is locked up for life + 800 years.

besides i do believe that most countries in europe and around the world has that policy and has had it for a long time.

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by RedCairo

 

cops are not above the law
they arent even the law
cops dont give out sentences
cops dont have a right to kill

seams many people forget that ,.

every arrest a cop makes is the equalient of a civil arrest, nothing magical
only differance is that an officer has taken an oath and advertizes his/hers position of belief with a badge.

on an other side note if cops are afraid of doing their job in the first place they should switch jobs because it affects their ability to do their job properly.

im not even gonna go into the numerous cases where officers has drawn and shot first only to ask questions later because they where in shock or trauma or powertripping.

ive seen my fare share of people in the force who would have been better of schooling kids at a kindergarden or as a gymteacher at a school.


killing a killer makes you a killer ,
belief that it does not makes you a hypocrit
in other words it makes you no better
then dhamer or kemper or any other
nut job that is locked up for life + 800 years.

besides i do believe that most countries in europe and around the world has that policy and has had it for a long time.

I am responding to you and all the other "scared" people in this thread. If you don't live in the United States do not respond to this thread as it does not pertain to you. I have a right to protect myself, police officers also have that right. If they are met with violence or someone draws a gun, my intent and ANY one else's intent should be to stop that threat. That does not make you a killer, that makes you a protector from harm. All the other response are ONLY opinions and are not LIFE lessons and facts.

So the anti-gun crowd here can take a long walk on a short dock, you all have lost, and I guarantee along with the MILLIONS of other gun owners, our right to bear arms as well as our right to protect ourselves WILL not be infringed.

Let me ask the scared people in this thread a question, what are you going to do if you walk through the door of your house, find a criminal holding a gun to your wife's head while raping her and that criminal in turn points the gun at you? Ok... long pause to think about that one... if you don't have anything to protect yourself with guess what... you are dead and your wife is dead. Its cold and honest reality people.

Now if we can only get changes to able to resist arrest when cops clearly breach the limits.

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure

Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

www.nypost.com

City cops are livid ....

(visit the link for the full news article)

Please give me a break.... Tazers are as common as service revolvers and are NOT lethal, if used properly. There are also rubber bullets that could be used. All NYC cops have bullet-proof vests so their life is not 100% in jeopardy

But because NYC is a "terrorist target" we don't mess around. We shoot to kill. it is not right, but it is what happens.

I think the cops are too earger to shoot, have no patience, and will do whatever they please before backup or the supervisor show up.

It is not necessary to use a gun in each and every apprehension.

What bothers me even more are NYC's Atlas cops walking around in three's with machine guns, and Rambo gear!!!

Do you think they will aim at someone’s arm, hand or leg when confronted? Do you think they will limit their return fire to just one or two bullets?

Hell NO! They will shoot to kill. If they do kill their assailant, then there is no one to prosecute. Injure the assailant and now NYC has a law suit. If the assailant is anything other than white, then the racial card is immediately pulled out by the cops, and he is portrayed as a criminal.

All of this is 100% wrong. I don’t like the attitude of shoot first and talk later - if the guy survived.

Very disturbing!

Wasn't the NYC Police Chief recently placed in jail for tax evasion or someting like that???

-E2

I did a quick search for the words "Sean" or "Bell", through now 10 pages of this thread with out a single hit.

Apparently many if not most here did NOT read the article for which this proposed bill pertains.

Sean Bell, The Bachelor party groom who was killed by NYPD the night before his wedding, with 50 rounds fired into his car when he as well as the other occupants of the car were unarmed and hadn't committed any crime.

This incident and others in which unarmed innocents are being killed is primarily what this Bill pertains to.

Which fundamentally is:

In NOT preventing officers from doing their jobs, or in Defending themselves, but instead to prevent needless murders of unarmed citizens in situations such as this.

Plain and simple.

'Nuff Said

Originally posted by boaby_phet
theirs to many people in america , and probbaly alot of cops who seem to think because someone threatens them with a weapon they have every right to shoot them dead

Rarely do I come across some a childish post on ATS. Have you ever had a loaded gun or a knife pointed at you? Did you lose relatives due to violent crimes? Do you have children? Can you imagine being a father of the family and someone points a shotgun at you?

When I read the OP I thought WTF. If anyone points even something like a screwdriver at a cop or a citizen, they waive their right to live.

Originally posted by ahmonrarh
reply to post by xXxtremelySecure

 

I'm with the officers on this one. If someone has a gun on me, I will not worry about placing rounds anywhere except center mass. DRT is the consequence for a wielding criminal, because at the end of the night, I will go home.

Your with the officers on this one, until they find you face down in a pool of blood and only the officers word that you were pointing your gun at someone. Or maybe it'll be a knife and the officer will have a superficial wound on his arm.

Most likely it doesn't matter because YOU will still be dead and only the cops word will make any difference at all. Now, if you had lived, then maybe we'd find out you were only jaywalking and the cop took offense to what you were wearing, or how you dressed or maybe just the way you looked at him.

..Ex

Originally posted by v3_exceed
Most likely it doesn't matter because YOU will still be dead and only the cops word will make any difference at all. Now, if you had lived, then maybe we'd find out you were only jaywalking and the cop took offense to what you were wearing, or how you dressed or maybe just the way you looked at him.

Oh Jeez. Sure. Cops don't like my sneakers and unleash a hail of bullets. Just read that garbage you invented.

Cops are imperfect humans just like the rest of us, and maybe there are a few bad apples here and there. To portray them as inherently evil, however, is just plain sick.

A friend of mine visited our local precinct, and saw photos on the wall, of fallen cops. Roughly one per year. And we live in a relatively quiet area. I suggest you go talk to their families.

Cops have every right to "serve and protect". Taking away their ability to eliminate a threat safe and effectively is like taking away our right to bear arms.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots


With training, there is no reason a person cannot incapacitate someone without killing them, at least in most instances. Here in Portland, our police are trained to shoot center mass, or kill shot, in any instance in which they fire. I find this to be over the top, and incompetent.

Any shooter that doesn't aim for center mass needs to get more training, or have his/her gun taken away. It's simply how you shoot people. It's not Hollywood out there where everyone has the time to get off a crippling shot, it's real life. It doesn't matter if the shooter is military or a civilian officer, the center mass is where the shot should go. No head shots, no arm shots, no leg shots.

What they need to concentrate on is more training on when it's appropriate to use deadly force.

[edit on 26-5-2010 by SpacePunk]

I agree 100% with the bill.

We here at ATS have watched countless police brutalities.

The fact of the matter is (and I've been screaming this all along) that they have to be reigned in at some point. This would be a very good first step.

Not only does this legislation need to be implemented in order to put the breaks on them but their escalatory training needs to be reversed too. Then the good old boy system needs to be dismantled.

Police need to be better trained in diffusing situations and not killing people. As it is right now the USA is straight out of the movie Planet of the Apes! With the strongest ruling the weakest.

I can see that most Americans here are screaming "Poor Cops wont be allowed to kill people as often" ... So be it and it is high time for such a measure. Our might makes right mentality has to CHANGE at some point.

Any change to the current system that backs down the police violence that we have grown so accustomed to here is necessary. Yes there will be problems with it but it is a step in the right direction.

Highspeed police pursuits need to be eliminated too.

People, the lines need to be drawn somewhere and as they are right now there are no lines for them. They just shoot to kill and then back each other hoping that there's no video footage to make liars out of them once again. This has to change!

I don't like our current police state one bit. When we see cops now we wonder if they are going to beat or shoot somebody over something as simple as asking directions. This has to change!

If this legislation passes than I will receive new hope for the direction of this most disfunctional society that we live in fear of day after day now.

Stopping police violence has to get its start somewhere. Let this be the beginning of a change in our society that can make it possible to look at cops like heroes again instead of Gorillas.




[edit on 26-5-2010 by warequalsmurder]