Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

Originally posted by buddhasystem
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.

Well, I too wish i lived in "fantasy land" like yourself, but the reality is I don't.
If you think the police are above prejudice, above personal attacks and above corruption, you are simple to the point of retardation.

The movie "American Gangster" was based on a true story, where 40% of the police were corrupt. That is NOT a bad apple or two. This ATS board is rife with stories of police LYING to cover up their wrongdoings, their own crimes and their own corruption.

What is plain sick, is that you appear to value a cops life over the MANY other lives that have been taken from people, who also had families, who also had futures. Perhaps you would like to go talk to their families.

Blind faith in the police service or anything is blind.

..Ex

Originally posted by buddhasystem

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.

seriously? You seriously think that cops should have an unquestioned license to kill anyone who may or may not be threatening them? Seems like that's a dangerous step towards a true police state....

Originally posted by SpacePunk

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]

You are missing my argument, but thats fine. I will say this: Any decent, DECENT shooter should be able to keep their groupings to 3 inches maximum.

No, you dont shoot for the forearm. But you also dont have to shoot for the heart. ANd maybe you miss. But there is plenty of center mass that is not a kill shot.

Seems like yet another reason to own a firearm. If the police can no longer protect me with deadly force then I have no choice but to protect myself.

Personally I think this is stupid. I understand accidents happen but a police officer should be able to use any means necessary to protect the public, another officer or themselves. This along with the fact the good Samaritan law doesn't apply to police really makes me nervous.

reply to post by boaby_phet


You are incorrect in thinking that shooting to wound is the answer to the dilema.

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.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Does this imply that current law and department policy, allows police officers to shoot 50 bullets into the car of unarmed people for no reason and that is acceptable? Or that whatever the reason was, should not be?

(If the latter, then maybe a reg specific to that situation is what should have happened here, not something so generically global.)

So this law suggesting that officers basically should "try not to kill someone unless they have to" is necessary? Maybe it is in some areas. If so, this law is not the best approach to that IMO, it just isn't done well.

Note: You did not provide any context on why such an event might have occurred. I know, that will be met with, "There is no excuse for it to have occurred," but I really like to hear the full story because assuming. I will google later when I'm off work, only have a minute here.

I thought that regs already existed as needed, but perhaps in some places they don't. Perhaps some laws or more accurately some PD policies, need to be revisited in areas such as this. However:


IMO the addition to this law is poorly written because it is subjective. It creates in every incident the grounds for lawsuit-claims that no matter how that person died (gun, taser, dog, etc.) that the police perhaps "should have been kinder, gentler, and tried not to kill them." Whether the police shoot in the stomach and they die or near the heart and they don't, it's not going to be the officer's intent -- or perhaps even where they shoot them -- that matters as much as the actual result of the situation. The reason some people in the thread keep mentioning shooting outside center of mass is because that is very likely to be the "claim levied at them that they should have tried" the minute something like this is called up for 'enforcement'.

This is what amounts to after the fact, armchair assuming about "their intent" which is irrational when applied to instant-decision high-drama situations. As written it is a 'soft' thing that incorporates review-panel-mind-reading as the assumed decision on whether the officer did the right thing, after the fact.

For the sake of the people AND the officers, there need to be clear and measurable guidelines which, if followed, are the 'default' behavior when sometimes info or timing doesn't allow enough evaluation for other options.

I am not against potential regulations that make shooting someone unarmed a bigger deal. I would agree that is a danger zone in a big way. That is why our police are not the Gestapo, except apparently where some people live they are.

One point of "policy" is so decisions can be made based on as many 'known factors/elements' as possible, and after the fact, the LEO can live with themselves psychologically, and can defend themselves legally, as having followed policy with intent to the best of their ability.

If the need for a law such as this exists, it needs to be addressed as a separate clause and in a different way.

For example, instead of mandating anything on the officers, it should mandate that the policies of PD's must reflect a certain thing, and the PD will then be required to create steps, decision policies, for the officers, which will in a court of law be perceived legally as an effort to uphold the intent of that policy, and that policy as an effort to uphold the intent of the law.

If there is a problem, it would be that (a) the LEO did not follow policy, or (b) the policy did not reflect the intent of the law.

It would, as a result, ensure that if an LEO at least followed department policy to the best of their ability, they would not end up in prison for doing what at the time genuinely seemed to them to be the right thing.

It would also put the burden on the PD to create policy that was best for the officers and community. If policy 1 creates a danger for officers, then the department has the right to create policy 2 which helps mitigate that danger (yes, even if that means sitting two blocks away until the potential gang gunfight is over). If the community has a problem with policy 2, they can have their representative petition to change policy 1.

Either way, it puts the burden of "law making" and "policy" in the hands of the entities which do that. It does not create intangible, unguessable, soft-assumption standards which are only going to hurt the performance of the LEOs, in their concern about the consequences from something unguessable and easily shifted to assume-guilt after the fact, and what hurts their performance hurts the community they serve.

So if this kind of 'addition' to law and/or policy is needed, then let it be approached, but this is a ridiculous wording/approach way to do it.

RC

reply to post by bigshow


seams to me you to live in double moral land ,

firstly i never said i was against firearms so dont make that assumption

secondly just because you own a hammer does not mean your a carpenter

thirdly what you are refering to in that hypothesis of yours i do believe is all ready written in the law book and it goes under "means of self protection"
and has nothing to do with cops having to aim for kneecaps or shoulders instead of headshots or 60+ rounds in to a toddler who robbed a 7/11 with a .22, water gun, starter pistol or replica.

besides just because "our" officers dont kill does not mean we dont have the option to own guns or that criminals get away with what they do.

and i can safely say that in this town where i live theres about 3 times+ as many firearms as there are population yet we havent had a single firearms related death/murder crime in at least 15 years.

Originally posted by v3_exceed

Originally posted by buddhasystem
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.

Well, I too wish i lived in "fantasy land" like yourself, but the reality is I don't.
If you think the police are above prejudice, above personal attacks and above corruption, you are simple to the point of retardation.

I explicitly said (I have to mention this because apparently you have problems with reading comprehension) that the cops are like the rest of us, hence not above any sin that can exist in anyone else.

Any citizen who applied deadly force because they believed their live was in danger will be not held liable in the court of law in the US. I don't think cops should be handicapped in a situation like that. "Excuse me, sir, but is your shotgun loaded?"

This bill is written so as to protect innocent citizens and non-threatening criminals from being shot dead by LEO's. It's written as pro-citizen and not anti-law enforcement.

If a criminal is firing at LEO, then everyone but the guys mom will back LEO up when LEO shoots criminal in the chest or head...reasonable amount of times however and not 30-50 times. Criminal's mom may even surprise all and say "yeah I guess son deserved it, shooting at one of our boys in blue like that."

Nobody cares that cops shoot criminals in a justified situation. They care when cops really didn't have to shoot the criminal to resolve situation. They care when someone needlessly dies; moreso when it's an innocent or unarmed. Yes they also care when cops get shot and sometimes die. Nobody wants unnecessary injury or death.

I think NY's finest are up to this task. They can restore the people's faith and trust in them. Opportune time to weed out those not worthy of the uniform. Also good time to ask for more training $$$.
Maybe ask for equipment $$$ to buy and deploy laser-sighted sidearms? Maybe lobby for better non-lethal weapons and ammo? Tranquilizer-darts, rock-salt, bean-bag shotguns, even that nasty sound weapon is better than killing. Take em all down alive. Set the bar for the rest of the country.

This is still a hypothetical too because bill is a proposal and not passed yet.

Originally posted by primus2012
I think NY's finest are up to this task. They can restore the people's faith and trust in them. Opportune time to weed out those not worthy of the uniform.

I have roughly average experience with firearms. It's beyond my comprehension how one can expect (in the heat of a violent situation, especially) the shooter to be so precise as to hit the arm and not the torso. Or the thigh and not lower abdomen. Whatever lunatic drafted the "law", they in all likelihood never practiced shooting (and certainly not action shooting).

Gotta say I'd much rather leave the "how" and motivational circumstances involved in shooting a suspect up to the cops, who are trained to deal with this sort of thing, as opposed to some legislators.

if you shoot them in the arms before you capture them then how can get information from them in the rendition rooms ?

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by daddyroo45

 

But is 30 lbs of pot worth anyone dying over? That is what happens.

I do not understand why officers are asked to use deadly force on crimes that have no victims. It just boggles my mind.

Is it really worth dying so that i can keep someone from getting high? Or make them wear their seatbelt?

I'm with you brother. What is the deal with this country passing laws telling soverign adults what they can and cannot do in their own home?
My thoughts on this is that if you can pay your way out of trouble,you haven't broken any real law. It's just a scam for the government to keep the coffers full.
I believe that if more citizens were armed there would be less crime,and cops wouldn't have to worry about shooting babies in their cribs.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
You are missing my argument, but thats fine. I will say this: Any decent, DECENT shooter should be able to keep their groupings to 3 inches maximum.

That's all fine and good on a range. Might be a wee bit harder when you are under fire.

Ever been under fire before?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
No, you dont shoot for the forearm. But you also dont have to shoot for the heart. ANd maybe you miss. But there is plenty of center mass that is not a kill shot.

Most are trained to shoot center of mass. It's the biggest target on a person. In the AF, which is different from LEO, we were taught to fire two rounds in the chest, followed by one to the head in case the person is wearing body armor.

Originally posted by hotpinkurinalmint
I thought it was proper to aim for the body because the body is larger than the extremities, and thus easier to hit. One could also kill someone by shooting them in the legs. A large amount of blood passes through the femoral artery. If a bullet hits the femoral artery, a person can easily bleed to death.

This is true...

ask Sean Taylor.

Originally posted by signal2noise

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
You are missing my argument, but thats fine. I will say this: Any decent, DECENT shooter should be able to keep their groupings to 3 inches maximum.

That's all fine and good on a range. Might be a wee bit harder when you are under fire.

Ever been under fire before?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
No, you dont shoot for the forearm. But you also dont have to shoot for the heart. ANd maybe you miss. But there is plenty of center mass that is not a kill shot.

Most are trained to shoot center of mass. It's the biggest target on a person. In the AF, which is different from LEO, we were taught to fire two rounds in the chest, followed by one to the head in case the person is wearing body armor.

Does anyone around ehre actually read before they respond? As ive said many times, when being fired upon, it is a different story.

And for the record, yes, i have been under fire. What's your point?

Reading comprehension much?

As I have also said, the training is where this starts, and ends. You are trained to shoot center mass, kill shots. Dont suppose training could be shifted, now, do ya?

Geez loiuse people, think before you type.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Does anyone around ehre actually read before they respond? As ive said many times, when being fired upon, it is a different story.

Then why push for the "Wing 'em, Jim!" school of shooting?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And for the record, yes, i have been under fire. What's your point?

Care to elaborate? And why it's my "point"? I dunno, maybe it makes you sound like you actually know what you're talking about since you have the experience?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Reading comprehension much?

Rely on insults much?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
As I have also said, the training is where this starts, and ends. You are trained to shoot center mass, kill shots. Dont suppose training could be shifted, now, do ya?

Sure, but why? A wounded enemy can easily kill you. I want him to stay down, not put a round in my narrow ass while he's laying there on the ground.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Geez loiuse people, think before you type.

Another insult. How delightful.

Originally posted by signal2noise

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Does anyone around ehre actually read before they respond? As ive said many times, when being fired upon, it is a different story.

Then why push for the "Wing 'em, Jim!" school of shooting?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And for the record, yes, i have been under fire. What's your point?

Care to elaborate? And why it's my "point"? I dunno, maybe it makes you sound like you actually know what you're talking about since you have the experience?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Reading comprehension much?

Rely on insults much?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
As I have also said, the training is where this starts, and ends. You are trained to shoot center mass, kill shots. Dont suppose training could be shifted, now, do ya?

Sure, but why? A wounded enemy can easily kill you. I want him to stay down, not put a round in my narrow ass while he's laying there on the ground.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Geez loiuse people, think before you type.

Another insult. How delightful.

1)You still havent bothered to read the thread. I am not going to reiterate my position, but needless to say, you arent getting it.

2)Care to elaborate on when Ive been under fire? Not especially, although I will tell you that a 9mm round in the flank HURTS.

3)Rely on insults? No. Use them to get a point across when being challeneged by someone who hasnt taken the time to read enough to see what has been said? Absolutely.

4)Again, go back and read my previous posts. You are still missing my stance.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

As I have also said, the training is where this starts, and ends. You are trained to shoot center mass, kill shots. Dont suppose training could be shifted, now, do ya?

First off, shots aimed at center mass aren't taught as "kill shots" in the police academies so they are not to be considered as such when discussing matters of police training.
The purpose of shooting for center mass, when the totality of circumstances permits the use of "deadly force" which by definition when applied by a police officer is force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury LD 20 Page 3-3, is not to kill or even wound but to eliminate the threat of the suspect while reducing the possibility of a round striking bystanders or other officers.

If you feel that firearms training for police officers should reflect a less over the top and incompetent, your words, methodology of where to shoot when encountering a threat, please consider this:
--How should training be changed to where the possibility of loss of life is least likely possible for the suspect, officer and bystanders during the event of the suspect using or has used force that could cause death or serious bodily injury while effectively eliminating the threat of the suspect?

Please don't forget to take into account ALL possibilities of events where using deadly force, due to the totality of circumstances, has become an option.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
[1)You still havent bothered to read the thread. I am not going to reiterate my position, but needless to say, you arent getting it.

Actually, I am. Is this your position:

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. There are many instances in which an extremity shot could do the job.

I'm saying that's all fine and dandy when training, but can it be used in real life? In an actual shootout when someone is shooting at you?

It probably could, but are you going to want to invest in that sort of time, money and training? Because it isn't something that can be trained in a weekend at the local shooting range. It's going to take years.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)Care to elaborate on when Ive been under fire? Not especially, although I will tell you that a 9mm round in the flank HURTS.

Well, I'll have to admit that probably hurts like a mo-fo, but were you shooting at that other person? Were you in a gunfight?