Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

Originally posted by WTFover

Would you explain how, exactly, crime "prevention" is a bad thing? Would you really prefer all of the cops just sit around the station, waiting for a report of crime that has already happened? How is "preventing" a crime not considered "protecting and serving"?

[edit on 27-5-2010 by WTFover]

Gladly. When the shift is to crime prevention, instead of protecting the innocent, there no longer is any innocent. EVERYONE, every single person, is a suspect. There are no more civilians. You are either a criminal, or a possible criminal.

It is the reverse ideology from innocent until proven guilty.

You cannot prevent crime. Trying to do so only creates more.

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure

Originally posted by signal2noise

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And yes, I do think it is foolish NOT TO invest the time, money and effort that it takes to get the people who choose this profession properly trained. Otherwise, whats the point?

Agreed, but do the taxpayers? Are they going to want to invest that sort of time and money into a skill that may never be needed, or just train them to shoot center of mass?

I couldn't agree more signal2noise, and even with training during a life or death situation you are going to shoot center mass regardless of your training.

Secure

And once again most seem to miss the point that I am not speaking of a life and death situation. I am speaking of the situations in which a kill shot does not have to be taken. And there are plenty.

Maybe if I say this enough times people will catch up...

the major problem of this law is how would you regulate this. All the officer would have to do is say oops the guy moved left while i was aiming for his left arm and the shot went center mass, sorry my bad and unless you get someone in the system who cares nothing for his fellow brother there going to say he was telling the truth.

Not like I agree with the law in the first place. lets put it this way if a guys holding a gun to one of your family members head do you want the cop to take him out right ,and take a head shot or a body shot or would you rather him take the chance of shooting him in the hand.

now put yourself in the shoes of a cops wife or kid hearing about this law.
how do you think they would feel about there dad/spouse going out into the world and there only aloud to shoot someone in the arm or leg to defend them self.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
... When the shift is to crime prevention, instead of protecting the innocent,...

How exactly does an officer "protect the innocent" without "preventing" a crime from being perpetrated upon him/her?

... there no longer is any innocent. EVERYONE, every single person, is a suspect. There are no more civilians. You are either a criminal, or a possible criminal.

It is the reverse ideology from innocent until proven guilty.

That is only if you allow yourself to feel like a criminal. If I happen to work late nights, or just can't sleep for whatever reason, and decide to take a walk in the middle of the night, I hope an officer is keeping an eye on my neighborhood and stops to determine if I belong there or am up to no good. At the very least, he should identify me. Now, after a couple of times, he'll more than likely remember me and just stop to have a chat, when he sees me out again. I fail to see how some believe they have been wronged, if this happened to them. After all, the officer is just "protecting" the innocent slumbering masses, by "preventing" crimes such as theft, burglary, robbery, assault, vandalism or rape.

You cannot prevent crime. Trying to do so only creates more.

I think this is extremely flawed logic. The only alternative you leave is anarchy, which will result in rampant crime. Take areas of natural disasters, as examples. When all the LE are in search and rescue mode, crime skyrockets.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And once again most seem to miss the point that I am not speaking of a life and death situation. I am speaking of the situations in which a kill shot does not have to be taken. And there are plenty.

Actually, there are none. If an officer is not justified in taking a life, by stopping a threat, then he is not justified in discharging his/her weapon. Period. No exceptions.

So you don't shoot to kill? No problem just shoot 'em in the knee caps so they can't run or shoot 'em in the arm so they can drop their weapon.

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
... When the shift is to crime prevention, instead of protecting the innocent,...

How exactly does an officer "protect the innocent" without "preventing" a crime from being perpetrated upon him/her?

... there no longer is any innocent. EVERYONE, every single person, is a suspect. There are no more civilians. You are either a criminal, or a possible criminal.

It is the reverse ideology from innocent until proven guilty.

That is only if you allow yourself to feel like a criminal. If I happen to work late nights, or just can't sleep for whatever reason, and decide to take a walk in the middle of the night, I hope an officer is keeping an eye on my neighborhood and stops to determine if I belong there or am up to no good. At the very least, he should identify me. Now, after a couple of times, he'll more than likely remember me and just stop to have a chat, when he sees me out again. I fail to see how some believe they have been wronged, if this happened to them. After all, the officer is just "protecting" the innocent slumbering masses, by "preventing" crimes such as theft, burglary, robbery, assault, vandalism or rape.

You cannot prevent crime. Trying to do so only creates more.

I think this is extremely flawed logic. The only alternative you leave is anarchy, which will result in rampant crime. Take areas of natural disasters, as examples. When all the LE are in search and rescue mode, crime skyrockets.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And once again most seem to miss the point that I am not speaking of a life and death situation. I am speaking of the situations in which a kill shot does not have to be taken. And there are plenty.

Actually, there are none. If an officer is not justified in taking a life, by stopping a threat, then he is not justified in discharging his/her weapon. Period. No exceptions.

1)An officer protects the innocent by being in their service, not being against them, and not EXPECTING that every civilian will commit or has committed a crime. Simple enough.

2)Only if you allow yourself to feel like a criminal? Are you serious? So if law enforcement treats you like a criminal, expects you to be a criminal, waits for you to be a criminal-this doesnt matter, so long as you dont let yourself feel like a criminal? That isnt even logic.....

You think that a cop should have the right to stop you for no reason whatsoever? Even the supreme court disagrees with you on that one. I have every right to privacy. I do not have to disclose anything that I am doing or intending to do to an officer. It's called being free.

How is a crime being prevented if there was never going to be a crime in the first place?

3)The opposite of crime prevention ideology is not anarchy. It is a free state. The United States was founded on the idea of a free nation, not a police state where we need our every move examined by a police force that was never intended to have the right to do so.

You must beleive that every man wants to be a criminal...this is the only way I can see any logic in WANTING to the police to have these types of powers.

4)Crime skyrockets in natural disasters because of fear and need. No other reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that the police are occupied.

As always is the case, poverty and oppression are what causes crime.

5)There are none? I think you better look again. If we hold officers to a 'fire only when taking a life is justified' standard, then great. I am all for it. That is simply not the case, however. There are hundreds of examples where officers fired, even fired to excess, when killing was not justified. And most officers walk away.

Because once again, dead men tell no tales. When the shooter is the only live witness, its pretty tough to do anything about it.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)An officer protects the innocent by being in their service, not being against them, and not EXPECTING that every civilian will commit or has committed a crime. Simple enough.

Could you be specific about what you mean by "being in their service"?

You think that a cop should have the right to stop you for no reason whatsoever? Even the supreme court disagrees with you on that one. I have every right to privacy. I do not have to disclose anything that I am doing or intending to do to an officer.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada

Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445. Hiibel’s refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him.

Other SCOTUS approvals of "Stop and Identify" are; U.S. v. Hensley, Hayes v. Florida, Adams v. Williams and the big one Terry v. Ohio. Actually, the SCOTUS "agrees" with me.

How is a crime being prevented if there was never going to be a crime in the first place?

This is quite a paradox. How can you know a crime was not going to be committed? If a crime is prevented, how can one prove it was prevented?

You must beleive that every man wants to be a criminal...this is the only way I can see any logic in WANTING to the police to have these types of powers.

What "powers" are you suggesting I support? Identifying a suspicious person found in a suspicious place, at a suspicious time? Then the answer is a resounding yes. Arresting that person merely on the basis of that suspicion? No.

Crime skyrockets in natural disasters because of fear and need. No other reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that the police are occupied.

I am not talking about people "stealing" necessities such as food and water. I was referring to the looting of items not required for sustenance. I was referring to increased instances of assaults, rapes, murders, vandalism, etc. And yes, criminals do take advantage of situations when LE is otherwise occupied. If you deny that, there really is no reason to further this debate.

As always is the case, poverty and oppression are what causes crime.

While I have never been oppressed, I have been quite poor. And, I and many like me, have not used that as an excuse to perpetrate acts of crime on my fellow human beings. That really is just an excuse and nothing more.

There are none? I think you better look again. If we hold officers to a 'fire only when taking a life is justified' standard, then great. I am all for it. That is simply not the case, however. There are hundreds of examples where officers fired, even fired to excess, when killing was not justified. And most officers walk away.

I would be glad to look at any examples, you can provide, of circumstances wherein an officer was justified in discharging his weapon, but not being justified in taking a life.

When the shooter is the only live witness, its pretty tough to do anything about it.

Can you provide examples of this?

reply to post by primus2012


There was no attempt to infer that more LE officers are killed than those they kill. I know the majority of the members of ATS are intelligent enough to understand the concept of ratios, so I didn't feel the need to elaborate.

Besides, why would I have provided the link to the source, if I intended to mislead?

[edit on 2-6-2010 by WTFover]

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)An officer protects the innocent by being in their service, not being against them, and not EXPECTING that every civilian will commit or has committed a crime. Simple enough.

Could you be specific about what you mean by "being in their service"?

You think that a cop should have the right to stop you for no reason whatsoever? Even the supreme court disagrees with you on that one. I have every right to privacy. I do not have to disclose anything that I am doing or intending to do to an officer.

Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada

Hiibel’s contention that his conviction violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on self-incrimination fails because disclosure of his name and identity presented no reasonable danger of incrimination. The Fifth Amendment prohibits only compelled testimony that is incriminating, see Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 598, and protects only against disclosures that the witness reasonably believes could be used in a criminal prosecution or could lead to other evidence that might be so used, Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 445. Hiibel’s refusal to disclose was not based on any articulated real and appreciable fear that his name would be used to incriminate him, or that it would furnish evidence needed to prosecute him.

Other SCOTUS approvals of "Stop and Identify" are; U.S. v. Hensley, Hayes v. Florida, Adams v. Williams and the big one Terry v. Ohio. Actually, the SCOTUS "agrees" with me.

How is a crime being prevented if there was never going to be a crime in the first place?

This is quite a paradox. How can you know a crime was not going to be committed? If a crime is prevented, how can one prove it was prevented?

You must beleive that every man wants to be a criminal...this is the only way I can see any logic in WANTING to the police to have these types of powers.

What "powers" are you suggesting I support? Identifying a suspicious person found in a suspicious place, at a suspicious time? Then the answer is a resounding yes. Arresting that person merely on the basis of that suspicion? No.

Crime skyrockets in natural disasters because of fear and need. No other reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that the police are occupied.

I am not talking about people "stealing" necessities such as food and water. I was referring to the looting of items not required for sustenance. I was referring to increased instances of assaults, rapes, murders, vandalism, etc. And yes, criminals do take advantage of situations when LE is otherwise occupied. If you deny that, there really is no reason to further this debate.

As always is the case, poverty and oppression are what causes crime.

While I have never been oppressed, I have been quite poor. And, I and many like me, have not used that as an excuse to perpetrate acts of crime on my fellow human beings. That really is just an excuse and nothing more.

There are none? I think you better look again. If we hold officers to a 'fire only when taking a life is justified' standard, then great. I am all for it. That is simply not the case, however. There are hundreds of examples where officers fired, even fired to excess, when killing was not justified. And most officers walk away.

I would be glad to look at any examples, you can provide, of circumstances wherein an officer was justified in discharging his weapon, but not being justified in taking a life.

When the shooter is the only live witness, its pretty tough to do anything about it.

Can you provide examples of this?

1)That is the point my friend. It is a paradox. Crime prevention is impossible. You cannot prevent something that may or may not exist. Get it?

2)Identifying someone based on suspicion and nothing else is exactly the power I am suggesting that you support. Someone looking suspicious is not illegal. Someone being outside at midnight does not make them suspicous. I am a free man. Whatever I am doing, so long as it is within the law, I have a right to do, and I have a right not to be harrassed in doing so.

Again, that's called living in a free nation.

3)You'll have to enlighten me on how you have been opressed. Most in this world have no idea what that even means. And most in america have no idea what it is to be oppressed, or truly be in poverty.

Saying that you have never used it as an excuse IS an excuse. Go live in true poverty. Live in a situation where you are truly oppressed. Then you can speak on it.

4)The stories are everywhere. I have already posted one in this thread.

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by primus2012

 

There was no attempt to infer that more LE officers are killed than those they kill. I know the majority of the members of ATS are intelligent enough to understand the concept of ratios, so I didn't feel the need to elaborate.

Besides, why would I have provided the link to the source, if I intended to mislead?

[edit on 2-6-2010 by WTFover]

This was your "no attempt to infer that more LEO's are killed than those they kill" post:

Felons killed to cops killed ratio 2.49 to 26.44 per 100K in 1980
Felons killed to cops killed ratio 1.69 to 9.51 per 100K in 1998

I thought that was worthy of repeating.

Come on people, do a little reading every now and then. You just can't let emotion rule your lives.

A bogus ratio since the per 100k are mutually exclusive for felons killed and cops killed.

Judge: "You shot him in the face from ten yards?"

Cop: "I was aiming for his shoulder, but he was moving."

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
1)That is the point my friend. It is a paradox. Crime prevention is impossible. You cannot prevent something that may or may not exist. Get it?

You absolutely can. Police presence and pro-active policing are positively deterrents to crime. Deterrent = Prevention Besides, using your own "get it?" attitude.....You can't possibly prove a crime was not prevented.

2)Identifying someone based on suspicion and nothing else is exactly the power I am suggesting that you support. Someone looking suspicious is not illegal. Someone being outside at midnight does not make them suspicous. I am a free man. Whatever I am doing, so long as it is within the law, I have a right to do, and I have a right not to be harrassed in doing so.

Harass - 1. To irritate or torment persistently.
2. To wear out; exhaust.
3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
Sorry, but your claim of harassment doesn't fly, in the case of being asked to provide identification.

3)You'll have to enlighten me on how you have been opressed. Most in this world have no idea what that even means. And most in america have no idea what it is to be oppressed, or truly be in poverty.

Wow! Really? First, I specifically stated that I have never been oppressed. It really is difficult to continue an attempt at productive debate, if you don't read closely. Second, The rest of what you said is 100% correct. However, you continue, within this thread, to argue for the existence of rampant oppression by the police????????

Saying that you have never used it as an excuse IS an excuse.

Huh?

4)The stories are everywhere. I have already posted one in this thread.

Are you talking about this statement?

I can think of a particular instance right off the top of my head that took place in Tigard Oregon in which an autisitc kid that was holding a knife and not within realistic distance of hurting anyone was fired upon dozens of times by police, and killed.

www.kptv.com...
Um...Tasered...Not shot multiple times and killed...
(WTFover whispers to himself "this is really just too easy")

There comes a time when you should just accept that your emotionally based ideas have been systematically dismantled.

[edit on 4-6-2010 by WTFover]

Originally posted by primus2012
A bogus ratio since the per 100k are mutually exclusive for felons killed and cops killed.

I will cede that. It was my error in grouping the extrapolated data together in that manner. However, it was not intended to deceive. The article is sufficient, on its own, and I should have left it at that.

Thanks for bringing that to the front.

10-4. And peace to you.

Peace is why I would support the bill. I'd never want a cop to be burdened with imbalanced rules of engagement. If indeed someone is a threat, armed, pointing a weapon at or firing a weapon at a cop or hostage or innocent bystander, I say that the bill should not be in play.

My stance is that a cop drawing his weapon and pulling the trigger should always be the last resort. To prevent a shooting or killing of someone who is not armed or not a threat is my stance. There are too many stories of death-by-cops where restraint wasn't shown, where it was clearly not necessary, where agression and emotion ruled the trigger fingers.

If people knew that cops' last resort was to put them down, perhaps some incidents wouldn't reach the desperation stage. Backed into a corner, an armed suspect may decide to raise the white flag, knowing that he wasn't more than likely going to be gunned down.

I don't hate cops and I don't think all criminals shot by cops are martyrs.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


I would like to know what you think about this incident in regards to this thread.

Secure

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I am speaking of the situations in which a kill shot does not have to be taken. And there are plenty.

There is no such thing as a situation in which it's ok to shoot but a lethal shot is not justified. It's a lethal force-only weapon, you can only use it when lethal force is justified. That means center of mass kill shot. Anything else is unethical.

Woot so Ima goin to New York with kevlar legs and sleeves, I'll be unstoppable!!!

Seriously though, I'm so sorry boss! I was never the straightest shooter and there's the proof 3 perfectly in his forehead! I was aiming for the arm I swear.

reply to post by xXxtremelySecure



One word,
Sorry!

If he was back in Mexico where he was legal he would still be alive.
Errr well....I guess he was a goner anyway. no harm, no foul.
Police Officers are issued guns for protection and receive training to recognize the difference between a threatening and non threatening situation. Sometimes people get shot accidentally, although terrible it happens.

reply to post by xXxtremelySecure


This is great NEWS!!!!

I can't believe this bill is even up for a vote Sweet!

I don't think it has a chance in hell of passing but hopefully it teaches these thug cops a lesson.

The people are in control of America and not you kill crazy Cops, keep pushing your luck, keep killing kids, keep tasering people like it's a game and the people WILL eventually get Fed up and put you in the tight spot.

May this Bill be a warning to all of the Law enforcement thugs of America.

Some times the chickens come home to roost.

reply to post by g146541


It's people like you with your North Korean standard of human decency and value for human life that have Let these Crazy trigger happy murderous Cops to get so far out of hand in America today.

The good News is there are Still many Americans who know their responsibility as a citizen is to find legal ways to put these bad boys back on their leash.

Some Americans might cower in fear at their oppressors but Many are intelligent enough to use the Law to keep America From getting as bad as North Korea, no matter how mad the North Korean minded citizens of America might get.