It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
Luckily for everyone else, it eventually will be


If it ever does become they law in Virginia(4% chance) then I will be taken to court if I have to defend myself or someone else using lethal force.

Secure




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
reply to post by boaby_phet
 


If a criminal came at me with a knife I would shoot the bastard. How's is using a knife any better? Do you know what it feels like to have steel put through your flesh? I do.

It's nice to know that your criminals are so polite as to not rob you or assault you with a gun..Knives are more civilized after all.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Reply to post by xXxtremelySecure
 


Believe me. I totally agree with the feasibility. Its just that's how it *should be*. It would hold officers accountable-to the people they protect and *serve*-for their actions.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by projectvxn
 


ye, the irony kills me dude!

good thing im not as criminal aint it , so i wouldnt go taking my word for the word of a british criminal . . . id probably make a pretty bad criminal ... on the knife use, it would be strictly for scaring! .. ... again, id make a pretty piss poor criminal lol

personaly, if it came to a confrontation, im a foot and fist man ... weapons are for fannys!

thats the difference between our nations though...



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Reply to post by xXxtremelySecure
 


I should mention that if I were to use lethal force on an intruder intent on killing me, I would have to go to trial to defend myself. It should be that way anytime anyone uses lethal force in a situation that is not related to war.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
..Knives are more civilized after all.


I prefer to do my mugging with rapier and puffy shirt.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I believe that every shooting is reviewed.

While some police may have fired their weapons injudiciously, I can't for the life of me accept that it is my (our) place to impose a theoretical limit on the force necessary to resolve what may or may not be a life-threatening situation.

I wouldn't want to be a peace officer if I knew that while someone was aiming for my head or heart, I can't stop them with any certainty because I have to aim for his limbs.

This is likely a reaction to all the hyped coverage of police doing all the wrong things--- which was a reaction to the MSM broadcasting fantasies about all police being knights in white armor rescuing the meek from the cruel, and being the saints of the street.

Truth is, you can't legislate a reality with which you are only familiar by virtue of political expedience. But then, it'll take our politicians about three centuries to learn that... and another four for us to force them to acknowledge it.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


The SCOTUS decided some time ago the cops are under no obligation to serve or protect despite what may be written on their cruisers. Come to think of it I havent seen that phrase written on a cruiser in ages.

The only 'logical' thought anyone using a firearm in self defense needs to have is "stop the threat." Maybe that's the problem. Too many cops arent using their firearms in defense of self but rather to subdue a perceived threat.

None of us can get away with blowing away a kid with a super-soaker or an old man with a bat because we felt threatened. Even if the kid or the old man genuinely were threatening us we still wouldnt likely get away with it. The cops on the other hand can seemingly plug away at whoever they want.


Thank you for illustrating my point in your first paragraph. Being a cop is no loinger about serving and protecting, it is about crime prevention. ANd when it becomes about crime prevention, everyone is no longer a civilian, they are a suspect.

That phrase is no longer written on cruisers, which, once again, is my point.

I can cite plenty of examples that would discount your last paragraph.
lukusglenn.blogspot.com...

8 shots struck him. another 3 missed. 11 total shots fired at someone with a knife, who was not in any position to be an immediate threat. And it has been classified as legally justified. utter garbage.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure
If it ever does become they law in Virginia(4% chance) then I will be taken to court if I have to defend myself or someone else using lethal force.



So you'd get treated the same way as every other citizen? Oh my god, what is the world coming to? The police have to account for the fact that they've killed somebodies father, son, mother or daughter. What a shock.

If the police only ever did the right thing, laws like this wouldn't be required.

How many innocent people needed to die before the people lose faith in the police to this degree? Let me add a sub-text to your headline

Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

Citizens breath a collective sigh of relief.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Gee, how dare the civilians (who pay your salary) expect those that chose a career, again, to SERVE AND PROTECT, to be well trained with the lethal weapons they carry, and to be able to make a logical decision on which shot to take given the situation.


I am well trained with the Glock 22C .40 I carry I go to the range at least once a week, unlike many officers. I still do not think that in a fraction of a second I would be able to line up neutralizing shot that would be non-lethal. My Instincts would make me shoot for an area that I have the highest probability of hitting Center Mass.

Secure


Then you are not well trained. You may be a decent shot and may be used to firing that gun. That does not make you well trained.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I once read an article that talked to women about dealing with a violent crime situation. Aside from some of the things that probably should be no-brainers but are not (don't 'supply' a man with a knife by pulling it on him unless you really know how to fight/use it), one was, if someone has a gun, RUN. Duck, weave, just run like hell. Because even standing still most people are lucky to hit something stationary on a "quick shot" let alone something in motion.

I grant police should probably be trained for better accuracy, but let's hope they don't have need to go practice shooting people daily!, which means they are likely to be a tad rusty, aside from the fact that there is a million little considerations going on during any emergency -- it is SO retarded how bozos want to second-guess every millisecond decision from the comfort of some ivory tower of holier-than-thou.

This is just a bunch of armchair backseat driving after-the-fact. "Oh gosh maybe the criminal was deranged and could have been talked out of the gun!" I don't CARE. You know what that means? Even if they don't kill the officer, or other people, or sue the officer, NOW it means that my people have to freakin PAY to house this homicidal bozo in prison and a ton of court costs. It's a lose-lose-lose-lose situation.

RC



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:01 PM
link   
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.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by xXxtremelySecure
 



However in the real world I have seen people with chest shots still fire a few rounds before they go down...wounding doesn't work when a firearm is involved. Its a needless risk to the officer and bystanders.


Agreed.


There was an incident where a trooper emptied his firearm into this huge guy after a traffic stop went bad. The huge guy kept on coming...I think he killed the smokey.

Always aim for body mass center, or else you may as well be firing blanks.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
I believe that every shooting is reviewed.

While some police may have fired their weapons injudiciously, I can't for the life of me accept that it is my (our) place to impose a theoretical limit on the force necessary to resolve what may or may not be a life-threatening situation.


Although all shootings are reviewed, it is not with the same level of prudence that a murder charge is investigated. As we are all aware of the police buddy system, there cannot be any assurance that the current methods are beyond corruption. Police should not be investigating themselves.

When we come across a dead suspect on a lawn, or in a street. We rely on the police officers version of the events. We know that in many cases the police officer will lie, there are many threads here that attest to it, we also know that the police will cover for each other at the risk of corrupting the laws they are sworn to protect. So to see an unfired .38 or a knife laying by the dead suspect, and the officer saying he had no choice simply isn't good enough anymore.

The police themselves should be held to a higher standard than the general public. They should be held accountable for every life they take, and punished for any wrongful death with the same severity as any member of the public. When caught lying on their own behalf, or on the behalf of others they should also face severe criminal charges. This is the only way that we are going to see faith restored in the police services. I doubt that it will happen, but it really should.

..Ex



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   

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.



Well if this don't just about sum it up....

let me ask you something: Why in gods name would you be firing upon a suspect? I always thought it was a judges job to judge who was guilty and who wasnt....



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by xXxtremelySecure
 



However in the real world I have seen people with chest shots still fire a few rounds before they go down...wounding doesn't work when a firearm is involved. Its a needless risk to the officer and bystanders.


Agreed.


There was an incident where a trooper emptied his firearm into this huge guy after a traffic stop went bad. The huge guy kept on coming...I think he killed the smokey.

Always aim for body mass center, or else you may as well be firing blanks.


Ahh yes, the old "there was this one guy once who was impervious to bullets so cops should shoot to kill" argument...

you can do better than that....



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedCairo
This is just a bunch of armchair backseat driving after-the-fact. "Oh gosh maybe the criminal was deranged and could have been talked out of the gun!" I don't CARE.
RC


The problem is the cops aren't just shooting "criminals", they're shooting innocent civilians, children, dogs, people in shock with 60% burns after a car accident, handcuffed captives. There's a new video of this crap every week on ATS. Do an ATS search, on "cop video" and see what pops up.

If you still DON'T CARE, you deserve everything you get.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I got a better idea... how about do not commit violent, illegal acts that would place an officer in the position to have to shoot you to begin with??

I know that is a pretty far out concept, but it works too!

Sorry I have no sympathy for someone who is committing a crime and is dumb enough to point a firearm at an officer or someone else. What happened to taking some personal responsibility in this country? So if I go out, commit a crime, and then point a firearm at a police officer or just some Average Joe who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and I am killed... that is now some how the fault of others? What happened to the whole thought process that if I was not out committing crime and pointing guns at people, I wouldn't have been shot to begin with?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by v3_exceed
 


I cannot refute what you say. The perfect world solution would be to know - with unshakable certainty - that officers would never intend to kill someone if it could be avoided. That any use of deadly force was only due to no alternatives being reasonable. For that to work the entire community of police officers would all have to be on the same page.

But such a culture change is not in the interests of those who wish to maintain the subculture as a separate entity from 'civilian' society.

They do protect each other. They insist they have to, even when they don;t know if their brother or sister in arms did something wrong or not.

Not to stray OT, but I thought the committees reviewing police shootings included 'non-police' members to ensure 'impartiality'... but then, we know how that goes too....



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal
I got a better idea... how about do not commit violent, illegal acts that would place an officer in the position to have to shoot you to begin with??

I know that is a pretty far out concept, but it works too!

Sorry I have no sympathy for someone who is committing a crime and is dumb enough to point a firearm at an officer or someone else. What happened to taking some personal responsibility in this country? So if I go out, commit a crime, and then point a firearm at a police officer or just some Average Joe who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and I am killed... that is now some how the fault of others? What happened to the whole thought process that if I was not out committing crime and pointing guns at people, I wouldn't have been shot to begin with?


Because only people who are blatantly committing crimes are shot and or killed by cops, right?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join