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: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



The next time you hear about a cop being shot, ask yourself if what he was doing was worth dying for. Stopping a car that is suspected of having 30lbs of pot in it....is that really worth dying for?


Typical liberal line of questioning. Cops are always the bad guy and the criminal is always the 'victim'.

The question you should be asking is: Is 30 lbs of pot really worth murdering a cop over? :shk:

Cops are obligated to enforce the laws. They don't get a choice as to which laws they enforce.


Very, very rarely does an officer get killed where the officer followed safety protocols. Even more rarely does an officer get killed when he is not confronting victimless crime.


You've got it bass-ackwards. Cops killed in the line of duty are almost always pursuing crimes of violence, not "victimless crime".


Where in the hell did the whole "liberal vs conservative" meme get injected here?

Cops are not obligated to enforce the laws. I do not wish to dig up the linkage, but reference the case where the NYC cop has recordings of where he is told to not enforce laws so that the crime statistics are favorable for the politicians. Cops enforce the laws they choose to enforce.

But my statement goes more towards the nanny state that has been created for us. Why are we creating laws that make actions without victims illegal?

Where you are from, cops may get shot while pursuing violent crimes. In my neck of the woods, cops are most often shot on the side of the road while investigating a possible drug mule.

For a classic example, look up "Troy M Hogue", a DPS trooper shot in my hometown a few years ago.

Try to see someone for your political programming. I will not participate in such low brow communication.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by boaby_phet
wound them, take them down, but whats the point of killing people anyway...

So while you're busy wounding them, they're busy shooting to kill you or someone else, and since you're no longer aiming for center of mass you're more likely to miss, give the perp more time to inflict harm, AND you're more likely to hit an innocent bystander. This has got to be one of the most reprehensible pieces of legislation I've ever seen. If they're willing to force it on cops you can bet they're willing to force it on citizens at large.


wouldnt it be better to keep people alive so they can be punished ??

Not if another person's life is in danger.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



You seriously think that because one time some guy kept coming after being hit, that it should justify always shooting to kill? Yikes man....


I'm seriously proving that you are quite naive. It's not unusual for a criminal to wear a flak jacket these days.

I'm saying that these types of cases should be seriously considered when making policy.

And my stand is, you shoot when the situation warrants it. And you shoot to kill. If that disturbs your tender sensibilities, stay at home.


Disinformaation? Step outta mom's basement and go look at a few cop cars before you throw that ridiculously overused phrase around.


Every patrol car I see has that phrase detailed onto the car. I think you are just making stuff up in an attempt to look like you are 'in the know' about LE, when you really don't know diddly. You're not fooling anyone, bub.

Prove your statement:

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

I'm saying you made that up to sound like you know it for a fact. Prove me wrong.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ngchunter
 


If police were not so prone to acting inappropriately, it likely would not be an issue.

But when you have a little girl set on fire with a Flashbang, then shot by a police officer while serving a search warrant, then people tend to get fed up with LEO.

Come to my town. See just how corrupt LEO can be.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
I agree!! However when they stripped the right for the common citizen to respond with equal force to a life threatening situation,is when it all started going down hill. It is not only your right to protect yourself from harm,it is your responsibility to do so!!


When did they strip that right? If someone breaks in my house and I kill them, I am not going to jail over it -- in fact if I kill one and there are others, in my state (OK) *they* get tried for first degree murder of their 'associate' for being such boneheads as to break into my house in the first place and cause it to happen.

Yes I know it's probably completely different in MA and CA in particular...

Now if we are talking about things happening out in public, I don't have a carry license; several relatives do. But I would likely not pull a gun in public unless I was facing one anyway and possibly not then unless it seemed critical, since that's just a good way to escalate any bad situation into something much worse (and I have no desire to shoot anybody short of last-line of self-defense, which makes holding a gun pretty pointless unless you're willing).

I agree that there's probably as much "back seat driving" of decisions that relate to violence/death when it's a civilian with the gun, as when it's a police officer. But I don't know of a situation where I would be prevented from defending myself or my child.

And again, if this is a genuine problem then THE LAWS NEED CHANGING. Blaming law enforcement officers for bad laws is ridiculous. They are not congress or even the city council.

RC



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



You want to avoid the question of murdering a cop over 30 lbs of pot?

And then you call it victimless crime???

You're sadly misinformed.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ngchunter
wouldnt it be better to keep people alive so they can be punished ??


You mean so they can take a ton of money in court fees from the city, and then a ton of money in prison housing fees from the state, to get far more extensively trained in how to be a better, sneakier, and more violent criminal, and then be released back into the public? Bummer when that doesn't get to happen.

RC



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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....


Why fire?, to stop the suspect..usually from causing GBI/death, or a fleeing felon who represents an immediate danger to the community.

A jury usually determines guilt / innocence.. unless it's a bench trial.. and, well, these days obama acts as judge, jury, and executioner using drones to kill those he "suspects" are "terrorists"...

Be glad the local cops aren't all little bushbamas, yet... going around summarily killing & punishing suspects proven guilty of nothing.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by ngchunter
 


If police were not so prone to acting inappropriately, it likely would not be an issue.

I don't care how you think police are acting, this is an inappropriate response. Period. It reveals that the legislators do not understand the proper use of a firearm in self defense. For all the reasons I've already stated it is reprehensible. If you are shooting your firearm in self defense then lethal force must already be authorized by definition. Attempting non-lethal force with a lethal force weapon is immoral and inappropriate; there is never a situation where you should be shooting non-lethally. You either use a non-lethal method to deal with it or you shoot lethally because the situation requires lethal force. There is no third option. Attempting a third option gets more people killed.


Come to my town. See just how corrupt LEO can be.

Deal with corruption through the proper channels by prosecuting those who are corrupt, don't hog tie the entire force. That is absolutely immoral and disgusting. I know good cops, and this kind of thinking seeks to get them killed.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 



Come to my town. See just how corrupt LEO can be.


There are 2 cases where corrupt cops run a town:

1. The people are too weak to stop it.

2. The people are also corrupt; one hand washes the other.

In either case, the people get the LE they deserve.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Regardless of the sensibility or lack of sensibility in this bill,
like others have said, it would be impossible to enforce, but on the other hand, I think every cop that gets into a shooting situation will immediately know in his own mind if the person needs to be put down hard or just wounded... for example, some drunk, person stumbling towards a cop with a little pocket knife might be able to be just shot in the leg to stop him, but does this ever happen? not usually, he would have been killed.. One such incident happened where I live, the perp was drunk and probably wanted to get shot so acted the way he did to get sucicided.. and he got what he wished for by very slowly approaching the officers with a small knife and refusing to drop the weapon.. but they filled his sorry hide full of lead

Even if they did society a favor it is still a bit on the unbalanced side of justice if you ask me..
But of course every shooting situation is unique and cannot have some law like this put in there, because it just doesn't mesh with reality IMO..
At the same time, I don't think it is neccessary to always shoot to kill... I have never been that way myself and think it is a cowardly way to deal justice..



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 



You seriously think that because one time some guy kept coming after being hit, that it should justify always shooting to kill? Yikes man....


I'm seriously proving that you are quite naive. It's not unusual for a criminal to wear a flak jacket these days.

I'm saying that these types of cases should be seriously considered when making policy.

And my stand is, you shoot when the situation warrants it. And you shoot to kill. If that disturbs your tender sensibilities, stay at home.


Disinformaation? Step outta mom's basement and go look at a few cop cars before you throw that ridiculously overused phrase around.


Every patrol car I see has that phrase detailed onto the car. I think you are just making stuff up in an attempt to look like you are 'in the know' about LE, when you really don't know diddly. You're not fooling anyone, bub.

Prove your statement:

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

I'm saying you made that up to sound like you know it for a fact. Prove me wrong.



1)You are proving nothing other than the fact that you want to shoot people. If criminals commonly wear flak jackets, wouldnt that lend itself the the idea that officers ought to be able to shoot for extremities? As I understand it, most jackets protect center mass....(oops, your argument is destroyed, AGAIN)

2)If you only know how to shoot to kill, you are not suited to carry a weapon.

3)Go look at some cop cars, genius. Just do it. It isnt there anymore. Officers, in this very thread, have confirmed it. You are either very naive, or are stuck in the 1990's.

Where is it on this car?
www.hornellpd.com...
or this one:
thumb7.shutterstock.com.edgesuite.net... t-the-public-21667279.jpg
or this one:
www.seattlepi.com...
or this one:
waiting002.files.wordpress.com...

i could go on and on kiddo.

Like I said, get out of the basement.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I support this Bill !!!

A cop should shoot to maim and stop the attacker. Only as a last resort should a cop ever shoot to kill !!!!

Outright killing a suspect because he may or may not be able to still harm the officer after maiming is a poor excuse for an untrained trigger happy person who has no business in a cops uniform.

All you folks above should be ashamed of yourselves. Your as bad as the killer you allow the cop to become.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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....


Why fire?, to stop the suspect..usually from causing GBI/death, or a fleeing felon who represents an immediate danger to the community.

A jury usually determines guilt / innocence.. unless it's a bench trial.. and, well, these days obama acts as judge, jury, and executioner using drones to kill those he "suspects" are "terrorists"...

Be glad the local cops aren't all little bushbamas, yet... going around summarily killing & punishing suspects proven guilty of nothing.


As I have said before in this thread, each case is different. When there is an imminent and serious threat of death, then yes, you should fire.

But who are you to judge if a fleeing *suspect* (not convicted criminal, suspect) is a danger to the community? That is a judges job. And it is certainly not grounds for murder(which is what it is).



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:47 PM
link   

It should be that way anytime anyone uses lethal force in a situation that is not related to war.

A buddy of mine retired from the Marine Corps, came back from Central America where he was "not fighting" people we are "not in a war" with.


Unfortunately 'warfare' is a verb and it is not limited to international situations that congress has stamped approval upon. More and more as time goes on, the 'average criminal' is not average at all -- they aren't just some stupid individual who wanted to rob a liquor store (though those still happen) -- often they are people who are part of gangs and 'organized efforts' who have sometimes spent years in training, have semi- and automatic weapons, sometimes silencers, flak jackets, and their primary defense (much like on the larger planetary scale) is that they "blend in with everybody else".

Not for nothing do police develop a finely honed sense of paranoia -- it's a survival skill. A great deal of law enforcement officer's lives IS quite literally in the middle of or threat of warfare. Except they have one set of restrictive laws (not a bad thing unless we're talking about retarded BS like this law under consideration) and the bad guys have no restrictions whatsoever.

I agree that anybody who kills another person should be investigated but to my knowledge this is a given for police as well as anybody else. Maybe in some territories the departments are really abusive or corrupt, since I don't live in one of those places (far as I know), I have to take the word of the people who do on that. But as far as I know it's a pretty damn big deal when a cop shoots anybody around here and it's pretty rare.

The bad behavior by a few LEO's is making the news with great sensationalism a little like the priests in the church seem to. The news media loves that stuff nearly as much as they love Paris Hilton. The occasional injust situation does not fairly reflect the entire LEO population of our country.

RC



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
A fleeing felon is not a suspect, he is a felon. You didn't read that carefully. RC



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Lots of folks here have been watching too much TV. Shooting at paper targets is one thing, putting the round where you want it fairly simple. Now, get on the street, maybe you've been chasing this guy, maybe not, irregardless your adrenaline is pumping, heart rate, way up, guy is moving, shooting back. Now try to actually hit what you are aiming at. Something as small as an arm or leg that's moving, maybe a shoulder shot, unlike in the movies a shoulder shot can do massive damage. Center of mass is a nice big target, less chance of stray rounds flying around a public area.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Outright killing a suspect because he may or may not be able to still harm the officer after maiming is a poor excuse for an untrained trigger happy person who has no business in a cops uniform.

The whole reason you're shooting the perp is because they present an immediate threat of harm; you shoot to kill to stop the threat, you don't shoot to maim and continue the risk that the perp presents a threat. You're effectively saying that whoever the wounded perp might continue to harm is less valuable than the perp. It's not a cop's job to give the perp a chance to continue presenting a lethal force threat after a lethal force threat has already presented itself; doing so is not only needlessly dangerous for the cop it's needlessly dangerous to the public.


All you folks above should be ashamed of yourselves.

The feeling is mutual.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:51 PM
link   
This is hysterical as we see once again that people have a very hard time indentifying the difference between SUSPECT and CONVICTED CRIMINAL.

Anyone of you caught anywhere brandishing a gun is a potential suspect.

So the reality is that the officers are judging people, by judging suspected intent in brandishing a gun. Yet the reality is not everyone brandishing a gun is intending to use it, or intending to use it for criminal purpose.

So as usual we see most of the ATS Membership fail to distinguish between what constitutes a real crime, and what constitutes yet another media opportunity for them to exercise their own blood lust, by howling for other’s blood.

The reality is not all potentially violent situations turn out violently, nor do all potentially criminal activities and behaviors turn out to be crime.

So while those of you who are crying “Shoot first, and shoot to kill, and forget about asking questions later”, you might want to be asking some hard questions about yourself, as one day, it might be you that is being shot by the police for no reason, and shot dead, because we have been tolerant and permissive of far too many regulations and laws, and the use of excessive force in enforcing them.

Suspects should only be wounded if and all possible, so they can be properly water boarded to extract their confessions and unknown associates later! (Even if they have committed no crime and have no associates)

All these invasions on other’s liberties and lives will come back to haunt us. Americans are already fair game abroad for Government execution without Judicial Revue, Americans are already subject to indefinite detention domestically without Judicial Revue or Administrative Revue, and Drones are beginning to fly our borders and our costs.

I can’t wait to see how many of you are pro-authority once interred in a Government Reeducation Camp; sadly I suspect many of you will be, while many more will be the guards!



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)If you only know how to shoot to kill, you are not suited to carry a weapon.

If you think there's any situation where shooting a lethal force weapon to wound is justified, you're not suited to carry a weapon. If you're shooting to wound because shooting to kill wouldn't be justified then you shouldn't be shooting at all and if you do shoot to wound you should go to jail for it.

Real life isn't like the movies; shooting someone in a leg or arm can be just as lethal just as fast as shooting someone in the chest, the only difference is that you're more likely to miss altogether and hit something or someone you didn't mean to hit.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by ngchunter]



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join