Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

Originally posted by RedCairo
A fleeing felon is not a suspect, he is a felon. You didn't read that carefully. RC

Oh i did, I just chose to say it again in terms OF THE QUESTION I ASKED.

Also, what is a fleeing felon? Someone who breaks out of prison? Someone who is convicted and bolts out of the court? Formerly commiting a crime does not mean a cop should have legal right to shoot you when you pose no danger to him or the surroundings.

Originally posted by jimragan
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.

1)You obviously arent reading the thread. Nearly all have agreed that when being fired upon, a cop has every right to shoot to kill.

2)If the suspect is running, the cop shouldnt be shooting anyway, as most liely it isnt safe to his surroundings to do so.

we dont really have this problem in the uk,as we only have specialist armed officers anyway,and few police related shootings.in the army though we were taught that whenever you use your weapon,you are shooting to kill,surely this goes for police officers aswell?there was some controversy in the uk years ago about soldiers and police in n.ireland having a shoot to kill policy,its crap.to shoot to wound is ridiculous,especially at close quarters using a 9mm pistol,i would aim for the largest mass the chest.doubt they would be feeling too good after a double tap with hollowpoints!!

Originally posted by mishigas
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.

Up until the officer tried to take control of the other persons property (the pot), there was no victim.

Yes, it is the law. But the law is stupid. We are putting our police in harms way so that they can be shot and killed. You miss the point.

Of course murdering someone is wrong. Could you try any harder to miss the point? Or are you doing it on purpose?

I cannot be sadly misinformed when we are talking about apples and you bring up oranges. Possession of marijuana is not murder. If the cop pulls someone over for murdering someone, then your point could begin to be valid.

So, now that i have addressed it....your turn. Is is appropriate to make laws that force officers into harms way needlessly? Is there that much to be gained by forcing a confrontation?

Originally posted by mishigas
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.

It is refreshing to see someone so knowledgable that they can tie things up into such a nice, neat little box. Too bad your logic is apparently either faulty or incomplete. We have notified the Texas Rangers, FBI, and ICE. Know why nothing gets done? The moment you take down an entire force you end up with a lack in public confidence.

BTW, do you have anything that might show that a community has gotten something done to have a corrupt force removed? If so, i would be interested in seeing it.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]

It will be rather interesting to see how the pendulum swings after this law is passed.

I think if people don't have to fear being shot by a LEO, that the crime rates will increase. Criminals will become bolder.

I think this law has the potential to bankrupt local city/state governments further. Especially when the people who have been "subdued" by being shot in the leg or arm start to sue.

Guns are not the issue, if there were no guns in the world, it would be something else. Remember, we've had many centuries to perfect methods for doing harm.. Knives, swords, slings, Bow and Arrow, spears, clubs, etc. If it were not guns, it would be something else. Technically any object, if desired, can be used as a lethal weapon.

I believe that Police officers need the judgment of when to use lethal force, I also believe they need more training, both in tactics, weapons, and situational evaluation skills. Trigger control, and sight alignment and awareness, as well as situational awareness would help prevent some, not all, but some of the shootings.

I also believe Police and their various groups need to do more investigation into situations before acting.

In some situations tho, it will be unavoidable to do anything but shoot to kill. Sorry folks, accept the fact, that there are elements and situations that the police do encounter that this will need to happen.

Sadly, we are becoming to politically correct and trying to make the world a soft, cushy place, and in the process, we're becoming a bunch of pansies.

and those in the USA: if it weren't for those millions of people owning guns, our government would have had it's way with us long ago.

Peace and keep safe.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by RedCairo

 

Police in larger cities do not hire people who are too qualified. This reduces attrition.


Someone like myself, who needs more than a daily routine, would attrit rather quickly. Where as someone who likes routine, and paperwork, and all that jazz is a more ideal candidate.

The sacrifice is that cops are not as bright as you may want them to be. The upside is the reduced attrition, theoretically, provides for a more stable and experienced police force.

6 goes to one, and a half a dozen to the other.

Police work is anything but routine, every day is similar but very different and if you get your mental jollies out smarting criminals, jousting with defense lawyers, and crave adrenalin.. it's not a job, it's being paid to have fun..

On average, excluding LAPD, it takes 100 applicants to hire 3 cops here in So Cal.. so says the LASD recruitment poster anyway.. most applicants fail the mandatory Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory aka MMPI, aka psyche test that, believe it or not, does a good job of weeding out idiots and creating security guards... I also had to not just "pass", but smoke several logic / IQ tests: the "flags" etc. to stand out above the 100 other people competing for the same job.

California POST standards are tough: www.post.ca.gov... and many depts, NOT LAPD, go beyond what POST requires..

I agree with you that some depts, like LAPD, do hire idiots.. they were forced to lower standards by a Federal consent decree mandate... as a matter of fact the flood of morons has devastated morale to the point all officers are required to sign a 5 year contract.. too many officers disgusted with their co-workers were leaving for other depts after obtaining their POST certificate (which requires passing a probationary period, usually 12-18 months)..

"LOS ANGELES - The city alleges that 53 former police officers broke their employment contracts by leaving the department within five years of joining the force, and is suing them to recoup $1.6 million in training costs"

"The city has required police recruits to sign five-year contracts since 1996, when an investigation revealed that some were leaving soon after graduating from the police academy to work for other departments. The officers agree to repay part or all of their $60,000 training cost if they leave early."

www.realpolice.net...

reply to post by ngchunter


Unfortunately, many people have watched too many westerns where the white hat draws, fires, and skillfully shoots the revolver right out of the black hat's hand.

It's really funny, when you stop and think of it.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Also, what is a fleeing felon? Someone who breaks out of prison? Someone who is convicted and bolts out of the court? Formerly commiting a crime does not mean a cop should have legal right to shoot you when you pose no danger to him or the surroundings.

If he posed no danger, the officer would have no reason to shoot him, and I am certain that all these questions are part of what would go to the officer making up his mind about it. If it's a man suspected of using a machete to cut off a woman's head in front of her little girl after breaking in, I hope they freaking shoot him rather than let him get away, and if it turns out that he was not the guy, that is terrible, but frankly I'd rather err on the side of protecting the public in that case. If it's a man who stole a car radio they are probably not going to shoot him running away.

I know that there are bad men and bad precincts and that this can be used in a horribly abusive way. Just like jails and the rubber rooms can, just like psych wards and held without trial issues can. Corruption and injustice do exist and I will not argue those things. And I will not argue that giving a 'benefit of the doubt' to law enforcement officers does, in the case of corruption, make it easier for abuse to happen.

But NOT giving the benefit of the doubt to them puts the vast majority of good officers in an untenable position. They are always walking the border of society in a difficult, traumatizing, numbing, embittering kind of job, and they are under constant personal threat never mind trying to prevent harm to anybody else around as well, and it's true -- I observe -- that as a side effect of all this, psychologically, cops generally have a very, very low tolerance and low patience (and just a damn bad attitude at times) with people who appear to "pose a clear danger" to the public or officers.

This doesn't mean they just shoot them if they want to (actually there would probably be far fewer criminals on the street if that were the case. Alas, because more of them would be LEO's!...) but it means that yeah, they are likely to be forced to make snap decisions with a zillion variables and some unknowns, and depending on a lot of issues, once in awhile one of them might err on the side of being slightly more paranoid than not, which now and then might get someone shot who wouldn't have been otherwise.

It is terrible when people die who were not actually serious criminals or intending to be a serious threat. It is terrible when it's the wrong guy or when the crime is something retarded that shouldn't even be criminal. I totally agree with all that. But STUFF HAPPENS and when you put people in a situation where they face these situations *constantly* it should not be a surprise when statistically, occasionally one of them is going to shoot someone and occasionally that's going to be a decision that on beard-stroking reflection someone can decide, with a helluva lot more time and info to make that decision, that it wasn't the right thing to do.

Maybe I'm lucky. In my little city (30K) in NE Oklahoma, I like all the cops I've met here so far, they seem like good men. I appreciate like hell that someone is doing this job that someone needs to, and I think there is a whole lot of physical, mental, emotional, psychological, and family-side-effects pain that people deal with as a result of doing that job on behalf of society. It really irks me when I feel like the same society that puts cops and soldiers into those roles, then attempts to punish them for the fairly predictable and occasional outcomes those roles create in human beings.

Investigate shootings by cops? Heck yeah. But treat them from the get-go as if they are just wanton criminals, and create policies that actually just ensure greater danger to them, to the public, etc. so some moralizing beancounter probably trying to get votes "feels better about" the fact that gunplay sometimes gets involved? THAT is injust.

As a citizen those LEOs serve I personally would hope the officer had more interest in protecting innocent bystander (or potential next victim) me than the guy with the gun.

RC


[edit on 25-5-2010 by RedCairo]

Originally posted by ngchunter

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]

Thanks for missing the point.

please go back and read through the thread before posting again. You are way out of context.

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by ngchunter

 

Unfortunately, many people have watched too many westerns where the white hat draws, fires, and skillfully shoots the revolver right out of the black hat's hand.

It's really funny, when you stop and think of it.

...says the guy who thinks cop cars still say 'serve and protect'.

noticed you jumped off that wagon really quickly...

Um. I have seen some that say that. I suspect that since every state is different, every county is different, every city is different, and there are also a couple different 'kinds' of law enforcement (e.g. police vs. sheriff), that SOME cars still say this, and some don't. I'm sorry if they have removed this from the cars in some cities. They will probably eventually remove "in God we Trust" from coins, too. I don't think this minor detail is worth arguing when the larger issue is the bill that the original poster brought up, is it?

RC

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Up until the officer tried to take control of the other persons property (the pot), there was no victim.

Yes, it is the law. But the law is stupid. We are putting our police in harms way so that they can be shot and killed. You miss the point.

No, you have no point. You say: "We are putting our police in harms way so that they can be shot and killed."

Yes we are, and that it why we train them and give them the tools to protect themselves.

You obviously want to make a case for legalization of pot. The cop could just as easily be killed if he unknowingly stops a guy that has just committed domestic violence. Or robbed a liquor store.

Should we make robbery or assault legal so that cops aren't put in harms way?

The problem with that kind of thinking is that is is so very short-sighted and naive. And that's why this proposed law is so silly.

Originally posted by RedCairo
Um. I have seen some that say that. I suspect that since every state is different, every county is different, every city is different, and there are also a couple different 'kinds' of law enforcement (e.g. police vs. sheriff), that SOME cars still say this, and some don't. I'm sorry if they have removed this from the cars in some cities. They will probably eventually remove "in God we Trust" from coins, too. I don't think this minor detail is worth arguing when the larger issue is the bill that the original poster brought up, is it?

RC

It is, when I am told I am lying, when I flat out am not.

reply to post by ChrisF231



"The problem is that many LEOs here in the US receive very little firearms training. In fact, many officers never even fire their issued sidearm outside of their annual agency qualification shoot. They never clean it, never go to a range on their own time, etc. For those officers, hitting the center body mass is alot easier then hitting an arm or a leg."

And how do you know this? You make a pretty broad statement about
officers not even cleaning their weapon, shooting it or going to a range.
Maybe that is the way it's done on Long Island or whereever, but you
don't have a clue as to what goes on around the country. What an idiotic
statement to make. Did you make a countrywide survery on that one?

Besides that, I believe this type of law is the most ridiculous sh1T I have
heard for awhile. It's this type of law that keeps grinding away at America
making it a pradise for thugs and criminals that deserve one right between
the eyes.

Shoot the criminal bastard$ in the leg or arm and then spend the next
five years hearing about how they were abused and wanting to file
lawsuits against the cops for ruining their day. Had to go to the hospital
instead of hitting the crack pipe. Poor baby !. I say leave the cops alone
and if they have to shoot to kill, well that is one less piece of dog crap
walking the streets terrorizing innocent people.

This is the sort of bull#%$t that is destroying America. Kiss the a$$ of
the poor little criminal because he had a bad upbringing and nobody
liked them. waaa waaa waaa.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

noticed you jumped off that wagon really quickly...

And I notice you are still on the road to nowhere...

What does it prove? What does it mean? Absolutely nothing. But you go ahead and keep saying it...at least it will keep you occupied.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

It is, when I am told I am lying, when I flat out am not.

Yeah, you are. Now, had you said "Some LEA's no longer print xxx on their cars", that would be acceptable. However, you made it appear that it applies to all LEA's. That's not true.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
((snip))

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).

Depends, one occasion upon arriving at a domestic squabble radio call responding officers witnessed a man shoot a woman point blank on the front lawn yelling "I'm going to kill you and your **** sister", he then then aimed at a female standing in the open door and ran towards the house firing... officers reacted as trained with deadly force stopping the suspect... there is no time to judge.

From start to finish the officer involved shooting, or "998", was over in a few seconds... and officers were ultimately cleared after investigations from our Dept, LASD homicide, and the DAs "cappo team" that investigated all 998s at that time.

Crazy... first they want to give soldiers medals for "restraint" (posthumously, probably) and now this.

Just take the guns from the beat cops (leaving them tasers, batons, pepper spray) and they can call SWAT in when guns are needed. UK style

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

noticed you jumped off that wagon really quickly...

And I notice you are still on the road to nowhere...

What does it prove? What does it mean? Absolutely nothing. But you go ahead and keep saying it...at least it will keep you occupied.

Its okay man. ive proven you wrong. Deal with it. Admit you were wrong, and move on.

Originally posted by GovtFlu

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
((snip))

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).

Depends, one occasion upon arriving at a domestic squabble radio call responding officers witnessed a man shoot a woman point blank on the front lawn yelling "I'm going to kill you and your **** sister", he then then aimed at a female standing in the open door and ran towards the house firing... officers reacted as trained with deadly force stopping the suspect... there is no time to judge.

From start to finish the officer involved shooting, or "998", was over in a few seconds... and officers were ultimately cleared after investigations from our Dept, LASD homicide, and the DAs "cappo team" that investigated all 998s at that time.

Seeing someone use deadly force on a civilian is not the same as firing at a fleeing suspect.

And most officers are cleared in most shootings. Dead witnesses cant speak.