Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

Originally posted by mishigas
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.

Its okay bud. You know you are wrong here. Keeping trying though.

It seems as though the reason for this bill is the police brutality we have seen in the past and continue to see today? Police shooting anyone, granny's and all. It's a bit of a touchy subject - one that almost confuses my logic mechanism.

Honestly, I don't see any benefit from this bill. It might even raise crime levels if passed. However, no one likes to see a cop shoot someone that doesn't deserve it. If they got a gun, shoot em, i guess. If they don't, they get tazered anyway right?

Touchy subject for me as police have wronged me more than once, but if someone is shooting at you or is about to, your sure as hell gonna shoot back.

IMO the whole legal system needs to be under constant scrutiny and reform. Lawyers i know say (in the UK at least) that the law system has become a sea of corruption. Maybe the next time i chat to one of them I'll get examples

reply to post by captaintyinknots


Whatever you said.

Same as you.


Just google cop car images, plenty of instances.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

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.

Not all fleeing felons rate the same.. state laws are all different, even then Joe citizen can't rely on laws to accurately evaluate an officer involved shooting re: fleeing felons.. department POLICY dictates rules more stringent than state laws.

If the officers witness a felony, like ADW or murder, and reasonably believe that person is an immediate danger to the community.. deadly force usually is usually authorized... like if the cops witness some dude running around shooting at people, then cap him in the back as he flees.

If some convicted/admitted mass murderer like Dennis Rader, aka BTK killer, were to escape.. usually a Dept will issue, or already have, an ROE (rules of engagement) policy in place detailing the use of deadly force for that type of fleeing felon... generally someone as dangerous as that can be stopped with deadly force if he tries to escape / resist arrest..

Every circumstance is unique, too many laws & dept policies apply to generalize.

You guys are so afraid of your own shadow's, nobody is safe around anyone!

You got lunatic cops with low self esteem, trying to get power trips off of the ignorant public masses. Violating you whenever and wherever you allow them!

Then you got the Criminal law makers that are slowly criminalizing everything you do. On top of that, they got the idiot government to convince the sheeple that these laws are for their protection, and security!
What a bunch of disappointing, lazy, ignorant, godless clueless american subhuman, slaves we've all made ourselves to be.

Yet we still Yip, Yap about who has the right to kill and who has the right to be free and who doesn't. Get a load of that! Slaves talking about freedom. What a wash!

When I listen to all of you in these forums, everything inside of my flesh begins to boil. I can't stand how you all devise your little systems to justify the things you do. I can't stand to see you all sit in a chair of self righteousness, judging people you don't know and harvesting opinions that further your own blindness to the infinite possibilities of your mind.

You were all indoctrinated to be dumb by the time you're 18 years old. Colleges just further the stupiditiy. Your education is de-education, don't you see it !?!?!?!?!?

The joke is on all of you. Still asleep, feeding off the news reports and "scientific information" like maggots eating dead flesh. Judging the value of the rotten meat.

Let me give you a clue. CHANT, MEDITATION - clear that gummed up brain of yours.

Call me what you like, but no human being on Earth can escape themselves. If you don't see yourself in everything you do and say, then maybe you're doing too much teaching.

Time to do some listening within...


[edit on 25-5-2010 by Visitor2012]

Oh for goodness sake you guys. Surely we've got a whole list of decent things to argue and insult each other about without cop-car logo trivia lasting multiple pages.


I expect the most 'supportive' concept for this bill is the point made in a near-up post: that dead witnesses can't speak.

However this kind of gets into a slightly overlapping territory -- that of overwrought consequences. Whenever you put consequences on genuine and sometimes understandable mistakes that are crazy severe and can ruin (if not imprison) a person, you will definitely get people going to lengths to cover these up and groups of people protecting each other.

You see it in families who pretend kids are lying about molestation, in their panic to protect the man who works to support them from going to prison.

You see it in kids who become pathological liars to avoid getting in trouble because the punishment is so severe.

And you see it in cops, who sometimes make the wrong judgment, and that split second of decision is something that will not only cost them their job, but their freedom, and their wife and kids will be both humiliated and left without a means of support, and it's just this gigantic DOOM.

The more severe consequences are over the occasional decision that maybe with a lot more time and less adrenalin and confusion going on would be a different one, the more prone any human and group of humans are going to be, to be self-protective and group-protective, to try and cover it up. This is human nature.

If the mistake involves having shot someone, ruining the officer's life over it is not going to bring that person back, is probably the theory.

I think some degree of so-called corruption is not actual *intentional violence and killing someone who'd rat them out* ('dead witnesses do not testify'), rather, I think it is a poor decision and attempting to defend from the consequences. Maybe that eventually leads to real corruption, I don't know. But I think much like with other forms of perceived evil, often times accident or self-defense is in play, as much as any intentional wickedness.

Either way I don't think this is common enough -- outside of a few metro cities that have such a long list of severe problems they are hardly normal or average compared to the rest of the country -- to be used as leverage to make that bill seem just.

RC

finaly some sence in law making, best thing ive heard in a long time.

in my humble opinion i do believe that crime will go down , cause the "quick way out" option all together goes away, if you cant do the time you wont do the crime , easy as that , people will be discouraged.

as for people who say adrenaline will keep em gun fighting till the end , thats just non-sence , theres less then a fraction of a 1% of individuals who achieve that state, rest of em just piss their pants in shock and trauma and whine and call for help , which they needed in the first place.

I'm confused about the below.

Originally posted by zerbot565
finaly some sence in law making, best thing ive heard in a long time.

in my humble opinion i do believe that crime will go down , cause the "quick way out" option all together goes away, if you cant do the time you wont do the crime , easy as that , people will be discouraged.

How is legislating what amounts to lawsuit-ability from suspects' families and punishment for defending officers going to reduce crime? It would do nothing but make cops more afraid to draw or less likely to stop someone instantly, is likely to get more people including them shot, and make criminals that much more emboldened as a result of knowing all that.

Maybe you were not talking about the bill itself, but about something said by someone above, so, sorry if I misunderstand.

RC

reply to post by captaintyinknots


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

Technically yes it is the same, despite witnessing that man commit a felony by shooting a women.. he is still only a suspect... technically innocent, until proven guilty...this is exactly why the dept, homicide detectives AND district attorneys intensely scrutinize shootings... in this case officers were cleared, ruled as "justifiable homicide".

And there are no provisions for firing at general fleeing "suspects", deadly force is reserved for specific, and rare occasions of fleeing FELONS who reasonably present an immediate danger to the community... some cops can retire after 25 years never encountering these unique set of circumstances.

I strongly encourage everyone to read your local police/sheriffs depts POLICY manual, if available.. it will detail what your local gendarme can, and cannot do in situations like these..

Policies differ from dept to dept, for example Santa Monica PD has a restrictive pursuit policy, generally they will only chase dangerous felons... but next door LAPD will chase and ram anyone who fails to yield..

I'm all for keeping tabs on what LEO's do, however I think this bill is rubbish.

I'm not a cop, but I've have family who are. This is just going to put them more at risk. A criminal knows, that when he picks up that gun, the consequences that can and will happen. Like being shot and killed.

Where do you think the term "Suicide by cop" comes from? Because people know, you point a gun at a cop, you'll get shot.

Talk about holding the cops accountable, what about the criminals who choose to pick up that gun to commit a crime? It's their choice, no one is forcing them to pick up that gun, no one is forcing them to commit a crime. They do it knowlingly.

Shees people, seriously!

If cops have the right to Kill people based on their judgment then I am for the right to kill cops.

Killing people does not prove an offender is guilty. It simply removes the courts power and right to judge a person within a fair trial. It gives cop a higher power than the courts which should NEVER be allowed.

NO killing by anyone.

I think an eye for an eye. If a cop killed someone I know criminal or not then i would support the killing of that cop in retaliation. NO doubt at all. All people deserve their day in court to be judged by a group of their so called peer.

Take away a cops power to kill.

Unless a cop is in a gunfight he has no reason to shoot anyone center of mass. Most cops are LOUSY shots anyway; they barely pass a test but are not real handgunners by any means. If cops could shoot accurately they could save a lot of lives.

These laws are in response to so many cases of cops shooting people to death who were NOt armed...maybe had some other weapon that required the cop to get super close to be a threat...amnd too many cops use their handgun instead of a tazer or just bu God fight.

Nowadays cops are loath to get touched at all...they want distance and ' officer safety' is paramount...meaning civlian safety is a secondary concern. So naturally cops want to shoot anyone that they perceive as a threat when they get the least bit fearful of their safety...shoot first...

Cops MUST be reigned in, or they take advantage and want to cross the line in ways that impact the citizens...laws like this are meant to keep cops from getting so used to shooting people that it is their first choice.

Originally posted by SurefireII

Wearing there combat boots and swat gear..like they're some type of bad asses with a badge, makes me laugh in their faces!

What type of shoes would you recommend then, Bates dress shoes? As for the shell vest my department wears, I was relieved when we got then, I could take the vest off when not on a call(vests are extremely hot for those that don't know).

Secure

Originally posted 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....

No, it's fact. Something that people dont seem to put a lot of stock in around here anymore.

I know for a fact it has happened a great deal more times than just one. There are plenty of cases where someone on drugs or on a adrenaline high has taken more than a 10 rounds to go down, that is why they created the 21 foot rule for knives.

Secure

reply to post by ngchunter


Thank you for thinking

Secure

This is a bunch of garbage, has anyone here ever been in a real firefight or life and death situation that they had to pull a trigger....by the sounds of most of you, I would have to say no. If you have ever been in a situation like this you would realize the effects of a gun fight. Physical, and psychological. It would be too much to ask someone in a split second desicion to wound this person because its politicaly correct to wound them. and police, and others in the line of duty are held to some sort of robo cop standard. Sorry folks in the real world it does not work this way. Center Mass or bust. I sure as hell didnt try to kill someone, I tried to neutralize them, and if that means a center mass shot, then thats what I am going to do, and Im sorry to crush you innocents out there but I dont feel to terribly bad if someone doesnt get up after that either. ever heard of the K.I.S.S. rule (keep it simple stupid) because the body is under so much stress in a situation like this that all you have time for is simple motor functions. I would love to see anyone of you here try to make a shot to someones bicep at 25 yards, and still keep your $#!T together to make an aimed shot like this. Sorry not happenen unless your some sort of Jeff Cooper which I doubt anyone here is, Heck Im not even that good. So all of you out there that want to see this bill passed, please keep your heads in the clouds and keep thinking happy thoughts. Like the age old saying you can wish in one hand, and $#!T in the other, but see what happens first.

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure

Originally posted 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....

No, it's fact. Something that people dont seem to put a lot of stock in around here anymore.

I know for a fact it has happened a great deal more times than just one. There are plenty of cases where someone on drugs or on a adrenaline high has taken more than a 10 rounds to go down, that is why they created the 21 foot rule for knives.

Secure

I've been watching you defend your post for seven pages now. If your in law enforcement then you must feel this is a threat? Or is it a even playing field? There are good cops and bad cops. But the one thing all law enforcement have in common is you work for the government and the government is paying you to enslave the public one tag violation or public intox petty law at a time. You see my friend you might not be high enough up the rank to know that the $hit is going to hit the fan very soon. I would say that in general there is going to be an economic fall in this country soon and you will have to choose what side your going to take when FEMA/ DHS the federal government brings down the order to round up those who might or might not be on a list who would be trouble makers. Make a wise choice.

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.

They actually demonstrate this at our academy, they make you run the course then shoot at a paper target...big difference than taking your time and shooting like during training.

Secure

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
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.

If the weapon is loaded while you brandish it then it is a crime regardless at least in VA. I have never seen anyone brandish a firearm without the intent to use it or intimidate. I have seen plenty of people unload it and let their friends look at it though.

Secure

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
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.

If the weapon is loaded while you brandish it then it is a crime regardless at least in VA. I have never seen anyone brandish a firearm without the intent to use it or intimidate. I have seen plenty of people unload it and let their friends look at it though.

Secure

In the State Of Texas, it is not illegal to have a loaded weapon. Not in the least. Nor in Arizona. And in each of these states it is not unusual to see a law abiding citizen exercising their right to bear arms.

It is a right given us in our constitution. What is so wrong with exercising it?

I couldn't begin to count the number of times i have seen, in public, someone with a legally owned weapon, usually holstered.

Patriotism isn't just for the fourth of July.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by bigfatfurrytexan]