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.
Originally posted by YayMayorBee
reply to post by RWESteel
This is the problem with "law enforcement" is that you believe that you are somehow on the same level as citizens. You are and should be stripped of your rights when you put on your uniform. You become tools of the law. I am sick and tired of hearing cops complain and cry that they are "in harms way" I DONT CARE, ITS WHAT WE PAY YOU FOR.
You no longer can react in a situation as a civilian would. You cannot justify killing ANY civilian. You are to protect the public, innocent people, even the guy grabbing a gun and pointing it at you is INNOCENT until due process of law, this is what the law says, this is the boundary you operate under. You swore to it, you are entrusted with it, you are paid for it.
Personally, I dont care if he killed 10 cops defending himself. Its what we pay cops for. The ONLY time (in my opinion) a cop should be allowed to use deadly force is if the person displays a threat to another civilian.
LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN. THE ONLY TIME ITS OK FOR A UNIFORMED OFFICER TO KILL A CIVILIAN IS IF THEY ARE A THREAT TO ANOTHER CIVILIAN.
Tools of the law. You are no longer a father, a mother, a son... with that uniform on, you are a tool. You work within the boundaries of the law. You chose the life of law enforcement which carries a responsibly and a liability.edit on 4-4-2013 by YayMayorBee because: (no reason given)
LET ME SAY THIS AGAIN. THE ONLY TIME ITS OK FOR A UNIFORMED OFFICER TO KILL A CIVILIAN IS IF THEY ARE A THREAT TO ANOTHER CIVILIAN.
Originally posted by RWESteel
reply to post by onequestion
www.theppsc.org... - Gives you an insight on why they wouldn't just fire one round.
And I appreciate your criticism.
reply to post by evc1shop
One with a reload or two without a reload. As stated in the media video/article, two officers.
reply to post by YayMayorBee
Completely incorrect. While I may be a "tool of the law" I still hold my rights as an American citizen and human being. I have the inherent right of self-defense just as any civilian does.
When you say that someone pointing a gun at me is INNOCENT until proven in a court of law you are correct. But pointing a firearm at me, or a civilian is assault. My job as a tool of the law would be to place the individual under arrest for assault. In attempting to place an individual under arrest who is pointing a gun at me, and I feel threatened, I would use the means necessary to place the individual under arrest (in this case, escalation of force up to deadly force). So yeah, as part of me being a "tool of the law" I can use deadly force as I would be performing my duties of apprehension. Also, brandishing a firearm does put civilians in danger. Unlike in your video games, bullets travel for long distances and through objects, and brandishing one with the intent to fire it puts all in it's path in danger.
Oh and if you want to bring law in, you're actually incorrect in everything you said.
Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice
"Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public."
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution prohibits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest or prevent the escape of a suspect unless the police officer reasonably believes that the suspect committed or attempted to commit crimes involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical injury and a warning of the intent to use deadly physical force was given, whenever feasible (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)).
Originally posted by baddmove
I have never posted about bad cops before..
But this just blew my mind..really?
Please watch the video....it's in the link..
A King County man was shot while sleeping in his bed 16 times by local police who invaded the house. Police declared they “felt threatened” by the man who was not the subject of a warrant or investigation. The Department of Corrections and the Kings County Sheriff’s office saw no problem with the random shooting stating it was in compliance with the law. One of the deputies involved in the shootings Detective Aaron Thompson received sustained violations for abuse of authority and poor performance. The man who was shot has no criminal record and has lost his ability to make a living due to his injuries. Apparently the officers were serving an arrest warrant on someone other than the actual victim and they did not ask the owner of the house if there were any weapons present or if a third-party resided there. The detectives involved did not work with other detectives who were present or contact a supervisor before attempting to serve the warrant that ended in the tragic shooting. Since the incident occurred in February, the Kings County Sheriff’s office has taken steps to provide additional trainings to deputies to avoid shooting more innocent civilians in their beds
thelibertarianrepublic.com...
Read some of the comments too..
Man, this world is going crazy.....
Originally posted by FraggleRock
reply to post by RWESteel
Being that you work in law enforcement I'm curious if you believe that your perception of risk and my perception of risk are equal. After all, that's pretty much what this situation boils down to. The shooters had a perception of risk and they acted upon it. Had someone outside of law enforcement acted upon the same perception of risk, the legal outcome would be much different. That is why stories like this anger me so much. Not because I don't think law enforcement has a right to defend themselves. Because I think law enforcement abuses that right. "I felt threatened" isn't so much a valid explanation anymore as it is an excuse and/or catch phrase to cover for their misconduct and extreme lack of judgement. And each time it is successfully used to justify shooting unarmed, nonthreatening civilians the people get more apprehensive towards law enforcement.