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.
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.
Cops are targets when it comes to violent crime, so yes our perception of risk is in fact greater than that of a civilian.
Originally posted by FraggleRock
reply to post by RWESteel
So when you responded to what your new friend on ATS said by saying
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.
What you meant to say was that you have an extra special right to self-defense unlike any civilian? Because you did respond to my first post with this...
Cops are targets when it comes to violent crime, so yes our perception of risk is in fact greater than that of a civilian.
And I simply refuse to believe you are implying that your perception of risk is in fact greater and that your rights to self-defense are greater because unlike civilians you are the target of violent crime. That's not what you're saying right? Because we both know that just like law enforcement, civilians are targets of violent crime. In fact I wouldn't doubt that civilians are targeted more often than law enforcement. And given that law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals from the crimes of others I cannot see how your rights to self-defense and your perception of risk are greater than any other persons.
Originally posted by RWESteel
Alright guys... This one I have to chime in on.
BLUF: We're all logical people here, try not to come to conclusions based on one media (who most here would believe is skewed) report, especially in a situation like this when you were not there.
I myself work in Law Enforcement, and while everyone has made valid points concerning this shooting, I believe it was in fact justified. Not many of you on here have been in situations such as this, and you were not there that day. It is not our place to say whether or not the officer was threatened. When the individual was asked to put his hands in plain view, and immediately reached for something, it is a cause for concern, and in a situation such as that, I believe I would have fired as well. One random thing, whenever there are reports of LEO shootings, the media likes to report the number of rounds fired. When your adrenaline is pumping, you squeeze the trigger till the threat is gone. 20 Rounds from two officers is not a lot of rounds -- that's not even a magazine emptied from each. It was enough to stop the subject and declare the scene safe.
Everyone who is criticizing the officer, why don't you put you pay attention to the details and attempt to put yourself in his shoes, facing a life and death situation.
And revamping training/policies is the correct thing to do. Increased training will help ensure a situation like this does not happen again.
I'm sure you won't like it, but as this site generally houses more logical individuals than most, I thought that maybe seeing a point of view other than the skewed one that was presented could get you to open your mind and think a bit before jumping to conclusions.
Thanks and be safe everyone.
edit on 4-4-2013 by RWESteel because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by YayMayorBee
reply to post by RWESteel
The risk is NOT equal. Not by a long shot.
Police officers are trained, heavy supplied, heavily armed, organized... because that is what we pay them for.
And no, you do NOT have the same rights as a civilian. Deadly force should only be used in the absolute extreme circumstances. The "its coming right for us" excuse does not hold water.
Furthermore, and as stated before, I have no sympathy for your job risk. You chose a career in law enforcement knowing full well the risk it carries, you are trained to handle that risk, you are supplied to handle that risk, you took an oath reaffirming that risk.
I am sick and tired of the romanticisation of police officers. Statistically, a roofer is more likely to be killed at his job.
20 years ago I may have said that deadly force was more "acceptable" due to the fact police officers were not funded as they are now and you only had a sidearm with 6 rounds of .38 special.
All major cities now have militarized police with tanks, stun guns, riot control, access to unlimited amounts of self defense training, technology that allows the assessment of criminals, demographics, and assault weapons (police should never ever ever ever ever have offensive weapons... ever... period) you get discounts on firearms, range time... I can list for hours.... and you want to sit there and tell me that the lust and rush you get from all this training and toys and you want to cite that you have no duty to protect the citizens that live under your protection? That you are somehow equal to even the most hardened criminals?
No. The answer is no.
Cities are broke due to a large portion of the hero worship we give to our officers and you repay those citizens by citing obscure court judgements that can be subjective in justifying your alpha male good ol boys in blue club? When your cars (that are paid for by the tax payers) state on the side "to protect and serve" not "judge jury and executioner"
There is no excuse with the resources and organization that you cant take 99.999% of all suspects ALIVE.
Police are glorified bouncers that must always operate inside the law.
Norton v. Shelby County 118 USR 425:
"An unconstitutional act is not law. It confers no rights, it imposes no duties, it affords no protections, it creates no office. It is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it has never been passed."
Vis a vis
No person shall... be deprived of LIFE, liberty, or property, without due process of law
Black and white.
edit on 5-4-2013 by YayMayorBee because: replied to wrong post
Originally posted by RWESteel
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
A fast hand movement to an out of sight location after admitting he has a weapon, and directed to put his hands in plain sight, doesn't constitute danger during the execution of a warrant for a convicted felon? You're an imbecile.
Oh and yes, let's please knock and announce our presence while the individual inside gets to cover and aims a R870 at the door. Not safer.edit on 5-4-2013 by RWESteel because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by RWESteel
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical
A fast hand movement to an out of sight location after admitting he has a weapon, and directed to put his hands in plain sight, doesn't constitute danger during the execution of a warrant for a convicted felon? You're an imbecile.
Oh and yes, let's please knock and announce our presence while the individual inside gets to cover and aims a R870 at the door. Not safer.edit on 5-4-2013 by RWESteel because: (no reason given)