User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 10:51:54 PM EDT
[#1]
Evidently, the "furtive movement towards waistband" didn't look too threatening on the bodycam footage.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 10:55:38 PM EDT
[#2]
Having trouble with the link. Is this the guy who was shot in the hotel while on a business trip?
Mesa PD is know for being a bit quick on the trigger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 10:58:06 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having trouble with the link. Is this the guy who was shot in the hotel while on a business trip? Mesa PD is know for being a bit quick on the trigger. The same case, I think. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:00:40 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The same case, I think. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Having trouble with the link. Is this the guy who was shot in the hotel while on a business trip? Mesa PD is know for being a bit quick on the trigger. The same case, I think. Sounded like a bad shoot from the get go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:01:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Having trouble with the link. Is this the guy who was shot in the hotel while on a business trip? Mesa PD is know for being a bit quick on the trigger. NM Im wrong |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:05:01 PM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:05:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Yeah, don't know if true, but the wife's reports of what she has been told are pretty damning. Mesa PD waited 4 days to call his wife and tell her her husband had been killed. They knew his name and address when they were dispatched.... that's just low.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:06:02 PM EDT
[#8]
Yup. We discussed it before. Some members said Graham v. Connor means the cop gets to decide whether shooting someone is reasonable.
I vehemently disagreed. Looks like the DA does too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:08:35 PM EDT
[#9]
Shootings in the past were a lot easier for police to sweep under the rug, now with all the cameras they on the hook when they fuck up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:15:07 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, don't know if true, but the wife's reports of what she has been told are pretty damning. Mesa PD waited 4 days to call his wife and tell her her husband had been killed. They knew his name and address when they were dispatched.... that's just low. IIRC, She's not his wife. "Common law" wife... They notified his dad who's the legal next of kin, apparently he didn't pass the word along to girlfriend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:18:27 PM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:21:28 PM EDT
[#12]
Is this where they were labeled the mormon death squad? A fitting moniker.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:23:03 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, don't know if true, but the wife's reports of what she has been told are pretty damning. Mesa PD waited 4 days to call his wife and tell her her husband had been killed. They knew his name and address when they were dispatched.... that's just low. Yea. Thats not going to play well in the civil suit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:25:10 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this where they were labeled the mormon death squad? A fitting moniker. I'm not gonna lie, when I saw OP's thread title it's the first thing I thought of 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:25:53 PM EDT
[#15]
Use of deadly force is a highly judgmental thing. Even if the officer thought deadly force was justified, his department shooting review board didn't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:26:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not gonna lie, when I saw OP's thread title it's the first thing I thought of Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is this where they were labeled the mormon death squad? A fitting moniker. I'm not gonna lie, when I saw OP's thread title it's the first thing I thought of Yes, that's on Page 1 of the archived thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:27:51 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, She's not his wife. "Common law" wife... They notified his dad who's the legal next of kin, apparently he didn't pass the word along to girlfriend. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, don't know if true, but the wife's reports of what she has been told are pretty damning. Mesa PD waited 4 days to call his wife and tell her her husband had been killed. They knew his name and address when they were dispatched.... that's just low. IIRC, She's not his wife. "Common law" wife... They notified his dad who's the legal next of kin, apparently he didn't pass the word along to girlfriend. Sperm-guzzler does not equal wife, legally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:33:02 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Use of deadly force is a highly judgmental thing. Even if the officer thought deadly force was justified, his department shooting review board didn't. The DA didn't. fixed. What his department thinks means jack shit when he is facing 25 to life on 2nd degree murder. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:35:53 PM EDT
[#19]
The archived thread is interesting reading, in light of the charges.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:41:30 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
fixed. What his department thinks means jack shit when he is facing 25 to life on 2nd degree murder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Use of deadly force is a highly judgmental thing. Even if the officer thought deadly force was justified, his department shooting review board didn't. The DA didn't. fixed. What his department thinks means jack shit when he is facing 25 to life on 2nd degree murder. If his department believed it was justifiable use of force, then it would be incumbent for the city attorney (or department attorney) to defend him. Instead they didn't and turned all evidence over to the district attorney who elected to prosecute. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:41:51 PM EDT
[#21]
Damn,2nd degree murder.
Bet he wishes he was a CA cop that shot a guy climbing out of a wreck instead............ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:44:17 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn,2nd degree murder. Bet he wishes he was a CA cop that shot a guy climbing out of a wreck two old ladies delivering newspapers instead............ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:47:15 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If his department believed it was justifiable use of force, then it would be incumbent for the city attorney (or department attorney) to defend him. Instead they didn't and turned all evidence over to the district attorney who elected to prosecute. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Use of deadly force is a highly judgmental thing. Even if the officer thought deadly force was justified, his department shooting review board didn't. The DA didn't. fixed. What his department thinks means jack shit when he is facing 25 to life on 2nd degree murder. If his department believed it was justifiable use of force, then it would be incumbent for the city attorney (or department attorney) to defend him. Instead they didn't and turned all evidence over to the district attorney who elected to prosecute. The DA wouldn't of investigated if his department cleared him? That seems unlikely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2016 11:49:25 PM EDT
[#24]
Trial should be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 7:20:33 PM EDT
[#25]
So was the body cam footage ever released?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 7:36:37 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If his department believed it was justifiable use of force, then it would be incumbent for the city attorney (or department attorney) to defend him. Instead they didn't and turned all evidence over to the district attorney who elected to prosecute. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Use of deadly force is a highly judgmental thing. Even if the officer thought deadly force was justified, his department shooting review board didn't. The DA didn't. fixed. What his department thinks means jack shit when he is facing 25 to life on 2nd degree murder. If his department believed it was justifiable use of force, then it would be incumbent for the city attorney (or department attorney) to defend him. Instead they didn't and turned all evidence over to the district attorney who elected to prosecute. In Arizona the County Attorney reviews all police shootings and is the one who determines if they were a justified use of deadly force. The department only determines if the shooting falls within their policies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 7:40:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Looks like gotiger called it, and the usual blue line disparaged him. Again.
Txl |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 7:57:01 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Damn,2nd degree murder. Bet he wishes he was a CA cop that shot a guy climbing out of a wreck instead............ He should have claimed negligent discharge while legally pointing his weapon at him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 8:40:09 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yea. Thats not going to play well in the civil suit. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yeah, don't know if true, but the wife's reports of what she has been told are pretty damning. Mesa PD waited 4 days to call his wife and tell her her husband had been killed. They knew his name and address when they were dispatched.... that's just low. Yea. Thats not going to play well in the civil suit. What legal obligation does a police department have to notify a girlfriend? Legally, She is not "next of kin". In fact, what entitlement does she have to a civil suit? Aside from the 8-9 kids they probably had together...? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 8:44:01 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Use of deadly force is a highly judgmental thing. Even if the officer thought deadly force was justified, his department shooting review board didn't. I always laugh when I hear the argument of being in fear for your life as justification for any shooting around here. Just because you feel threatened doesn't mean you are. If guilty, I hope he fries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 8:53:34 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The DA wouldn't of investigated if his department cleared him? That seems unlikely. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Use of deadly force is a highly judgmental thing. Even if the officer thought deadly force was justified, his department shooting review board didn't. The DA didn't. fixed. What his department thinks means jack shit when he is facing 25 to life on 2nd degree murder. If his department believed it was justifiable use of force, then it would be incumbent for the city attorney (or department attorney) to defend him. Instead they didn't and turned all evidence over to the district attorney who elected to prosecute. The DA wouldn't of investigated if his department cleared him? That seems unlikely. The DA would and if it looked very touchy, the State DoJ may do it. It's actually preferable to have an outside agency conduct the investigation but cleary the department itself thought the use of force was not ustified. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 8:54:34 PM EDT
[#32]
Having worked side by side with these guys in the city of Mesa.They are a good group, sounds like a bad situation and a bad reaction, but Cops cant show up half cocked cause someone reported the word gun. I personally dont think he (the officer) should serve prison time, but should definitely lose his job to ever work as an officer again. When a serious call kicks out over the CAD, I know it gets my heart going, only Im not going in harms way like PD is. We task these guys with such difficult situations and to deal with the communities worst of the worst. More than likely this wasnt cold blood, or killing for sport to earn a notch. My heart goes out to both sides and both families. Ive never met a Mesa Officer that was this "Cold and Callus" us verses them so fuck'm type. All have been very professional, hell, if I had to point fingers, us on the EMS side are far worse.
I await to see the camera footage, odds are if they are prosecuting...it wont be pretty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 8:57:40 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this where they were labeled the mormon death squad? A fitting moniker. yeah i heard a story awhile back an officer dumped an mp5 into a car of teens. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 9:16:01 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sperm-guzzler does not equal wife, legally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, don't know if true, but the wife's reports of what she has been told are pretty damning. Mesa PD waited 4 days to call his wife and tell her her husband had been killed. They knew his name and address when they were dispatched.... that's just low. IIRC, She's not his wife. "Common law" wife... They notified his dad who's the legal next of kin, apparently he didn't pass the word along to girlfriend. Sperm-guzzler does not equal wife, legally. In some states common law is just as legal as if you were married by a drunk child molesting member of the clergy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 9:35:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Since I joined this forum, I've always posted my opinion in these cases: "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot".
I've also always said "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". The blue line usually rakes me over the coals. I'm ok with that. 99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism. A vast majority of police shootings are indeed justified. But then you have cases like this, or the CA cop who just engaged an unarmed driver like a pop up target, and then tried to cover it up. When otherwise good cops attempt to justify or make excuses for the handful of bad shoots, it badly damages the public trust. And they do it out of "tribalism"......protecting "their own kind" etc. It's very foolish IMO. I don't know why some cops seem to think that their actions should be above scrutiny or consequence, but they should not. A police officer should always be held accountable for the legality of their actions, period. Just like a civilian should. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 9:37:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sperm-guzzler does not equal wife, legally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, don't know if true, but the wife's reports of what she has been told are pretty damning. Mesa PD waited 4 days to call his wife and tell her her husband had been killed. They knew his name and address when they were dispatched.... that's just low. IIRC, She's not his wife. "Common law" wife... They notified his dad who's the legal next of kin, apparently he didn't pass the word along to girlfriend. Sperm-guzzler does not equal wife, legally. Show us on the doll where the civilian girlfriend touched you...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 10:03:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since I joined this forum, I've always posted my opinion in these cases: "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot". I've also always said "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". The blue line usually rakes me over the coals. I'm ok with that. 99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism. A vast majority of police shootings are indeed justified. But then you have cases like this, or the CA cop who just engaged an unarmed driver like a pop up target, and then tried to cover it up. When otherwise good cops attempt to justify or make excuses for the handful of bad shoots, it badly damages the public trust. And they do it out of "tribalism"......protecting "their own kind" etc. It's very foolish IMO. I don't know why some cops seem to think that their actions should be above scrutiny or consequence, but they should not. A police officer should always be held accountable for the legality of their actions, period. Just like a civilian should. You're very wrong about both parts of what I highlighted in blue. Using your ridiculously strict requirements, if I "have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward (me), before (I) can shoot," I can never use deadly force to defend someone else, as in an active shooter at a school. Nor can I defend myself or someone else against a criminal using a knife, or bat, or pipe, or axe. The list goes on. Did you even think that part through before you posted it? As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? If you get raked over the coals, it's because you post nonsensical things like some of the things you did in the above post. Good cops, including here on this forum, do not condone bad shootings or illegal acts by other officers. However, sometimes, things are not clear cut, especially when an officer trying to do his or her best in a fast evolving situation uses force against a resistive subject. Most borderline shootings, and even most bad shootings, are a result of resistance or fast movements by a person suspected of criminal activity. It is extremely rare that a shooting does not involve either resistance or fast movement that looks like reaching for a weapon. It appears that this shooting may be one of these rare times. There have indeed been recent threads on bad shootings here in which no cop poster justified the actions of the officer, and in fact condemned the actions. Your token comment that "99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism," reminds me of people who say, "I'm not racist, but..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 10:04:31 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Since I joined this forum, I've always posted my opinion in these cases: "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot". I've also always said "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". The blue line usually rakes me over the coals. I'm ok with that. 99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism. A vast majority of police shootings are indeed justified. But then you have cases like this, or the CA cop who just engaged an unarmed driver like a pop up target, and then tried to cover it up. When otherwise good cops attempt to justify or make excuses for the handful of bad shoots, it badly damages the public trust. And they do it out of "tribalism"......protecting "their own kind" etc. It's very foolish IMO. I don't know why some cops seem to think that their actions should be above scrutiny or consequence, but they should not. A police officer should always be held accountable for the legality of their actions, period. Just like a civilian should. We arent hiring harden men who can get the job done. We polygraph and scrutinize the most risk adversed people. Guys who didnt grow up rough and handle themselves. They bring in people with the cleanest backgrounds. How do you expect a Cop to be streetsmart and handle themsevles when they've never been in a street fight, smoked weed, act like Alphas. Most departments ive seen, the firefighters and medics have more experience with the streets. Now Im not saying let everyone in, but just because you can pass a poly and can do 30 push ups doesnt make you fit for duty. Give me the guys who know the streets and are good people. Some of these guys they have can not handle the stress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 10:17:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're very wrong about both parts of what I highlighted in blue. Using your ridiculously strict requirements, if I "have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward (me), before (I) can shoot," I can never use deadly force to defend someone else, as in an active shooter at a school. Nor can I defend myself or someone else against a criminal using a knife, or bat, or pipe, or axe. The list goes on. Did you even think that part through before you posted it? As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? If you get raked over the coals, it's because you post nonsensical things like some of the things you did in the above post. Good cops, including here on this forum, do not condone bad shootings or illegal acts by other officers. However, sometimes, things are not clear cut, especially when an officer trying to do his or her best in a fast evolving situation uses force against a resistive subject. Most borderline shootings, and even most bad shootings, are a result of resistance or fast movements by a person suspected of criminal activity. It is extremely rare that a shooting does not involve either resistance or fast movement that looks like reaching for a weapon. It appears that this shooting may be one of these rare times. There have indeed been recent threads on bad shootings here in which no cop poster justified the actions of the officer, and in fact condemned the actions. Your token comment that "99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism," reminds me of people who say, "I'm not racist, but..." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since I joined this forum, I've always posted my opinion in these cases: "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot". I've also always said "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". The blue line usually rakes me over the coals. I'm ok with that. 99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism. A vast majority of police shootings are indeed justified. But then you have cases like this, or the CA cop who just engaged an unarmed driver like a pop up target, and then tried to cover it up. When otherwise good cops attempt to justify or make excuses for the handful of bad shoots, it badly damages the public trust. And they do it out of "tribalism"......protecting "their own kind" etc. It's very foolish IMO. I don't know why some cops seem to think that their actions should be above scrutiny or consequence, but they should not. A police officer should always be held accountable for the legality of their actions, period. Just like a civilian should. You're very wrong about both parts of what I highlighted in blue. Using your ridiculously strict requirements, if I "have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward (me), before (I) can shoot," I can never use deadly force to defend someone else, as in an active shooter at a school. Nor can I defend myself or someone else against a criminal using a knife, or bat, or pipe, or axe. The list goes on. Did you even think that part through before you posted it? As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? If you get raked over the coals, it's because you post nonsensical things like some of the things you did in the above post. Good cops, including here on this forum, do not condone bad shootings or illegal acts by other officers. However, sometimes, things are not clear cut, especially when an officer trying to do his or her best in a fast evolving situation uses force against a resistive subject. Most borderline shootings, and even most bad shootings, are a result of resistance or fast movements by a person suspected of criminal activity. It is extremely rare that a shooting does not involve either resistance or fast movement that looks like reaching for a weapon. It appears that this shooting may be one of these rare times. There have indeed been recent threads on bad shootings here in which no cop poster justified the actions of the officer, and in fact condemned the actions. Your token comment that "99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism," reminds me of people who say, "I'm not racist, but..." If you see someone shooting at another unarmed civilian, of course you could use lethal force. At no point did I ever say common sense should be left by the wayside. Beyond that, I can concede your point. The Chicago PD video of the perp who is throwing his rifle down with one hand, while drawing a pistol with the other is a good example. The backup officer shoots him before he can point it at anyone....BUT, he is clearly in the act of drawing it. In the case that brought about this thread, we have an officer that fully bought into the "furtive movement toward the waistband" justification...unfortunately the subject wasn't armed in any way, wasn't really doing anything wrong, and is now dead. Just like our founding fathers felt that it was preferable for a guilty man to occasionally go free and have the rights of the innocent completely respected, I do think the INNOCENT civilian's life should be considered higher than the civil servant's life. It's the "innocent" part that causes the trouble.......as the civil servants seem to often already have their mind's made up when they arrive. Mainly, I would like to point out that our resident LEO apologists rushed to defend this shooting, BUT, neither the officer's department, nor the county DA, are willing to defend it. To me, that says our resident LEO apologists are getting it wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 10:43:09 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you see someone shooting at another unarmed civilian, of course you could use lethal force. At no point did I ever say common sense should be left by the wayside. Beyond that, I can concede your point. The Chicago PD video of the perp who is throwing his rifle down with one hand, while drawing a pistol with the other is a good example. The backup officer shoots him before he can point it at anyone....BUT, he is clearly in the act of drawing it. In the case that brought about this thread, we have an officer that fully bought into the "furtive movement toward the waistband" justification...unfortunately the subject wasn't armed in any way, wasn't really doing anything wrong, and is now dead. Just like our founding fathers felt that it was preferable for a guilty man to occasionally go free and have the rights of the innocent completely respected, I do think the INNOCENT civilian's life should be considered higher than the civil servant's life. It's the "innocent" part that causes the trouble.......as the civil servants seem to often already have their mind's made up when they arrive. Mainly, I would like to point out that our resident LEO apologists rushed to defend this shooting, BUT, neither the officer's department, nor the county DA, are willing to defend it. To me, that says our resident LEO apologists are getting it wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I joined this forum, I've always posted my opinion in these cases: "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot". I've also always said "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". The blue line usually rakes me over the coals. I'm ok with that. 99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism. A vast majority of police shootings are indeed justified. But then you have cases like this, or the CA cop who just engaged an unarmed driver like a pop up target, and then tried to cover it up. When otherwise good cops attempt to justify or make excuses for the handful of bad shoots, it badly damages the public trust. And they do it out of "tribalism"......protecting "their own kind" etc. It's very foolish IMO. I don't know why some cops seem to think that their actions should be above scrutiny or consequence, but they should not. A police officer should always be held accountable for the legality of their actions, period. Just like a civilian should. You're very wrong about both parts of what I highlighted in blue. Using your ridiculously strict requirements, if I "have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward (me), before (I) can shoot," I can never use deadly force to defend someone else, as in an active shooter at a school. Nor can I defend myself or someone else against a criminal using a knife, or bat, or pipe, or axe. The list goes on. Did you even think that part through before you posted it? As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? If you get raked over the coals, it's because you post nonsensical things like some of the things you did in the above post. Good cops, including here on this forum, do not condone bad shootings or illegal acts by other officers. However, sometimes, things are not clear cut, especially when an officer trying to do his or her best in a fast evolving situation uses force against a resistive subject. Most borderline shootings, and even most bad shootings, are a result of resistance or fast movements by a person suspected of criminal activity. It is extremely rare that a shooting does not involve either resistance or fast movement that looks like reaching for a weapon. It appears that this shooting may be one of these rare times. There have indeed been recent threads on bad shootings here in which no cop poster justified the actions of the officer, and in fact condemned the actions. Your token comment that "99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism," reminds me of people who say, "I'm not racist, but..." If you see someone shooting at another unarmed civilian, of course you could use lethal force. At no point did I ever say common sense should be left by the wayside. Beyond that, I can concede your point. The Chicago PD video of the perp who is throwing his rifle down with one hand, while drawing a pistol with the other is a good example. The backup officer shoots him before he can point it at anyone....BUT, he is clearly in the act of drawing it. In the case that brought about this thread, we have an officer that fully bought into the "furtive movement toward the waistband" justification...unfortunately the subject wasn't armed in any way, wasn't really doing anything wrong, and is now dead. Just like our founding fathers felt that it was preferable for a guilty man to occasionally go free and have the rights of the innocent completely respected, I do think the INNOCENT civilian's life should be considered higher than the civil servant's life. It's the "innocent" part that causes the trouble.......as the civil servants seem to often already have their mind's made up when they arrive. Mainly, I would like to point out that our resident LEO apologists rushed to defend this shooting, BUT, neither the officer's department, nor the county DA, are willing to defend it. To me, that says our resident LEO apologists are getting it wrong. As I expected, as soon as the stupidity of what you said was pointed out, you back pedal. Quick review here-- "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot" is wrong. And it's more like at no point did you use common sense before making that declaration. You also failed to answer my question, and my guess is that it was on purpose. For your convenience, I'll ask again-- As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 10:56:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As I expected, as soon as the stupidity of what you said was pointed out, you back pedal. Quick review here-- "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot" is wrong. And it's more like at no point did you use common sense before making that declaration. You also failed to answer my question, and my guess is that it was on purpose. For your convenience, I'll ask again-- As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Since I joined this forum, I've always posted my opinion in these cases: "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot". I've also always said "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". The blue line usually rakes me over the coals. I'm ok with that. 99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism. A vast majority of police shootings are indeed justified. But then you have cases like this, or the CA cop who just engaged an unarmed driver like a pop up target, and then tried to cover it up. When otherwise good cops attempt to justify or make excuses for the handful of bad shoots, it badly damages the public trust. And they do it out of "tribalism"......protecting "their own kind" etc. It's very foolish IMO. I don't know why some cops seem to think that their actions should be above scrutiny or consequence, but they should not. A police officer should always be held accountable for the legality of their actions, period. Just like a civilian should. You're very wrong about both parts of what I highlighted in blue. Using your ridiculously strict requirements, if I "have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward (me), before (I) can shoot," I can never use deadly force to defend someone else, as in an active shooter at a school. Nor can I defend myself or someone else against a criminal using a knife, or bat, or pipe, or axe. The list goes on. Did you even think that part through before you posted it? As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? If you get raked over the coals, it's because you post nonsensical things like some of the things you did in the above post. Good cops, including here on this forum, do not condone bad shootings or illegal acts by other officers. However, sometimes, things are not clear cut, especially when an officer trying to do his or her best in a fast evolving situation uses force against a resistive subject. Most borderline shootings, and even most bad shootings, are a result of resistance or fast movements by a person suspected of criminal activity. It is extremely rare that a shooting does not involve either resistance or fast movement that looks like reaching for a weapon. It appears that this shooting may be one of these rare times. There have indeed been recent threads on bad shootings here in which no cop poster justified the actions of the officer, and in fact condemned the actions. Your token comment that "99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism," reminds me of people who say, "I'm not racist, but..." If you see someone shooting at another unarmed civilian, of course you could use lethal force. At no point did I ever say common sense should be left by the wayside. Beyond that, I can concede your point. The Chicago PD video of the perp who is throwing his rifle down with one hand, while drawing a pistol with the other is a good example. The backup officer shoots him before he can point it at anyone....BUT, he is clearly in the act of drawing it. In the case that brought about this thread, we have an officer that fully bought into the "furtive movement toward the waistband" justification...unfortunately the subject wasn't armed in any way, wasn't really doing anything wrong, and is now dead. Just like our founding fathers felt that it was preferable for a guilty man to occasionally go free and have the rights of the innocent completely respected, I do think the INNOCENT civilian's life should be considered higher than the civil servant's life. It's the "innocent" part that causes the trouble.......as the civil servants seem to often already have their mind's made up when they arrive. Mainly, I would like to point out that our resident LEO apologists rushed to defend this shooting, BUT, neither the officer's department, nor the county DA, are willing to defend it. To me, that says our resident LEO apologists are getting it wrong. As I expected, as soon as the stupidity of what you said was pointed out, you back pedal. Quick review here-- "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot" is wrong. And it's more like at no point did you use common sense before making that declaration. You also failed to answer my question, and my guess is that it was on purpose. For your convenience, I'll ask again-- As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? Should have to get two, maybe three, shots off before you can break leather... Just to be sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 11:00:17 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Should have to get two, maybe three, shots off before you can break leather... Just to be sure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I joined this forum, I've always posted my opinion in these cases: "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot". I've also always said "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". The blue line usually rakes me over the coals. I'm ok with that. 99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism. A vast majority of police shootings are indeed justified. But then you have cases like this, or the CA cop who just engaged an unarmed driver like a pop up target, and then tried to cover it up. When otherwise good cops attempt to justify or make excuses for the handful of bad shoots, it badly damages the public trust. And they do it out of "tribalism"......protecting "their own kind" etc. It's very foolish IMO. I don't know why some cops seem to think that their actions should be above scrutiny or consequence, but they should not. A police officer should always be held accountable for the legality of their actions, period. Just like a civilian should. You're very wrong about both parts of what I highlighted in blue. Using your ridiculously strict requirements, if I "have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward (me), before (I) can shoot," I can never use deadly force to defend someone else, as in an active shooter at a school. Nor can I defend myself or someone else against a criminal using a knife, or bat, or pipe, or axe. The list goes on. Did you even think that part through before you posted it? As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? If you get raked over the coals, it's because you post nonsensical things like some of the things you did in the above post. Good cops, including here on this forum, do not condone bad shootings or illegal acts by other officers. However, sometimes, things are not clear cut, especially when an officer trying to do his or her best in a fast evolving situation uses force against a resistive subject. Most borderline shootings, and even most bad shootings, are a result of resistance or fast movements by a person suspected of criminal activity. It is extremely rare that a shooting does not involve either resistance or fast movement that looks like reaching for a weapon. It appears that this shooting may be one of these rare times. There have indeed been recent threads on bad shootings here in which no cop poster justified the actions of the officer, and in fact condemned the actions. Your token comment that "99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism," reminds me of people who say, "I'm not racist, but..." If you see someone shooting at another unarmed civilian, of course you could use lethal force. At no point did I ever say common sense should be left by the wayside. Beyond that, I can concede your point. The Chicago PD video of the perp who is throwing his rifle down with one hand, while drawing a pistol with the other is a good example. The backup officer shoots him before he can point it at anyone....BUT, he is clearly in the act of drawing it. In the case that brought about this thread, we have an officer that fully bought into the "furtive movement toward the waistband" justification...unfortunately the subject wasn't armed in any way, wasn't really doing anything wrong, and is now dead. Just like our founding fathers felt that it was preferable for a guilty man to occasionally go free and have the rights of the innocent completely respected, I do think the INNOCENT civilian's life should be considered higher than the civil servant's life. It's the "innocent" part that causes the trouble.......as the civil servants seem to often already have their mind's made up when they arrive. Mainly, I would like to point out that our resident LEO apologists rushed to defend this shooting, BUT, neither the officer's department, nor the county DA, are willing to defend it. To me, that says our resident LEO apologists are getting it wrong. As I expected, as soon as the stupidity of what you said was pointed out, you back pedal. Quick review here-- "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot" is wrong. And it's more like at no point did you use common sense before making that declaration. You also failed to answer my question, and my guess is that it was on purpose. For your convenience, I'll ask again-- As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? Should have to get two, maybe three, shots off before you can break leather... Just to be sure. Yep. We should have to just hope he misses or our vests stop it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 11:09:45 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep. We should have to just hope he misses or our vests stop it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You're very wrong about both parts of what I highlighted in blue. Using your ridiculously strict requirements, if I "have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward (me), before (I) can shoot," I can never use deadly force to defend someone else, as in an active shooter at a school. Nor can I defend myself or someone else against a criminal using a knife, or bat, or pipe, or axe. The list goes on. Did you even think that part through before you posted it? As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? If you get raked over the coals, it's because you post nonsensical things like some of the things you did in the above post. Good cops, including here on this forum, do not condone bad shootings or illegal acts by other officers. However, sometimes, things are not clear cut, especially when an officer trying to do his or her best in a fast evolving situation uses force against a resistive subject. Most borderline shootings, and even most bad shootings, are a result of resistance or fast movements by a person suspected of criminal activity. It is extremely rare that a shooting does not involve either resistance or fast movement that looks like reaching for a weapon. It appears that this shooting may be one of these rare times. There have indeed been recent threads on bad shootings here in which no cop poster justified the actions of the officer, and in fact condemned the actions. Your token comment that "99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism," reminds me of people who say, "I'm not racist, but..." If you see someone shooting at another unarmed civilian, of course you could use lethal force. At no point did I ever say common sense should be left by the wayside. Beyond that, I can concede your point. The Chicago PD video of the perp who is throwing his rifle down with one hand, while drawing a pistol with the other is a good example. The backup officer shoots him before he can point it at anyone....BUT, he is clearly in the act of drawing it. In the case that brought about this thread, we have an officer that fully bought into the "furtive movement toward the waistband" justification...unfortunately the subject wasn't armed in any way, wasn't really doing anything wrong, and is now dead. Just like our founding fathers felt that it was preferable for a guilty man to occasionally go free and have the rights of the innocent completely respected, I do think the INNOCENT civilian's life should be considered higher than the civil servant's life. It's the "innocent" part that causes the trouble.......as the civil servants seem to often already have their mind's made up when they arrive. Mainly, I would like to point out that our resident LEO apologists rushed to defend this shooting, BUT, neither the officer's department, nor the county DA, are willing to defend it. To me, that says our resident LEO apologists are getting it wrong. As I expected, as soon as the stupidity of what you said was pointed out, you back pedal. Quick review here-- "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot" is wrong. And it's more like at no point did you use common sense before making that declaration. You also failed to answer my question, and my guess is that it was on purpose. For your convenience, I'll ask again-- As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? Should have to get two, maybe three, shots off before you can break leather... Just to be sure. Yep. We should have to just hope he misses or our vests stop it. We are starting to see the effects of this new policing at my department. Had a pursuit of a burglary suspect with unmarked cars chasing the suspect. The supervisor passes requested an airship and marked unit to pick up the pursuit. They pass a patrol car who turns his overhead lights on to clear the intersection and then turns thir lights off and pulls in to Wendy's drive thru and order food. But hey, they didn't get into a use of force, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 11:30:35 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As I expected, as soon as the stupidity of what you said was pointed out, you back pedal. Quick review here-- "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot" is wrong. And it's more like at no point did you use common sense before making that declaration. You also failed to answer my question, and my guess is that it was on purpose. For your convenience, I'll ask again-- As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I joined this forum, I've always posted my opinion in these cases: "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot". I've also always said "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". The blue line usually rakes me over the coals. I'm ok with that. 99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism. A vast majority of police shootings are indeed justified. But then you have cases like this, or the CA cop who just engaged an unarmed driver like a pop up target, and then tried to cover it up. When otherwise good cops attempt to justify or make excuses for the handful of bad shoots, it badly damages the public trust. And they do it out of "tribalism"......protecting "their own kind" etc. It's very foolish IMO. I don't know why some cops seem to think that their actions should be above scrutiny or consequence, but they should not. A police officer should always be held accountable for the legality of their actions, period. Just like a civilian should. You're very wrong about both parts of what I highlighted in blue. Using your ridiculously strict requirements, if I "have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward (me), before (I) can shoot," I can never use deadly force to defend someone else, as in an active shooter at a school. Nor can I defend myself or someone else against a criminal using a knife, or bat, or pipe, or axe. The list goes on. Did you even think that part through before you posted it? As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? If you get raked over the coals, it's because you post nonsensical things like some of the things you did in the above post. Good cops, including here on this forum, do not condone bad shootings or illegal acts by other officers. However, sometimes, things are not clear cut, especially when an officer trying to do his or her best in a fast evolving situation uses force against a resistive subject. Most borderline shootings, and even most bad shootings, are a result of resistance or fast movements by a person suspected of criminal activity. It is extremely rare that a shooting does not involve either resistance or fast movement that looks like reaching for a weapon. It appears that this shooting may be one of these rare times. There have indeed been recent threads on bad shootings here in which no cop poster justified the actions of the officer, and in fact condemned the actions. Your token comment that "99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism," reminds me of people who say, "I'm not racist, but..." If you see someone shooting at another unarmed civilian, of course you could use lethal force. At no point did I ever say common sense should be left by the wayside. Beyond that, I can concede your point. The Chicago PD video of the perp who is throwing his rifle down with one hand, while drawing a pistol with the other is a good example. The backup officer shoots him before he can point it at anyone....BUT, he is clearly in the act of drawing it. In the case that brought about this thread, we have an officer that fully bought into the "furtive movement toward the waistband" justification...unfortunately the subject wasn't armed in any way, wasn't really doing anything wrong, and is now dead. Just like our founding fathers felt that it was preferable for a guilty man to occasionally go free and have the rights of the innocent completely respected, I do think the INNOCENT civilian's life should be considered higher than the civil servant's life. It's the "innocent" part that causes the trouble.......as the civil servants seem to often already have their mind's made up when they arrive. Mainly, I would like to point out that our resident LEO apologists rushed to defend this shooting, BUT, neither the officer's department, nor the county DA, are willing to defend it. To me, that says our resident LEO apologists are getting it wrong. As I expected, as soon as the stupidity of what you said was pointed out, you back pedal. Quick review here-- "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot" is wrong. And it's more like at no point did you use common sense before making that declaration. You also failed to answer my question, and my guess is that it was on purpose. For your convenience, I'll ask again-- As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? No. Much of my unqualified opinion comes from discussions I've had with some friends who served in Iraq and Afghanistan with 5th SFG and ST5 and 7 as well as current police officers in Wisconsin and Arizona. Men that I have gotten drunk with, shot with, trained with. The Army guy strongly feels that police have forgotten their oath and who they serve. The Team 7 guy is a little less judgmental but he has noted that LE gets away with a little too much. He also trained a lot of cops and probably got a pass on some stuff by them since he was a roomie with a brass hat who worked for the local PD. And, I miscommunicated what I was trying to say re: "you should see the gun and it should be moving toward you before you can shoot". That would be in a situation with one subject, who is resisting, etc. etc. Apply some common sense. Let's apply common sense and hopefully clarify what I meant to say: "in a situation like the one this thread is about, you should have to see a weapon and it should be going to be aimed at you, before you can shoot". This cop didn't do that, he shot because he thought the subject was going for a gun. The problem is, he could be falling down and going to brace himself. He could be trying to raise his shirt to show you that he doesn't even HAVE a gun. He could be doing any number of things that do not pose a threat or a risk to you. Therefore, you shouldn't shoot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 11:33:14 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
fixed. What his department thinks means jack shit when he is facing 25 to life on 2nd degree murder. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Use of deadly force is a highly judgmental thing. Even if the officer thought deadly force was justified, his department shooting review board didn't. The DA didn't. fixed. What his department thinks means jack shit when he is facing 25 to life on 2nd degree murder. Who do you think presents the facts to the prosecutor? Shoot teams around here have an assistant attorney general (DA) on them and they also respond. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 11:35:55 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yup. We discussed it before. Some members said Graham v. Connor means the cop gets to decide whether shooting someone is reasonable. I vehemently disagreed. Looks like the DA does too. No, it's "reasonable cops".... and I can tell you, if what I've read about the issue is true....then it was not reasonable. So there's that. You got another question? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2016 11:37:10 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sperm-guzzler does not equal wife, legally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah, don't know if true, but the wife's reports of what she has been told are pretty damning. Mesa PD waited 4 days to call his wife and tell her her husband had been killed. They knew his name and address when they were dispatched.... that's just low. IIRC, She's not his wife. "Common law" wife... They notified his dad who's the legal next of kin, apparently he didn't pass the word along to girlfriend. Sperm-guzzler does not equal wife, legally. Neither does Badge Bunny, legally. Calm down honey, you aint gonna get his pansion when he goes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2016 7:53:47 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. Much of my unqualified opinion comes from discussions I've had with some friends who served in Iraq and Afghanistan with 5th SFG and ST5 and 7 as well as current police officers in Wisconsin and Arizona. Men that I have gotten drunk with, shot with, trained with. The Army guy strongly feels that police have forgotten their oath and who they serve. The Team 7 guy is a little less judgmental but he has noted that LE gets away with a little too much. He also trained a lot of cops and probably got a pass on some stuff by them since he was a roomie with a brass hat who worked for the local PD. And, I miscommunicated what I was trying to say re: "you should see the gun and it should be moving toward you before you can shoot". That would be in a situation with one subject, who is resisting, etc. etc. Apply some common sense. Let's apply common sense and hopefully clarify what I meant to say: "in a situation like the one this thread is about, you should have to see a weapon and it should be going to be aimed at you, before you can shoot". This cop didn't do that, he shot because he thought the subject was going for a gun. The problem is, he could be falling down and going to brace himself. He could be trying to raise his shirt to show you that he doesn't even HAVE a gun. He could be doing any number of things that do not pose a threat or a risk to you. Therefore, you shouldn't shoot. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since I joined this forum, I've always posted my opinion in these cases: "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot". I've also always said "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". The blue line usually rakes me over the coals. I'm ok with that. 99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism. A vast majority of police shootings are indeed justified. But then you have cases like this, or the CA cop who just engaged an unarmed driver like a pop up target, and then tried to cover it up. When otherwise good cops attempt to justify or make excuses for the handful of bad shoots, it badly damages the public trust. And they do it out of "tribalism"......protecting "their own kind" etc. It's very foolish IMO. I don't know why some cops seem to think that their actions should be above scrutiny or consequence, but they should not. A police officer should always be held accountable for the legality of their actions, period. Just like a civilian should. You're very wrong about both parts of what I highlighted in blue. Using your ridiculously strict requirements, if I "have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward (me), before (I) can shoot," I can never use deadly force to defend someone else, as in an active shooter at a school. Nor can I defend myself or someone else against a criminal using a knife, or bat, or pipe, or axe. The list goes on. Did you even think that part through before you posted it? As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? If you get raked over the coals, it's because you post nonsensical things like some of the things you did in the above post. Good cops, including here on this forum, do not condone bad shootings or illegal acts by other officers. However, sometimes, things are not clear cut, especially when an officer trying to do his or her best in a fast evolving situation uses force against a resistive subject. Most borderline shootings, and even most bad shootings, are a result of resistance or fast movements by a person suspected of criminal activity. It is extremely rare that a shooting does not involve either resistance or fast movement that looks like reaching for a weapon. It appears that this shooting may be one of these rare times. There have indeed been recent threads on bad shootings here in which no cop poster justified the actions of the officer, and in fact condemned the actions. Your token comment that "99% of the time, cops do their job with honor and professionalism," reminds me of people who say, "I'm not racist, but..." If you see someone shooting at another unarmed civilian, of course you could use lethal force. At no point did I ever say common sense should be left by the wayside. Beyond that, I can concede your point. The Chicago PD video of the perp who is throwing his rifle down with one hand, while drawing a pistol with the other is a good example. The backup officer shoots him before he can point it at anyone....BUT, he is clearly in the act of drawing it. In the case that brought about this thread, we have an officer that fully bought into the "furtive movement toward the waistband" justification...unfortunately the subject wasn't armed in any way, wasn't really doing anything wrong, and is now dead. Just like our founding fathers felt that it was preferable for a guilty man to occasionally go free and have the rights of the innocent completely respected, I do think the INNOCENT civilian's life should be considered higher than the civil servant's life. It's the "innocent" part that causes the trouble.......as the civil servants seem to often already have their mind's made up when they arrive. Mainly, I would like to point out that our resident LEO apologists rushed to defend this shooting, BUT, neither the officer's department, nor the county DA, are willing to defend it. To me, that says our resident LEO apologists are getting it wrong. As I expected, as soon as the stupidity of what you said was pointed out, you back pedal. Quick review here-- "you should have to see a gun, with the muzzle coming toward you, before you can shoot" is wrong. And it's more like at no point did you use common sense before making that declaration. You also failed to answer my question, and my guess is that it was on purpose. For your convenience, I'll ask again-- As to your comment about "our soldiers in many cases have a more restrictive ROE than our domestic police do". Where do you get that? Have you served in combat as a soldier, or on the street as a police officer? No. Much of my unqualified opinion comes from discussions I've had with some friends who served in Iraq and Afghanistan with 5th SFG and ST5 and 7 as well as current police officers in Wisconsin and Arizona. Men that I have gotten drunk with, shot with, trained with. The Army guy strongly feels that police have forgotten their oath and who they serve. The Team 7 guy is a little less judgmental but he has noted that LE gets away with a little too much. He also trained a lot of cops and probably got a pass on some stuff by them since he was a roomie with a brass hat who worked for the local PD. And, I miscommunicated what I was trying to say re: "you should see the gun and it should be moving toward you before you can shoot". That would be in a situation with one subject, who is resisting, etc. etc. Apply some common sense. Let's apply common sense and hopefully clarify what I meant to say: "in a situation like the one this thread is about, you should have to see a weapon and it should be going to be aimed at you, before you can shoot". This cop didn't do that, he shot because he thought the subject was going for a gun. The problem is, he could be falling down and going to brace himself. He could be trying to raise his shirt to show you that he doesn't even HAVE a gun. He could be doing any number of things that do not pose a threat or a risk to you. Therefore, you shouldn't shoot. You didn't "miscommunicate." You don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who needs to apply common sense. You said something stupid and got called out on it. Your friends in the military may have commented on a couple of high profile incidents, and I think you blew their comments out of proportion to serve your own agenda. As I stated, in nearly every case of an officer involved shooting, the suspect was resisting or made fast movements. Doing neither of those things is the most important key to avoid being shot by a cop. I am serving in my fourth branch of the DoD, with most of that being reserve component time. Including as an active 0311 in a rifle platoon with a MEU(SOC) deployment, in a reserve STA platoon, in the Army NG as an 11B, in the Navy as an MA in SPECWAR, and now in the Air NG in security forces. I have completed multiple combat and contingency deployments. In civilian life I'm a cop in one of America's 25 largest cities. . Since you seem to think you have some sort of special knowledge because you have hung out with a few SOCOM members, you will be interested to learn I have worked with numerous SEAL teams--18, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 10, along with former DEVGRU members who had moved to training assignments. I have worked with numerous SF Groups, including 7, 19, 10, 5, and 3. I worked with some of those units in combat. I can recall no such comments from any of them, including from reserve component members who were civilian cops. My awards include a combat action ribbon. My opinions come from training and experience. Your opinions seem to have no basis in either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2016 8:00:14 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not gonna lie, when I saw OP's thread title it's the first thing I thought of Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is this where they were labeled the mormon death squad? A fitting moniker. I'm not gonna lie, when I saw OP's thread title it's the first thing I thought of With good reason. I lived in Mesa and MPD will kill the shit out of you for nothing. They earned that title. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2016 8:59:34 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Neither does Badge Bunny, legally. Calm down honey, you aint gonna get his pansion when he goes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, don't know if true, but the wife's reports of what she has been told are pretty damning. Mesa PD waited 4 days to call his wife and tell her her husband had been killed. They knew his name and address when they were dispatched.... that's just low. IIRC, She's not his wife. "Common law" wife... They notified his dad who's the legal next of kin, apparently he didn't pass the word along to girlfriend. Sperm-guzzler does not equal wife, legally. Neither does Badge Bunny, legally. Calm down honey, you aint gonna get his pansion when he goes.  |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
