User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 12:10:39 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BMSMB: CoC prevents me from calling you what you really are. Do you really not understand that the mere presence of a weapon doesn't indicate there is a threat of severe physical harm or loss of life? There has to be more than a weapon before they can use force... they have to have some sort of indication that the weapon is going to be used in an illegal manner. How do you not understand this?  Coc aside, maybe you’ve had too much internet today? If you can not see events through another perspective, with coc’ing all over the place, I’m not sure what the problem is. |
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 12:20:03 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Ok…you win the most fucked up post of the day. So the deputy should not have engaged until the airman pointed the gun at his chest? That’s your position? And, once again addressing ROE in wartime… https://i.imgur.com/Pw33iV1.jpg Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Originally Posted By BamaMarine: Originally Posted By XNARC: Originally Posted By PolarBear416: Originally Posted By 6gunfighter2: Guys I haven't had time to read all 35 pages and watch the linked content. Can I get a Cliff's Notes clarification of one thing please: At no time did the Airman ever POINT the weapon AT the officer, correct? TIA. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. Yes, pretty much. You're policing American citizens. OUR safety and rights should come first. Don't like it? Don't knock on our doors. Don't be a cop. That's what the whole point of the wartime ROE argument was about. We were in a foreign country, in an active war, after we invaded them, and we had to wait until they fired first or at least attempted to fire at us. "Look a gun!!!" Doesn't cut it. Ok…you win the most fucked up post of the day. So the deputy should not have engaged until the airman pointed the gun at his chest? That’s your position? And, once again addressing ROE in wartime… https://i.imgur.com/Pw33iV1.jpg Until the murder victim made any sort of offensive move whatsoever at the very least. Cops are public servants working for the American people. You should be reactive, and if you don't like the danger that poses to the job don't be a cop. He did NOTHING aggressive, hostile, etc. Holding a gun in my hand is not an act of aggression. Oh look you can post a random pic, good job. That has nothing to do with our statements on ROE. In 07/08 we had to try waving the vehicle off, then shooting a flare, then you could fire warning shots in front of the vic, THEN if they still continued to advance we could light them up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 12:20:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: BMSMB]
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Coc aside, maybe you’ve had too much internet today? If you can not see events through another perspective, with coc’ing all over the place, I’m not sure what the problem is. If the perspective is that anytime a cop sees a weapon during the course of their duties, they can use lethal force, then it's right to be mocked and insulted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 12:23:13 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Coc aside, maybe you’ve had too much internet today? If you can not see events through another perspective, with coc’ing all over the place, I’m not sure what the problem is. An innocent kid is dead at the hands of a police officer, resulting entirely from a situation created by the police officer's presence, and justified by the uniform he was wearing. That is the problem. And the fact that you as a police officer can't recognize that, is also a problem, |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 12:24:19 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryIf Martial law is ever declared all your confusion about who is a civilian will quickly end. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 12:26:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Originally Posted By PolarBear416: Originally Posted By 6gunfighter2: Guys I haven't had time to read all 35 pages and watch the linked content. Can I get a Cliff's Notes clarification of one thing please: At no time did the Airman ever POINT the weapon AT the officer, correct? TIA. Pistol was in his hand, with arm dangling at his side, pointed towards the ground. He was shot immediately before he could do anything. So you’re saying the deputy should have waited until the airman’s gun was at least chest level? Has the media obtained the sheriff’s office use-of-force policy, sometimes they’re just posted on the sheriff’s office website. But that policy will give insight into whether the deputy would have to wait for the gun to be pointed directly at him, if commands had to be made first, etc, or if he had broader latitude in deadly force situations. I saw the media article link about the numerous calls to another unit. When I spoke to what information was available to the deputy, yes, that was something he may have been able to query thru dispatch about call history at that address, but a large apartment complex may be problematic. But nothing wrong with just asking the manager, who lived there, a name, what she knew about the resident, maybe even get a phone number. What is being said is that if he had tried to bring it a threatening position or if he was acting threateningly people would probably view this shooting differently. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 12:35:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Beltfed308]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BURN: What is being said is that if he had tried to bring it a threatening position or if he was acting threateningly people would probably view this shooting differently. .031 the officer clearly says "he had a gun opening the door". Pretty clear that it was the mere possession, not a threat that made him get it on. video.mp4 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 1:23:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6gunfighter2]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: It might be pedantry, but it is indicative of culture. The whole idea behind modern free societies (I won't use the normal term people use for this, as derpers will derp) includes the principle of civil authority over the military, including for the Defense department to be run by civilians and for domestic law enforcement to be a civilian function. This goes back to the concerns about how armies were used in the 18th century and the anti-standing army sentiment as the U.S. was being worked out as a political entity. This terminology thing, while pedantic, effectively frames law enforcement as a standing army and not the locally hired and managed, beholden to the local populace, civil function that it is. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bohr_Adam: Originally Posted By wingnutx: "Civilian" is common vernacular for "someone not part of our scenario", or "someone normally off limits", i.e. not a cop or a criminal in this case. "Citizen" is also used in a similar fashion. Technically incorrect, but that's slang for you. It's pedantry not worth getting worked up over. It might be pedantry, but it is indicative of culture. The whole idea behind modern free societies (I won't use the normal term people use for this, as derpers will derp) includes the principle of civil authority over the military, including for the Defense department to be run by civilians and for domestic law enforcement to be a civilian function. This goes back to the concerns about how armies were used in the 18th century and the anti-standing army sentiment as the U.S. was being worked out as a political entity. This terminology thing, while pedantic, effectively frames law enforcement as a standing army and not the locally hired and managed, beholden to the local populace, civil function that it is. Thank you. I tried explaining that earlier but some still think it “unimportant.” They may change their mind when they wake up in Nazi Germany someday. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 1:27:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: millfire517]
[#9]
Just make it so the cops can ONLY fire their weapons after coming under direct fire. Just like our troops. No special treatment
And shot shot this airman should spend the rest of their life behind bars and all of his personal pension and possessions should be seized and given our auctioned off then given to the airmans family |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 1:40:34 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Beltfed308: .031 the officer clearly says "he had a gun opening the door". Pretty clear that it was the mere possession, not a threat that made him get it on. video.mp4 He's recorded admitting he shot him just because he had a gun. He doesn't articulate any other reason. Between this and the Acorn cop it should be clear this Department has serious training issues. Also displayed by the Deputy hiding from the peephole so he could not be identified. There is clearly an ingrained sense of paranoia that has been trained into them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 2:06:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TAG_Match]
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: What's odd is he agreed with me saying the same thing, I just said it in a different manner. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By exDefensorMilitas: Originally Posted By Tallahasseezz: Originally Posted By BMSMB: A gotcha? There doesn't need to be any gotcha... the guy was already got for holding a firearm in an unthreatening manner in his own home. You're question was if there was a use of force policy that allowed him to be murdered for breaking no laws, not acting in any sort of threatening manner... because you have this inane need to defend the cop. Don't bother arguing with him. Either he's trolling or he believes Police are the equivalent of Judge Dread. What's odd is he agreed with me saying the same thing, I just said it in a different manner. He has stated many times if you pay attention that he wouldn’t have reacted the way that Deputy did, which I take as disapproval for killing that kid. He also is saying the Deputy will probably get away with it because of “policy”, “reasonable officer standard”, and “officer safety and shit”. And I believe he is right. His being correct is the essence of OUR frustration as to why this happens and why it will continue to happen. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 2:16:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: An innocent kid is dead at the hands of a police officer, resulting entirely from a situation created by the police officer's presence, and justified by the uniform he was wearing. That is the problem. And the fact that you as a police officer can't recognize that, is also a problem, Wait? This guy IS a cop? Holy fuck... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 2:29:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: tep0583]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: He has stated many times if you pay attention that he wouldn’t have reacted the way that Deputy did, which I take as disapproval for killing that kid. He also is saying the Deputy will probably get away with it because of “policy”, “reasonable officer standard”, and “officer safety and shit”. And I believe he is right. His being correct is the essence of OUR frustration as to why this happens and why it will continue to happen. We've had discussions over the "reasonable officer standard" before, over a local shooting of a guy on a motorcycle, who was completely unarmed. The officer, at the time, articulated that he was in fear for his life, because the guy turned to look at him and he was certain he was turning to pull a weapon on him, while still on the bike. The initial trial saw the office get a ten year sentence that was overturned on appeal and upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court. At the start of the second trial, he pled to a lessor charge, got a suspended sentence, a year's probation, and had to surrender he peace officer's certificate. He was VERY lucky his victim agreed to the plea deal. The Judge asked him to confirm he was OK with it. The guy he shot will never walk again, but he wasn't killed. I don't know if this Deputy is going to be as lucky. https://www.toledoblade.com/local/courts/2016/12/16/Ottawa-Hills-police-shooting-case-ends-in-plea-agreement/stories/20161215265 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 2:38:15 PM EDT
[#14]
This thread really shows that a serious disconnect exists between the police and civilians.
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 2:39:05 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tallahasseezz: If Martial law is ever declared all your confusion about who is a civilian will quickly end. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tallahasseezz: If Martial law is ever declared all your confusion about who is a civilian will quickly end. Blame the internet and Oxford, not me. And, I’m a civilian! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 2:52:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tep0583: Wait? This guy IS a cop? Holy fuck... I believe so. I might be mistaken though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 3:04:36 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tep0583: We've had discussions over the "reasonable officer standard" before, over a local shooting of a guy on a motorcycle, who was completely unarmed. The officer, at the time, articulated that he was in fear for his life, because the guy turned to look at him and he was certain he was turning to pull a weapon on him, while still on the bike. The initial trial saw the office get a ten year sentence that was overturned on appeal and upheld by the Ohio Supreme Court. At the start of the second trial, he pled to a lessor charge, got a suspended sentence, a year's probation, and had to surrender he peace officer's certificate. He was VERY lucky his victim agreed to the plea deal. The Judge asked him to confirm he was OK with it. The guy he shot will never walk again, but he wasn't killed. I don't know if this Deputy is going to be as lucky. https://www.toledoblade.com/local/courts/2016/12/16/Ottawa-Hills-police-shooting-case-ends-in-plea-agreement/stories/20161215265 Wow! What a screwed up situation. I don’t know, but it seems like the officer in your example was the exception that actually got criminal charges. I’m by no means an expert on these things though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 4:39:38 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TAG_Match: Wow! What a screwed up situation. I don’t know, but it seems like the officer in your example was the exception that actually got criminal charges. I’m by no means an expert on these things though. When they do get criminal charges, those getting a conviction are seemingly rare (Chauvin, Guyger). Those avoiding conviction despite seemingly having zero justification for the homicides they were charged with (Brailsford, Rapp) seem to be in the majority. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 4:49:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: A gun in hand while opening the door, pointed at the ground, not threatening the officer in any way, is not justification for the cop to shoot the kid. Full stop. End of story. Cop was a trigger happy coward who will hopefully get his day in court. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By XNARC: Ok…you win the most fucked up post of the day. So the deputy should not have engaged until the airman pointed the gun at his chest? That’s your position? And, once again addressing ROE in wartime… https://i.imgur.com/Pw33iV1.jpg A gun in hand while opening the door, pointed at the ground, not threatening the officer in any way, is not justification for the cop to shoot the kid. Full stop. End of story. Cop was a trigger happy coward who will hopefully get his day in court. It really is just this simple. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 5:14:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: PepePewPew]
[#20]
Looong @LawyerUp video.
 Just Don't Open the Door! | It's Probably the Police |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 5:29:11 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote History… what happens when they shoot you through the window, because you heard sounds in your back yard, and grabbed your firearm? |
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 5:30:53 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Subpar: This thread really shows that a serious disconnect exists between the police and civilians. The idea that their safety and lives are not the #1 priority of the job is completely foreign to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 6:02:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Well, it's difficult. It was tragic what happened. It may very well be that the sheriffs office hold him to a higher standard than a prosecutor reviewing the investigation results, and fire him. I'm sure they'll have an internal review separated from the state police investigation. Not sure what type of state police commission body they have, but they may have the authority to revoke his certification. A snippet from a courts perspective Finally, the Court unequivocally advised all courts reviewing a LEO's use of force to consider the imperfect and uncontrolled reality of the environment in which LEOs use force: "The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." What crimes had the person committed that required the use of force? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 6:10:22 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By centex_SR-15: What crimes had the person committed that required the use of force? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By centex_SR-15: Originally Posted By XNARC: Well, it's difficult. It was tragic what happened. It may very well be that the sheriffs office hold him to a higher standard than a prosecutor reviewing the investigation results, and fire him. I'm sure they'll have an internal review separated from the state police investigation. Not sure what type of state police commission body they have, but they may have the authority to revoke his certification. A snippet from a courts perspective Finally, the Court unequivocally advised all courts reviewing a LEO's use of force to consider the imperfect and uncontrolled reality of the environment in which LEOs use force: "The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." What crimes had the person committed that required the use of force? The guy didn’t break any law. If he wouldn’t have gotten shot, he would have gone right back to watching TV. But we all need to understand that the cop had his reasons. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 6:13:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Tallahasseezz]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Subpar: This thread really shows that a serious disconnect exists between the police and civilians. What I kind of find fascinating is the poster who was claiming that LEOs have the right to roll onto a Military base and grab whoever they want. It never dawned on me that not only do some of them not view themselves as civilians, they actually view themselves as above the actual Military. Some of them view themselves like they are the Praetorian Guard of the executive branch. Allowed to kill you for basically anything and only answerable to their executive branch overlords. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 6:14:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6gunfighter2]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BamaMarine: The idea that their safety and lives are not the #1 priority of the job is completely foreign to them. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BamaMarine: Originally Posted By Subpar: This thread really shows that a serious disconnect exists between the police and civilians. The idea that their safety and lives are not the #1 priority of the job is completely foreign to them. It does seem it is getting that way with a lot of them, yes. And it’s just more reinforcement of my underlying belief that this society is in serious trouble. ETA: I know there are still many good cops who would never do what this idiot fuck deputy did though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 6:32:11 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mr_Nasty99: The guy didn't break any law. If he wouldn't have gotten shot, he would have gone right back to watching TV. But we all need to understand that the cop had his reasons. Not the airman, the man in the case that spawned "reasonable officer" that he's quoting in the post I quoted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 6:35:45 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryThis is going to rustle some TBL jimmies. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 6:49:32 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Plank_Spanker: This is going to rustle some TBL jimmies. Did he say the deputy is going to prison ? |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 7:57:08 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tallahasseezz: What I kind of find fascinating is the poster who was claiming that LEOs have the right to roll onto a Military base and grab whoever they want. It never dawned on me that not only do some of them not view themselves as civilians, they actually view themselves as above the actual Military. Some of them view themselves like they are the Praetorian Guard of the executive branch. Allowed to kill you for basically anything and only answerable to their executive branch overlords. It’s the internet and a number of well known dictionaries that claim military and police are not civilians…A young man was killed and you’re menstruating over the use of the term civilian? Here… found the internet complaint department https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/115002206106-Internet-Complaints |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:03:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Low_Country]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: It’s the internet and a number of well known dictionaries that claim military and police are not civilians…A young man was killed and you’re menstruating over the use of the term civilian? Here… found the internet complaint department https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/115002206106-Internet-Complaints People seem to have a problem with trigger happy cops putting their own safety above those of the common citizenry, especially when that results in cops killing an innocent kid. This shouldn’t be a difficult concept. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:11:27 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Did he say the deputy is going to prison ? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By XNARC: Originally Posted By Plank_Spanker: This is going to rustle some TBL jimmies. Did he say the deputy is going to prison ? Well that will be determined by the agency conducting the investigation to determine we investigate ourselves & have found no crime was committed, carry on. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:28:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Plank_Spanker: Well that will be determined by the agency conducting the investigation to determine we investigate ourselves & have found no crime was committed, carry on. Since this line gets kicked around quite a bit....... Unless something has changed the investigation is being handled by an outside agency (FDLE). If that isnt good enough then who should be conducting the investigation or who should conduct investigation into law enforcement related incidents? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:33:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: SmilingBandit]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Since this line gets kicked around quite a bit....... Unless something has changed the investigation is being handled by an outside agency (FDLE). If that isnt good enough then who should be conducting the investigation or who should conduct investigation into law enforcement related incidents? My thought? A state agency who’s sole responsibility and scope of authority is investigating law enforcement officers in the state, |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:34:04 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Since this line gets kicked around quite a bit....... Unless something has changed the investigation is being handled by an outside agency (FDLE). If that isnt good enough then who should be conducting the investigation or who should conduct investigation into law enforcement related incidents? An investigatory board without an inherent bias towards a specific outcome. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:36:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: An investigatory board without an inherent bias towards a specific outcome. Who sits on this board, do they have the ability to arrest people, collect evidence? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:39:51 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Who sits on this board, do they have the ability to arrest people, collect evidence? You could do it a thousand different ways. Make it an appointed board position, and elected position. Maybe even like a grand jury composed of a random sampling of the population. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:42:02 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: You could do it a thousand different ways. Make it an appointed board position, and elected position. Maybe even like a grand jury composed of a random sampling of the population. So appointed or elected positions would be "bias" free? How is a pool of random people going to go about conducting interviews, collecting evidence, getting arrest warrants, etc? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:47:14 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCPatrolAR: So appointed or elected positions would be "bias" free? How is a pool of random people going to go about conducting interviews, collecting evidence, getting arrest warrants, etc? A random sampling of the population is going to be much more balanced than an investigatory board empaneled entirely by cops. Look dude, this isn’t rocket science. We are talking about a job which has a GED as the minimum hiring requirement, not putting a man on the moon. Investigating police actions is not a challenging endeavor. What’s your honest thoughts on the shooting? Good shoot? Justified shoot? Should/Will this police officer face charges? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:49:14 PM EDT
[#40]
I like how Nebraska deals with any "in custody death", complete investigation by an outside agency and an automatic Grand Jury presentation. Best of both worlds.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:52:10 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bye_Felicia: According to some I should have had a handful of OISs as a LEO because I should have been deathly afraid of a gun near a person and shot without thinking. To use a favorite term, the totality of the circumstances doesn't add up to a reasonable fear in this situation. Agree. The mere presence of a firearm does not justify lethal force. It seems most forgot the jeopardy part. |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:58:20 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Since this line gets kicked around quite a bit....... Unless something has changed the investigation is being handled by an outside agency (FDLE). If that isnt good enough then who should be conducting the investigation or who should conduct investigation into law enforcement related incidents? Had a big old response typed out, hit the back arrow. Remembered that there is only us plebes, and those that want to force us to comply. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:58:51 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: A random sampling of the population is going to be much more balanced than an investigatory board empaneled entirely by cops. Look dude, this isn’t rocket science. We are talking about a job which has a GED as the minimum hiring requirement, not putting a man on the moon. Investigating police actions is not a challenging endeavor. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: A random sampling of the population is going to be much more balanced than an investigatory board empaneled entirely by cops. Look dude, this isn’t rocket science. We are talking about a job which has a GED as the minimum hiring requirement, not putting a man on the moon. Investigating police actions is not a challenging endeavor. So your random sampling of untrained people is more "balanced" but dont know anything about investigative processes, conducting interviews, evidence collection, case prep, etc and thats better than an outside agency that is trained to do all of those tasks? How do you think officers withn an agency view an outside agency that is investigating their OIS? Are they high fiving each other in the bar at night or what? What’s your honest thoughts on the shooting? Good shoot? Justified shoot? Should/Will this police officer face charges? I posted my view on the shooting very early in this thread. Maybe a random pool of people can find it for you.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:59:54 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Since this line gets kicked around quite a bit....... Unless something has changed the investigation is being handled by an outside agency (FDLE). If that isnt good enough then who should be conducting the investigation or who should conduct investigation into law enforcement related incidents? It's not about "who conducts the investigation"... its that time and time again, even when it's blatantly obvious they should catch criminal charges, they're found to have done nothing wrong. We don't care if it's their own department... hell even the local boyscouts... as long as it's an actual investigation, and not just an "oh yeah, we totally looked into this... wink, wink, nudge, nudge" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 8:59:54 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By riverrockar: Had a big old response typed out, hit the back arrow. Remembered that there is only us plebes, and those that want to force us to comply. so you didn't actually have anything typed out.  Attached File |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:03:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tallahasseezz: He's recorded admitting he shot him just because he had a gun. He doesn't articulate any other reason. Between this and the Acorn cop it should be clear this Department has serious training issues. Also displayed by the Deputy hiding from the peephole so he could not be identified. There is clearly an ingrained sense of paranoia that has been trained into them. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tallahasseezz: Originally Posted By Beltfed308: .031 the officer clearly says "he had a gun opening the door". Pretty clear that it was the mere possession, not a threat that made him get it on. video.mp4 He's recorded admitting he shot him just because he had a gun. He doesn't articulate any other reason. Between this and the Acorn cop it should be clear this Department has serious training issues. Also displayed by the Deputy hiding from the peephole so he could not be identified. There is clearly an ingrained sense of paranoia that has been trained into them. Reminds me of the thread about cops disabling security cameras for "protection" when serving a warrant. The TBL was strong in that thread, IIRC! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:04:38 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By diesel1: Reminds me of the thread about cops disabling security cameras for "protection" when serving a warrant. The TBL was strong in that thread, IIRC! I think I remember an incident where they did that... while at the wrong house |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:07:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Low_Country]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCPatrolAR: So your random sampling of untrained people is more "balanced" but dont know anything about investigative processes, conducting interviews, evidence collection, case prep, etc and thats better than an outside agency that is trained to do all of those tasks? How do you think officers withn an agency view an outside agency that is investigating their OIS? Are they high fiving each other in the bar at night or what? I posted my view on the shooting very early in this thread. Maybe a random pool of people can find it for you. Well, there is a reason that your profession has managed to turn a significant percentage of Americans against LE over the last several years. And it’s not due to an over abundance of honesty, integrity, transparency, and accountability. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:08:31 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BMSMB: It's not about "who conducts the investigation"... its that time and time again, even when it's blatantly obvious they should catch criminal charges, they're found to have done nothing wrong. We don't care if it's their own department... hell even the local boyscouts... as long as it's an actual investigation, and not just an "oh yeah, we totally looked into this... wink, wink, nudge, nudge" Oh but many here do in fact care who is doing the investigation. Many here say "there asnt an investigation" when there was one; they just dont agree with the results of it.......be it the DA's office choosing not to prosecute, the incident not meeting the actual elements of the crime etc. Hell you have many here that say no investigation was done even when the officer is charged but the results of the trial arent what they wanted. Is the current system perfect? Nope. It has issues just like the CJ system as a whole but I dont think many here actually understand how things work and fail to see that the system generally works the same on the citizen and cop side. I also freely admit that I work in a agency that will arrest/discipline you in a heartbeat for something that is perfectly legal so I'm look at things through that lens  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/17/2024 9:09:44 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Well, there is a reason that your profession has managed to turn a significant percentage of Americans against LE over the last several years. And it’s not due to an over abundance of honesty, integrity, transparency, and accountability. Once you step away from GD you'll see thats not quite the case. |
|
|
|
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.
