Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/24/2003 5:12:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2003 5:21:07 AM EDT by Old_Painless]
Jack Dunphey is a officer on the LAPD and writes for National Review. "Just the other day, a boy of about ten approached to ask me a question, one heard often by police officers everywhere: "Have you ever shot anyone?" Though I've had my share of close calls, I was thankful to be able to answer that I have not. But like all cops, I know every day I strap on the gun may be the day I have to use it. And should that awful occasion arise that I am forced to take a life in order to save my own or someone else's, who will sit in judgment of my actions? Will it be police professionals who have been trained in the very same policies and tactics as myself, and who themselves may have faced their own life-threatening situations? Or will it be civilians with no police training or experience whatsoever, civilians whose decisions may be influenced by the ever-capricious shifts in political currents? These are the questions being asked today in Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times reported last Tuesday that an LAPD "board of rights," a disciplinary panel composed of two police captains and a civilian, has absolved an officer in the 1999 shooting of Margaret Mitchell, a slightly built, 55-year-old homeless woman. The news story was accompanied in the same edition by a breathless editorial that called for changes in the way officer-involved shootings are investigated and adjudicated. "The Margaret Mitchell shooting was wrong," the editorial concludes, "and it's indefensible to say otherwise." Here on vivid display was the lordly hauteur regularly found on the editorial pages of the Times and other such liberal papers: We know best, you see, and if you disagree it can only be attributable to some gross defect of character that renders you unfit for polite company. Well, it may mark me as a primitive, but I manage to lift my knuckles up from the floor from time to time, and I have done so if only for as long as required to type these words. And as I do with nearly every editorial that appears in the Times, most especially those pertaining to police work, I do indeed disagree. Some background: On May 21, 1999, LAPD Officers Edward Larrigan and Kathy Clark were working a bicycle-patrol detail on a busy commercial street about six miles west of downtown Los Angeles. They stopped to talk to Mitchell, who, in the manner of many homeless people, carried her possessions along in a shopping cart appropriated from a local supermarket. Rather than cooperate with the officers, Mitchell shouted at them incoherently and brandished a twelve-inch screwdriver. Moments later she lay mortally wounded on the sidewalk, struck by a single shot from Larrigan's pistol. She died an hour later at a local hospital. Mitchell's death sparked weeks and months of protests, and the atmosphere was of course all the more charged owing to the fact that Mitchell was homeless, mentally ill, and black, each of which groups has its own vociferous advocates. The shooting was investigated by the L.A. County D.A.'s office, the U.S. Justice Department, and a grand jury, all of which eventually cleared Officer Larrigan of any criminal liability. For its part, the D.A.'s office issued a 30,000-word report to explain its decision not to prosecute. But in a typically timid move, the L.A. city council settled a lawsuit by handing over nearly $1 million to Mitchell's family, the members of which were nowhere to be found while Mitchell was living on the streets and descending into madness, but who nonetheless came out of the woodwork to claim their share of the swag. Readers of these columns know well that I am no fan of former LAPD Chief Bernard Parks, but to his credit he faced into a political storm and ruled that though the tactics that led to Mitchell's shooting may have been faulty, the shooting itself was justified by Mitchell's actions, i.e. her attempt to stab Larrigan with the screwdriver. It seems fair to say that the uproar over Parks's ruling influenced the subsequent decision by the civilian police commission, which by a 3-2 vote found the shooting to be "out of policy." Thus, even after months of investigations, the police commission could not unanimously agree on [red]a decision Officer Larrigan had to make in the blink of an eye.[/red] Because of the ongoing investigations and pending litigation, it wasn't until last month that the board of rights at last heard testimony and voted not to impose discipline on Larrigan, who spent these last four years buried in a desk job and left to wonder if he would be fired, impoverished, or even imprisoned for his actions that day." (cont.)
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 5:12:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2003 5:20:40 AM EDT by Old_Painless]
"Thus was illustrated an anomaly in the LAPD's handling of officer-involved shootings. Though the police commission found the shooting out of policy, the board of rights concluded otherwise, in essence overruling the civilian body charged with overseeing the police department. And this, needless to say, has the enlightened ones over at the L.A. Times in high dudgeon. On Sunday, in a front-page, above-the-fold story running under the ominous headline "LAPD Prevails Over Civilian Overseers," the Times reported on other instances in which boards of rights reached conclusions more favorable to officers than those reached by the police commission. The story did note, though somewhat dismissively, that a board of rights is the only venue in the shooting-review process in which an officer has the opportunity to present a defense, including testimony from expert witnesses. Police commissioners draw their conclusions based on reports from investigators, reports which an involved officer has no opportunity to challenge until his case is heard by a board of rights. Reacting to the alarm raised by the Times, both LAPD Chief William Bratton and Police Commission President Rick Caruso have called for changes to this system, changes that would give the chief or the commission the final word on the imposition of discipline. "The system makes no sense," Caruso told reporters last week. "I think it should be disbanded and a new one put in place." There is danger lurking here. Police chiefs and commissioners come and go, riding in or out of town with the prevailing political winds, and their decisions are often calculated to satisfy the editorialists at the Times or whichever constituency holds sway at any given moment. But policies should remain consistent, most especially when it comes to an officer's most crucial, life-and-death decisions. Most police departments have policies similar to the LAPD's, which says that an officer may use deadly force "[t]o protect himself or others from an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury." The policy makes no allowances for instances when the assailant is slight of stature, homeless, mentally ill, or a member of this or that ethnic minority. Caruso is an honorable man, highly accomplished in business, civic, and charitable affairs, but like his fellow commissioners he has never worn the uniform of a police officer. Furthermore, he has lived a life of wealth and privilege: I'm guessing no one has ever tried to shove a screwdriver through his Armani-clad hide. As much as I respect him, I wouldn't want Caruso or anyone of his background to have the final word on whether I was justified in shooting someone. Such decisions should remain the hands of those who have walked the walk, people who, in the words of a longtime mentor, "know what it's like to suddenly have your ass on the sidewalk and wonder if you're going to make it home tonight." Yes, there would have been much less controversy had Officer Larrigan been the one to die that day. The police commissioners would have put on their sad faces and attended the funeral, but they would have forgotten Larrigan long before the grass had grown in over his grave. There would have been no call for a change in policy, and there certainly would have been no million-dollar payout for Larrigan's family or outraged commentary from the Los Angeles Times. [b]But if a police officer knows his fate rests in the hands of those who know little of the dangers he faces, it will only cause him to hesitate in moments of peril. And in police work, he who hesitates is not only lost, he is dead.[/b]" This article explains why many LEOs tend to support other LEOs in shootings where all the facts aren't known to the public. Most people without LEO experience do not understand what it means to have to make a decision in 1 second that others will have 6 months to judge. This post isn't about shooting dogs, so if you want to talk about that, please start your own post. Let the lunacy begin...
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 5:31:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 5:35:56 AM EDT
Ok, I'll bite. I understand officers have only a split second to respond to a potential life or death situation. I don't have a problem with the police shooting someone if they approach them and the person refuses to follow their direction and then makes a threatening move even if they do not have a weapon. But I do have a problem when the police/FBI conduct no-knock raids on the wrong house and shoot startled senior citizens who jump out of bed, or shoot young children in the back while they are running away from them during a drug raid, or when they pull over the wrong vehicle and shoot someone in the face when they go to take off their seatbelt to comply with the officers commands to get out of the vehicle. When this type of thing happens, you NEVER hear an LEO say speak out against what happen. What you hear is "it was a good shot", "it was collateral damage", and so on. Everyone makes mistakes. When civilians do, they get reprimanded, fired, or go to jail. It seems that when an LEO does something just as bad, not much happens and the other LEO's stand up for him. That double standard is what pisses me off. If the police would actually admit to their mistakes and stop trying to cover them up, I think the public would have a much better view of things. Just look at Detroit 21 police officers were terrorizing the city. How many "mistakes"/crimes were committed that other officers covered up. It is pathetic and disgusting and as long as it continues people will speak negatively about LEO's.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 5:38:44 AM EDT
If anyone is threatening me with a 12 inch screwdriver or any other sharp object, I wouldn't have a problem with shooting them. Thus I have no problem with a cop doing so. Of couse, I live in a state where I would go to jail for doing so because I'm supposed to be a well behaved unarmed victim, but that's another thread...
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 5:43:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SGB: Good read, well articulated and bound to set off some of the loonies [;)]
View Quote
I agree
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 5:49:03 AM EDT
Actually, Swire, I agree with much of what you say. Let's look at a few:
Originally Posted By SWIRE: I understand officers have only a split second to respond to a potential life or death situation. I don't have a problem with the police shooting someone if they approach them and the person refuses to follow their direction and then makes a threatening move even if they do not have a weapon. But I do have a problem when the police/FBI conduct no-knock raids on the wrong house and shoot startled senior citizens who jump out of bed,
View Quote
I don't support this either and don't know of any police officers that would support such an event.
or shoot young children in the back while they are running away from them during a drug raid,
View Quote
Never heard of a policeman say this is a good shoot.
or when they pull over the wrong vehicle and shoot someone in the face when they go to take off their seatbelt to comply with the officers commands to get out of the vehicle.
View Quote
If a policeman shoots an innocent driver by mistake, he should answer for the mistake.
When this type of thing happens, you NEVER hear an LEO say speak out against what happen. What you hear is "it was a good shot", "it was collateral damage", and so on.
View Quote
This is where we part ways. I [u]have[/u] heard a lot of policemen speak out against bad shoots. I've never heard an LEO use the term "collateral damage" when referring to someone shot by mistake.
Everyone makes mistakes. When civilians do, they get reprimanded, fired, or go to jail. It seems that when an LEO does something just as bad, not much happens and the other LEO's stand up for him. That double standard is what pisses me off. If the police would actually admit to their mistakes and stop trying to cover them up, I think the public would have a much better view of things.
View Quote
I agree with you on this. But I believe that, contrary to what many say, most LEOs will [u]not[/u] cover up for a bad officer. When I was in the business, I personally saw bad officers turned in, charges filed on them, and other officers saying, "They were wrong".
Just look at Detroit 21 police officers were terrorizing the city. How many "mistakes"/crimes were committed that other officers covered up. It is pathetic and disgusting and as long as it continues people will speak negatively about LEO's.
View Quote
I'm not familiar with Detroit PDs case, but you are right. If they were wrong, the other officers should not back them up. Charges should be filed. My point is that, contrary to what is often said, most LEOs feel just as you and I do about this. The article was only talking about the need to have people that truly understand what the issues are, to be on investigation teams when judging a shooting.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 5:54:42 AM EDT
So, if a civilian would have been threatened by a little old lady with a screwdriver, & then the civilian would have shot her to death would that have been OK?
Such decisions should remain the hands of those who have walked the walk, people who, in the words of a longtime mentor, "know what it's like to suddenly have your ass on the sidewalk and wonder if you're going to make it home tonight."
View Quote
1. Using that reasoning then, no one should supervise someone unless they have done their job for a long period of time. How close would you cut it? "If you've never worked in South Central you don't know what it's like to be a police officer." 2. The last part is the real crux of the issue, i.e., "... wonder if you're going to make it home tonight." Obviously police work has changed greatly from the concept of selfless public service to "I'm going home safely tonight no matter what & I'm just going to put in my time & collect my pension at an early age." Oh, is this police bashing? What is the officer's editorial?
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 6:05:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hardcase: So, if a civilian would have been threatened by a little old lady with a screwdriver, & then the civilian would have shot her to death would that have been OK?
View Quote
That is correct. If your life is threatened, you can take action to defend yourself, including justifiable homicide.
Such decisions should remain the hands of those who have walked the walk, people who, in the words of a longtime mentor, "know what it's like to suddenly have your ass on the sidewalk and wonder if you're going to make it home tonight."
View Quote
1. Using that reasoning then, no one should supervise someone unless they have done their job for a long period of time. How close would you cut it? "If you've never worked in South Central you don't know what it's like to be a police officer."
View Quote
This is another issue, but yes, I believe supervisors should be experienced.
2. The last part is the real crux of the issue, i.e., "... wonder if you're going to make it home tonight." Obviously police work has changed greatly from the concept of selfless public service to "I'm going home safely tonight no matter what & I'm just going to put in my time & collect my pension at an early age."
View Quote
What's wrong with wanting to go home safely at the end of the shift? Don't you do that? Even low danger jobs have safety programs that encourage exactly this hope.
Oh, is this police bashing? What is the officer's editorial?
View Quote
Doesn't seem like police bashing to me. Just a civil discussion about a controversial issue. [:D]
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 6:26:27 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 6:50:00 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2003 6:56:03 AM EDT by SHIVAN458]
Several things: 1) This officer apparently got railroaded by politics, it's unfortunate BUT he is not dead. A couple years of desk work is better than death and/or no job at all. Right? As we keep reminding everyone daily around here: "Actions have consequences." Sometimes actions have consequences even when you are 100% correct. This is LIFE, not just LE life. 2)
Originally Posted by Old_Painless:[i]"This article explains why many LEOs tend to support other LEOs in shootings where all the facts aren't known to the public. Most people without LEO experience do not understand what it means to have to make a decision in 1 second that others will have 6 months to judge."[/i]
View Quote
This commentary is an implication that there is a "BLIND TRUST" in that the officers are assumed to have made a good shoot, in spite of any facts that present themselves, to the public or any other officers in cyberspace. This shoot sounds cut and dry, and to those who judge such things it was. This is a phenomenon seemingly apparent only in the LE community. 3) Many of us have had split second decisions to make, while armed, that could have ended a life. LEO's believe this is an occurence ONLY in their line of work. They DO NOT have the market cornered on firearms, firearms training, or incidences involving these split second decisions. I would think any panel of review should include people who have ACTUALLY had to shoot someone in the line of duty. That would be more representative of peer review. 4) Many LEO's look at that waiting period this officer went through and ponder why it should take so long, why he was dragged through so much stuff over what is apparently a cut and dry 100% correct shooting. Imagine if the person this lady had acosted had been an ordinary civilian. Had one of us killed her in that split second, would our trial have been longer or shorter? Would we have been in jail for the duration, or able to work for 4 years while still pondering the outcome? Would we have been able to vacation out of the country while the trial was pending? It's not that I would wish that political wrangling on any officer who seemed "right" in his choice, but shootings are not to be taken as lightly as the LEO's here would have us believe, especially when they result in death. That is all that we "loonies" expect of our LE community, not the prevailing attitude that presents itself here.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 7:02:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2003 7:04:15 AM EDT by SHIVAN458]
Originally Posted By SGB: Good read, well articulated and bound to set off some of the loonies [;)]
View Quote
I guess anybody who disagrees with anything the LE community does is a "loonie"? [;)] I guess we are even, we'll just keep calling you guys JBT's and you can keep calling us loonies....it really is a loving relationship. Maybe some day we'll "meet", eye to eye {through cyberspace, if that's possible}, and come to an understanding. I'm sure there is a lot in the middle ground that we are missing about each other, huh? [:)]
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 7:04:53 AM EDT
You make some good points, SHIVAN458. The only point I would strongly disagree with would be: "but shootings are not to be taken as lightly as the LEO's here would have us believe..." No one, especially LEOs think a shooting that results on a death is minor.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 7:09:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2003 7:10:53 AM EDT by SHIVAN458]
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: You make some good points, SHIVAN458. The only point I would strongly disagree with would be: "but shootings are not to be taken as lightly as the LEO's here would have us believe..." No one, especially LEOs think a shooting that results on a death is minor.
View Quote
It's the "minimizing" that draws me to that conclusion. I KNOW when discussed among other LEO's shooting deaths are not taken lightly -- unless by arrogant rookies/true JBT's -- but it gets "minimized" here. I think here it is more a function of the [b]details/emotions[/b] washing out the cause and effect of the shootings. [size=1]{Like in all the dog cases we've discussed recently.}[/size=1][;)]
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 7:29:17 AM EDT
{Like in all the dog cases we've discussed recently.}
View Quote
Hey!! I warned you about that! [:D] But I would add that, as Dunphey notes, many "new" policemen think a shoot-out, where they shoot the bad guys, would be exciting and desirable. Older officers know that the very last thing you want is to be forced to shoot a bad guy. Once you do, your life is going to take a bad turn, even if you are finally exonerated. Months on the desk, many questions from investigators, maybe civil lawsuits, and the ever present possibility of being found guilty of a crime even though you are not guilty. The vast majority of LEOs don't want to have to shoot anyone, if possible.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 7:44:27 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless:
{Like in all the dog cases we've discussed recently.}
View Quote
Hey!! I warned you about that! [:D] But I would add that, as Dunphey notes, many "new" policemen think a shoot-out, where they shoot the bad guys, would be exciting and desirable. Older officers know that the very last thing you want is to be forced to shoot a bad guy. Once you do, your life is going to take a bad turn, even if you are finally exonerated. Months on the desk, many questions from investigators, maybe civil lawsuits, and the ever present possibility of being found guilty of a crime even though you are not guilty. [red]The vast majority of LEOs don't want to have to shoot anyone, if possible.[/red]
View Quote
It would appear we know the score...hmm? [;)] Now if some of the "cowboys", probably more cowboy in cyperspace then in real life, posting around here would state this as an opening in cop shooting threads, we might not form inaccurate opinions of our LEO brothers. I'm sure that's not too much to ask, or maybe it is.[;)]
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 7:51:38 AM EDT
I'd like to add to Old_Painless's last post... Every cop I know who was involved in a shooting continues to relive that moment years after it happened. He always replays the "scenario" wondering if he could have done it differently. I admit there are gung ho types who claim they'd have no guilt if it was a "clean shoot." But experience, atleast with the LEO I'm associated with, shows that for them, no shoot is a "clean shoot." It's usually their colleagues who remind them "You had no choice." It's one of the side effects of a job in which you may be expected to take the life of another human. It is not something to EVER be made light of.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 8:05:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2003 8:06:56 AM EDT by SHIVAN458]
Originally Posted By Langadune: It is not something to EVER be made light of.
View Quote
Well, hell......then what has been going on for the past two weeks AROUND HERE then??? [;)] That was a rhetorical question, doesn't even deserve an answer. I am not trying to stir up shit, just trying to make it known that is has been made light of by several here in the very recent past.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 8:09:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SHIVAN458: Several things: 1) This officer apparently got railroaded by politics, it's unfortunate BUT he is not dead. A couple years of desk work is better than death and/or no job at all. Right? As we keep reminding everyone daily around here: "Actions have consequences." Sometimes actions have consequences even when you are 100% correct. This is LIFE, not just LE life. 2)
Originally Posted by Old_Painless:[i]"This article explains why many LEOs tend to support other LEOs in shootings where all the facts aren't known to the public. Most people without LEO experience do not understand what it means to have to make a decision in 1 second that others will have 6 months to judge."[/i]
View Quote
This commentary is an implication that there is a "BLIND TRUST" in that the officers are assumed to have made a good shoot, in spite of any facts that present themselves, to the public or any other officers in cyberspace. This shoot sounds cut and dry, and to those who judge such things it was. This is a phenomenon seemingly apparent only in the LE community. 3) Many of us have had split second decisions to make, while armed, that could have ended a life. LEO's believe this is an occurence ONLY in their line of work. They DO NOT have the market cornered on firearms, firearms training, or incidences involving these split second decisions. I would think any panel of review should include people who have ACTUALLY had to shoot someone in the line of duty. That would be more representative of peer review. 4) Many LEO's look at that waiting period this officer went through and ponder why it should take so long, why he was dragged through so much stuff over what is apparently a cut and dry 100% correct shooting. Imagine if the person this lady had acosted had been an ordinary civilian. Had one of us killed her in that split second, would our trial have been longer or shorter? Would we have been in jail for the duration, or able to work for 4 years while still pondering the outcome? Would we have been able to vacation out of the country while the trial was pending? It's not that I would wish that political wrangling on any officer who seemed "right" in his choice, but shootings are not to be taken as lightly as the LEO's here would have us believe, especially when they result in death. That is all that we "loonies" expect of our LE community, not the prevailing attitude that presents itself here.
View Quote
[size=3][red][b]WOOF!!![/B][/red][/size=3] [snoopy]!! [:D]
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 8:18:50 AM EDT
My previous post was a bit rigid. I know everyone makes jokes that are sometimes pretty inappropriate. But I don't believe any reasonable person WANTS to shoot someone or is looking for a reason to shoot someone. I think most of the other cops would agree that they don't want to be on the streets with a partner who is looking for a fight. That kind of cop is trouble waiting to happen. I suppose that's why it takes a review board so long to clear a cop's name after a controversial shooting...they looking for a bad cop when there's not necessarily one to find.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 12:10:19 PM EDT
Could someone please show me a "recent," or not so recent post where a LEO minimized a shooting of a fellow human being??????!!!!!! I have seen numerous recent posts where non LEO's have minimized the shooting of a LEO, one of which was locked....I do recall something along the lines of "They had it coming."
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 12:28:03 PM EDT
I'm sure you can read any of the several threads that contain posts from AR15.com LEO's that minimize the use of deadly force when wearing a badge. Shootings resulting in death, do not have to be confined to one type of target. Or are those the only ones that "count"?
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 12:59:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2003 1:06:01 PM EDT by AR15fan]
Originally Posted By hardcase: So, if a civilian would have been threatened by a little old lady
View Quote
"Little old lady" is an interesting way of describing a violent emotionally disturbed theif, who brandished a 12" shank when confronted about her theivery. But to answer your question. a "civilian" (your choice of words) has the option of simply ignoring your "little old lady" or going someplace else. Where as the police officer is duty bound to do something about her.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 1:15:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By hardcase: So, if a civilian would have been threatened by a little old lady
View Quote
"Little old lady" is an interesting way of describing a violent emotionally disturbed theif, who brandished a 12" shank when confronted about her theivery. But to answer your question. a "civilian" (your choice of words) has the option of simply ignoring your "little old lady" or going someplace else. Where as the police officer is duty bound to do something about her.
View Quote
Actually, if the letter/article written is to be believed, which I have no reason NOT to believe it, this officer was being attacked by a screwdriver wielding psycho. Confronted with a similar situation most of us who have our CHL/CCW with us would be left with the same decision. This is as far as I can tell from the way it was written and the way the reviews all panned out. The only thing found at fault was how the officer initially utilized "tactics" with the psycho. That could mean anything..... Again, LEO's DO NOT have the market cornered when it comes to unavoidable violent confrontations. Hell, there is a page dedicated to citizen intervention in NRA's "American Rifleman" EVERY MONTH. I'd be willing to venture that some cops are on the "clean-up" end of most violent confrontations, after they have ended.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 1:44:20 PM EDT
SHIVAN458, What did you mean by "the officer initially utilized 'tactics'?" This is not a flame, I just apparently missed some details on the incident.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 1:49:09 PM EDT
[jrzymode]Why, if any JBT ever kilt my grandma like that they'd be wishing they had'nt. You know I'm armed man. After exacting my revenge I'd done sue dem JBT's and get my millions. Bastards![jrzymode][whacko] [:)]
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 2:01:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Old_Painless: ...and ruled that though the tactics that led to Mitchell's shooting may have been faulty, the shooting itself was justified by Mitchell's actions, i.e. her attempt to stab Larrigan with the screwdriver....
View Quote
Langadune: I was just parroting the article. Since it appears to be well written and factually judged I used it as a basis for my discussion points. This little line leads me to believe they may not have agreed with the way the lady was approached or talked to, but her reactions were not warranted even by the flaw in their "tactics". That was my reference....HTH Ed
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 2:03:12 PM EDT
Gotcha, thanx
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 2:10:36 PM EDT
AZ-K9: I'm not sure jrzy would have an issue here, as this was EXTENSIVELY reviewed and the officer was exonerated. I think the issue for we "loonies" is that the most recent uses of deadly force have gone unreviewed. Simply labeled "good shoots" in the immediate "moments" after the event. That is the rub. At least for me. Jrzy may have other motives, mine are clearly defined. The discharge of a firearm that results in a death should be reviewed EXTENSIVELY, by whatever the standard is in that jurisdication, before being declared a "good shoot". I also feel, as I stated above, that the review panels should include officers who have actually taken a life by use of deadly force. Ed
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 2:23:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2003 2:24:20 PM EDT by AZ-K9]
I hate to talk about people when they're not here to defend themselves, but....[:P] Taking it a stretch, I can see an "in" for the bashing crowd here, questioning the "tactics", and questioning why the police where "detaining" her in the first place. Why, afterall, whe was a slightly built homeless lady. A life for a shopping cart? Oh, the madness! See? But I digress. I agree one hundred percent that shootings should be investigated fully. On the other hand, there is often an abuse of this ability to "fully investigate". I personally have seen a co-worker placed onto admin leave for an extended period of time after shooting a man. After the extended admin leave turned into a super-extended admin leave the city decided to allow him back to work, but only in a superficial capacity. He was made to swear in complaints, do Ph's etc. This went on for over a YEAR! This was a result of a justified shoot, and the hangup was the County Attorney who sat on the case forever, hiring a ballistics expert to reconstruct the scene. An interesting note to this is, most of the case was captured on video, and the case was pretty clear from the beginning, but due to a political CA, the officer was subjected to a large amount of unecessary bullshit.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 3:01:55 PM EDT
SHIVAN458 said: The discharge of a firearm that results in a death should be reviewed EXTENSIVELY, by whatever the standard is in that jurisdication, before being declared a "good shoot". I also feel, as I stated above, that the review panels should include officers who have actually taken a life by use of deadly force.
View Quote
Once again, we are in total agreement. (Kind of scary, ain't it.) But that's just my point. I believe almost all police officers believe the same thing. I know that where I worked, any shooting, and it didn't matter if you shot Jeffery Dalmer as he was robbing a bank, shooting kids, and raping a woman, you were going before the Grand Jury for an investigation. They either "True Billed" you (which meant you went to trial) or they "No Billed" you, (which meant it was justifiable). But there was a very detailed investigation.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 3:41:58 PM EDT
Have had two shootings here in the past couple of months. Both have been cleared thru three different investigations, Internal Affairs, the Grand Jury, and an independent investigator. (because they were minorities, and paid for by your tax dollars) Not good enough for some folks. Here come the Feds in the form of the FBI and a civil rights investigation. Of course, lawsuits await after that, and the city will not absorb the whole cost. You guys truly think we make light about this stuff?
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 4:08:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Johninaustin: Have had two shootings here in the past couple of months. Both have been cleared thru three different investigations, Internal Affairs, the Grand Jury, and an independent investigator. (because they were minorities, and paid for by your tax dollars) Not good enough for some folks. Here come the Feds in the form of the FBI and a civil rights investigation. Of course, lawsuits await after that, and the city will not absorb the whole cost. You guys truly think we make light about this stuff?
View Quote
John: Actually I don't cateforize you all together despite some others assertions to the contrary. However, you might follow some of the more heated discussions to see some of the supposed LEO's piping off about how they would just shoot this person or that dog or whatever... I am NOT going to dredge up the actual posts, they are out there to be seen. I was stating what I have witnessed here by SOME of the LEO cowboys. I know that they are likely just pissed off about JBT comments or pulling our chains, but it doesn't help the matters at hand, and it usually stunts any potential conversation. My biggest issue with anyone is the blind acceptance of the lack of wrongdoing based on an article or series of articles that seemingly illustrate the necessity of a minimal investigation. No calls for investigation, no I'll withhold judgements, no gee that sounds bad, just some plain old agreements that it was a good shoot. That just rubs we the wrong way. FWIW, I'd rather have my tax dollars spent knowing that we have a true system of checks and balances and justice that applies across the board -- not up to but excluding the "blue wall". That is just one civilians view and opinion of these matters. Ed
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 4:23:50 PM EDT
I was raked over the coals awhile back because I dared to state that a police shooting was bad. The story, An INNOCENT bystander was walking across the street while the police were shooting it out with a suspect completely unrelated to the victim. Cops shot missed the perp and killed the victim. Victim died. Blue wall here defended the cops action til the bitter end. Some excuses were, What was the kid doing there anyway, he had to be up to something. It was a bad neighborhood. What sort of kid walks across the street during a gun battle. Want proof? Look it up if possible. Search under old threads that I posted in. You will find it in there somewhere. Whatever, after that exchange I learned to trust the police even less.
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 4:25:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/24/2003 4:25:39 PM EDT by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 6/24/2003 6:48:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GaryM: Whatever, after that exchange I learned to trust the police even less.
View Quote
That's just it. Many LEO's think they live in a vaccuum. They don't understand that they have always had to watch their backs over the tinfoil hat wearers, but when your normal average citizen starts to distrust cops over what is essentially a LE scorned activity/occurence then they should have a need to worry. They forget they are outgunned 5000:1 or higher. I do NOT advocate the killing of cops, but this bad press is cumulative. Some people DO NOT forget things. I feel sorry for the cops who must face the world as time wears on in this media frenzied society.
Top Top