Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/5/2002 6:01:29 AM EDT
Apparently some of the LEOs on this board are under the impression that I am anti-LEO. I'd like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. [b]I do not hate cops. I am a criminologist by education, and I have had many, MANY interactions with police and corrections personnel in a professional capacity and have found many of them to be fine, upstanding human beings that I'd be proud to call friends. The average street cop deals with more assholes on a daily basis than most people are privileged to meet in a year of normal discourse with his fellow men. This quite justifiably creates a certain caution in their attitude when interacting with others. Most local/state police (DEPENDING ON STATE/LOCALITY) are the good guys.[/b] What bothers me are some of the following items: 1) It appears to me that many police have lost sight of their legal position in the community. Police should be responsible and accountable to civilians, not the other way around. There is a tremendous attitude of superiority over civilians that many police seem to have. 2) I am all for officer safety. However, I am not for officer safety at the expense of my rights. You accept a certain level of risk when you become a police officer. Your life is not more valuable than mine, and you have no more right to be armed than I do. You have no right to be armed BETTER than me. In fact, constitutionally speaking, I should be better armed than you. And in fact, I am. This is not because I wish you any harm. Far from it. It is because our Founding Fathers envisioned what would happen when the government/police were more powerful than the citizenry. 3) I resent the fact that if I mistakenly shoot someone, I will be jailed and sued...while if a police officer mistakenly shoots someone, he will be reprimanded and possibly suspended without pay for a couple of weeks. And, statistically speaking, a police officer is far more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent party than a lawfully armed citizen is. Whenever there's a shooting that is questionable, the police here on AR15.com close ranks around the shooter and immediately begin justifying his actions, [b]with no more facts available to them than the so-called LEO bashers have.[/b] 4) It pisses me off that there is a presumption of guilt on the part of the police if they enter someone's home and find military weapons and gear. Think this is bullshit? Watch the news. I just wanted to get this off my chest. I'm not anti-police at all. I am anti-attitude problem on the part of the police, because a bad attitude in a cop can [b]ruin[/b] someone's life a lot more quickly than just about anyone else. Thank you for your attention. QS
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:04:31 AM EDT
QS....Everything that you wrote is exactly how I feel as well. I've been called a cop basher a few times myself when nothing else is farther from the truth. Once somebody even called me a "liberal"..hahaha[:)]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:09:27 AM EDT
You liberal Cop bashers!...Get out of here before I call the cops!.....He! He! He! [:)]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:14:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:29:05 AM EDT
Sounds accurate to me.. I'd like to add that having sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States these Law Enforcement personnel should be defending our rights. They should be upholding the Bill of Rights and not enforcing laws that are contrary to it. I have several friends who are in law enforcement and some of them agree, others just choose to "do the job" and look the other way.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 6:55:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: 3) I resent the fact that if I mistakenly shoot someone, I will be jailed and sued...while if a police officer mistakenly shoots someone, he will be reprimanded and possibly suspended without pay for a couple of weeks. And, statistically speaking, a police officer is far more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent party than a lawfully armed citizen is
View Quote
I see very few mistaken shootings. They are deliberate shootings, the issue is were they justified by the information the officer knew or believed at the moment he pulled the trigger.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:10:31 AM EDT
Police should be responsible and accountable to civilians, not the other way around.
View Quote
Police officers [b]are[/b] civilians. If you aren't subject to the UCMJ, you're a civilian.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:38:08 AM EDT
In our constitution, there is established the office of Sheriff.
View Quote
Really? Where?
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:48:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: 3) I resent the fact that if I mistakenly shoot someone, I will be jailed and sued...while if a police officer mistakenly shoots someone, he will be reprimanded and possibly suspended without pay for a couple of weeks. And, statistically speaking, a police officer is far more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent party than a lawfully armed citizen is
View Quote
I see very few mistaken shootings. They are deliberate shootings, the issue is were they justified by the information the officer knew or believed at the moment he pulled the trigger.
View Quote
That's true, but the result would be the same.
Police should be responsible and accountable to civilians, not the other way around. -------------------------------- Police officers are civilians. If you aren't subject to the UCMJ, you're a civilian.
View Quote
You are absolutely correct about that...but I believe, based on some of the posts I've seen, that there are a large number of LEOs who mistakenly believe themselves to be a third protected class of 'non-civilians'.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:48:29 AM EDT
There have been sheriffs in America since 1634.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:52:35 AM EDT
And, statistically speaking, a police officer is far more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent party than a lawfully armed citizen is.
View Quote
Statistically more likely? This argument is just wrong, because you're comparing apples and oranges. A (as you put it) lawfully armed citizen doesn't have to do traffic stops. They don't respond to DV calls. They don't respond to house break-ins, etc. While all of us are potentially in harm's way sometime (which is why I think everyone who can carry, should and why I wish I could but I don't live in a free state), we simply don't have to do the same things as an law-enforcement officer. Of course, they are going to make more mistakes. They're, and I'm glad it's not me, in dangerous situations more often than most of us.
the police here on AR15.com close ranks around the shooter and immediately begin justifying his actions
View Quote
Don't flame them for having a different point of view or for trying to explain what they think happened. I don't personally know what it's like to walk up beside a car in the middle of the night in middle of nowhere, many minutes from backup, on a traffic stop. While some police acts are unconscionable, many are easier to understand if you read some of the posts here from LEO's with an open mind.z
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 7:56:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2002 7:59:01 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: [Sukebe]You don't know what happened, you don't know what it's like being a cop....blah blah blah...ad infinitum..[/Sukebe] Gee...could it be that our resident LEO apologist(s) are tired of arguing their point in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? QS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally Posted By jtw2: I think you guys are seriously dillusional. They would follow that order in a heart beat and then point out that "you have the courts to remedy the situation if we're wrong". They are doing it now. We know that a HUGE number of firearms laws are totally unconstitutional and yet LEOs across the country enforce them. History has shown time and time again that the soldier WILL follow orders and the cops WILL enforce the law. The only way I can see them all balking at the order is down the road when a lot of 'em are getting shot. Course by then we'll all be branded "terrorists" and they will be happy to shoot any of us "terrorists". After all we're at war against terrorists, right? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, I think this is spot on. GT, I believe you might refuse to follow such an order. But suppose it were put to you that you'd lose your pension, your paycheck, and quite possibly be breaking big rocks into little ones at USDB Leavenworth for refusing an order. I admire you if you'd refuse, and even if you would, I GUARANTEE there are a bunch(most)of your colleagues/friends who would say, "Fuck it, let someone else be a martyr. Hand over the guns, Joe, or else." QS
View Quote
Your posts tell a little different story. 1) Agree 2) Partial Agree. Are you limited to a Glock handgun and a Remington 870? Yes in theory an officer could be armed with the latest high speed low drag equipment. Then again theoritically most regular citizens can still buy machine guns. What you actually have is often different from the theoricical however. 3)Not sure you are right about "mistaken" shootings. The difference in the way the conversation goes is like the recent SF post, barney, undereducated, overreaction, liar, etc. There was very little interest on many posters parts to consider what was reported. They posted their spin and slurs. Let's stick to what we know about an incident and analyze it, not call names and make up stuff. 4) I think that may be more a news bias. It is also an urban vs rural bias. Maybe if you stated your points as clearly and articulatley, like this post, in the posts about LEO related incidents your point would be more clearly made, and you wouldn't be accused of bashing.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:08:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By zoom:
And, statistically speaking, a police officer is far more likely to mistakenly shoot an innocent party than a lawfully armed citizen is.
View Quote
Statistically more likely? This argument is just wrong, because you're comparing apples and oranges. A (as you put it) lawfully armed citizen doesn't have to do traffic stops. They don't respond to DV calls. They don't respond to house break-ins, etc. While all of us are potentially in harm's way sometime (which is why I think everyone who can carry, should and why I wish I could but I don't live in a free state), we simply don't have to do the same things as an law-enforcement officer. Of course, they are going to make more mistakes. They're, and I'm glad it's not me, in dangerous situations more often than most of us.
View Quote
Zoom, it's not incorrect. If you compare shots fired in self-defense by cops vs. the same number of incidents of shots fired in self-defense by armed citizens, the numbers show a disproportionate number of mistaken identity shootings by police. Maybe if it were my job to interact with possibly dangerous people, I might seek out training to enable me to more quickly differentiate an attacker from a nonviolent person. Everyone who carries a weapon has the obligation to NOT shoot unless ALL of the following criteria are met: 1) subject must be ABLE to harm you (i.e. a man with a samurai sword half a block away is not an immediate threat to one's life) 2) subject must have demonstrated INTENT to harm you (the same man rapidly closing on you screaming,"I'll kill you!", for instance) 3) you must be in fear for your life, and have no reasonable alternative to shooting(if the aforementioned asshole is running toward you while you're IN YOUR CAR, why not slam it into reverse and LEAVE?) and then there are a few other considerations that I rarely see mentioned or even considered... What's your backstop? Most decent pistol rounds will completely penetrate a human body, most of the time. If you blast Frank the Felon in the above situation and your bullet penetrates his body and strikes an uninvolved party, AND YOU'RE NOT A POLICE OFFICER, you'd better get real familiar with smearing K-Y on your bacon ring. Rarely do police get dinged for this kind of error. cont'd
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:09:46 AM EDT
the police here on AR15.com close ranks around the shooter and immediately begin justifying his actions
View Quote
Don't flame them for having a different point of view or for trying to explain what they think happened. I don't personally know what it's like to walk up beside a car in the middle of the night in middle of nowhere, many minutes from backup, on a traffic stop. While some police acts are unconscionable, many are easier to understand if you read some of the posts here from LEO's with an open mind.z
View Quote
You aren't getting it. I don't care, and neither should you, what the cop's day has been like when he pulls you over. Just because the last vehicle he stopped was filled with gangbangers does not give him the right to treat you in the same fashion. These people are empowered by the state to police you. They have an OBLIGATION to make a SERIOUS effort not to make a mistake. And if they fuck up and shoot an innocent, the very LEAST that should happen to them is that they lose your job, IMMEDIATELY. That's a minor consequence compared to what would happen to a citizen in the same situation, and it MIGHT serve as a reminder to cops to put on their thinking caps before 'bussin a cap in someone's ass.'
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:17:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Renamed: Police officers [b]are[/b] civilians. If you aren't subject to the UCMJ, you're a civilian.
View Quote
The own several dictionaries which disagree with you. Civilians are everyone except the Military, Police, Firefighters, and members of the Clergy. Webster's opinion, not mine.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:23:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: the numbers show a disproportionate number of mistaken identity shootings by police.
View Quote
What is a "Mistaken Identity shooting"? There are only two types of shootings, legally justified and not legally justified. Identify has nothing to do with it. A legally justified shooting cannot be correctly called a "mistake", becuase that infers blame on the shooter where there is none. Cops are their own worst enemy when they say a shooting was a "mistake". A better reponse is; Hell yes I shot him, and this is why....
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:24:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/5/2002 8:24:52 AM EDT by SPECTRE]
When we ask questions and hold our polititians accountable when they do something wrong, we are considered enlightened and aware citizens. When we ask questions and hold our children accountable when they act up or commit offenses, we are considered to be good, responsible parents. When we hold corporations responsible for what they do and say and the products they produce, we are called smart, savvy consumers. When we ask questions and hold our LEO's accountable when they screw up, we are called "bashers"
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:27:12 AM EDT
QuietShootr, you are dead on with this one: "There is a tremendous attitude of superiority over civilians that many police seem to have." For evidence just look at the recent post by well known AR15.com LEO about the tragic shooting by an exLEO. He referred to the exLEO & the rest of us dismissively as just "civilians." Here is the direct quote: "Oh by the way he's retired, so that makes him a civilian..." It is on this thread:[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=98224[/url]
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:35:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SPECTRE: When we ask questions and hold our polititians accountable when they do something wrong, we are considered enlightened and aware citizens.
View Quote
When you say all politicians are crooked and are in it for the power, whether or not the actually did anything wrong, you may be a basher.
When we ask questions and hold our children accountable when they act up or commit offenses, we are considered to be good, responsible parents.
View Quote
When you call your children bad names and hit them at the slightest mis-deed, you may be an abuser.
When we hold corporations responsible for what they do and say and the products they produce, we are called smart, savvy consumers.
View Quote
When we ask questions and hold our LEO's accountable when they screw up, we are called "bashers"
View Quote
When you refer to LEO's as Barney's, JBT, Seal wanna be's, undereducated, liars, or any of the other funny little terms that get used here, you may be a basher. I don't think that anyone has a problem with you holding public employees "up to the light" and examining thier job performance. But if you make the standard of perfomance one that most people couldn't live up to, or unreasonable, while throwing in those various smart terms and witty put downs........ your bashing.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:54:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By Renamed: Police officers [b]are[/b] civilians. If you aren't subject to the UCMJ, you're a civilian.
View Quote
The own several dictionaries which disagree with you. Civilians are everyone except the Military, Police, Firefighters, and members of the Clergy. Webster's opinion, not mine.
View Quote
You are correct. Much to my surprise, Webster's [url]http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary[/url] defines a "civilian" as " a : one not on active duty in a military, police, or fire-fighting force b : OUTSIDER" and the American Heritage dictionary [url]http://www.bartleby.com/61/76/C0377600.html[/url] gives the definition "A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military or police." These definitions do highlight part of the problem, though: while police operate "above" civil society, they aren't subject to the same sort of internal disciplinary mechanisms (such as the UCMJ) that the military uses. Nor do they operate, for the most part, in isolation from civil society the way that the military does.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 8:55:26 AM EDT
Huh, and to think that all this time I was quite comfortable with my cop-basher label! My biggest beef is that the people enforcing the laws have no greater idea of what the laws are than anyone else. That holds true for the postal employees who don't know if it is okay to ship a rifle through the mail or not and give you a hard time because of it. We are not a society ruled by law when no one knows what the law is. I would just like to know one way or the other whether I'm breaking the law or not, so I there are no surprises. Now as far as my being worried what a bunch of poorly educated dipshits think of me (I went to high school with these guys, I know how smart they are), well, that never even entered in my mind. The FBI refuses to release the name of their agent involved in the shooting of that kid. How can we have accountability if we can't even know the name of the shooter? The same thing happened here in NC to a Mexican immigrant--a DEA agent shot him in his car in a case of mistaken identity. The agent was never identified, and the media quickly quashed the story.
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 9:05:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AR15fan:
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: the numbers show a disproportionate number of mistaken identity shootings by police.
View Quote
What is a "Mistaken Identity shooting"? There are only two types of shootings, legally justified and not legally justified. Identify has nothing to do with it. A legally justified shooting cannot be correctly called a "mistake", becuase that infers blame on the shooter where there is none. Cops are their own worst enemy when they say a shooting was a "mistake". A better reponse is; Hell yes I shot him, and this is why....
View Quote
Perhaps I misspoke. By mistaken identity, I meant shooting someone in the belief they are posing a threat, and being wrong. Or, shooting someone in an effort to render a two-sided story moot...not that that ever happens.. cough...cough...cough
Link Posted: 3/5/2002 9:12:56 AM EDT
We are not a society ruled by law when no one knows what the law is.
View Quote
I agree! And it isn't the fault of the police -- they aren't the ones making the laws. We, the people, [b]expect[/b] (for the most part) that the politicians we elect will pass all sorts of goofy laws. We want them to "do something" and we don't worry about the consequences until we get caught in the mess.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 3:11:56 AM EDT
I'm anti-leo and not afraid to say so.If being anti -leo is stating facts anout leo actions and not personal attacks bought on by a offline confrontion.Yes call me mr.anti-leo and It's not me committing the so called blue flu during my investigations. 2 questions for any leo's 1 Why is it that when i don't wish to talk to the leo's during an investigation i can be charged with obstrution of justice but when a leo knows a fellow leo is breaking the law he stands behind THE BLUE LINE with the same criminal he{she} claims to protect the public from. 2 Why is it that you will respond to john q calls of domestic violence ,but not to fellow leo calls as statedin various newspapers around the country. If i'm now an anti-leo then i guess this old boy just don't fit peace i'm out
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 3:13:06 AM EDT
Nice post agree with u quietshootr
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 3:21:34 AM EDT
And also when a fellow leo is in an traffic accident in there personal car {which there not in vert much} they are always taking from the other involved in accident to a leo's car alone. And again as stated in the rules of the MB i'm an anti-leo if anti-leo is stating the facts about leo actions i've read here and seen in media here at home and accross this land of OURS. thx peace i'm to the sheets unless i heard a prowler and a man in aninja suit then be advised i'm mean and nasty
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 4:43:49 AM EDT
Someone anonumously sent me this thread for my views from a law-enforcement perspective I assume. I had a few issues with a shooting that a fellow AR15.com member was in a few days back that he posted and now it seems as if the flood gates are open a bit. I'll point to a few things as I see them. I'll get to more later since I just got off a 12 hour shift... QUIETSHOOTR- It looks obvious to me your more anti-cop than anything. The "criminologists" I know usually are. I've got to believe either you have had bad experiences with cops (your opinion may not hold up if you knew all the facts) OR you watch too much liberal anti-cop TV (the news being #1). This blanket statement should also cover a lot of the points people are griping about... Cops are held to a HIGHER use of force standard than the citizenry. That's right! The court case is Graham vs. Conner and this alone would deserve its own thread. The bottom line is citizens get away with using far more force (justified and otherwise) than cops. Your #3 statement is way off base. The main thing I see in this whole thread is sevaral statements that have no basis in legal fact or overall reality as far as "mistaken shootings" and such are concerned. More later if I can... Ryan
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 5:17:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2002 5:27:16 AM EDT by QuietShootr]
Originally Posted By Ryan-bluelinegear: Someone anonumously sent me this thread for my views from a law-enforcement perspective I assume. I had a few issues with a shooting that a fellow AR15.com member was in a few days back that he posted and now it seems as if the flood gates are open a bit. I'll point to a few things as I see them. I'll get to more later since I just got off a 12 hour shift... QUIETSHOOTR- It looks obvious to me your more anti-cop than anything. The "criminologists" I know usually are. I've got to believe either you have had bad experiences with cops (your opinion may not hold up if you knew all the facts) OR you watch too much liberal anti-cop TV (the news being #1). This blanket statement should also cover a lot of the points people are griping about... Cops are held to a HIGHER use of force standard than the citizenry. That's right! The court case is Graham vs. Conner and this alone would deserve its own thread. The bottom line is citizens get away with using far more force (justified and otherwise) than cops. Your #3 statement is way off base. More later if I can... Ryan
View Quote
Wow...me, a liberal..[8P] who'd a thunk it. Ryan, I don't get my opinions from television. After scanning Graham v. Conner, I don't see that what I posted is too far off base. I raise you a Milstead v. Kibler, 243 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 2001)...and your contention is that a civilian in this same situation wouldn't have his ass sued and jailed?
The main thing I see in this whole thread is sevaral statements that have no basis in legal fact or overall reality as far as "mistaken shootings" and such are concerned.
View Quote
Could you be more precise?
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 5:29:01 AM EDT
OLY-M4gery I don't think that anyone has a problem with you holding public employees "up to the light" and examining thier job performance. But if you make the standard of perfomance one that most people couldn't live up to, or unreasonable, while throwing in those various smart terms and witty put downs........ your bashing.
View Quote
This is an example of civilian bashing...... From what I have seen most (80%) of LEO's exceed mine or anyone else's expectations. When LEO's cover their behavior up with blanket defense's or general statements such as this. It does nothing but reinforce the US and THEM game LEO's have been playing for a long time. People are not that stupid fellas. Everybody see's this. Especially on this forum. It is blatantly obvious. You may think that you are protecting the limited power you have by standing together no matter what. But in reality, you are just driving a wedge between yourself and the people who are your boss. Most explanations from LEO's about some of their fellow officers unfriendly, your guilty before being proven innocent, behavior usually consists of stories about how they probably just came from dealing with a carload of smart-mouth teenagers that were acting suspicously. So forgive them if they are a bit on edge. The job makes you that way. Bullshit! The problem officers are assholes and they know they are assholes and they enjoy being assholes. But you will never hear an LEO admit a fault such as this. Because that is a sign of weakness and they must never show a sign of weakness. There fellow officers never speak up about this problem for fear of retaliation or nobody being there for back up on a call. So the public has to deal with this problem officer and the gap in communication between civilian and LEO becomes even wider. To the point where the civilian knows that he better watch what he says as well as does around LEO's. Trust between LEO's and the public is being dissolved at an alarming rate. With your stand by each other through anything approach. You better be policing your ranks or the 80% of you that are top shelf LEO's will be thrown in the same group with the others. Sort of like you do to us when first contact is made. ATTITUDE...ATTITUDE.....ATTITUDE
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 5:46:32 AM EDT
Shooter, Although I am a big fan of LEOs and my son is working to become one...I gotta agree with you. You nailed it. I fear that some time ago, far too many LEOs in our country acquired this US vs. THEM attitude about dealing with society at large. Part of that is institutional (I mean...just look at the scum they have to deal with on a daily basis.), and part is due to the incessant bashing by those on the Left. This atmosphere (WE are the only ones standing between total anarchy and an ordered society!!!) has, I think led to what we have now, where the LEOs consider themselves a special priviledged caste, with rights beyond those of lesser deserving "citizens" such as we "civilians". I also think that in far too many cases, LEOs tend to look at ALL of us with suspician and as potential enemies. Note...I did NOT say ALL cops...but, "...far too many." One is too many.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 6:13:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 6:16:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ryan-bluelinegear: QUIETSHOOTR- It looks obvious to me your more anti-cop than anything. The "criminologists" I know usually are. I've got to believe either you have had bad experiences with cops (your opinion may not hold up if you knew all the facts) OR you watch too much liberal anti-cop TV (the news being #1). This blanket statement should also cover a lot of the points people are griping about... Cops are held to a HIGHER use of force standard than the citizenry. The bottom line is citizens get away with using far more force (justified and otherwise) than cops. Your #3 statement is way off base. The main thing I see in this whole thread is sevaral statements that have no basis in legal fact or overall reality as far as "mistaken shootings" and such are concerned. Ryan
View Quote
Ryan, With all due respect, your response indicates your attitudinal bias in this matter and that bias shines through with stunning clarity. Unfortunately, your words give total credence to Quietshooter's assertions. Bad tactic to attack the accuser rather than the issues. Far too much like a courtroom advocate. Next time...rest first and try to answer after forming a cogent argument. For now...HE wins, hands down...and I for one do NOT like that. I find it disturbing. Lastly...just for a moment, consider this: As most of us are aware, a couple of days ago, just up the road a bit in Maryland, an FBI agent shot an innocent 20 year old "civilian" in the face with his M4, believing that the kid was (1) a bank robber, and (2) was "reaching" for a weapon. The kid was riding in the passenger seat of his girlfriend's car, and as I understand it, the FBI agent fired his rifle from his car after the agents pulled her car over by "showing" their weapons. Apparently, the kid made a dumb decision and tried to undo his seatbelt...in the process, appearing to reach for a weapon. The FBI has reassigned the agent. His name has been released. The victim will probably recover but that .223 round REALLY messed him up. Now my question: Do you, or for that matter ANYONE else think for one second that [b]IF[/b] I or another "civilian" were to fire our weapon under similar circumstances, we would NOT be instantly incarcerated...and most likely for a VERY long time??? I doubt VERY seriously that this agent will EVER see the inside of a prison, even IF the local DA tries to prosecute him, and even if the facts indicate he fired without justification. See...in HIS mind, he WAS justified...and since it was a "judgement call", that protects him. I seriously doubt that we civilians would be accorded the same leeway. Who was it you said is held to a higher standard again? [:X*]
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 6:30:01 AM EDT
Blackeye, I don't get you? I said tha public employees should be held to standards and thier actions should be reviewed. I just took issue with the people whose standards for public employees are impossible to meet. I also said that if you "review" of public employees performance is mostly one liners and quips, it isn't productive. Why is that bothersome to you?? Are you saying that you believe people should be held to impossible standards and verbally abused?
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 7:02:03 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 7:05:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By QuietShootr: Zoom, it's not incorrect. If you compare shots fired in self-defense by cops vs. the same number of incidents of shots fired in self-defense by armed citizens, the numbers show a disproportionate number of mistaken identity shootings by police.
View Quote
QuietShootr, please state the source of your statistics. I'm not saying that you are correct or incorrect, I'm simply curious as to the source of the facts you are using to support your contention.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 7:13:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2002 7:27:11 AM EDT by blackeye]
OLY-M4gery, Let me make it clearer for you. The standards that are set for law enforcement are not impossible if 80% of the LEO's can pass these standards without even trying. But the other 20% are so ate up with attitude or fear that they cannot be an effective force. If in being verbally abused, you are referring to the remark that some cops are assholes and they know it and they like it. That is not abuse in my mind. If someone calls me an asshole. My first reaction is, "Maybe I am being one". Not immediately being defensive and screaming abuse. I gave several reasons for the asshole rant. It was not a reactive statement but a descriptionary one. Don't confuse the confusion, it's already confusing.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 7:20:03 AM EDT
OLY-M4gery, Are the standards for LEO's higher? I would think they would have to be. Don't you? If someone down at the building inspection dept. makes a mistake, people don't die and people don't go to jail. Big difference.
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 7:32:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/6/2002 7:43:39 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By blackeye: OLY-M4gery, Let me make it clearer for you. The standards that are set for law enforcement are not impossible if 80% of the LEO's can pass these standards without even trying. But the other 20% are so ate up with attitude or fear that they cannot be an effective force. If in being verbally abused, you are referring to the remark that some cops are assholes and they know it and they like it. That is not abuse in my mind. If someone calls me an asshole. My first reaction is, "Maybe I am being one". Not immediately being defensive and screaming abuse. I gave several reasons for the asshole rant. It was not a reactive statement but a descriptionary one. Don't confuse the confusion, it's already confusing.
View Quote
I think you cleared it up. When I posted the impossible standards, witty remarks thing, it was about posts HERE. Where some people seem to make up what LEO's coulda, woulda, shoulda done's. They almost expect psychic powers, and Jedi mind control......... I was not refering to LEA standards or compliance with applicable laws. (yes there needs to be a higher standard for LEO/LEA conduct) I was refering to the desciptive terms barney's jbt's, etc. that are often used to describe any officer that garners the attention of the AR-15.com'ers. Those terms are often also applied to LEO's in general when describing the actions or mis-deeds of one officer or officers in an incident. It gets kinda tiring waiting for the inevitable Ruby Ridge, Waco, reference that keep getting thrown up. Garand_Shooter, there have been two recent "stop bashing" type posts that you have jumped up and said "I was not bashing"....... Why whenever anyone mentions bashing do you feel that they are talking about you?
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 8:07:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/6/2002 10:36:05 AM EDT
Zoom, it's not incorrect. If you compare shots fired in self-defense by cops vs. the same number of incidents of shots fired in self-defense by armed citizens, the numbers show a disproportionate number of mistaken identity shootings by police. Maybe if it were my job to interact with possibly dangerous people, I might seek out training to enable me to more quickly differentiate an attacker from a nonviolent person. Everyone who carries a weapon has the obligation to NOT shoot unless ALL of the following criteria are met: 1) subject must be ABLE to harm you (i.e. a man with a samurai sword half a block away is not an immediate threat to one's life) 2) subject must have demonstrated INTENT to harm you (the same man rapidly closing on you screaming,"I'll kill you!", for instance) 3) you must be in fear for your life, and have no reasonable alternative to shooting(if the aforementioned asshole is running toward you while you're IN YOUR CAR, why not slam it into reverse and LEAVE?)
View Quote
I must interject. In many states, a Law Enforcement Officer is not allowed to retreat, as he is the designated "solution" to the problem. As a licensed Security Officer in several states of our union, I notice that one major difference between us and LEO's is that we can walk away any time we like and not take a bit of heat for it. Those gung-ho types think of this as a drawback since it doesn't justify them using deadly force, but I see it as a safety valve so that some of us can go home and eat breakfast. My point is that many times what is a viable and valid option for one person is NEITHER for another. Situations should be evaluated based upon all the factors that make up the totality of the situation.
and then there are a few other considerations that I rarely see mentioned or even considered... What's your backstop? Most decent pistol rounds will completely penetrate a human body, most of the time. If you blast Frank the Felon in the above situation and your bullet penetrates his body and strikes an uninvolved party, AND YOU'RE NOT A POLICE OFFICER, you'd better get real familiar with smearing K-Y on your bacon ring. Rarely do police get dinged for this kind of error. cont'd
View Quote
Um, I'm not buying the "rarely". Without going into too much detail (because the lawsuit over this situation is still pending), I happened to be the second half of a conversation between myself and a Sheriff's Deputy while observing a residence just before a SWAT team hit it, and it was revealed to me that while policy and procedure are fine and dandy, when you pull that trigger, you'd better have a lawyer. Sure, the cop may only get a slap on the peepee from his DEPARTMENT, and he may be absolved of some Criminal Liability for his actions, but the truth of the matter is that Civil Liability can destroy anyone's life, LEO or otherwise. So if you're worried that going to jail is the worst thing that can happen to you, think again. And a LEO can be sued for something technically every 5 minutes of his shift. Think about that. Just my .02 Panz [bounce]
Top Top