"Officer Safety"-- the justification for nearly anything

[Bunnykid68]

and do they have whiney cops?

Thought it was a requirement for gun forums

 

[Tactical Flannel]

There have been many a discussion here on INGO where I have wanted to say that in the interest of the liberty and life of the citizen, I believe that LE should be required to wait until fired upon before discharging a weapon in defense of themselves or other LEOs. For precisely the reason you have articulated here.


**Excuses herself to don the Nomex**

Oh my.....
Soooooo a police officer who see's a person pointing a gun at them can't shoot until that person fires first?!?!?!
SERIOUSLY?!?!? So someone with a gun can walk upto a cop, put the gun to the cop's head and fire before that cop can shoot him/her? You got to be kidding, right? You forgot the 'purple', right? Would you allow someone to point a gun at you and walk upto you and fire before you fire your own firearm in self defense?
Wow....

I generally end all posts with," Stay safe" but I'm not sure how you will do that with that kind of thought process.
Perhaps ,"Good luck" would be more appropriate

 

[Bunnykid68]

Oh my.....
Soooooo a police officer who see's a person pointing a gun at them can't shoot until that person fires first?!?!?!
SERIOUSLY?!?!? So someone with a gun can walk upto a cop, put the gun to the cop's head and fire before that cop can shoot him/her? You got to be kidding, right? You forgot the 'purple', right? Would you allow someone to point a gun at you and walk upto you and fire before you fire your own firearm in self defense?
Wow....

I generally end all posts with," Stay safe" but I'm not sure how you will do that with that kind of thought process.
Perhaps ,"Good luck" would be more appropriate

Actually, that would be pretty tough to defend against. How do you outdraw a gun to the head?

 

[KG1]

Actually, that would be pretty tough to defend against. How do you outdraw a gun to the head?

I say if someone already has a gun to your head they pretty much have the drop on you at that point. I could be wrong though.

 

[Tactical Flannel]

Actually, that would be pretty tough to defend against. How do you outdraw a gun to the head?

Seriously? You're good with someone walking upto a cop, or anyone I guess, with a gun and that cop or person has to wait until fired at to be able to use deadly force, aka firing their own firearm to defend themselves, then I guess there's nothing to be said. I wouldn't do that to anyone but I guess there are those that are good with that.
I'm stunned to say the least...

 

[Denny347]

Actually, that would be pretty tough to defend against. How do you outdraw a gun to the head?

Get off the X and a little luck. Its worth a try...better than just standing there crapping your shorts.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Get off the X and a little luck. Its worth a try...better than just standing there crapping your shorts.

Exactly. Even a minuscule chance is infinitely better than resigning yourself to death and having that resignation fulfilled.

 

[jve153]

if you crap you pants bad (good?) enough, maybe the stench will make the bad guy forget about wanting to shoot you and run away... then you can vomit all over yourself so noone tries to rape you afterwards

 

[IndyDave1776]

if you crap you pants bad (good?) enough, maybe the stench will make the bad guy forget about wanting to shoot you and run away... then you can vomit all over yourself so noone tries to rape you afterwards

Is this something like the leftist morons suggesting that women **** themselves to 'turn off' a rapist rather than simply shooting the son of a *****?

 

[Bill of Rights]

I have read only through this post (quoted below) so far, and it seems to me that the answer is not to restrict LE to firing only when fired upon... Yes, there is risk inherent in the job of LE, but that doesn't mean they paint a target on themselves and must wait to be shot at first... That's insanity to expect that of anyone, and no, that's not a pointed remark at anyone here. The answer is that the automatic presumption of truth needs to be less automatic. Not completely gone... I think it was Reagan who said, "Trust, but verify." I think an officer should have to prove what he or she says happened, neither more nor less so than any other citizen. It's not that the LEO is less trustworthy, it's that "neither am I". We've all heard the stories of the thin blue line, and I think it can be a good thing: You're putting your life in their hands, not only on the street, but in court as well. Authority is too easily abused, not that all do, not even that most do, but that some can and have and that calls the practice into question. IMHO only.

Blessings,
Bill

Yes, and yes. But the authority and powers change things a bit.


Hard to say. But I wouldn't have the luxury of using a badge to justify a decision that may or may not have been kosher under the statutory limitations for the use of deadly force. Or more correctly, my claims that it was justified.



I think you know I don't have one of those. And it has nothing to do with pissing on LE.

I don't really want LE to be hindered such. I don't know how else to protect the citizen from the state though. Self-policing doesn't seem to be getting it done. And the threshold of threatening behavior seems to be getting lower and lower. I am not foolish enough to believe that we can create a line demarcating "okay" and "not okay" and all scenarios will fall cleanly into one category or the other. But I do think that the fuzzy line that does exist is moving, and it's favoring the actions of LE, not the citizen.

I believe that the state should be held to a higher standard when it comes to taking life because of the inherent disparity of authority and power in the relationship between the state and the citizen. If that doesn't sit well with some of you, I'm fine with that.

 

[phylodog]

I think an officer should have to prove what he or she says happened, neither more nor less so than any other citizen. It's not that the LEO is less trustworthy, it's that "neither am I".

Blessings,
Bill

I don't disagree but would say that this I already how it works. As I explained earlier in the thread, a criminal investigation takes place just as it does in any fatal shooting. Officers have the same rights as any other citizen when under investigation and the results of the investigation are reviewed by a group of citizens and they can further that investigation if they feel it was not done properly or was incomplete.

It is far too easy to take what information the media provides and find issues or reasons to suspect something is not right. From experience, I can say that the vast majority of the time this is due to the poor job the media does in presenting information in a factual manner. We had one recently where the reporter can truthfully claim that he reported the story factually, and he would be correct. You could analyze each sentence of the story and determine that to be true. What he chose to do was to rearrange the order of the sentences to make the situation sound suspect. This creates the process where the police make statements which conflict with what was reported and create the illusion that there is a coverup or an attempt to change the "truth". Which side a person decides to believe is 100% their choice and that decision is based on their desire to believe one side or the other rather than fact.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think an officer should have to prove what he or she says happened, neither more nor less so than any other citizen.

Which isn't the standard for anyone other than cops. If I arrest you for murder, and you say you didn't do the murder, its up to the state to prove you did and not on you to prove you didn't. As I've frequently asserted, the court room is designed to make sure the truth doesn't have a representative.

Police, on the other hands, are compelled to make a statement or lose their job.

At least for IMPD, every shooting goes through two completely separate investigations, one by Internal Affairs and one by Homicide. Are they *really* separate? Yes. I know for a fact they are, because once my grand jury was over I spoke with my investigator and exonerating evidence that I knew the internal investigation had was not part of the Homicide investigation. They didn't even pass over information they knew helped me, in other words.

As previously stated, everything also goes to the Grand Jury.

 

[Fargo]

Which isn't the standard for anyone other than cops. If I arrest you for murder, and you say you didn't do the murder, its up to the state to prove you did and not on you to prove you didn't. As I've frequently asserted, the court room is designed to make sure the truth doesn't have a representative.

Police, on the other hands, are compelled to make a statement or lose their job.

At least for IMPD, every shooting goes through two completely separate investigations, one by Internal Affairs and one by Homicide. Are they *really* separate? Yes. I know for a fact they are, because once my grand jury was over I spoke with my investigator and exonerating evidence that I knew the internal investigation had was not part of the Homicide investigation. They didn't even pass over information they knew helped me, in other words.

As previously stated, everything also goes to the Grand Jury.

Is the statement given as a condition of employment not inadmissible in court provided the officer asserts his Garrity rights?

 

[phylodog]

Is the statement given as a condition of employment not inadmissible in court provided the officer asserts his Garrity rights?

For the most part, yes they are inadmissible. There have been instances where they have been brought in and used to impeach testimony.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I have read only through this post (quoted below) so far, and it seems to me that the answer is not to restrict LE to firing only when fired upon... Yes, there is risk inherent in the job of LE, but that doesn't mean they paint a target on themselves and must wait to be shot at first... That's insanity to expect that of anyone, and no, that's not a pointed remark at anyone here. The answer is that the automatic presumption of truth needs to be less automatic. Not completely gone... I think it was Reagan who said, "Trust, but verify." I think an officer should have to prove what he or she says happened, neither more nor less so than any other citizen. It's not that the LEO is less trustworthy, it's that "neither am I". We've all heard the stories of the thin blue line, and I think it can be a good thing: You're putting your life in their hands, not only on the street, but in court as well. Authority is too easily abused, not that all do, not even that most do, but that some can and have and that calls the practice into question. IMHO only.

Blessings,
Bill

I had three direct witnesses to my shooting, two police officers and a citizen. Four firefighters saw the weapon the guy had as they were treating him for his bullet wound. It took around six months to be cleared by the Grand Jury and 23 months to be cleared by the IMPD firearms review board. I challenge you to show me any non-police citizen involved in a justifiable shooting that had to wait that long for it to be announced by the Prosecutor that they wouldn't be facing charges.

 

[9x18]

no cops. they're all here.

 

[JMoses]

no cops. they're all here.

Nobody has any idea what you're talking about.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Nobody has any idea what you're talking about.

Maybe his house is surrounded right now

 

[VUPDblue]

....and he needs to knock of the trolling, snark and incomprehensible cryptic posting lest he be banninated....

 

[JMoses]

Maybe his house is surrounded right now

LOL. Maybe.

9x18, Put the bong down and go out and speak with them!!