Right to bear arms except when armed cop around?

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
if you have to draw your primary weapon (your gun), then things have already escalated. If you must use your gun, it is a deadly force situation.

And as we have seen is so many videos, police make their INITIAL APPROACH with guns already drawn. What you are saying is there is no such thing as non-lethal contact with police. And THAT is the problem.

A cop yells, "Don't move." The guy moves. Kill him.
A cop yells, "Put your hands behind your head." The guy raises his hands over his head. Kill him.
A cop yells, "Don't move." The guy tries to use sign language. Kill him.
A cop yells, "Show me your hands." The guy raises his hands, one of which is holding a cell phone. Kill him.
Police amp each other up prior to approaching a man whose truck broke down. They approach with guns drawn after escalating the issue among themselves. The man was unarmed, had his hands raised, and did not reach into his vehicle because the window was closed. Kill him.

This is how its supposed to be?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion drawn from your own statements. People who are so utterly ignorant as to push the "shoot to wound" myth are at best avid action flick enthusiasts. The rest of my conclusion is that generally people who think it's okay to use lethal force to end a less than lethal encounter have no business having access to firearms.

Nothing you've said really matters when it's prefaced with "a person standing gen feet away." You see a lot of real world combat shooting that takes place with a stationary shooter and a stationary attacker? I haven't. It's the exception, not the rule.

That's not even getting in to the medical aspect that oh, damn, I hit his artery and he bled out because all I have is a first aid kit and EMS took ten minutes to get here thanks to traffic.

And that's not even getting in to the legal aspect of using lethal force in a less-lethal manner, which is its own can of worms.

Nor is it getting in to the OTHER legal aspect of you are, at its core, advancing the notion that law enforcement should be given the legal authority, and requirement, to wound people. There is a specific set of circumstances when lethal force can be used. You propose to create another set of circumstances that requires lethal force to be used in a less-lethal manner, which means what?

More shootings.

As for your strawman about the jersey suspect? They stopped shooting when he was incapacitated. Which was after he was shot multiple times. Do you know the mechanics of the shootout? I don't. As far as we know the law enforcement that was there hit center mass of the targets they had available to them because of angles and cover.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Vroomfondel

It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion drawn from your own statements. People who are so utterly ignorant as to push the "shoot to wound" myth are at best avid action flick enthusiasts. The rest of my conclusion is that generally people who think it's okay to use lethal force to end a less than lethal encounter have no business having access to firearms.

Nothing you've said really matters when it's prefaced with "a person standing gen feet away." You see a lot of real world combat shooting that takes place with a stationary shooter and a stationary attacker? I haven't. It's the exception, not the rule.

That's not even getting in to the medical aspect that oh, damn, I hit his artery and he bled out because all I have is a first aid kit and EMS took ten minutes to get here thanks to traffic.

And that's not even getting in to the legal aspect of using lethal force in a less-lethal manner, which is its own can of worms.

Nor is it getting in to the OTHER legal aspect of you are, at its core, advancing the notion that law enforcement should be given the legal authority, and requirement, to wound people. There is a specific set of circumstances when lethal force can be used. You propose to create another set of circumstances that requires lethal force to be used in a less-lethal manner, which means what?

More shootings.

As for your strawman about the jersey suspect? They stopped shooting when he was incapacitated. Which was after he was shot multiple times. Do you know the mechanics of the shootout? I don't. As far as we know the law enforcement that was there hit center mass of the targets they had available to them because of angles and cover.

What a bunch of ignorant crap. How many times have we seen people on the ground getting shot over and over again by police? The threat was incapacitated long before the last shot was fired. The idea that every confrontation has to end in death is as ignorant as it gets. And apparently, according to you, police are trained and required to be this ignorant. Nice.

Oh, I love how you justify killing the guy intentionally by saying going for a non lethal shot may end up with him dead anyway. That is the thinking that is the problem.

"I am going in to this situation with my gun drawn because I and the other officers present already escalated this situation. Now that my gun is drawn I have no choice but to use lethal force because if I try to incapacitate the threat with a non lethal shot I could hit an artery and he will die so I should just kill him now and get it over with."

To Serve and Protect. Perfect.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: xuenchen
Only if you pull your weapon and threaten the cop.

If you have your weapon hidden, the cop won't know you have it right?

Open carry. It's a right.

I open carry every day in a State that has some of the strictest firearm laws in our Country.(Hellinois) My business and house are next to each other and I own both properties. Open carry is only allowed on private property. I have the cops called on me a few times a month and haven't been shot dead yet.

The reason I haven't been shot is not because I'm white, it's because my .44 is in its holster. If I were to brandish the damn thing like an idiot when the cops showed up, I'd likely be a dead man. And rightly so!

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Krakatoa
Read the OP again pleas.e No where in the OP does it mention it being a legally carried firearm does it? What if the person is a convicted felon? Then carrying any firearm is illegal.

Try again "self appointed moderator".

Puzzled, maybe because I'm not American. If the LEO is faced with someone holding a gun, how on Earth would the LEO know at that point in time if it's a legal firearm, as in the firearm is legally registered or (unless the situation dictated the LEO SHOULD know) that they are a convicted felon? I'm not aware that firearms are colour coded so wouldn't the assumption be that if you are holding the gun and refuse to comply with the LEO's request then you have at least a possible intention of using the firearm?

there is no way to know, thats why the Op pointed out even legally carried weapons can get you dead....the member you posted too is just a little confused....

Complying with a police command will keep you alive in most cases, even if you do have a weapon, and even if you are black. If you act like an idiot, you might think about that in the split second it takes for the cop to wonder just how crazy you really are.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I'm with you, Vroom, but I also understand what Shamrock is saying...

When I was taught about firearms, first and foremost I was taught to never ever point a gun unless I was ready and willing to use it, and the ONLY time I should be ready and willing to use it is under lethal threat. Period. Because the chances are that you will kill with that weapon. So I'd better be damned sure about the situation because dead is dead and there are no do-overs.

The problem -- as I see it -- is that LEOs are now shooting to kill at real and IMAGINED threats, which of course results in lots of dead people who never really posed a lethal threat at all. But due to their training, anyone and everyone is now considered a threat to the officer's safety and if that officer gets skeered and thinks that someone might be a threat, they shoot to kill. The person doesn't have to actually threaten the officer at all... just walking away with your hands in the air is now projected to mean "threat! threat!"... and therefore "kill! kill!"

And, of course, at the same time, officers are held to fewer and fewer standards, so no matter how reckless or stupid they act, even to the point of creating the potential threat to themselves, once they are in that position, they can shoot to kill and just say, "I was scared for my life because I thought maybe the perp might be a danger." And, obviously, it doesn't matter when the officer creates a threat to the individual's life and limb... they cannot protect their life from the officers... so, in effect, they have no legal recourse.

Which also proves the premise of the OP. It's not an accident or a coincidence that the first question in every officer involved shooting is "did the victim have a gun?" Not "did the victim point a gun at the cop" or even "did the victim shoot at the cop?" If the victim had a gun, just the possession of a weapon "justifies" the shooting. If that's all it takes, then we have no right to bear arms... and bearing a firearm can be a death sentence in any interaction with an officer.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

you usually make a lot of sense, in this instance, not so much. (IMHO) Just as shooting the gun out of the criminals hand, shooting a leg or arm, or hand isn't what you do in a split second "oh #" scenario. I implore you to go to a police station and ask about their next training class and see if you can shadow an officer. Find out first hand what they are trained to do AND WHY, rather than spout opinion as fact. Please don't take this as an attack, just a friendly comment that I don't agree.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Nope. Just nope. Pointing out the legal problems that arise from your shoot to wound myth is not ignorant. Pointing out the impracticality of your shooting range scenario of a stationary target and a stationary shooter is not ignorant. Pointing out the medical impracticality of hoping that your shoot to wound concept doesn't still wind up resulting in death isn't ignorant.

Which is why the only response you can muster is to distort what I said into something else and then attack it.

Deny ignorance, hotshot.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Xeven

It just goes to show the supposed freedom of the 2nd is not what is cracked up to be.....owning and carrying a weapon may be a right, it may also be a death sentence...

Exactly if you are armed it is like cops can just be judge and jury right there on the spot. You do not even have to have broken a law and they can kill you.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Abysha

It is. But brandishing and threatening people with it is not.

Dude got what he had coming to him.

The OP didn't specify an incident. I'm woefully uninformed this week in the news so maybe I'm missing something. I thought the OP was just being general.

I was but it is a reoccurring thing in our culture. In the end if you have a gun on you it is your word against the cops and your dead so...there is just your body and your gun.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Vroomfondel

That is a pretty general situation isn't it? How about narrowing it down for us all?
Is this carrying at a firing range?
Is it in the presence of an officer that knows you personally?
Is is during a hunting trip?
Is it on the street during a crime in progress?
Is it when the police are serving a warrant?

Each of these situations requires a differing response based upon the environment in which it occurs.

I do not think the constitution says either way does it?

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Vroomfondel

The OP used a simplistic post to open discussion on a very complex topic with numerous variables. That, in effect, leave it open to all sorts of discussion around a police officer and a person carrying a firearm. Including all the scenarios discussed to date here.

Bingo

I understand what people are saying regarding shooting to kill vs shooting to injure. I know the firearm training well. You do not point a gun at anything you do not want to kill. I get that. It is difficult to use lethal force in a non lethal way. I do understand that.

My point is that law enforcement seems to be programmed now to use the lethal force as a response to everything with no thought whatsoever about non lethal force. That is not how it should be. When police approach a car they just pulled over with side arms already drawn, that is a problem. As the police training indicates, if the weapon is drawn the situation has already escalated. Once escalated, the use of lethal force is not unlikely. And therein is the problem. Police self escalate and use that as an excuse after shooting someone. There has to be a better way.

I keep picturing a few events that fit what I am talking about. One is a guy who is down on the ground, surrounded by cops, one kneeling on his chest, one standing on his neck, punches and kicks raining down on him. His survival instinct kicks in and he tries to block the punches as best he can. The cop kneeling on his chest is yelling, "Stop resisting!" By trying to block being punched in the head he is resisting, and gets shot for it. It never entered their mind that if they stopped punching him in the head he would have nothing to resist.

That is just one example, I know. But it does point out what I am trying to say. Not every situation has to end with someone dead. When the predisposition is to kill anything other than "the perception of complete surrender and compliance", and we are subject to the frailty of human perception, then we will continue to have senseless deaths as commonplace events. That is a very sad day for America.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Nope. Just nope. Pointing out the legal problems that arise from your shoot to wound myth is not ignorant. Pointing out the impracticality of your shooting range scenario of a stationary target and a stationary shooter is not ignorant. Pointing out the medical impracticality of hoping that your shoot to wound concept doesn't still wind up resulting in death isn't ignorant.

Which is why the only response you can muster is to distort what I said into something else and then attack it.

Deny ignorance, hotshot.

The only thing you got right is the nope.

So there is no reason to try to resolve the situation without killing the guy? Its not worth even trying to stop the threat with a non lethal shot, even though he may still die? Since there is a chance a try for a non lethal shot could result in death just go ahead and skip straight to the aim to kill part?

Nope.

Why not give the unarmed man, the idiot kid, the deaf guy, any of them, a chance? Why do they have to die? Because the multiple cops with all the firearms drawn are afraid of what the unarmed deaf guy might do? Yeah, kill it! Kill it with fire! Kill it now!!! And get a medal for it too I suppose...

And yes, I would be happy to deny you.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Vroomfondel

you usually make a lot of sense, in this instance, not so much. (IMHO) Just as shooting the gun out of the criminals hand, shooting a leg or arm, or hand isn't what you do in a split second "oh #" scenario. I implore you to go to a police station and ask about their next training class and see if you can shadow an officer. Find out first hand what they are trained to do AND WHY, rather than spout opinion as fact. Please don't take this as an attack, just a friendly comment that I don't agree.

That spit second, oh # scenario, isnt the one I am talking about. Its the ones where the guy is on the ground, or surrounded by cops and unarmed. Laquan McDonald is a great example. He was walking with a knife in his hand. Other officers were there with weapons drawn. The last cop to arrive immediately started shooting as soon as he got there, like he was afraid he wouldn't get a chance if he didn't hurry. The guy was walking, fifteen feet away, holding a knife. The cops there had plenty of time to aim at very close range. There is no way anyone can look at that video and say it wasn't worth at least a try for a non lethal shot. If it failed, there were plenty of police there to aim center man and blast away.

That wont be the case every time and I would never suggest that it would. But in some cases, unarmed, deaf, whatever, people didn't need to die and anything short of shoot to kill could have prevented it. Maybe they would have died anyway. But I cant honestly say it wouldn't be worth the effort to at least try to spare the life.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Lemme ask you a pretty simple question.

Why are you using lethal means to end a non lethal threat?

Because that's what your scenario is. I'll ignore the fact that you're continuing to ignore the legal issues and the practicality of it outside some fantasy scenario where everybody is standing still.

But why are you so gung-ho to use a gun to end a situation that doesn't need a gun to be resolved?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

What a bunch of ignorant crap. How many times have we seen people on the ground getting shot over and over again by police? The threat was incapacitated long before the last shot was fired. The idea that every confrontation has to end in death is as ignorant as it gets. And apparently, according to you, police are trained and required to be this ignorant. Nice.

No, I don't. Give us specifics. You can't can you . . . because it is a very rare thing. I will not say never, because it is a term that I will not use. But the fact is that things are not what you make them.

As a cop I had daily contact with hundreds of people (on night shift) and many of them were armed . . . I had to draw my weapon less than a dozen times in a five year period. Twice I was being fired upon, and did not return fire because of bystanders; the rest were in felony stop or high risk warrant situations.

Tell you what . . . why don't you come back with some specific incidents and we'll talk. Until then, you are doing nothing but spitting out the liberal BS with no backing whatsoever that has the intent of taking guns from civilians, removing police departments, and instituting martial law controlled by a socialist government. And yes, when you get your way and the military is policing the state, it will be shoot first and then ask questions.

So . . . where are your facts? At least give me the number of encounters between police and civilians on a daily basis in America and the comparison to how many people are shot each day.

Yet, you are going to sit there and armchair quarterback their doing their job to protect you? While saying they are all gun-happy and untrained and just want to kill.

No, go get yourself some real training and then make an educated statement.

Until then I will consider your statements the same as you . . . ignorant. Because that is what you are, ignorant of the facts.

Look vroom, we are not going to convince you of anything. That is obvious. So why don't you do like we suggested, and go see the training for yourself. Some departments will walk you through the training, some won't let you in the door, and some will put you through the training. You don't know unless you ask.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Lemme ask you a pretty simple question.

Why are you using lethal means to end a non lethal threat?

Because that's what your scenario is. I'll ignore the fact that you're continuing to ignore the legal issues and the practicality of it outside some fantasy scenario where everybody is standing still.

But why are you so gung-ho to use a gun to end a situation that doesn't need a gun to be resolved?

That is the point isnt it? So many situations that do NOT need a gun to be resolved ARE resolved with a gun. That is my point. How may unarmed people have to die before its ok to start thinking of non lethal use of whatever weapons are available at the time? How many deaf people have to die because a cop had his sidearm drawn and no other option? How many guys have to die because their truck broke down? Or the kid who did rob a convenience store, but is unarmed, and running away. Did someone have to shoot him in the back 8 times, and call it self defense? That is exactly my point. There are too many situations that did not have to end with a death but do because police shoot first and rarely bother to ask questions later. I never used to feel this way but lately my feelings have changed. I am seeing far too many police shootings that could have ended peacefully, or at least without multiple shots fired.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

I will find some video of events such as those I have described here.

BTW, I am about as far from liberal as you can get.

I am just tired of people getting shot for no reason. All lives matter, regardless of skin color or occupation.