Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

Originally posted by signal2noise

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
[1)You still havent bothered to read the thread. I am not going to reiterate my position, but needless to say, you arent getting it.

Actually, I am. Is this your position:

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
With training, there is no reason a person cannot incapacitate someone without killing them, at least in most instances. Here in Portland, our police are trained to shoot center mass, or kill shot, in any instance in which they fire. I find this to be over the top, and incompetent. There are many instances in which an extremity shot could do the job.

I'm saying that's all fine and dandy when training, but can it be used in real life? In an actual shootout when someone is shooting at you?

It probably could, but are you going to want to invest in that sort of time, money and training? Because it isn't something that can be trained in a weekend at the local shooting range. It's going to take years.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
2)Care to elaborate on when Ive been under fire? Not especially, although I will tell you that a 9mm round in the flank HURTS.

Well, I'll have to admit that probably hurts like a mo-fo, but were you shooting at that other person? Were you in a gunfight?

As I have said so many times already: I beleive when cop or the civillians around are in imminent danger of death, then the cop should shoot to kill.

My stance is that there are FAR too many instances, when a cop has great position and ample time, and are not in danger of being hurt, yet they still shoot to kill. Like the Lukus Glen case I posted earlier.

I was not firing. In was in crossfire. I will not elaborate on it anymore than that.

And yes, I do think it is foolish NOT TO invest the time, money and effort that it takes to get the people who choose this profession properly trained. Otherwise, whats the point?

And as I have also already said, maybe you shoot for the flank, maybe you miss and hit the chest, and kill the suspect. In my opinion, it is far better to attempt a non-kill shot in this type of situation and fail, than simply going in and trying to kill from the start.

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure


This bill does not need to pass. If a criminal is merely wounded the threat to the officer of being killed is not reduced because the adrenalin of the situation will keep the thug shooting and quite possibly killing the officer.

By the way a "mentally ill" individual with a weapon is just as deadly as one who has not been so diagnosed. Officers are entirely correct to shoot when confronted with an armed threatening person. Neither age, mental capacity nor any other factor should require an officer to allow him/herself to be wounded or killed. Our job is not to diagnose the criminal's particulars but to do what is necessary to protect himself, other officers, and civilians who are at risk.

www.nypost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

The cops gets paid for a reason, they should be trained, they shouldn't be lazy shooting 30 times when ever they feel like it.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
As I have said so many times already: I beleive when cop or the civillians around are in imminent danger of death, then the cop should shoot to kill.

Agreed.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
My stance is that there are FAR too many instances, when a cop has great position and ample time, and are not in danger of being hurt, yet they still shoot to kill. Like the Lukus Glen case I posted earlier.

I'll have to read up on that case.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
I was not firing. In was in crossfire. I will not elaborate on it anymore than that.

That doesn't really mean you were in a gunfight. You weren't out there fighting. Also doesn't mean it didn't hurt like a bitch, either. Sorry you got hit.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And yes, I do think it is foolish NOT TO invest the time, money and effort that it takes to get the people who choose this profession properly trained. Otherwise, whats the point?

Agreed, but do the taxpayers? Are they going to want to invest that sort of time and money into a skill that may never be needed, or just train them to shoot center of mass?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And as I have also already said, maybe you shoot for the flank, maybe you miss and hit the chest, and kill the suspect. In my opinion, it is far better to attempt a non-kill shot in this type of situation and fail, than simply going in and trying to kill from the start.

What if they attempt a non-kill shot and fail, hitting a civilian?

If there is a civilian in the line of fire, as I understand it, no shot should be taken, kill or non kill. Civilian safety is first and foremost.

Well, this may well have been addressed, but after reading the first four pages of nonsense, i couldn't take any more.

First of all, whenever an officer uses deadly force, which is the firing of his weapon regardless of whether his target is killed or wounded, the officer is taken before a Grand Jury. The 12 Grand Jurors are presented the facts of the case, by the District Attorney (prosecutor) and the investigating officer(s), usually from an impartial agency. It is the Grand Jury who decides whether or not there is sufficient evidence of a crime. In the case of a shooting, either homicide, attempted murder or aggravated assault. If they determine there is, the case is set for trial and the prosecutor is responsible for presenting the case to a judge or jury. This process is exactly the same as for anyone else.

I know this won't be accepted as truth, by those who have convinced themselves that all cops are thugs, bullies, etc. and chose to label all 800,000 local, state and federal officers as such, based solely on the actions of a few. Hell, most of the time it is based on a 30 second video, with no background information at all.

Okay, regarding the OP. I would wager a large sum that 90% of those in this thread, advocating "wounding" a threat by shooting them in the leg, arm, trigger finger, etc., could not put a three round group in the X ring of a stationary target, at ten yards. The other 10% would get lucky. I would bet double or nothing that 90% could not even hit the arm or shoulder of a stationary target, with one round out of ten. Oh and, this is allowing you to all the time you'd like to relax, breath properly, align your sights and slowly squeeze the trigger, the way all target shooters do. And that paper target is not even shooting back!

But, those same jokers want to give a cop one round and expect him to immobilize a moving target by shooting him in an extremity? Give me a big fat break. You do not have a clue. And, you watch way too many movies.

Regardless of the dis-info presented in many of the preceding posts, cops are not trained to "shoot to kill". They are trained to stop the threat. Period.

To those who are so anti-cop and have all these wonderfully simplistic ideals of how to "get control of the thug cops" and how officers should be doing their jobs, here are a couple of novel suggestions. I'm pretty sure there is a law enforcement agency near you that is hiring at this very moment. Go down, apply for the job, take the battery of tests, pass the oral boards, pass the physical and psychological (yep, all cops have to pass psychological evaluations, generally including the MMPI which I will let you look up on your own), pass a background investigation, pass the state training requirements, complete the department's training process and then get out there and show us all how its done!

Too much? Well then run for a city council seat, a county commissioner position, etc. and be a part of setting policy for the law enforcement agency you so despise.

No? I didn't think so. Doing either of those might force you to actually look at the facts and not just spew drivel.

One last thing.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
...Being a cop is no loinger about serving and protecting, it is about crime prevention...

Would you explain how, exactly, crime "prevention" is a bad thing? Would you really prefer all of the cops just sit around the station, waiting for a report of crime that has already happened? How is "preventing" a crime not considered "protecting and serving"?

[edit on 27-5-2010 by WTFover]

reply to post by xXxtremelySecure


So the cops don't like this bill? Probably because their body count will decrease!

More laws need to be passed to restrain these morons with badges. But it really won't matter, they will still keep killing innocent people.

Equal force, if you wanna play with guns be prepared to get hit with bullets. Simple as that, why would anyone risk there life if they cant defend them selves with equal force.

Here is an interesting little article for all those who are confused about the numbers of police shootings.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the killing of a felon is considered justified when it is done to "prevent the imminent death or serious bodily injury to the officer or another person."

More than 7,000 felons were killed by police in justifiable homicides from 1980 to 1998. The rate fell from 2.49 per 100,000 people in 1980 (when 457 felons were killed) to 1.69 people in 1998 (when 367 felons were killed). These felons were almost always men. For the period shown, men have consistently made up at least 95% of such homicides. In 1998, the most recent year for statistics, 97.5% of felons killed were men and 2.5% were women.

These felons are usually white as well. At least half of the felons killed by police over the two decades shown have been white. The percent of felons that were African-Americans fell from a high of 48% in 1980 to 35% in 1998. Those of other races represent 2-3% of felons killed by police. The racial distribution of felons is shown for selected years in the chart below.
What of police killed by felons?

About 1,400 police officers were killed by felons. The rate fell from 26.44 to 9.51 per 100,000 sworn officers from 1980 to 1998. It is important to note that this rate is far higher than the rate for police shootings of felons.

Roughly 85% of officers killed during this period were white. As more African Americans join the force, they will potentially represent a growing share of police officer deaths. In 1998, 9% of police officer deaths were blacks. Just two years later, they represented 18.5% of officer deaths. Through the early 1990s they represented 15-16% of deaths. In 1998, 86.9% of officers killed by felons were white, 11.5% were black and 1.2% were of other races.

The current rate of justifiable homicides and police killings has been dramatically reduced over the rate of the 1980s. Crime overall is down, of course; this is a major factor. As well, training has improved in many departments — both training on dealing with suspects and on gun use.


Read more: Law Enforcement - Police Shootings social.jrank.org...

Source: social.jrank.org...

Felons killed to cops killed ratio 2.49 to 26.44 per 100K in 1980
Felons killed to cops killed ratio 1.69 to 9.51 per 100K in 1998

I thought that was worthy of repeating.

Come on people, do a little reading every now and then. You just can't let emotion rule your lives.

Yeah, some fun with fuzzy math to make it seem like more cops are being killed than civilians and criminals.

The ratio's are civilian and criminal deaths per 100,000 of total population; a very large total number so of course the percentage will be low.
And number of LEO deaths per 100,000 sworn in LEO's. The percentage will be big because the total number of sworn-in's will be relatively small.

You should be a politician

[edit on 28-5-2010 by primus2012]

Oh, and the statistics only include Justifiable Homicide by cops, and not nonjustifiable or murder. Also, there is admitted missing or corrupt data.

Bureau of Justice Staistics - Policing and Homicide, 1976-98: Justifiable Homicide by Police, Police Officers Murdered by Felons

Nonjustifiable homicide by police
In addition to justifiable homicides by
police, the SHR database also contains
records of two other types of homicide:
• a record of each justifiable homicide
by citizens
• a record of each murder.
While the database has primarily a
statistical purpose, one statistic that is
impossible to obtain from it (or from any
currently existing database) is the
number of murders by police. Murder is
a type of nonjustifiable homicide. If a
police officer deliberately kills someone
and the homicide is not justified, that
type of nonjustifiable homicide is
supposed to go into the database as a
"murder." Undoubtedly some of the
"murders" in the SHR database are
murders by police officers, but their
number is unknown because nothing in
the database distinguishes murders by
police officers from murders committed
by others. Consequently the annual
number of nonjustifiable homicides by
police in the United States is unknown.

Errors in the SHR database
Justifiable homicides by police for an
entire State are sometimes missing
from the SHR database. One way of
determining whether a State is missing
in a particular year is to examine the
number of justifiable homicides that
State reported in previous years. If the
State reports a sizable number year
after year but then reports none, that
probably indicates the State is missing
from the database. For example, in a
large State such a Florida, there is at
least one justifiable homicide by police
each year. Yet none are recorded in
the SHR database for Florida for certain
years.
The opposite problem — too many
rather than too few records of justifiable
homicide by police in the database —
also exists. To understand how that
happens, imagine an officer deliberately
killing a citizen in circumstances that
initially appear to warrant lethal force.
The police department sends a record
to the FBI showing the incident to be a
justifiable homicide, but some time later
a judge or jury decides that the killing
was unlawful and finds the officer guilty
of murder. The FBI urges police
departments to send in a revised record
in such situations so that the SHR
database can be updated. But if the
police department fails to do that, the
killing will remain in the database as a
"justifiable homicide by police" when it
should instead be coded as a “murder”
on the “circumstance” variable.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by primus2012]

[edit on 28-5-2010 by primus2012]

Given recent cop over-reactions, I'd like to see ALL of them disarmed. More times than not, the presence of police, escalate the violence. They are NOT our friends. They are trained in an "us vs. them" philosophy. No, the old "Protect and Serve", is dead and gone. No longer "Peace Offivers", they are "Law-Enforcement" Officers. They WILL kill you, over a $2.00 ticket- or a neighbors annonymous complaint, if you don't immediantly obiesce, and show your "inferior" status. Sorry- I am a SOVEREIGN AMERICAN CITIZEN, NOT A SLAVE! Police are "public servants", nothing more. It is time they are reminded of that.

Originally posted by Patriotgal
Given recent cop over-reactions, I'd like to see ALL of them disarmed.

Oh yes that is an excellent idea, I am sure all the gang members, drug dealers, rapists, and murderers agree with you.

Secure

Originally posted by signal2noise

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And yes, I do think it is foolish NOT TO invest the time, money and effort that it takes to get the people who choose this profession properly trained. Otherwise, whats the point?

Agreed, but do the taxpayers? Are they going to want to invest that sort of time and money into a skill that may never be needed, or just train them to shoot center of mass?

I couldn't agree more signal2noise, and even with training during a life or death situation you are going to shoot center mass regardless of your training.

Secure

When an officer is responding to an armed suspect shooting at him he should try to shoot him in the arm or leg provided he has previously recieved a notarized affidavid from the suspect stating that he will also only aim for the officers arm or leg. In absence of that, blast away until the shooting stops.

reply to post by C11H17N2NaO2S


Forgive me here but I would like to clarify this. If someone, say your brother ran at me with a knife in close quarters/tried to shoot me, and I retaliated with lethal force you think you have the right to kill me?!?!?

I hope I misunderstood you because otherwise you don't belong in the real world...stay online.

Secure

reply to post by xXxtremelySecure


yes it is a paradox

killing a possible killer in order to prove that killing is wrong without making your self a killer.

What is wrong with starting with non-lethals and graduating to lethal ammunition?

There are rubber bullets, bean-bag stotguns, stun guns, tasers, flash-bangs, tear gas, and batons.

Granted, each of these pose a risk of serious injury or lethality themselves but they are called non-lethals because they are less likely to be lethal.

Gun control is pointless,most people who wouldn't be able to get a gun,would just use something else to harm another,maybe steal one....

There are only a few types of people who I consider to be actual criminals,I am not going to go into it further than that,you can probably figure it out yourself.

I don't think anyone who has not committed a violent crime against another previously,should be prevented from carrying a firearm,it should always be an option,a choice.

I think that if it was an option,more people would arm themselves,and the people who would commit crimes against others would give it a lot more thought before they did,and maybe not even do it.

3 things we should be issued at birth,for use when we reach a certain age:

1-a firearm.

2-ammunition.

3-training if we choose to carry a weapon,and the freedom to choose not to if we so desire.

Just because some of you have phobias regarding weapons does not give you the right to take the right to carry a weapon from someone else.

If you find yourself in a situation,where it is a case of mistaken identity,or whatever,and you are in fear of being killed by a police officer,you should have the right to use lethal force in defending yourself.

I believe incidents where the wrong person is killed by overzealous cops is part of the reason for this legislation,eliminating one side of the story,leaving the cops to make it up as they go in order to clear themselves.

It happens a lot,you cannot trust but a few,most don't really care.

It's just another crappy job.

[edit on 31-5-2010 by chiponbothshoulders]

reply to post by xXxtremelySecure

Pre-trained individuals are sought after,unfortunately,being trained in the military is not exactly the type of training really needed.

If they have no understanding of anything but the use of deadly force,what do you figure they will do out of reflex,drilled into them in military training?.

You see it and read about it every day.........

Firearms training is one thing,but they should also be required to have some sociology,psychology,criminology...(college,not police training),or some other training that gives them a better understanding of how people work,aside from understanding that if you shoot them,they bleed to death through a little hole the bullet made,more quickly,or more slowly depending on where you make the bullet go....

fcghkr

Ooooh,read the legislation,it takes our rights to defend ourselves away completely.

Nothing to do with cops so much as stealing our right to defend ourselves.

Hmmmmm.