Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

It's pretty disturbing how highly cops regard themselves, how they're superior in some sense. They seem to often use emotion over logic which is fantastic when trying to enforce the law. People that run too heavily on emotion just annoy me since they can "emote" whatever the heck they want and it doesn't have to make any sense.

Anything that deflates cops balloon a bit is a good thing, egotistical maniacs a lot of them are. If you want to talk about entitlements... only need to look at cops, they deserve everything

[edit on 25-5-2010 by ghaleon12]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
In the State Of Texas, it is not illegal to have a loaded weapon. Not in the least. Nor in Arizona. And in each of these states it is not unusual to see a law abiding citizen exercising their right to bear arms.

It is a right given us in our constitution. What is so wrong with exercising it?

I couldn't begin to count the number of times i have seen, in public, someone with a legally owned weapon, usually holstered.

In VA if the weapon is loaded and in someones hand and they are not at a firing range or they are not using it for defense of their life or someone elses life it is brandishing. If it is loaded and not in a holster it is NOT brandishing, if it is in you pocket/purse/shoe it is not brandishing...it is concealed if you don't have at least 1/3 of the weapon showing.

Secure

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
In the State Of Texas, it is not illegal to have a loaded weapon. Not in the least. Nor in Arizona. And in each of these states it is not unusual to see a law abiding citizen exercising their right to bear arms.

It is a right given us in our constitution. What is so wrong with exercising it?

I couldn't begin to count the number of times i have seen, in public, someone with a legally owned weapon, usually holstered.

In VA if the weapon is loaded and in someones hand and they are not at a firing range or they are not using it for defense of their life or someone elses life it is brandishing. If it is loaded and not in a holster it is NOT brandishing, if it is in you pocket/purse/shoe it is not brandishing...it is concealed if you don't have at least 1/3 of the weapon showing.

Secure

I sure am glad i live in Texas.

I believe that when legal gun ownership increases, crime decreases.

BTW, to be clear....i only have three weapons. A 30-30 (for deer), a .22 (for rabbits) and a 4-10 (for zombies).

and i don't belong to the NRA.

I am just a rabid patriot.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

I believe that when legal gun ownership increases, crime decreases.

I couldn't agree more I love that VA is an open carry state, you dont have to have a permit to carry here. I see most store clerks and business owner either open or conceal carry. If more people open carried the world would be a safer place.
Secure

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by MrWendal
I got a better idea... how about do not commit violent, illegal acts that would place an officer in the position to have to shoot you to begin with??

I know that is a pretty far out concept, but it works too!

Sorry I have no sympathy for someone who is committing a crime and is dumb enough to point a firearm at an officer or someone else. What happened to taking some personal responsibility in this country? So if I go out, commit a crime, and then point a firearm at a police officer or just some Average Joe who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and I am killed... that is now some how the fault of others? What happened to the whole thought process that if I was not out committing crime and pointing guns at people, I wouldn't have been shot to begin with?

Because only people who are blatantly committing crimes are shot and or killed by cops, right?

No, and that is a far cry from what I had expressed. However, if you could show me just one case of an average citizen, pointing a firearm at a police offer, who is not committing a crime in doing so, than you have a very valid point.

My post dealt exclusively with pointing a gun at a police officer, or another human being in general. Not who gets shot by police and who does not.

This law is ridiculous.

Real life does not work like the movies. If you ask anyone in law enforcement or the military - or ANYONE for that matter - who's ever had to use a firearm to protect their life or that of somebody else, they will tell you this bill, its writers, its co-sponsors, and its supporters are all MASSIVELY IGNORANT beyond belief.

They will ALL tell you that shooting even for center mass, even at extremely short distances, is difficult. Here's why:

It is a scientifically known and irrefutable fact that when people are in extreme danger, their bodies WILL release adrenalin into their system.

It is a scientifically known and irrefutable fact that under the influence of this adrenaline, "FINE MOTOR SKILLS" are vastly decreased.

It is a scientifically known and irrefutable fact that these "FINE MOTOR SKILLS" are the skills needed to precisely aim at small, fast-moving targets such as an attacker's limbs.

I hope the armchair quarterbacks who support this bill are able to put those three facts together to realize now how utterly stupid this bill really is. It's not about training, being a good shot, being a bad cop or a good cop, or anything else other than the fact that the human body loses fine motor skills under high stress.

If you ask anyone who HASN'T been in the situation - such as the people on this thread who support this bill - their opinion simply doesn't count because they do not have the experience to come to an informed conclusion on the matter.

You supporters are going to feel like real tools when you start seeing a bunch of situations where a cop in fear of peoples' lives took a shoot at somebody's flailing arms, missed, and took out innocent people instead, all because you people watched too many movies and formed a completely inaccurate perception of the realities of combat shooting.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by mattifikation]

reply to post by xXxtremelySecure


This is outrageous. We are becoming a truly lawless society.

reply to post by xXxtremelySecure


The bill A02952's change of the original law's (§ 35.15) language is in CAPS:

" 13 (c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the
14 arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is neces-
15 sary to defend the police officer or peace officer or another person
16 from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use
17 of deadly physical force; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, HE OR SHE USES SUCH FORCE
18 WITH THE INTENT TO STOP, RATHER THAN KILL, A PERSON FROM ESCAPING OR
19 RESISTING ARREST, AND USES ONLY THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY TO
20 EFFECT SUCH STOP."
A02952 Text

This bill would make it unlawful for police to shoot at a suspect, who's fleeing from the police or resisting arrest, with the INTENT to kill that suspect. In a wrongful death lawsuit where the bill would be applied, the prosecution is going to have to show that the officer had the intent to kill the suspect rather than to stop the suspect. I don't see how this bill would be any different from the already in place laws where police aren't able to "shoot to kill" but to "eliminate the threat," where the threat itself isn't always the suspect themselves but their actions. i.e. A suspects with a gun surprises a police officer, gets two shots off, drops the gun and surrenders. Since the gun was dropped and the suspect surrendered, the threat has been eliminated.

I also question the line "AND USES ONLY THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY TO EFFECT SUCH STOP." This is in relation to a situation where the officer believes, from their experience and training, that use of deadly force is imminent or has been used by the suspect. If it's going to be a state law, they need to clarify on what the minimal amount of force is necessary to effect such stop within the law. That or use the already established policies on Use of Force training set forth by the NYS Municipal Police Training Council.

I can see the positives of arguments from both sides. One is the general public's increasing fear of a growing police state where the local beat cop is gradually detaching themselves from their community they serve. On the other side of the coin are law enforcement officers and their families who fear that bills such as this only erode the ability of LE to do their job safely in the presence of ever increasingly violent and dangerous street gangs and drug cartels and the increase in mitigation to the threat of terrorism. I think that to alleviate the concerns of both sides would be to work on the language of the bill so as to not continue the growing "Us vs. Them" attitude and relieve the fears of both sides.

Also, from reading the article, I'm finding it difficult to locate the source of the quote where officers are going to be MANDATED to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg" if the bill is passed. That quote right there, if true, wakes a whole other beast concerning police officer firearm training and qualifications. Any help with the quote would be extremely appreciated.

reply to post by xXxtremelySecure


with the controversy over this combined with immigration, it seems like we are being set up for Genocide.

edit- i didnt mean that racially towards mexicans. im sure almost anyone can get into our borders.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by 7even7eas]

reply to post by mattifikation


Well said indeed, you have the concept my friend that alot of these people on this thread will never understand. It sounds a heck uva lot like my post.

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.

Nothing will stop criminals from shooting to kill... But from my perspective.... The more kneecapped criminals start talking, the more the deterrent.

Personally I think maiming would be much more scary than being shot at to be killed... When I know nothing but pain awaits me....

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.


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

Your disagreement with this bill is Bullsh*t... you apparently haven't seen video after video of cops killing suspects where it totally wasn't needed.

For example, during a routine stop an unarmed suspect pulls over his car. As the cop approaches the suspect gets out of the car. The officer tells the suspect to get back in the car.

The suspect starts running on foot and the officer fires warning shots telling him to stop or he will shoot. The suspect keeps running.

The cop unloads 6 rounds into the back of the suspect killing him.

The suspect was unarmed and had a warrant for his arrest for not paying a $100 parking ticket.

Now his three kids will grow up with out a father who was the only source of income for the family. The family is obviously devastated by the loss.

This bill is totally needed and needs to be enforced. If police can kill then what stops them for being corrupt and abusing their power.

People are always desensitized by this kind of thing when they are watching it on COPS but you need to imagine this person being your brother, father, cousin, best friend or what have you.

Such a horrible thing to happen. It's legalized murder and it needs to stop.

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

Or even this video, which has plenty example probably the most shocking is cops running over a man fleeing on foot with a truck killing him.

www.youtube.com...

These are real people being killed by cops unnecessarily, not some fake TV show.




[edit on 25-5-2010 by alexhiggins732]

[edit on 25-5-2010 by alexhiggins732]

I am furious about this bill as well.
And I wonder if this is gonna apply
to SWAT Teams as well???

Perps coming out of a bank with AK-47's
and the cops have to shoot them in the
leg??? r u kidding???

Perps die from bullet to the chest
and the officer responds

"well I was aiming for the leg"

how can a court of law prove otherwise ???

what u aim at and what u hit
are 2 totally different things

reply to post by alexhiggins732


Would it be possible to provide a link to the story of said incident? I'd like to review as much information as possible before I make an opinion on a situation of this caliber.

One piece of information you stated that concerns me greatly is the officer's firing of warning shots at the suspect. I don't know of any departments where the discharge of a firearm into the air as a warning is allowed. If the information of what department was involved can be obtained, then one might be able to see if such actions committed by the officer are in compliance with local, state and federal law enforcement standards and training.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I am furious about this bill as well.
And I wonder if this is gonna apply
to SWAT Teams as well???

Perps coming out of a bank with AK-47's
and the cops have to shoot them in the
leg??? r u kidding???

Perps die from bullet to the chest
and the officer responds

"well I was aiming for the leg"

how can a court of law prove otherwise ???

what u aim at and what u hit
are 2 totally different things

I hate to say it but if it does pass this will most likely happen. This bill if enforced will cost lives...

Secure

Originally posted by mistafaz
One piece of information you stated that concerns me greatly is the officer's firing of warning shots at the suspect. I don't know of any departments where the discharge of a firearm into the air as a warning is allowed. If the information of what department was involved can be obtained, then one might be able to see if such actions committed by the officer are in compliance with local, state and federal law enforcement standards and training.

As far as I know warnings shot are not SOP for any department at least not in Virginia and North Carolina. Warning shots are a ridiculous concept, most people would fire back if a "warning shot" was fired at them.

Secure

If you get shot by a cop you really did had it coming anyone who follows the commands they are given will be fine and if you do something silly like reaching into a pocket without the command being given you should and will be shot it's simply darwins law.

Have a bit of common sense as long as you do what your told and recognize the higher authority around you it will all go off quite peaceably.
Be polite follow all commands given and don't resist and if you have a weapon out in public you are up to no good and most likely a criminal.

In short this bill is unenforceable and even if it passes it will be ignored for the good of everyone.

Originally posted by winterwarlock

Be polite follow all commands given and don't resist and if you have a weapon out in public you are up to no good and most likely a criminal.

I don't agree with the bolded part at all plenty of average citizens open carry or conceal carry.

Secure