Cops Furious at "Don't-Kill" Bill

the one thing all law enforcement have in common is you work for the government and the government is paying you to enslave the public one tag violation or public intox petty law at a time

Well I'm glad to see there is no psychologically disturbed bias affecting a rational review of these kinds of laws.

RC

Originally posted by alexhiggins732

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.

All those videos are shown without context of the situation. One of them DID remind me of watching a one of those World's Dumbest TV shows.
Where's the information that shows the final outcome (criminal and/or civil) of each of those incidents? Each of those videos are meant to instill nothing but distrust and hatred to those in law enforcement without giving the complete story and rely only on creating strong misdirected emotional responses.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by mistafaz]

reply to post by mistafaz


Tell me this is justified....


The cop opens the door... jumps up on the van at starts shooting....

[edit on 25-5-2010 by alexhiggins732]

reply to post by alexhiggins732


I see 20 better ways to have gone about it. I would call it justified I would call it a rookie mistake. However this isn't related to the thread so please stay on topic.
Secure

swat team opening fire in a neighborhood.

Cops unload fire on fleeing biker... Shooting to kill is not necessary here. Simply could shot a tire, leg, engine of the bike, etc...


[edit on 26-5-2010 by alexhiggins732]

reply to post by alexhiggins732


Justified but not well executed. They had cross fire and their situational awareness was lacking.

Secure

reply to post by xXxtremelySecure


How is it not related to the post? We are discussing whether cops should be allowed to "SHOOT TO KILL" when it is not necessary?

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure
reply to post by alexhiggins732

 

Justified but not well executed. They had cross fire and their situational awareness was lacking.

Secure

Justified? These are people being murdered. Justified would have been shooting out the tires or engines and arresting these people.

We are also innocent until proven guilty. The cops should not have the right to give out a death sentence, only a judge.

Originally posted by xXxtremelySecure


I really wish someone would let the criminals know that...

The thing is, I thought you were innocent until proven guilty. I guess when you're dead, there's no need to prove guilt. You just are guilty because you're dead, and the police shot you, so they must be right. Who's left to argue?

There's no one. You're dead. Dead = guilt. Bring it on. I'm all for it. Shoot all the guilty people.

reply to post by alexhiggins732


I would rather like it if you were going to present me with a video that wasn't created and edited for a TV show. Plus I don't know what PD that was (all I saw was MHPD, could be anyone) so that makes it harder to find out that if that officer's actions are compliant with his local and state law enforcement use of force policies. So, I'm sorry to say but without more information concerning the event I can say that I'm not able to form an opinion of that officer's use of force. In forming an opinion without details, I am forced to create a response solely on emotion and ignorance of the totality of circumstances and that I will not do.

It seems to me that many people believe that use of force is painted with one giant broad stroke and fail to realize that state by state the way officers go about considering levels of force is directed upon the policies of their local and state standards and training.

Hollywood always shows cops whipping out their guns at innocent unarmed people who are no threat, and firing 'warning shots' at people running away. I studied criminal justice cases for some years and grew up around LEOs (and with family on the other side of the law, so filled with stories about the worst of things in this area) and I have never once even heard of this actually happening in real life. I'm sure it does somewhere but it can't be that common -- perhaps it is concentrated in certain areas with different regulations. In which case those regulations need changing.

As for the guy who breaks a traffic law, will not stay in the car, and will not stop running away, the problem is that certain behavior by its nature implies that the person has some probably good reason to be SO terrified of being caught that they will risk everything to get away. They may even match the description of someone dangerous and wanted which maybe the LEO never even thought of until that behavior came up.

Now if it turns out they are just A MORON that really sucks. But I think the gradual insistence that law enforcement are supposed to be bleeding hearts about the possible stupidity, confused, drug-fogged, irrationally overreactive, or just plain nuts person, is like making a few women from the Teacher's Union the new oversight committee for urban warfare and criminal justice. This political correctness stuff is really interfering with "reality".

It DOES NOT MATTER what the INTENT of the civilian is if they have a weapon they do not put down on command, or behave as if they are a wanted criminal when stopped for a minor traffic violation, because "psychic powers" are not on the job requirement list for law enforcement. "Gee I think I'll interact with this guy with a gun who is paranoid and suspicious by professional requirement and act like a psycho and ignore what he says." Seriously I consider this a darwin-esque problem.

Clips on youtube are fascinating but as noted -- nearly always out of context. You just don't know what the circumstance are.

(As a side-jaunt for a moment: it reminds me of a Peter Straub horror book "Ghost Story" I once read. It began with this man with a young girl in a store and you are hoping she will call out, get away from him. By the end of it you want to kill her yourself for the good of humanity. Context is everything.)

RC

reply to post by alexhiggins732


How can this last one be in question? He was doped up on meth, he wasnt about to give up he reached and had a weapon in his hand. He was clearly a threat to the officers or if he got away he would be a threat to the civilian populace as witness when he showed total disregard on the road. Had that deputy about midway used the beanbag shotgun and ended the chase there it would have been best.

Secure

Did you know....

An innocent person is more likely to run than a guilty person!!!

You are a police officer and encounter:-

Scenerio 1:-
A man has started firing upon innocent unarmed civilians :- You MUST use lethal force to bring him down.

Scenario 2:-
A man stands a weapon pointed at you or unarmed civilians :- You may not have enough time to unholster your weapon to stop him, before he shoots. It is a 50/50% chance. You should be wearing a protection vest. Aim at the shoulder or legs, and it would be enough to immobalise him.

Or back away and call for backups instead. Sniper teams would be in a better position to take him out, or maim him. DO NOT BE A HERO.

Scenario 3:-
A man while being stopped on the streets put his hand inside his jacket to remove something:- Aim your weapon at his shoulder while telling him to stop. If he persists, then fire a warning shot. If he still persist, ensure it is a gun that he is pulling out.

If it is a gun, he will need 4 seconds to aim to kill you, but your weapon aim is already on his shoulder, and it takes only 1 second to fire and immobalise him. THERE IS NO NEED TO KILL HIM.

I've been in a combat situations before, and not some armchair critic some attempt to gloss over to hide their inadecacies in weapon ability.


A cop's role is different from a soldier. The soldier acts upon command of war approved by society as a final solution of defense. The soldier faces combatants, and it is either he kill or he will be killed.

But a cop is to uphold the law, and faces no combatant. Even if faced with the worse largest organised gangsters, these clowns knows no organised military operations of conventional warfare nor even the discipline to maintain such operations.

Should the cop faced such threats, he should not be acting alone anyway and should always call for backup of special police forces whom are specially trained to handle such clowns.

Thus, more often than not, the cop only face non-combatants civilians, and depending on most scenarios or situations, there is really NO REASON to kill.

Of course, cops are also human with precious lives. They too should be well trained, and equiped to do the job, such as better bullet proof protection, helmuts if necessary on lethal engagements, and laser sighting guns.

It is indeed a dangerous world we live in, but with technology, intelligence an wisdom, the cops should be able to uphold the law and maintain his responsibilities to society instead of coping out and be trigger happy with a swagger in his walk daily.

Make friends, not enemies and the job will be far more an easier role to earn an honest living from society. After all, they are only serving a small community within each district and state.

If me, a simple nobody, can think of such solutions, what the hell are the police commissioners doing to reform, improve and upgrade to serve the communities?

reply to post by mistafaz


It does not matter what the local laws are... even if they allow it the practice is unjust...

reply to post by alexhiggins732


Find me where cops are allow to "shoot to kill." Show me in what Local, State or Federal law enforcement department that police officers in the course of their duties are allowed to "SHOOT TO KILL" as per their policy and procedures and training!!

The burden of proof is on you my friend for making a bold statement such as that.

reply to post by RedCairo


Our constitution is framed to allow life liberty and pursuit of happiness. It is also meant to allow 99 guilty people walk free instead of putting 1 innocent man in jail.

The underlying problem being discussed is the prevention of government abusing its power. That's the key topic here.

You are right saying the the Police should not be expected to be psyshic but the use of deadly force by the police should have the same criteria as the justified use of deadly force by a civilian.

There should be a requirement that there is imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. A suspect running on foot does not meet that requirement nor does it justified the police to murder that person.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
You are a police officer and encounter:-

Scenerio 1:-
A man has started firing upon innocent unarmed civilians :- You MUST use lethal force to bring him down.

Scenario 2:-
A man stands a weapon pointed at you or unarmed civilians :- You may not have enough time to unholster your weapon to stop him, before he shoots. It is a 50/50% chance. You should be wearing a protection vest. Aim at the shoulder or legs, and it would be enough to immobalise him.

Or back away and call for backups instead. Sniper teams would be in a better position to take him out, or maim him. DO NOT BE A HERO.

Scenario 3:-
A man while being stopped on the streets put his hand inside his jacket to remove something:- Aim your weapon at his shoulder while telling him to stop. If he persists, then fire a warning shot. If he still persist, ensure it is a gun that he is pulling out.

If it is a gun, he will need 4 seconds to aim to kill you, but your weapon aim is already on his shoulder, and it takes only 1 second to fire and immobalise him. THERE IS NO NEED TO KILL HIM.

I've been in a combat situations before, and not some armchair critic some attempt to gloss over to hide their inadecacies in weapon ability.


A cop's role is different from a soldier. The soldier acts upon command of war approved by society as a final solution of defense. The soldier faces combatants, and it is either he kill or he will be killed.

But a cop is to uphold the law, and faces no combatant. Even if faced with the worse largest organised gangsters, these clowns knows no organised military operations of conventional warfare nor even the discipline to maintain such operations.

Should the cop faced such threats, he should not be acting alone anyway and should always call for backup of special police forces whom are specially trained to handle such clowns.

Thus, more often than not, the cop only face non-combatants civilians, and depending on most scenarios or situations, there is really NO REASON to kill.

Of course, cops are also human with precious lives. They too should be well trained, and equiped to do the job, such as better bullet proof protection, helmuts if necessary on lethal engagements, and laser sighting guns.

It is indeed a dangerous world we live in, but with technology, intelligence an wisdom, the cops should be able to uphold the law and maintain his responsibilities to society instead of coping out and be trigger happy with a swagger in his walk daily.

Make friends, not enemies and the job will be far more an easier role to earn an honest living from society. After all, they are only serving a small community within each district and state.

If me, a simple nobody, can think of such solutions, what the hell are the police commissioners doing to reform, improve and upgrade to serve the communities?

Very well stated. There will always be situations were the use of deadly force is justified.

The problem is there are to many cases where deadly force is used when it is not needed.

The point that local laws and regulations allow it is a mute point.

Originally posted by alexhiggins732
reply to post by mistafaz

 

It does not matter what the local laws are... even if they allow it the practice is unjust...

Here in CA we have the CA POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training) which tells all the police academies and all the police departments what the training requirements and practices are for the state of California. These aren't the laws that you'll see in the Penal Code but are the rules that govern how police officers are going to act and have been upheld by the courts and POST commission because they are JUST actions. Every state may have certain revisions they make regarding use of force but it must follow the basic guidelines of the Federal rulings.