Does Police protocol encourage police to kill anyone brandishing a "weapon?"

reply to post by holtdani


That's right, but in this case, whoever is waving an-unidentified-object about to be shot.

One simple answer. HAARP

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by WJjeeper

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by WJjeeper

 

Myths and Facts about Social Security

If you wouldnt mind going back and actually answering the questions I asked you, it would be appriciated.

i did, you asked me one question, "where did social security come from and how is it used"?

and FYI- sovereigns do not adhere to the constitution. a sovereign would adhere to common law written in the articles of confederation (the ORIGINAL constitution), thats why i gave you the link to my thread.

Right, and I gave you my response about that thread. To frther reinforce my position, the Articles of Confederation were dropped when the US Constitution was adopted and ratified. Simply ignoring it becasue you dont agree with it, does not make your position valid, or even legal for that matter.

When you decide to come back around to valid laws, let me know.

Originally posted by holtdani
Whoever is waving a gun about should be shot.

You obviously have nothing good to contribute here or in society. one of the most ignorant answers i've read today on here. And on ATS that a pretty tough thing to accomplish considering some of the things that have been said on here before.

reply to post by PjZ101

That same thinking ["whoever is waving a gun about deserves to be shot"] could cause someone who feels "threatened by excessive force" to shoot a cop for pulling his sidearm and threatening to use it. Just saying.

i agree with someone from page 1 forgot teh user name but he had said that police were trained cowards and i'm on board with that.

Few years back in my town here in Rhode Island there was an incident i was listening to on teh scanner. a drunk man had a verbal confrontation at his parents home, guy was in his late 20's early 30's to my recollection. He was "drunk as a skunk" as it came over the radio. There were 6 officers surrounding this guy in the front yard, he was weilding a metal pipe about 3 feet in length. long story short they shot and killed him even though he never outright attacked him.

So you're telling me that 6 police"men" couldnt outfox and disarm one extremely drunk guy without killing him? Pathetic humans if you ask me.

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

I have never had to shoot anyone but we have had prowlers and potential home invaders. But I can see as an athlete how muscle memory would come into play and you would instinctively shoot where you were trained to and that would be center mass (biggest target and best bet to "stop" the threat). It is not like you can shoot a guy in the leg and call "time out" at the same time to see if he stopped or not.

Exactly.. Also keep in mind me are responsible for evey bullet we put down range. During the academy, at least in my state, every time we missed a target, we got our butts chewed because we just killed grandma, little bobby joe, or 4 month old suzie.

Movies and TV have done a good job of portraying shootouts in such an unrealistic manner its not even funny. There are more factors that go into it than what I listed above, breathing control and some other stuff.

Shooting to wound is highly unlikely (its possible there are people who have the skils to shoot to wound, but in Law Enforcement, we are not allowed to shoot to wound) in a fluid situation.

The saying a person rises to the occasion is somehwat of a fallacy in this line of work. A Person does not rise to the occasion, instead they fall back to their level of training.

The other thing to keep in mind is when Law Enforcement discharges their weapon, its because the situation is at a deadly force encounter level. Why would an officer, who is exercising deadly force because in his mind he or the life of another person is in immediate danger, try to wound the person? A wound does not mitigate the threat, and if anything, in certain people it would only serve to piss them off more.

reply to post by kevinunknown

This is the US not the UK and since the bobbies over there are not normally armed I would expect a different SOP. I told my friend (in the original post story) that I did not believe it but he insisted that was what he was told. He didnt mention anything about the 21 ft which I have since learned about.....but to change the subject a bit DOES ANYONE WHO HAS VIEWED THE VIDEO OF THE GUY WITH THE GOLF CLUB BEING SHOT SUPPORT THAT ACTION?
(i previously linked to it and it is only :52 long....shooting takes place in the middle of it.)

reply to post by daddio


Care to cite all of your sources for this please.

Originally posted by Blazer
They don't just do it to people. There is a publicized story about a police raid on a house where the police shot their dogs that were IN CAGES. Why? Because they "barked menacingly". Like a dog isn't supposed to bark at a bunch of yelling guys in black who bust down the door?

Ironically if you shoot or injure a police dog, you can and will be tried for an assault on a "police officer" and subject to the same punishment as if it were a man, yet they don't hesitate to kill citizens dogs, just because they can.

Shooting a Police dog resulting in charges will vary from state to state. Some places consider shooting / maiming killing a police animal a felony assault on law enforcement, among other things.

What you are leaving out thought is under almost all state laws, killing any dog, regardless of your position (cop, civilian etc) is a felony regardless.

reply to post by daddio


What are you smoking? Ordinances are not laws? The city council, which are elected by the people, serve in the capacity as the elgislative branch for the city. They are empowedered by the people to adopt ordinances, or laws, which are passed, and signed off on by the mayor. Those same ordinances are then subject to the courts just as any other law is.

The Constitution was the document that was decided on and voted on by the colonies at the time. That is the government setup that was agreed on. Just because you dont like it, doesnt make it invalid or illegal. What it does do, is allow people to make their arguments to change it using the system in place without recourse. What it does not allow people to do, is ignore the laws because they dont like them.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
What you are leaving out thought is under almost all state laws, killing any dog, regardless of your position (cop, civilian etc) is a felony regardless.

Then why do police routinely kill dogs for doing nothing more than barking at them (which is what a watchdog is expected to do), even if they are confined in a cage, with no punishment? Why was the soldier who posted YouTube videos of him killing puppies by throwing them off a cliff not punished?

I don't think killing dogs is as much as a crime as you say it is, unless the dog is owned by the police, THEN they will throw the book at you.

Originally posted by PjZ101
i agree with someone from page 1 forgot teh user name but he had said that police were trained cowards and i'm on board with that.

Few years back in my town here in Rhode Island there was an incident i was listening to on teh scanner. a drunk man had a verbal confrontation at his parents home, guy was in his late 20's early 30's to my recollection. He was "drunk as a skunk" as it came over the radio. There were 6 officers surrounding this guy in the front yard, he was weilding a metal pipe about 3 feet in length. long story short they shot and killed him even though he never outright attacked him.

So you're telling me that 6 police"men" couldnt outfox and disarm one extremely drunk guy without killing him? Pathetic humans if you ask me.

Correct - Contrary to your legal mind, you are missing how the law works. The hindsight 20/20 argument you and a lot of other people on this thread are invalid when reviewing use of force. The Supreme Court standard is what did the officer perceive at the exact moment the use of force occured?

6 Officers and the guy still refused to comply with verbal commands... Yup, no problem there.

The guy was drunk, which is NOT known at the time, but is a guess. There are medical conditions which mimic alcohol intoxication -Ketoacidosis comes to mind. There are a number of illegal narcotics that also could have been a factor..

Simply put you werent there, didnt see what was going on, or any actions the guy took.

reply to post by Blazer

There were a couple of guys in the treeline (audibly talking) where we have a pipe fence late one night and we have had prowlers and potential home invaders before (rural) so my wife called the police. They showed up right away and I had gone outside to investigate after getting the SPAS-12 out and loading it w shells. The police parked outside our gate and one walked in and my young collie started to approach him to investigate (not barking) and he put his hand on his holster and asked "does he bite?" and I said "no, he is friendly and I am here." "He said good, I didnt want to have to taze him" (presumably his hand was on his tazer and not his sidearm....at least that is what he told me as I was carrying an assault shotgun and would not have been pleased if he shot my 6 mo old pup). Then the other cop came up and I pointed to were the talking and brush sounds were coming from which was just 20 yards from where we were standing and they opted not to investigate but said that they would go back on the road and shine their cruiser spotlight. Bad guys must have slipped away or were laying low across the fence but at least the dog didn't get shot.

Personally, I stopped listening to 99.9% of police, most of them are no better than the SS was IMO. I stopped listening to 100% of people claiming to be police online, and hope that they are just liars and not real cops. Interesting development in my life, one of my favorite drinking buddies, turns out he is RCMP, that was a big surprise. Me and him see eye to eye in most situations, when he told me he was a cop I laughed. I didn't believe him at all, until I went over his house last night with a few girls for the afterparty when the bar closed. No #, he really is a cop, and he is one of the good guys, I fear he won't last long lmao.

I'm trying hard to keep my mouth shut, but darn it.... Some time ago I wrote an article to be submitted to the Salt Lake Tribune titled " The Deadly Brotherhood of the Gun". It was refused by the editor who flatly stated " If I print this, They'll kill both of us ". It dealt with Law Enforcement procedures and how 100% of all LE officers shooting a suspect are ordered to administrative leave for two weeks [ with pay of course ] until the investigation is completed. You would'nt believe the results and the findings on a "private investigation". I know longer have the respect for Police/Sheriff authorities I was raised to believe. Yes, there are some good officers but now, I see them no better than an organized gang with a vast array of weaponry and equipment financed by their legal, illegal or extra-legal operations. No apologies from me. MM

reply to post by Blazer


Military does not fall under civilian laws, even if the violation occurs in the US. They fall under the UCMJ and military gets first crack at prosecuting their own.

I can go into why we shoot animals, but its not anywhere like what you described. I always find it funny when a couple of incidents are seized on and the assumed that the entire profession as a whole acts in that manner. It would be no differen thgan me shutting down the I5 and issuing speeding citations to every person who comes through because earlier in the day, I stopped 1 person for speeding.

Not only would that be absurb, the thought process involved that places every person in the same boat based off of one person sactions is assinine to say the least.

Should the officers be punished for killing the dogs? Hell if I know, I was not present, nor do Ihave access to the reports to find out why it happened. If it did occur with no reason, then your complain should be with the Prosecuting attorneys office for failing to file charges, provided the owner of the animals filed an offical criminal complaint for that to occur.

Its the small details like that that the sky is falling people need to get through your heads...

reply to post by JibbyJedi


Most people with Down's syndrome aren't running around with Uzis or 9mm handguns.........

reply to post by mormonmike

Thank you for posting (and being anonymous helps). You cant paint all police with the same brush but there is probably a "culture" there that is unique to the men (and women) in blue (or black/swat). That culture may be evolving to a further separation between those sworn to serve and those whom they are supposed to protect. The nature of self defense means that you have to be suspicious of virtually everyone you stop (or you could be a statistic) but that has fostered a mind set that is morphing to more of "us vs them" I am afraid. I have had mostly good experiences with police and a good friend of a former best friend (died of cancer) was a detective and a good guy....but we are seeing more and more videos of police brutality and questionable killings at the hands of police. IF we are not to drift into a "police state" then it must come from within the police community and their culture must reflect a renewed respect for the citizens whom they are sworn to protect (non criminals) and that must be met by a mutual respect from the people.