Glendale Police shoot and Kill grandfather with granchild in arms

reply to post by defcon5


For crying out loud why does it take six pages to get this point across?

Originally posted by defcon5

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
I expect you noticed my post was addressed to Nixi, not you?

You must have mistakenly addressed it to me then:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
And what's the rate of officers being shot over here got to do with anything anyway? Yes there are a lot more shootings where you are, but that's not a good reason to be blase about it, surely!

Because shootings are usually fatal, were other types of violence are not.
That puts one heck of a bit of stress on US officers on a daily basis when compared to their foreign counterparts.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

No, the one asking for the other points I'd raised to be addressed was to Nixi, not yourself.

Yes, I'm sure they are under a lot of stress. I don't see that that's any form of justification for being gung-ho with lethal weapons though.

You and some others seem to be arguing that there being a lot of shootings in the States is a reason why there are a lot of shootings in the States. Do you see what I mean? Like it's OK for cops to shoot people who may be innocent, because it's a violent place. Can't you see the flaw in that argument.

Originally posted by Toffeeapple
You and some others seem to be arguing that there being a lot of shootings in the States is a reason why there are a lot of shootings in the States. Do you see what I mean? Like it's OK for cops to shoot people who may be innocent, because it's a violent place. Can't you see the flaw in that argument.

reply to post by defcon5

Let me ask you this...
Whats to say that this man didn't decide that he was going to be hauled off to jail, would lose custody of his grandchild, and so he figures on killing himself and the kid. Then we would be reading an article about how the police failed to act to stop him, wouldn't we?

A million pages of assumptions further and you feel the need to throw in a couple of extra straw men for emotional impact. Who says he would have come outside in the first place? Who says he wouldn't have a 50ft inflatable - insert weapon of choice here - ? While we're making stuff up, could he also have had developed a self-sufficient mode of transportation? Maybe he was in contact with aliens? Maybe it was a clone of the man and not the man himself?

Do you see how retarded it gets? Personally, I see the same type of idiocy reading the assumptions I made above and other assumptions made by people like you in the thread..."reading between the line"...

"He shot him with a scoped rifle, that means it's all okay - go back to sleep America!"

Answer this, if they had enough time to shoot an unarmed man with a scoped rifle IN THE HEAD, could they not have...I don't know...shot him in the leg? They can't honestly say they "feared" for the safety of the baby if they shot the grandfather through the friggin' head, can they? More like, "SHOOT IM IN THE HEAD BOB LESS PAPERWORK".

Word of advice; every single person defending cops to this end when there is no doubt they go beyond their rights to falsely arrest, beat and kill citizens...you should be ready to deal with Karma when a bunch of "criminals" deal with you and cops are nowhere to be found. ;-)

reply to post by defcon5


Your argument that "police officers are fearing for their lives" is wholly misguided and lacking of merit.

NLEOMF
------------------------2011--------2010
Total Fatalities-----177---------153-------+16%
Firearms-related----71-----------59-------+20%
Traffic-related--------64-------------71___-10%
Other Causes-------42-------------23------+83%

www.nleomf.org...

Almost as many cop's die of TRAFFIC accidents then being killed in the line of duty!

You would think ditching the sporty type cruisers would be a higher priority then killing someone holding a baby, if what your saying is true.

Now let's compare that with say real hero's like firefighters:

firefighterclosecalls

2011: 81 (all on Duty Deaths)

www.firefighterclosecalls.com...

81 tragic deaths in the line of duty. You don't see Firefighters accidentally hosing down Gramps at all.

Now let's take a peak at 2010 for the "plebeian" workforce: -(Sadly 2011 isn't out yet)

Bureau of Labor Statistics
A preliminary total of 4,547 fatal work injuries were recorded in the United States in 2010,

-
Fatal work injuries in the private mining industry rose from 99 in 2009 to 172 in 2010, an
increase of 74 percent.

www.bls.gov...

And the small number(11) increase in police deaths via firearms also directly coincides with a blatant police increase in brutality.

Also, how many people are murdered, err killed by police officers each year? Ohh right, they don't want to release that data(and the NYPD is fighting tooth and nail to keep that data confidential).



Police kill over 300 people annually in "Justifiable" murders.
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...

Heck, just going by that little nugget alone, a person has a better chance of being killed by a police officer then winning the lottery. And roughly close to the same odds as being struck by lightening.

The problem is though that is not even half the equation. And without the total numbers of "Accidental murders", any such statements would belittle the victims of police excess.

Lets see some of these police officers go to trial and have their day in court. An independent team of investigators should be brought in to gather evidence and no evidence should be hidden. If a policepersons mates lie in court they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the the law. Their is a huge importance on making sure a fair honest and just trial occurs (fair for the policeperson, the dead person and their family.) In most of these cases if a policeman is trigger happy he should be charged with manslaughter and if he/she fires at a person that is clearly unarmed or not going for their weapon they should be charged with murder. Police also have other weapons such as tasers and battons which do not kill people as well as handcuffs and various other restraints to use. The police can also refrain from just rushing into situations and call for back up.
Police departments should also train their staff in how to handle situations better

Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by defcon5

 

Your argument that "police officers are fearing for their lives" is wholly misguided and lacking of merit.

NLEOMF
------------------------2011--------2010
Total Fatalities-----177---------153-------+16%
Firearms-related----71-----------59-------+20%
Traffic-related--------64-------------71___-10%
Other Causes-------42-------------23------+83%

www.nleomf.org...

Almost as many cop's die of TRAFFIC accidents then being killed in the line of duty!

You would think ditching the sporty type cruisers would be a higher priority then killing someone holding a baby, if what your saying is true.

Now let's compare that with say real hero's like firefighters:

firefighterclosecalls

2011: 81 (all on Duty Deaths)

www.firefighterclosecalls.com...

81 tragic deaths in the line of duty. You don't see Firefighters accidentally hosing down Gramps at all.

Now let's take a peak at 2010 for the "plebeian" workforce: -(Sadly 2011 isn't out yet)

Bureau of Labor Statistics
A preliminary total of 4,547 fatal work injuries were recorded in the United States in 2010,

-
Fatal work injuries in the private mining industry rose from 99 in 2009 to 172 in 2010, an
increase of 74 percent.

www.bls.gov...

And the small number(11) increase in police deaths via firearms also directly coincides with a blatant police increase in brutality.

Also, how many people are murdered, err killed by police officers each year? Ohh right, they don't want to release that data(and the NYPD is fighting tooth and nail to keep that data confidential).



Police kill over 300 people annually in "Justifiable" murders.
bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov...

Heck, just going by that little nugget alone, a person has a better chance of being killed by a police officer then winning the lottery. And roughly close to the same odds as being struck by lightening.

The problem is though that is not even half the equation. And without the total numbers of "Accidental murders", any such statements would belittle the victims of police excess.

also assaults, knife attacks and being hit by vehicles (accidental or not) are also deaths that are on officers minds. these all have a second party involved. traffic accidents can also be from chases but also simple accidents, we all know the roads are dangerous we just take it for granted mostly.

firefighters dont need to face adversaries who might be trying to kill them, sometimes they do with the mentally unstable.

these are justified killings which means if the officer didnt fire first than they would be the ones who have died or injured. incidentally do you have any officers injured in line of duty figures?

so lets say the criminal fired on the officers first those 300 or so times and say they were all fatal, thats a fair bit more officer deaths that they need to contend with. i think maybe if you can find the unjustified officer kills will be more suited for the arguement.

Originally posted by defcon5
Due to a high rate of police killed on duty, the police here do not take a, as you put it, blasé attitude toward these situations.

Civilians are viewed as the enemy, virtually without fail. Cops see themselves as being there to serve and protect themselves, not anyone else. The few genuinely decent cops left in existence, will argue that this is due to their potential for being killed; the secondary psychopaths who are becoming the majority, however, simply won't give a damn.

A lot of folks here don't take police as seriously as they should

I am (common) law abiding, and have no criminal record. At the same time, however, I view a police officer as the personification of the governmental monopoly on physical violence. They are the State's last line of defense; and the vast majority of laws which they enforce, do not, in point of fact, have legal legitimacy. This is because 99% of said laws are statutes, (contracts) which assume the consent of the arrested party. Most of the population are not aware of that fact, and Western governments rely on that ignorance in order to survive.

I do not believe in the thin blue line; I consider it a myth. None of the violence that I have experienced has in any way been either prevented or reduced as a result of the actions of the police. Although I try not to feel hostility towards them, (and at times am even moved to compassion for them, given some of the situations they can end up in) I therefore largely do not view the institution, in broad terms, as being morally or legally legitimate. Individual officers can possess varying levels of integrity; but in terms of their institutional purpose, they are the government's soldati, and very little more. They are also their own caste, and they well know it. In practical terms, they are not governed by the same laws that we are, at all.

When I look at a police officer on the street, what I see is an individual with the physical means (and increasingly, the legal immunity) to end my life. As a result, while I attempt to be exceedingly polite to them, my main priority is to remove myself from their physical proximity as rapidly as possible, as I consider them a potentially lethal threat, both in legal and immediately physical terms.

Point is that when an officer lawfully tells you to do something, you do it. You don't screw around with them, especially when they consider you a potentially armed person of interest.

The law has nothing whatsoever to do with it. In an immediate situation, you don't obey a cop because of the law. You obey him or her because it could well mean your death if you do not. A cop expects your obedience because if you antagonise him in any way, he can do anything he wants to you, up to and including killing you, and then lie to his superiors about it in order to get away with it; and if the case becomes public, he can count on his superiors' unquestioning support, irrespective of the level of evidence that may exist of his guilt. They view themselves as a closed brotherhood, and the civilian population as the enemy, as mentioned.

I am not speaking, here, about theoretical platitudes concerning how police are supposed to behave. I am also not talking about some distant past, or some hypothetical individual officers with more integrity than the norm. I am talking about the cold, ugly reality of what is happening on the streets right now; every day, every minute, particularly since 9/11.

I am sensing that you are an individual with positive intentions, and I therefore sincerely apologise if you have found this post excessively confrontational or disturbing. Nevertheless, it is my perspective, and it is not held without cause.

shows that american police are full of mass murdering thugs.

Originally posted by petrus4
This is because 99% of said laws are statutes, (contracts) which assume the consent of the arrested party. Most of the population are not aware of that fact, and Western governments rely on that ignorance in order to survive.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by petrus4
This is because 99% of said laws are statutes, (contracts) which assume the consent of the arrested party. Most of the population are not aware of that fact, and Western governments rely on that ignorance in order to survive.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Sorry, but that is a bunch of fake internet law tripe.

States absolutely have the right to enact laws, which are called “state statutes” as long as they do not interfere with your Constitutional rights. They are not contracts, and criminal law falls under their authority:

They can't be anything other than contracts though, by definition. If the state says I have to have a driver's license in order to drive a car, and I get one, then I am choosing to abide by the terms. If I make a choice to drive without a license, then the state's only remedy is the use of force (ultimately imprisonment) in order to attempt to coerce my consent. I could, however, very well die without making the choice to willingly get a license; and there is nothing the state can naturally do about that at all. We may well, of course, end up in a scenario where we have neurological implants and such which can mechanically alter a person's will; but such do not make said coercion any more natural, or any more legitimate.

As far as murder is concerned, I could agree with you; although I think you'll find that murder is a common law element anyway. Murder is a crime which, if permitted, would ultimately lead to the destruction of society; and I was not aware that legitimate law at least, had any purpose other than the protection of life.

With marijuana prohibition however, as another example; I don't understand how in court, any state could avoid having to make the admission that the state's only basis for said law is its' physical capacity to enforce it. I live in a town which engages in vocal protest of that and other laws; it can very safely be said in their case, that said law does not have the consent of the governed.

You can cite, in response to that, the idea that in a democracy, majority rule applies. I'd have no problem at all with putting the issue to a national referendum, and letting the majority of the population decide. The government, however, refuse to do that. The law exists purely by their fiat. extra DIV