 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's an international story by now. All the agencies have been carrying it for some time.
But I agree with Sol. My first reaction to it was, 'What a dumb thing to do', but my second was, 'Is that all it takes to get shot? To step out of your front door?'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I often side with the cops, but this is a case where the responding officers were in SWAT gear, which might mean body armor, helmets, ballistic goggles, assault rifles instead of pistols, an impervious armored vehicle for cover, and the advantage of greatly outnumbering the suspect.
That's a LOT of advantages up front, to be so quick on the trigger when a confused man in sweatpants tries to pull up his sagging waistband. Couldn't the cop wait to see some hint of a gun, or even a TV remote control, before opening fire?
And I'm waiting for our all-powerful technology companies with more money than God (Microsoft, Apple, Google, Intel, Verizon, Comcast, ICANN, IETF, and many others) to offer a solution to the ease with which unsophisticated home users can spoof a phone number when calling 9-1-1.
And we need truth in sentencing, under which the criminal who spoofed the call would have still been in prison for his many previous convictions. Instead, he was early-released, and free to harm more innocent people years sooner than he should have been.
There's a lot of blame to go around, and nobody seems to be doing anything about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a novel idea, fire when fired upon. If you can't handle that then don't be a cop.
If you think it through, and you're not a nihilistic sociopath, you'll retract that. And I say that having just posted a scathing condemnation of the cop in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wait a second, isn't that one of the 3 or 4 basic police rules about firing their weapon?
"Do not fire unless fired upon", or some such wording.
No. I believe you're thinking of a scene from TOP GUN, or some such movie. I can picture the bald actor who always plays a tough, cigar-chomping boss, but I can't name him offhand.
In police work, "Do not fire unless fired upon" would be translated "You are ordered to die, and other cops will clean up afterward."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 17, 2018 - 10:54 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Octoberman
(Member)
|
No. I believe you're thinking of a scene from TOP GUN, or some such movie. I can picture the bald actor who always plays a tough, cigar-chomping boss, but I can't name him offhand.
In police work, "Do not fire unless fired upon" would be translated "You are ordered to die, and other cops will clean up afterward."
No, I'm serious, I really thought that basic rule was still in effect in police work.
I know I didn't just imagine it, so when was the rule done away with?
(I'm aware of the other scenarios where an officer has the right to do so, like "stop or I will be forced to shoot", but that's not what we're talking about here.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I remember over a decade go there was a film score trader who went to jail for killing a guy in his apartment complex. I wonder if he's out yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jan 17, 2018 - 11:29 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
No. I believe you're thinking of a scene from TOP GUN, or some such movie. I can picture the bald actor who always plays a tough, cigar-chomping boss, but I can't name him offhand.
In police work, "Do not fire unless fired upon" would be translated "You are ordered to die, and other cops will clean up afterward."
No, I'm serious, I really thought that basic rule was still in effect in police work.
I know I didn't just imagine it, so when was the rule done away with?
(I'm aware of the other scenarios where an officer has the right to do so, like "stop or I will be forced to shoot", but that's not what we're talking about here.)
They're only supposed to fire if they believe the assailant is an immediate threat to others. How many innocent people been injured or killed in the cross-fire needlessly? Same is true of high speed chases.
The we are scared so have to fire first, has been the US policy since 911 in both domestic and foreign affairs. I say lets just get it over with and fire some nukes at Russia. They're after all pointing their nukes at us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reality check time: Police officers do not have free reign to fire as they please. At least here in America.
Every time the weapon is discharged, an investigation is done. Anytime it involves somebody getting hit, intentionally or not intentionally, Internal Affairs investigates. You don't get to fire and then that's it -- people [at you on the back and say "Better luck next time".
Don't point to me rare isolated examples of elitist cops abusing their power and firing on people. the overwhelming majority don't do that. Many officers go without ever discharging their firearm.
Try speaking to some police officers some time. Ask them if they ever want to get into a situation where they have to fire (aside from some kind of terroristic attack). Most want to simply live another day and go home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
