What would the incentive be for gunning down an elderly lady who wanted help? That’s what is bugging me. I believe the officers feared for their lives and reacted accordingly.[/quote]
I think what bothers me about this story (and the one about the guy in a wheel chair shot at an inpatient facility a few weeks ago) is while the cops may be justified in shooting, the death of this old lady was by no means inevitable.
I don’t know what the cops were told by the dispatcher, but if they knew that the homeowner were an old lady and that she may be armed, I can’t help but think the cops should’ve approached the situation differently.
They were justified in shooting, but they put themselves in that position through choices they made. Maybe a better trained cop wouldn’t have gotten himself in to a situation where he was forced to shoot the homeowner.
[/quote]
I see what you’re saying, but having not been there I can’t agree or disagree. All we know is shots were fired, she pointed a gun at the cops, and they didn’t take any chances.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’ve been pulled over and BEATEN on FOUR separate occasions in Prince Georges County, MD. For NO REASON. I’m not interested in going into the particulars again, I’ve gone pages and pages in other threads about it. But I know for a fact that there are MANY crooked cops out there and they continue to abuse their power and run around abusing people unchecked. Nothing any of you “police apologists” say can dispute that fact.
The bottom line is with MORE accountability for police we will have LESS innocent victims of police brutality, cowardice and incompetence. [/quote]
Empirical evidence would suggest there was a reason.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’ve been pulled over and BEATEN on FOUR separate occasions in Prince Georges County, MD. For NO REASON. I’m not interested in going into the particulars again, I’ve gone pages and pages in other threads about it. But I know for a fact that there are MANY crooked cops out there and they continue to abuse their power and run around abusing people unchecked. Nothing any of you “police apologists” say can dispute that fact.
The bottom line is with MORE accountability for police we will have LESS innocent victims of police brutality, cowardice and incompetence. [/quote]
Empirical evidence would suggest there was a reason.
[/quote]
What would the incentive be for gunning down an elderly lady who wanted help? That’s what is bugging me. I believe the officers feared for their lives and reacted accordingly.[/quote]
I think what bothers me about this story (and the one about the guy in a wheel chair shot at an inpatient facility a few weeks ago) is while the cops may be justified in shooting, the death of this old lady was by no means inevitable.
I don’t know what the cops were told by the dispatcher, but if they knew that the homeowner were an old lady and that she may be armed, I can’t help but think the cops should’ve approached the situation differently.
They were justified in shooting, but they put themselves in that position through choices they made. Maybe a better trained cop wouldn’t have gotten himself in to a situation where he was forced to shoot the homeowner.
[/quote]
I see what you’re saying, but having not been there I can’t agree or disagree. All we know is shots were fired, she pointed a gun at the cops, and they didn’t take any chances. [/quote]
Is there any case where you would state the officers were completely wrong and should go down for murder? Seems not? You frame your story in an attempt to make the police have low culpability. There is no clear fact pattern in the marine killed by the deputy. The facts that are known are the guy was unarmed. He regularly went to the school with his girls prior to school and worked out with them and prayed. We have solely the cops word he was acting erratically and some corroboration from his daughters after they were interrogated for what 10 hours without their mother…which seems a strange police procedure.
So you argue someone having a gun is enough to kill them. How about thinking someone has a gun that someone has claimed has committed a crime. Then shooting him ten fucking times.
Here is one where the grand jury felt there was enough for a manslaughter indictment. Any regular citizen would be facing a second degree murder charge. As well he is being defended by spokesmen in his department.
I’d be willing to let this one go as the cop was a fucking psycho, but that the department tried to defend him at first is a bit telling.
This one is interesting because even if the police are telling the truth and it was one of the brothers that lit them up and not the jackass officer that arrived for backup that thinks of himself as the punisher(you can not make up shit this good, it still shows a lot of issues with police procedure.
And lol at fucking calling pulling black people over a proactive traffic stop :).
Eh thats just this year and only blacks. And those that were never proven to be armed. And not even a fraction of them.
What would the incentive be for gunning down an elderly lady who wanted help? That’s what is bugging me. I believe the officers feared for their lives and reacted accordingly.[/quote]
I think what bothers me about this story (and the one about the guy in a wheel chair shot at an inpatient facility a few weeks ago) is while the cops may be justified in shooting, the death of this old lady was by no means inevitable.
I don’t know what the cops were told by the dispatcher, but if they knew that the homeowner were an old lady and that she may be armed, I can’t help but think the cops should’ve approached the situation differently.
They were justified in shooting, but they put themselves in that position through choices they made. Maybe a better trained cop wouldn’t have gotten himself in to a situation where he was forced to shoot the homeowner.
[/quote]
I see what you’re saying, but having not been there I can’t agree or disagree. All we know is shots were fired, she pointed a gun at the cops, and they didn’t take any chances. [/quote]
Is there any case where you would state the officers were completely wrong and should go down for murder? Seems not? You frame your story in an attempt to make the police have low culpability. There is no clear fact pattern in the marine killed by the deputy. The facts that are known are the guy was unarmed. He regularly went to the school with his girls prior to school and worked out with them and prayed. We have solely the cops word he was acting erratically and some corroboration from his daughters after they were interrogated for what 10 hours without their mother…which seems a strange police procedure.
[/quote]
In the case regarding Sgt Loggins, I clearly stated that the cop lost control of the situation and didn’t need to shoot.
Quote me where I have said “Police don’t ever make mistakes”.
The only incident where I have defended police is the incident with the old lady, and I said with the given information, I think the police were justified in their actions.
This is my favorite of the relatively recent killings by the way. Where the deputy is let off because of his claims the father was acting irrationally. So he killed him because of the risk he posed to his daughters if he drove off with them…as opposed to the oh I don’t know unquantifiable harm seeing your father shot and killed a few feet from you would cause.
The best is how the news stories move from calling them the girls to his daughters and as more details about him come out…oh you know that he was a beloved marine and regularly worked out with his daughters and prayed with them before school came out…that the irrational actions he took became more murky and undefined and we end up with one dead dad and a huge wrongful death suit that the wife will likely win…along with a deputy that gets off scott free on a murder.[/quote]
Despicable.
[/quote]
That’s pretty fucked up. Why did they make no attempt to arrest the UNARMED man? Can you now shoot someone for driving dangerously with kids in the car?[/quote]
In Seattle the officer claimed the guy had a dangerous look on his face???
[quote]WN76 wrote:
Who knows. Settlements are sometimes easier to pay out than to fight. Means nothing.
[/quote]
Total Bullshit…settlements are paid when one party knows they are in the wrong and are concerned about everyone finding out.
[/quote]
If going to court costs you 100K in legal fees, and they will settle for 150K, it’s worth it to settle. Everyone finding out? Everyone already knows about it. It’s better to avoid the hassle of litigation and give them the 150K than pay 100K in legal fees and damages if they are awarded.
We are long past the point where every officer should have a camera w/audio on their person. All testimony by any officer should be ‘backed-up’ by film. Certainly all interogations should be recorded from start to finish without stopping the camera. Anytime the film is lost or damaged the related evidence should be discarded. The ‘Officer Bill Of Rights’ should be repealed; there is no moral reason for officers to have legal protections that ordinary citizens do not. The same for implied immunity. When the law abandons the moral high ground for conveniences sake, justice is difficult to find. There are plenty of good Leo’s out there and we need policies and procedures that help maintain the integrity of the law.
[quote]WN76 wrote:
Who knows. Settlements are sometimes easier to pay out than to fight. Means nothing.
[/quote]
Total Bullshit…settlements are paid when one party knows they are in the wrong and are concerned about everyone finding out.
[/quote]
If going to court costs you 100K in legal fees, and they will settle for 150K, it’s worth it to settle. Everyone finding out? Everyone already knows about it. It’s better to avoid the hassle of litigation and give them the 150K than pay 100K in legal fees and damages if they are awarded. [/quote]
[quote]WN76 wrote:
Who knows. Settlements are sometimes easier to pay out than to fight. Means nothing.
[/quote]
Total Bullshit…settlements are paid when one party knows they are in the wrong and are concerned about everyone finding out.
[/quote]
If going to court costs you 100K in legal fees, and they will settle for 150K, it’s worth it to settle. Everyone finding out? Everyone already knows about it. It’s better to avoid the hassle of litigation and give them the 150K than pay 100K in legal fees and damages if they are awarded. [/quote]
It is when you are wrong. [/quote]
Lol, no. Settlements ALSO happen when legal costs of a defense outweigh the settlement amount. It’s simply a risk/reward proposition. If the cost of litigation is higher than the cost of an out of court settlement, why would you NOT settle? This is common sense.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
I do not know the facts of this case; however…
We are long past the point where every officer should have a camera w/audio on their person. All testimony by any officer should be ‘backed-up’ by film. Certainly all interogations should be recorded from start to finish without stopping the camera. Anytime the film is lost or damaged the related evidence should be discarded. The ‘Officer Bill Of Rights’ should be repealed; there is no moral reason for officers to have legal protections that ordinary citizens do not. The same for implied immunity. When the law abandons the moral high ground for conveniences sake, justice is difficult to find. There are plenty of good Leo’s out there and we need policies and procedures that help maintain the integrity of the law.
I’m not opposed to being AV recorded. I have 5 cameras on my car, and a microphone on my vest. It’s more likely to save my ass. A few weeks ago a friend of mine was accused of beating a girl while in cuffs. In car camera showed her smashing her own head into the partition while saying “I’m going to tell everyone you raped me!”. She was so drunk she forgot she was on camera. I hear the look on her face and her lawyer’s when they saw the video was pretty good.
All evidence related to the crime should be thrown out? You’re assuming technology doesn’t fail. Ever have a computer crash on you? So in theory a rapist could walk because a camera didn’t record the arrest of the suspect. Sounds great.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
An elderly woman who called 911 gets shot by police.
Fuckin’ trigger-happy pigs. [/quote]
Well, they didn’t shoot the dog, for once.[/quote]
LOL! Oh, man! I didn’t wanna laugh at that one, but damn that was funny.
[/quote]
You know, I’ve thought about this ever since the PWI thread where I mentioned we routinely fixed bayonet in Iraq and Afganistan when going into a house to avoid having to shoot people.
Something about a rifle with a big knife on the end of it made people listen without us having to kill them.
Anyway, I’ve literally forcibly entered way over 100 houses, some with hajis, but 85% of the time with people who were hiding from hajis/just in the way. Never once did I shoot a non-combatant, and that was in the heat of things.
I suspect that’s 95 more armed entries than a typical cop gets in a career.
Soldiers certainly do shoot the wrong people, but it’s not realy as common as you would think, and world of hurt reigns down if it occurs, frequently involving prison time, and almost certainly court martial and the end of a military career.
I am curious why cops are treated differently and have (what appears to be) a much more crappy record.
My intial reaction is that my body armor gave me some comfort so I would know my target before engaging, but SWAT teams have as good, if not better, equipment.
I really think the bayonete has something to do with it.
You can completely control a situation with a gun with a bayonete without killing someone that you can’t do with just a rifle or pistol. It also makes you really purposefully engage.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
An elderly woman who called 911 gets shot by police.
Fuckin’ trigger-happy pigs. [/quote]
Well, they didn’t shoot the dog, for once.[/quote]
LOL! Oh, man! I didn’t wanna laugh at that one, but damn that was funny.
[/quote]
You know, I’ve thought about this ever since the PWI thread where I mentioned we routinely fixed bayonet in Iraq and Afganistan when going into a house to avoid having to shoot people.
Something about a rifle with a big knife on the end of it made people listen without us having to kill them.
Anyway, I’ve literally forcibly entered way over 100 houses, some with hajis, but 85% of the time with people who were hiding from hajis/just in the way. Never once did I shoot a non-combatant, and that was in the heat of things.
I suspect that’s 95 more armed entries than a typical cop gets in a career.
Soldiers certainly do shoot the wrong people, but it’s not realy as common as you would think, and world of hurt reigns down if it occurs, frequently involving prison time, and almost certainly court martial and the end of a military career.
I am curious why cops are treated differently and have (what appears to be) a much more crappy record.
My intial reaction is that my body armor gave me some comfort so I would know my target before engaging, but SWAT teams have as good, if not better, equipment.
I really think the bayonete has something to do with it.
You can completely control a situation with a gun with a bayonete without killing someone that you can’t do with just a rifle or pistol. It also makes you really purposefully engage.[/quote]
Grossman talks about the psychological effect of the bayonet, for both parties.
I think the difference between soldiers and cops in gunfights is that the soldier knows he’s going to a gunfight and can be better prepared for it. Cops also don’t receive the training military pers do when it comes to shooting. Like you said, a cop might do an armed entry 5 times in his/her career so not as much time is spent on training it. Agree with it or not, but that’s just how it is.
Just wondering, how many of the 85% took aim at you while you did an entry?
Now, let’s see if I can get a bayonet lug for the Sig… Holstering may be a problem.
Just wondering, how many of the 85% took aim at you while you did an entry?[/quote]
One kid, about 7-8 years old.
I knocked him down, kicked him in the face, and took his rifle (an AK).
Fairly certain I broke his jaw, but markedly better than shooting him, both for him and me.
Edit: I’d also note that 100% of the houses had AKs and most had crap like grenades in the house and typically within reach. We had to cow people while at the same time not turning them into a third group of combatants.
Now, let’s see if I can get a bayonet lug for the Sig… Holstering may be a problem.[/quote]
Well, I presume you have a Remington 870 in the car.
Talk to your boss, get the local Marines to tell you how to use it, and up weapon.
At the very least, your SWAT needs to think about this.[/quote]
We’re working on getting the carbines in the car. I don’t think higher up will go for the bayonets though, haha. They frown on us wearing sunglasses when speaking to people.
Now, let’s see if I can get a bayonet lug for the Sig… Holstering may be a problem.[/quote]
Well, I presume you have a Remington 870 in the car.
Talk to your boss, get the local Marines to tell you how to use it, and up weapon.
At the very least, your SWAT needs to think about this.[/quote]
We’re working on getting the carbines in the car. I don’t think higher up will go for the bayonets though, haha. They frown on us wearing sunglasses when speaking to people. [/quote]
Maybe not for you, but certainly SWAT. Carbine? a .223? WTF? I’d prefer 00 buck any day.
Now, let’s see if I can get a bayonet lug for the Sig… Holstering may be a problem.[/quote]
Well, I presume you have a Remington 870 in the car.
Talk to your boss, get the local Marines to tell you how to use it, and up weapon.
At the very least, your SWAT needs to think about this.[/quote]
We’re working on getting the carbines in the car. I don’t think higher up will go for the bayonets though, haha. They frown on us wearing sunglasses when speaking to people. [/quote]
Maybe not for you, but certainly SWAT. Carbine? a .223? WTF? I’d prefer 00 buck any day.[/quote]