Police abuse

dignin said:

French Policeman Shoots Suicidal Man (in his leg) To Save His Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_75uR4u5YEs

jeffbr said:

hedonist said:

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

backseatLover12 said:

I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.

You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.

The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.

It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.

Exactly. Shooting to kill shouldn't be (and usually isn't except in the case of Tamir Rice who never had a chance) the 1st response. But there is no such thing as shooting to injure. That isn't taught to police and isn't taught to civilians in self-defense classes. If you pull out a gun, you better be prepared to shoot it. If you shoot your gun, you better be shooting to kill. Anything less can cost you your own life. This isn't Hollywood.

And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on.

Well-said as usual, jeff - though I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with "upstanding citizen"; I hope so!

Ha, thanks. Maybe a little sarcastic.

badbrains said:

dignin said:

French Policeman Shoots Suicidal Man (in his leg) To Save His Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_75uR4u5YEs

And there u have it

Yes, snipers have a little safety and space. Find me a link to any training or protocol that is reputable that has police or citizens in a confrontation shoot to injure. I've never seen it.
Are you guys suggesting snipers be called for every response?

badbrains said:

jeffbr said:

hedonist said:

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

backseatLover12 said:

I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.

You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.

The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.

It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.

Exactly. Shooting to kill shouldn't be (and usually isn't except in the case of Tamir Rice who never had a chance) the 1st response. But there is no such thing as shooting to injure. That isn't taught to police and isn't taught to civilians in self-defense classes. If you pull out a gun, you better be prepared to shoot it. If you shoot your gun, you better be shooting to kill. Anything less can cost you your own life. This isn't Hollywood.

And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on.

Well-said as usual, jeff - though I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with "upstanding citizen"; I hope so!

Ha, thanks. Maybe a little sarcastic.

badbrains said:

dignin said:

French Policeman Shoots Suicidal Man (in his leg) To Save His Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_75uR4u5YEs

And there u have it

Yes, snipers have a little safety and space. Find me a link to any training or protocol that is reputable that has police or citizens in a confrontation shoot to injure. I've never seen it.
Are you guys suggesting snipers be called for every response?

I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you over my opinion. That's all it is, my opinion. They can and should shoot to disarm, not kill. Worlds not gonna end because of my opinion.

Last-12-Exit said:

backseatLover12 said:

I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.

You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.

The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.

callen said:

muskydan said:

callen said:

hedonist said:

I was thinking, it's not so much about "deserve to die" in this situation (if it indeed occurred as seen). It's more about if you do X, then it's likely Y or Z will happen. Consequences for actions, no matter whom.

Right and police are seriously outnumbering this guy so their reaction allowed victims reaction. Look I get it but let's step back and maybe look if there are better ways to handle. Maybe not, I don't know just we should think about strategy cops use sometimes for certain situations. Four unarmed cops could of detained this person. Shot him in leg who knows....

Couple facts you need 2 know. Cops are not paid to fight fair. Like it or not it's A JOB and our first priority is to make sure you and your partner/fellow officers get home safe to our familes. This unique job comes with a higher standard of accountability than most professions, although many of you Would disagree with me on that I am sure. Police get fired for countless of reasons on the Job and even more during our personal life's...we step on our dicks often off-duty and the media just eats it up. I will never forget my first day on the job when my salty old field training officer told me, "congratulations kid, you Are now closer than you ever have been in your life to going to jail Than becoming the police". He was absolutely right. Seen many in my day go to the PEN justly and for complete BS.
The suggestion of shooting a suspect in the leg purposely is not an option. We are trained and required by law to use lethal force on a offender if we or a civilian are in fear for their life till the threat is eliminated which often times ends badly for offender. You state under oath in a court of law I just shot him in the leg to temporally maim him or fired a few warning shots in the air you will loose your job and go to jail most likely...It truely amazes me how people think police can dodge bullets or think the police should not shoot at anyone till fired upon, like we are some kind of fuckin super hero or something....sorry folks, it don't work That way although my childhood hero was Superman. Monday mournjng quarter backing is very easy, we all do it, but being in a 2 gun fights and 3 fights for my own service pistol has been the most stressful events in my life...time just stops and you feel like you are in the Matrix or something. Luckily for me my training kicked in and i won the battles.
Also, you would find nobody to do this thankless job if you unarmed Police officers. That just would be suicidel for American Policing. Just my 2 cents worth from a now seasoned and salty ghetto cop, take it for what it's worth.

Oh I get everything you write and agree with most. If you go back and read my past posts you will likely find I made mention of most. Now required to kill not main by law, that is new.

Now with all that said, I still believe excessive force is used at times and there is a line that is crossed.

callen said:

muskydan said:

callen said:

muskydan said:

callen said:

hedonist said:

I was thinking, it's not so much about "deserve to die" in this situation (if it indeed occurred as seen). It's more about if you do X, then it's likely Y or Z will happen. Consequences for actions, no matter whom.

Right and police are seriously outnumbering this guy so their reaction allowed victims reaction. Look I get it but let's step back and maybe look if there are better ways to handle. Maybe not, I don't know just we should think about strategy cops use sometimes for certain situations. Four unarmed cops could of detained this person. Shot him in leg who knows....

Couple facts you need 2 know. Cops are not paid to fight fair. Like it or not it's A JOB and our first priority is to make sure you and your partner/fellow officers get home safe to our familes. This unique job comes with a higher standard of accountability than most professions, although many of you Would disagree with me on that I am sure. Police get fired for countless of reasons on the Job and even more during our personal life's...we step on our dicks often off-duty and the media just eats it up. I will never forget my first day on the job when my salty old field training officer told me, "congratulations kid, you Are now closer than you ever have been in your life to going to jail Than becoming the police". He was absolutely right. Seen many in my day go to the PEN justly and for complete BS.
The suggestion of shooting a suspect in the leg purposely is not an option. We are trained and required by law to use lethal force on a offender if we or a civilian are in fear for their life till the threat is eliminated which often times ends badly for offender. You state under oath in a court of law I just shot him in the leg to temporally maim him or fired a few warning shots in the air you will loose your job and go to jail most likely...It truely amazes me how people think police can dodge bullets or think the police should not shoot at anyone till fired upon, like we are some kind of fuckin super hero or something....sorry folks, it don't work That way although my childhood hero was Superman. Monday mournjng quarter backing is very easy, we all do it, but being in a 2 gun fights and 3 fights for my own service pistol has been the most stressful events in my life...time just stops and you feel like you are in the Matrix or something. Luckily for me my training kicked in and i won the battles.
Also, you would find nobody to do this thankless job if you unarmed Police officers. That just would be suicidel for American Policing. Just my 2 cents worth from a now seasoned and salty ghetto cop, take it for what it's worth.

Oh I get everything you write and agree with most. If you go back and read my past posts you will likely find I made mention of most. Now required to kill not main by law, that is new.

Now with all that said, I still believe excessive force is used at times and there is a line that is crossed.

I agree with you on excessive force. But don't forget It is not easy determining the threat level in situations Every single time having to do it in a split second. You make a mistake it can cost inocent lives. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.... But that's the job

Have empathy for having to make those tough decisions AND being an officer where everyone could potentially have a gun. Our gun culture affects so much.



So elaborate on "by law shoot to kill". New one

muskydan said:

badbrains said:

jeffbr said:

hedonist said:

jeffbr said:

rgambs said:

Last-12-Exit said:

backseatLover12 said:

I find it interesting that this entire debate comes down to whether killing a human is OK, vs. not OK. It verifies my point in the thread about the president not being proud to be an American… This country's mentality is turning to shit.

You asked the question. I feel sure that most here is not in favor of or is happy to hear that someone was shot and killed.I'm ok with the cop defending himself. If he had to kill the guy in order to stay alive, then yes, I'm ok with that.

The argument that the cop should have shot him in the leg or arm is absurd. Guess what, you can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg.

It isn't absurd at all. You can still be shot by someone with a bullet in their leg IF they have a gun. Reaching toward a gun and pointing a gun at someone are not equal concepts. The point people are trying to make is that shooting to kill doesn't have to be the first response every time.

Exactly. Shooting to kill shouldn't be (and usually isn't except in the case of Tamir Rice who never had a chance) the 1st response. But there is no such thing as shooting to injure. That isn't taught to police and isn't taught to civilians in self-defense classes. If you pull out a gun, you better be prepared to shoot it. If you shoot your gun, you better be shooting to kill. Anything less can cost you your own life. This isn't Hollywood.

And Last-12 was right, BSL reduced the discussion to whether killing a human is OK or not. I think it is, based on circumstances where my life or the life of a loved one is in jeopardy. Better him than me. But the discussion could just as easily gone a different direction if a different question was asked - do actions have consequences? Of course they do. Are there some actions that have more severe consequences than others? Of course there are. And in this current case, reaching for a cop's gun has some pretty well understood and severe consequences. Rightly so. If it turns out this upstanding citizen wasn't reaching for or grabbing the cop's gun, then the cop should pay the price and accept the consequences for his actions. If the gentleman was actually going for the gun, then I am fine with the outcome. I feel badly for his family, but again, actions have consequences. That's what we should be focusing on.

Well-said as usual, jeff - though I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic with "upstanding citizen"; I hope so!

Ha, thanks. Maybe a little sarcastic.

badbrains said:

dignin said:

French Policeman Shoots Suicidal Man (in his leg) To Save His Life

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_75uR4u5YEs

And there u have it

Yes, snipers have a little safety and space. Find me a link to any training or protocol that is reputable that has police or citizens in a confrontation shoot to injure. I've never seen it.
Are you guys suggesting snipers be called for every response?

I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you over my opinion. That's all it is, my opinion. They can and should shoot to disarm, not kill. Worlds not gonna end because of my opinion.

Well you are off base if you think the police CAN shoot to disarm legally. If a cop admits to shooting to disarm a offender w/ a weapon in the USA they will be terminated and possibly face jailtime. That is a fact. Now you can have an opinion on whether you think that mandate is right or wrong cause afterall we live in a wonderful place called The United States of America. However, it sure Sounds like there are a lot of like minded people as yourself in That honorable country called France, it might be a place worth checking out.