The right to shoot. Policing, Military, Citizenry?

What I point out on multiple occasions, and I am always ignored, is that the Police bring a gun with them into every single situation they are involved in. In the 80's there was a study on Police killings in the US. Something in like the high 80s% of Police killed in the line of duty over a 20 year period were killed with their own gun, usually by a suspect they were simply trying to give the old "Hey, calm down buddy" who took the gun from them and shot them. Or they respond to a fight in a parking lot, try to break it up and someone they thought was a bystander comes up behind them, takes the gun off them while they are bent over and kills them with it. Take that into consideration, folks. Just because a suspect isn't armed at the moment doesn't mean he can't get armed in a hurry, seeing how every single cop in America brought a pistol a rifle and maybe even a shotgun to every single call he or she has ever responded to in their entire career.

In 2013 28 Police officers were killed in the line of duty. 11 of them were killed in shootings that took place between 0-5 feet, 2 were killed with their own gun. Police procedures are designed around this very model. If you fight with the cops, the laws and procedures in the US are designed with the mentality that at some point that fight is going to end up in a close quarters struggle for that cops gun. They are going to end it if at all possible before it gets there, and they have every single right in the world to do so. It takes a lot for a cop to pull his gun out. Once it's out, it takes almost nothing for him to be legally justified in shooting you. Know, understand and recognize that. Don't just bitch needlessly on the internet about it.

Fair point. Police should try to humanize the situation and calm the parties involved. The use of force (even grabbing) would be unnecessary if they could talk the person into complying.

"Hey calm down, I know this sucks. But it's part of my job, I have to arrest you". If they resist, then use force. I understand this isn't always applicable, but the idea that the police just walk up to someone yelling forcing commands is inherently going to lead to resistance as it is human nature.
 
NYPD has got some good lawyers apparently.
The 42-year-old mixed-martial-arts fan says he watched Gelman approach the cab window, barking: “Let me in!” Gelman even claimed to be a cop, but a dismissive Howell turned away, he says.

Gelman walked off. A straphanger recognizing Gelman tried to alert the cops, but was also rebuffed. A minute later, Gelman returned and set his sights on the 6-foot-2, 270-pound Lozito.

“You’re going to die,” Gelman announced — then stabbed him in the face.

Lozito leapt from his seat and lunged at the 23-year-old Gelman as the psycho sliced at him...

In his account, Lozito pinned Gelman to the floor, disarming him. Howell then emerged from the booth, tapping Lozito’s shoulder: “You can get up now,” he said..

Lozito says a grand-jury member later told him Howell admitted on the stand that he hid during the attack because he thought Gelman had a gun.

An angry Lozito decided to sue the city for negligence, arguing the cops should have recognized Gelman and prevented, or reacted more quickly to, the assault.

The city routinely settles such litigation but is playing hardball with Lozito, insisting his demand for unspecified money damages be tossed because the police had no “special duty” to protect him or any individual on the train that day.

“Under well-established law, the police are not liable for such incidents,” said city lawyer David Santoro. “That doesn’t detract from the Police Department’s public safety mission — or the fact that New York is the safest big city in America.”

Experts say it’s a long-standing legal precedent requiring police to put the public safety of all ahead of any one individual’s rights.
That's their argument - that part in bold - yeah, I know it's bogus and the hero who got stabbed knows it's bogus. But they pulled the Spock card (needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few) and it sucks because in my opinion they shirked one of their main duties.
 
Fair point. Police should try to humanize the situation and calm the parties involved. The use of force (even grabbing) would be unnecessary if they could talk the person into complying.

"Hey calm down, I know this sucks. But it's part of my job, I have to arrest you". If they resist, then use force. I understand this isn't always applicable, but the idea that the police just walk up to someone yelling forcing commands is inherently going to lead to resistance as it is human nature.

Most "good" cops do that. I put that in quotations because I'm not a cop, and it isn't fair of me to pass judgment on those who are, or to imply that those cops who don't have the best social skills aren't good at their jobs. I see a lot of really young and inexperienced cops out on the street who just haven't learned how to handle people yet. At the same time, the police cannot allow people that they haven't searched or identified to just wander around an area that they also haven't searched. That's what the cops are trying to do as soon as they get there. Get control of the people in the area and the area itself so they can search it and them if need be, so that they can simply find out what the hell is even happening. If you impede them in doing that they are going to come at you hard because they assume you're up to something. Most people just see that as "this cop is a jerk".

You see it in the Tamir Rice shooting. Cops are given limited information and expected to figure the situation out when they get there. That's how their training and thier response to people who aren't listening or don't comply is designed and why it is what it is. They don't really know what's going on when they get there. It's up to them to figure it out. Imagine if every single day, multiple times a day your job was drive to this area, "dudes fighting, one might be a white guy, one might not, go figure it out" then when you get there everybody is yelling and nobody will listen to you and is acting crazy. How do you get control of that? you might have to throw folks on the ground or tase a dude or two. Cops are there to get the situation under control right now. Then they'll find out what is going on. But not until the situation is under control.
 
That makes no sense. How else are the police suppoused to determine whether or not you're doing something legally or illegally if they don't stop you and make sure?

Are they just suppoused to see some dude rolling down the street with an AR slung in front of him and smile and wave?

Unless he's doing something illegal, they should. I realize that they won't and why they won't...but ideally they should.
 
Are they just suppoused to see some dude rolling down the street with an AR slung in front of him and smile and wave?
Yes.

#1 - Open carry is 'legal' in a lot of places because it was never declared to be illegal. Permitted concealed carry differs in that a lot of places require you to show your permit to law enforcement upon request (again, that's just part of the law which the legislature was able to add based on input from 'the police').

#2 - In most States the police cannot just waltz up to you and demand ID, unless they believe that you've committed, or are about to commit, a crime. This belief must be supported by a reasonable articulable suspicion.

A person open carrying an AR-15 should not be forced to interact with police absent an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be going down.

In fact I know of several civil cases won by individuals who were detained by police because the officers weren't aware that open carry was legal. These cases all started the same way with a cop demanding ID from a person open carrying, and that person refusing to show ID. The cities usually settled for between $3,000 and $5,000.
 
Unless he's doing something illegal, they should. I realize that they won't and why they won't...but ideally they should.

You have to have met legal qualifications in most states to carry a firearm (I don't know the specific rules in/what state he lives in) the police aren't going to know if you've met those unless they stop and insure that you have. Imagine if a mass shooting is carried out by a man who is not legally allowed to have firearms, yet he walks right through town in broad daylight, past several police officers who never attempt to stop him. That could have possibly been prevented by just insuring that he had the legal right to carry the firearm. It's a catch 22, I know.
 
Yes.

#1 - Open carry is 'legal' in a lot of places because it was never declared to be illegal. Permitted concealed carry differs in that a lot of places require you to show your permit to law enforcement upon request (again, that's just part of the law which the legislature was able to add based on input from 'the police').

#2 - In most States the police cannot just waltz up to you and demand ID, unless they believe that you've committed, or are about to commit, a crime. This belief must be supported by a reasonable articulable suspicion.

A person open carrying an AR-15 should not be forced to interact with police absent an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or will be going down.

In fact I know of several civil cases won by individuals who were detained by police because the officers weren't aware that open carry was legal. These cases all started the same way with a cop demanding ID from a person open carrying, and that person refusing to show ID. The cities usually settled for between $3,000 and $5,000.

Open carry is legal, providing you have gone through all the legalities neccesary to own and carry a firearm. Yes, if you're carrying a gun, expect that the police will ask that you prove that you can be legally in possession of that gun. To be annoyed of irritated by that is just childish. In fact, most open carry advocates I know do so specifically so they can get into some sort of debate with the police. It's weird.
 
You have to have met legal qualifications in most states to carry a firearm (I don't know the specific rules in/what state he lives in) the police aren't going to know if you've met those unless they stop and insure that you have. Imagine if a mass shooting is carried out by a man who is not legally allowed to have firearms, yet he walks right through town in broad daylight, past several police officers who never attempt to stop him. That could have possibly been prevented by just insuring that he had the legal right to carry the firearm. It's a catch 22, I know.

I know, my position on gun control is that we shouldn't have to meet those rules to own/carry a firearm or to conceal carry one.

I understand that the general public is afraid of people with guns. I just think they're fearmongering.
 
The police are shooting citizens over perceived threats that don't exist, and they are getting away with it. American police are so pussy and scared that anyone (especially blacks) moving their hands is enough to get them to fire their weapon. They use these rare and unusual cases to make policy that doesn't make sense for 99% of their interactions.

I don't see how anyone could possibly justify their actions. It's disgraceful that police value their own lives over the citizens they pretend to protect. If it comes down to a cop putting his life at risk at the expense of not killing an innocent citizen on accident, then the cop should put his life at risk. Sadly, police value police more than they value the citizens of this country, and they don't care about killing innocent civilians as long as they "get home safely".

Ultimately I think all of this goes back to the War on Drugs. When you turn a good 1/3rd of your country into the "enemy" for using/selling drugs and rely on your police to handle it, what do you expect to happen? The War on Drugs is absolutely disgusting, and should be stopped. The police are no longer protecting us, and instead they are hunting us. They are at war with all of us, and see us as the enemy.
 
I know, my position on gun control is that we shouldn't have to meet those rules to own/carry a firearm or to conceal carry one.

I understand that the general public is afraid of people with guns. I just think they're fearmongering.

I think it's a weird position. I think you should be able to carry a firearm if you so choose and aren't a criminal of any kind. I also understand that the police have an obligation to make sure that laws are being followed.
 
The police are shooting citizens over perceived threats that don't exist, and they are getting away with it. American police are so pussy and scared that anyone (especially blacks) moving their hands is enough to get them to fire their weapon. They use these rare and unusual cases to make policy that doesn't make sense for 99% of their interactions.

I don't see how anyone could possibly justify their actions. It's disgraceful that police value their own lives over the citizens they pretend to protect. If it comes down to a cop putting his life at risk at the expense of not killing an innocent citizen on accident, then the cop should put his life at risk. Sadly, police value police more than they value the citizens of this country, and they don't care about killing innocent civilians as long as they "get home safely".

Ultimately I think all of this goes back to the War on Drugs. When you turn a good 1/3rd of your country into the "enemy" for using/selling drugs and rely on your police to handle it, what do you expect to happen? The War on Drugs is absolutely disgusting, and should be stopped. The police are no longer protecting us, and instead they are hunting us. They are at war with all of us, and see us as the enemy.

Why do you think the Police wouldn't value their lives over the lives of other people? That's basic human nature.
 
In most cities/states the police are given special protection from prosecution. In order to convict an officer of shooting someone you must prove malice. It's perfectly legal for an officer to accidentally shoot someone, or shoot someone for the wrong reasons, as long as it's not done with malicious intent.

If this was the case for citizens that guy who just killed the drunk teenager who knocked on his door would not even be charged.
 
Why do you think the Police wouldn't value their lives over the lives of other people? That's basic human nature.

They don't value regular citizens as much as they value other cops. It's a them and us mentality. They even have their own sets of rules within the brotherhood. In my opinion, it's a byproduct of the drug war. When you criminalize a good third of your population, it turns into that.
 
I don't believe any of this shit applies any longer. Our nations are open war zones.

If there is no clear indication the shooter was NOT in danger or the perp was NOT in fact committing a crime or actively resisting, that's all I need to see.

People who fire their weapons should not be unduly harassed and have their lives and motives dissected, the state now poses a greater danger than the criminal. And I don't care about some CLEARLY guilty little shits "rights".

50k a year to house inmates is too much and there's too many criminals to hold in our jails so they end up going free early, we get punished either way.

Hot lead is where we come out ahead and I'm all for it.
 
Last edited:
Fair point. Police should try to humanize the situation and calm the parties involved. The use of force (even grabbing) would be unnecessary if they could talk the person into complying.

"Hey calm down, I know this sucks. But it's part of my job, I have to arrest you". If they resist, then use force. I understand this isn't always applicable, but the idea that the police just walk up to someone yelling forcing commands is inherently going to lead to resistance as it is human nature.

I'm older than most on this site at 48 and I can tell you that I have a whole bunch of friends who became cops and they would brag that they never once drew their gun on duty despite being in some pretty dicey situations. They truly saw it as a last resort. They would try everything to control the situation without force which often leads to escalation.

They say the younger cops see it as a first resort. Gun out first. Bark orders and then try and take control.

I think that is where the police command must concentrate. Keep the guns in the holsters and hold cops to a high degree of accountability if they draw make. Make them justify it to what is called a 'reasonable man test' and punish them harshly when they cannot.
 
You compare because through comparison you can use critical analysis to compare the thresholds others are held to.

As you have done here, you look at examples in each and look at what the threshold of engagement is, and what is required before force is used.
Yes but you are not comparing apples to apples.
 
Most "good" cops do that. I put that in quotations because I'm not a cop, and it isn't fair of me to pass judgment on those who are, or to imply that those cops who don't have the best social skills aren't good at their jobs. I see a lot of really young and inexperienced cops out on the street who just haven't learned how to handle people yet. At the same time, the police cannot allow people that they haven't searched or identified to just wander around an area that they also haven't searched. That's what the cops are trying to do as soon as they get there. Get control of the people in the area and the area itself so they can search it and them if need be, so that they can simply find out what the hell is even happening. If you impede them in doing that they are going to come at you hard because they assume you're up to something. Most people just see that as "this cop is a jerk".

You see it in the Tamir Rice shooting. Cops are given limited information and expected to figure the situation out when they get there. That's how their training and thier response to people who aren't listening or don't comply is designed and why it is what it is. They don't really know what's going on when they get there. It's up to them to figure it out. Imagine if every single day, multiple times a day your job was drive to this area, "dudes fighting, one might be a white guy, one might not, go figure it out" then when you get there everybody is yelling and nobody will listen to you and is acting crazy. How do you get control of that? you might have to throw folks on the ground or tase a dude or two. Cops are there to get the situation under control right now. Then they'll find out what is going on. But not until the situation is under control.
Also people forget that the police will protect themselves, the suspect and the public. A lot of times being cuffed is for your own protection. So that again you are not wondering around while the cop is trying to investigate. No cop is going to just let you stand there freely while they turn their back and search a car.

Also like the situatio in baton Rouge, they are struggling with the guy, they see he has a gun. if he gets to that gun, he may not shoot a cop but may pull the trigger and accidentially shoot a bystandard. Now what happens if that bystandard is a little boy or girl, then the outrage is , you saw he had a gun, why didn't you shoot him before he got to it and killed my little baby.
 
Also people forget that the police will protect themselves, the suspect and the public. A lot of times being cuffed is for your own protection. So that again you are not wondering around while the cop is trying to investigate. No cop is going to just let you stand there freely while they turn their back and search a car.

Also like the situatio in baton Rouge, they are struggling with the guy, they see he has a gun. if he gets to that gun, he may not shoot a cop but may pull the trigger and accidentially shoot a bystandard. Now what happens if that bystandard is a little boy or girl, then the outrage is , you saw he had a gun, why didn't you shoot him before he got to it and killed my little baby.

People do get cuffed frequently than uncuffed once the cops find out what the hell is going on. That's all they're trying to do.
 
People do get cuffed frequently than uncuffed once the cops find out what the hell is going on. That's all they're trying to do.
That was my point, people get cuffed, the cop investigates and then gets unciffed. But a cop is not going to let you just walk around willy nilly while he is bent over in a car.

You being cuffed and placed in the back of the car also stops any of you scratchin your balls and a cop thinks you got something in your waist band.

I'm sure you've hear it all, why you gotta cuff them, why you gotta be so rough, why can't you just talk to him. Because until you investigate, you don't know if dude has 2 strikes and is afraid of his third so while you are being nice and "talking" to him, he punches you in the throat and snatches your gun and shoots you.

People need to remember cops are being called into a fucked up situation already, it's not like they are walking into work clocking in and then talking to Janice at the next cubicle.

A lot of people runnin their mouth that have never been in situations like these where you have to make split second decisions with very little info. Then we get half the info and people run off at the mouth talking about what they coulda, should, woulda done.

Bull Shit--- you'd of been there pullin that trigger to motherfucker.
 
just talk to him. Because until you investigate, you don't know if dude has 2 strikes and is afraid of his third so while you are being nice and "talking" to him, he punches you in the throat and snatches your gun and shoots you.

That's kind of the problem. Most people aren't second strike career criminals ready to bust a cop at first sign of an issue, and treating everyone like they are is how you escalate situations.
 
Back
Top