SoCal cops shoot unarmed airman

[Fly Navy]

Maybe no one is trained to shoot to injure, sure...are you saying that one never should, regardless of the circumstances? If I saw someone running away from me just for the sake of avoiding prosecution, what good does it do to drop him? One less "immoral" person in the world? Stupidity may deserve a death warrant, but I don't harbor some weird illusion that if I were to draw a gun, I'd have to shoot someone in the chest or else be delinquent. No one who isn't on PCP would continue to get up and attack you hand-to-hand if you put one through his kneecap, or better yet three. Or is this the age of Homeland Security, where that kind of dereliction might let thousands be killed? To be sure, the PD would back you up if you killed the sonofa*****, but there's no point in having a police department if that's the only way...why not just have an execution squad. Input from anyone who's ever covered someone with a gun at close range would be helpful here.

Wow man.

Firing a gun at someone is the use of deadly force. There is NO other way to put it. It's like hitting someone in the head with a baseball bat. You do not use deadly force without the justification of KILLING someone. The State has more justification for the use of deadly force than Joe Citizen, for better and for worse. That being said, the end result isn't always death.

Putting a bullet in a kneecap? Stop believing everything you see in movies. You've seen actual shootings on tape right? This one for example (even if it is a bad shoot). They happen lightening fast. Blazingly fast. Almost all gun fights are OVER in a period of mere seconds, usually in less than 6 bullets fired. You shoot the LARGEST target available. That's universal training, from police to military to Joe Citizen. I got a chance to do timed "stress fire" with the police before. It's fast. Nothing like you'd expect and nothing like you ever see on TV or the movies. And that's just training. I've never shot at a person, I can't even imagine the stress load.

You do not have the capability under stress and adrenaline and pure fear to aim nicely and shoot a kneecap. Some people do, they're highly trained. They are not street cops and they aren't you or I. Some people just get lucky.

 

[pilot_man]

Who cares about all that gun crap, how accurate he was or not. He pulled the trigger didn't he. Nor what some internal inquiry shows, that was horse****. That fvcking cop needs to get the **** kicked out of him. I'm glad that was on video.

 

[A4sForever]

Maybe no one is trained to shoot to injure, sure...are you saying that one never should, regardless of the circumstances? If I saw someone running away from me just for the sake of avoiding prosecution, what good does it do to drop him? One less "immoral" person in the world? Stupidity may deserve a death warrant, but I don't harbor some weird illusion that if I were to draw a gun, I'd have to shoot someone in the chest or else be delinquent. No one who isn't on PCP would continue to get up and attack you hand-to-hand if you put one through his kneecap, or better yet three. Or is this the age of Homeland Security, where that kind of dereliction might let thousands be killed? To be sure, the PD would back you up if you killed the sonofa*****, but there's no point in having a police department if that's the only way...why not just have an execution squad. Input from anyone who's ever covered someone with a gun at close range would be helpful here.

There's so much to criticize here, my eyes glaze over --- and time and inclination do not permit.

Let's keep it simple:

You show a great ignorance of why one carries a firearm, whether a sworn LEO or a licensed civilian. You show an even greater ignorance of why and when a firearm is used in extremis. It's well that you don't participate in a vocation that requires you to carry a firearm or contemplate the reality of lethal force .... and I don't think you should.

The irony is you are training to fly an aircraft that can carry weapons that make a handgun look insignificant by comparison ... ??? Are you contemplating dropping a PGM at some future point in time to "wound" or "warn"???

 

[highlyrandom]

"wow man"? I said absolutely nothing about a gun fight. I specifically referred to you already covering someone, finger on the trigger. Deadly force is just that, to be sure, so why give anyone a nightstick or a tazer? My only real problem is the philosophy that if you don't beg for mercy and lie there, you automatically deserve to die. I just don't want to be staggeringly drunk walking around and be perceived as a deadly-force-authorized threat merely because the policeman "doesn't know how much of a threat I might be." Yeah, the answer is "don't walk around drunk", you got me, I'm not a Boy Scout anymore.

It's not even really an argument, but is it your point (besides the patronizing element) that I have to like the answer? I'll agree with the logic, I'm just saying that there is a small element of doubt in your argument, i.e. "The State has more justification for the use of deadly force than Joe Citizen, for better and for worse..." I'd substitute authorization for justification, if there's really a "worse" to it. But if the "justification" for deadly force is a physical threat to the officer, and not a threat to the State or its citizens, then the State has exactly the same justification as Joe Citizen.

 

[Fly Navy]

"Deadly force is just that, to be sure, so why give anyone a nightstick or a tazer?

The police have some obligation to bring you in alive, Joe Citizen has no obligation. That's the big difference really. If they can apprehend you running away with a tazer shot in the back instead of a gunshot, all the better. Obviously Joe Citizen should not be in that situation.

My only real problem is the philosophy that if you don't beg for mercy and lie there, you automatically deserve to die.

High speed chase... police officer has a weapon on you... he's pumped up, pissed at you for putting his life at risk... are you gonna be moving slow and predictable? Or are you going to not agree with that "philosophy" and buck the trend and see if he shoots you? Self preservation man... I'm gonna be moving slow and predictable.

I just don't want to be staggeringly drunk walking around and be perceived as a deadly-force-authorized threat merely because the policeman "doesn't know how much of a threat I might be." Yeah, the answer is "don't walk around drunk", you got me, I'm not a Boy Scout anymore.

Walking around drunk isn't a threat by itself. You'd had to be being aggressive and belligerant to warrant a Felony Stop from an officer for being drunk... that or the police are Jack Boots.

I'll agree with the logic, I'm just saying that there is a small element of doubt in your argument, i.e. "The State has more justification for the use of deadly force than Joe Citizen, for better and for worse..." I'd substitute authorization for justification, if there's really a "worse" to it. But if the "justification" for deadly force is a physical threat to the officer, and not a threat to the State or its citizens, then the State has exactly the same justification as Joe Citizen.

This is a little convoluted, can you rephrase?

 

[highlyrandom]

And A4s, you're right, I should probably resign. Look, I'm not ignorant of anything you just said. The question I asked isn't some blind rant against police powers, it's an attempt to grasp every aspect of the idea of lethal force, especially the parts I won't see since I'm not a policeman. I might add, I am in a profession where that contemplation is rather essential, but I'm new at it...quit now because I've been learning too much unarmed self-defense? Sure.

If I knew who you were, I'd turn in my permit to carry to you, personally, so you could be sure I wouldn't slip up and make a bad decision based on what I watched on television. If it would make you happy. Otherwise let me ask the damn question, get yelled at for it, and learn...I know when and when not to shoot someone, I'm trying to understand it from an authority's point of view. Ask the Coasties why they don't just kill the drug boat drivers, instead of using a large-caliber firearm on the engine block.

I'm 23, for chrisssake, if my home upbringing doesn't automatically answer these delicate questions of when to shoot someone, it's people like you who should inform me, not ask me to be a civilian.

Fly, no offense intended, man. I just meant that if the policeman is justified in shooting you because policemen are in a stressful line of work, then let's call it that. I'd agree. The State (capital S) may be indiscriminate in writing the rules, but the agent doesn't have to be.

 

[Fly Navy]

Fly, no offense intended, man.

No offense taken. My "wow man" was a reaction more to the kneecap thing. I know you probably threw it out there as more of an extreme kind of example, as both of us know it's not realistic.

The State (capital S) may be indiscriminate in writing the rules, but the agent doesn't have to be.

Much wisdom to be had in this statement. Exactly what I say. Police seem to not use their heads more and more as time goes on and unthinkingly (my new word fo the evening) enforce the laws without regard to situation. Personal discretion goes a long way.

 

[highlyrandom]

Query: if I don't have what it takes to be a policeman, does it logically follow that I couldn't stand watch with a firearm?

I'm going to argue for "no," but if anyone wants to argue for a resignation, feel free. I say "don't come any closer to the aircraft, sir," that's a warning. You don't get a second one, since it's not just my ass but everyone else's. That's an easy one. Actively searching out criminals who look like ordinary people and might even vote Republican, well, I won't quit my day job, even if I rightfully should. Thanks again.

 

[Lonestar]

Of course we do not know the information the officer was operating on. Another LEO could have reported that he/she saw a weapon and the arresting officer proceeded with this knowledge. Did the officer make a bad decision, from what has been reported, one could possibly make the assumption as such. We do not know the circumstances involved with the reaction thus far.

 

[Lawman]

Of course we do not know the information the officer was operating on. Another LEO could have reported that he/she saw a weapon and the arresting officer proceeded with this knowledge. Did the officer make a bad decision, from what has been reported, one could possibly make the assumption as such. We do not know the circumstances involved with the reaction thus far.

Come sit with me my friend. Theres plenty of room up here on the fence.

 

[A4sForever]

And A4s, you're right, I should probably resign. ........ my home upbringing doesn't automatically answer these delicate questions of when to shoot someone, it's people like you who should inform me, not ask me to be a civilian..

I don't think that's what I said. It's easy to misunderstand one's intent on an INTERNET "forum" --- to clarify: I didn't say you should resign. I have never told another officer to resign --- that is something that each of us has to deal with --- within ourselves.

Your firearm/lethal force comments just mirrored a lot of uniformed -- yes, ignorant --- blather that I've heard and analyzed and dealt with over the years. Your attitude is usually based in ignorance -- If it's not --- it's just plain wrong. Plus, I suspect you've never been mugged, robbed, or assaulted. There's nothing quite like a "liberal attitude" change when one has been put in fear for their lives. But I doubt that there is anything terminal, here. A lack of knowledge, by definition, can be cured with knowledge of the subject and a proper attitude. Closed minds and preconceived notions make one deaf and blind.

You just need to keep in mind what "job" you've signed up for .... that point still stands.

You are training to become a fighter/ATTACK (emphasis intentional) pilot??? Irony still permeates the discussion as well. You do realize that being a Naval Aviator is not a kinder, gentler profession, yes??

Resign?? I would hope not. Then we've "lost" one before you've hardly got started. But --- as with everyone here --- that's up to you --- not me.

 

[highlyrandom]

I think the real direction of my commentary was that shooting someone requires stopping them and likely killing them, no problem with that, but drawing a weapon does not require shooting someone, especially if the circumstances under which you drew that weapon change on the spot.

Excuse the anger, I've been confronted by a knife-armed individual before I turned 18, and if that confrontation had turned to an attack today, the response would have been clear. Just as it would be with PGMs or any kind of military weapons. I still maintain that the rulebook for police is slightly different, not in intent but in the possibility of bringing someone in alive, where, like we all stated, Joe Citizen rightfully either shoots for the center of mass or doesn't draw a weapon at all.

My diction in the matter has also been affected by recent TSA abuses.

 

[sarnav]

Like has been pointed out we are not fully aware of all the facts. Does it look bad for the Officer-sure does, but it is not my place to say. For the shoot to wound theory-If you do go into the military and receive your commission you would never do that. I think the phrase you would use in you AARs is I shot X number of well aimed shots at the targets center mass. No hollywood double taps, two in the chest/one in the head garbage. It is nice to see that future leaders are hanging Law Enforcement Officers out to dry without all the facts though.

 

[Brett327]

Just like everyone else, I don't know all the facts, but it's interesting how the fact that this guy is a servicemember affects people's opinion of who's right/wrong here. Would we be so quick to jump on the actions of the cop if the victim had been a garden variety scumbag from the hood? I'll be the first to admit that it doesn't look good for the officer from the tape, but the victim certainly wasn't the model of complicity either. When a cop has you on the ground at gunpoint after a chase, you should probably not utter inflamatory statements like "I've been a cop for longer than you have" or "I'm on your side, man," as through the cops are going to say, "Oh well nevermind that high speed chase, if you're in the military then it's all good - you're free to go." You should probably STFU and be as calm as possible.

Brett

 

[Fly Navy]

Just like everyone else, I don't know all the facts, but it's interesting how the fact that this guy is a servicemember affects people's opinion of who's right/wrong here. Would we be so quick to jump on the actions of the cop if the victim had been a garden variety scumbag from the hood? I'll be the first to admit that it doesn't look good for the officer from the tape, but the victim certainly wasn't the model of complicity either. When a cop has you on the ground at gunpoint after a chase, you should probably not utter inflamatory statements like "I've been a cop for longer than you have" or "I'm on your side, man," as through the cops are going to say, "Oh well nevermind that high speed chase, if you're in the military then it's all good - you're free to go." You should probably STFU and be as calm as possible.

Brett

Amen.

General rule of thumb: If a police officer with an itchy finger is pointing a gun at you, don't fvcking move.

We'll see how this pans out, who knows, maybe the dude was armed or just attacked someone several minutes ago. Maybe the cop is completely out of line. We'll see.