California considering unprecedented law restricting police from fire arm use

[martybegan]

Well under the nessasary standard even if the kid pointed said toy gun at the cop the cop would be liable for shooting him, because the cop was never in any real danger. of course the cop wouldn't know that until after the fact.

I also noticed you didn't answer my specific scenario, and instead brought up another example.

The issue isn't changing the standard, the issue is holding them to a stronger version of "reasonable"

A cop making sure that a threat is real isn't too much to ask for. Too many kids with plastic guns being killed, and people reaching for their ID being shot. Yes, being a cop is a dangerous job, but they knew the danger before they took the job, and they don't have a right to kill people every time they are in doubt.

If the gun is real instead of plastic his first indication is a bullet in him or her.

Changing the standard to nessasary is an overreaction that would lead to mass resignations of police officers, or police officers not going on any calls anymore without SWAT backup.

And sometimes an ID is reached for, sometimes a gun is reached for, so basically the cops would only be able to shoot back AFTER the other side fires their first bullet.

So the SOP should be to shoot when a person reaches for his wallet, even after the cop told him to show his license? Your Cop, Judge, Jury, and Executioner attitude is why cops are receiving less respect by the day. The badge makes you a cop. It doesn't make you God.

That's not what I am saying and you know it. You don't want to admit a "nessasary" standard would make cops liable for shooting someone running at them unarmed, liable if some idiot pulled a toy gun out or aimed one at them, liable if they were only armed with a knife 50 feet away from them but moving slowly towards them (when would it be "nessasary" to shoot them at that point?)

I'm not sure. I know of one incident where a man with one arm and one leg in a wheelchair , in a well lit room and armed with a ball point pin was shot and killed because the cops were afraid for their lives. Yes, the cops knew it was only a ball point pen.

Then what is needed is a proper definition of reasonable and the elimination of most forms of qualified immunity, not changing the standard to nessasary.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Qualified people will just do something else, or find another police department. Those with an agenda will become police. They will simply avoid engaging.

 

[BULLDOG]

Qualified people will just do something else, or find another police department. Those with an agenda will become police. They will simply avoid engaging.

If they don't want to do the job, then they should do something else.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Qualified people will just do something else, or find another police department. Those with an agenda will become police. They will simply avoid engaging.

If they don't want to do the job, then they should do something else.

Or somewhere else. The police departments in California will just degrade. In dangerous situations they just won't show up. It's not like this has never happened before. It's what's going on in Baltimore right now.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

Depends on who defines "isn't necessary".
I agree that the police are too militarized, and excessive force is a problem, and a persons race can determine the outcome of a confrontation. However, it is also true that a persons race can determine the confrontation itself.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Black people have been after a right to commit crimes for decades. This new law might be described as "one free shot" with the police taking the bet.

They won't. Those that will, will also be likely to use their position to make a little money on the side as a form of paying them for the increased risk they are supposed to take.

 

[BULLDOG]

Black people have been after a right to commit crimes for decades. This new law might be described as "one free shot" with the police taking the bet.

They won't. Those that will, will also be likely to use their position to make a little money on the side as a form of paying them for the increased risk they are supposed to take.

So now you're trying to justify crooked cops. Thanks for the right wing ethics lesson. It was very informative.

 

[skookerasbil]

Well under the nessasary standard even if the kid pointed said toy gun at the cop the cop would be liable for shooting him, because the cop was never in any real danger. of course the cop wouldn't know that until after the fact.

I also noticed you didn't answer my specific scenario, and instead brought up another example.

The issue isn't changing the standard, the issue is holding them to a stronger version of "reasonable"

A cop making sure that a threat is real isn't too much to ask for. Too many kids with plastic guns being killed, and people reaching for their ID being shot. Yes, being a cop is a dangerous job, but they knew the danger before they took the job, and they don't have a right to kill people every time they are in doubt.

If the gun is real instead of plastic his first indication is a bullet in him or her.

Changing the standard to nessasary is an overreaction that would lead to mass resignations of police officers, or police officers not going on any calls anymore without SWAT backup.

And sometimes an ID is reached for, sometimes a gun is reached for, so basically the cops would only be able to shoot back AFTER the other side fires their first bullet.

So the SOP should be to shoot when a person reaches for his wallet, even after the cop told him to show his license? Your Cop, Judge, Jury, and Executioner attitude is why cops are receiving less respect by the day. The badge makes you a cop. It doesn't make you God.

That's not what I am saying and you know it. You don't want to admit a "nessasary" standard would make cops liable for shooting someone running at them unarmed, liable if some idiot pulled a toy gun out or aimed one at them, liable if they were only armed with a knife 50 feet away from them but moving slowly towards them (when would it be "nessasary" to shoot them at that point?)

I'm not sure. I know of one incident where a man with one arm and one leg in a wheelchair , in a well lit room and armed with a ball point pin was shot and killed because the cops were afraid for their lives. Yes, the cops knew it was only a ball point pen.

So the solution of the progressive is to take away the cops guns....

OK..... thankfully for the rest of us fringe thinking like that doesnt enter into the realm of public policy

 

[skookerasbil]

Black people have been after a right to commit crimes for decades. This new law might be described as "one free shot" with the police taking the bet.

They won't. Those that will, will also be likely to use their position to make a little money on the side as a form of paying them for the increased risk they are supposed to take.

So now you're trying to justify crooked cops. Thanks for the right wing ethics lesson. It was very informative.

No dummy.....our solutions don't include cutting the balls off all policemen because of a handful of crooked cops.

Call me the a****** here but last time I checked there are crooked people in every field.

 

[BULLDOG]

A cop making sure that a threat is real isn't too much to ask for. Too many kids with plastic guns being killed, and people reaching for their ID being shot. Yes, being a cop is a dangerous job, but they knew the danger before they took the job, and they don't have a right to kill people every time they are in doubt.

If the gun is real instead of plastic his first indication is a bullet in him or her.

Changing the standard to nessasary is an overreaction that would lead to mass resignations of police officers, or police officers not going on any calls anymore without SWAT backup.

And sometimes an ID is reached for, sometimes a gun is reached for, so basically the cops would only be able to shoot back AFTER the other side fires their first bullet.

So the SOP should be to shoot when a person reaches for his wallet, even after the cop told him to show his license? Your Cop, Judge, Jury, and Executioner attitude is why cops are receiving less respect by the day. The badge makes you a cop. It doesn't make you God.

That's not what I am saying and you know it. You don't want to admit a "nessasary" standard would make cops liable for shooting someone running at them unarmed, liable if some idiot pulled a toy gun out or aimed one at them, liable if they were only armed with a knife 50 feet away from them but moving slowly towards them (when would it be "nessasary" to shoot them at that point?)

I'm not sure. I know of one incident where a man with one arm and one leg in a wheelchair , in a well lit room and armed with a ball point pin was shot and killed because the cops were afraid for their lives. Yes, the cops knew it was only a ball point pen.

So the solution of the progressive is to take away the cops guns....

OK..... thankfully for the rest of us fringe thinking like that doesnt enter into the realm of public policy

That would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Black people have been after a right to commit crimes for decades. This new law might be described as "one free shot" with the police taking the bet.

They won't. Those that will, will also be likely to use their position to make a little money on the side as a form of paying them for the increased risk they are supposed to take.

So now you're trying to justify crooked cops. Thanks for the right wing ethics lesson. It was very informative.

Reality does not need to be justified. It just is. Once the job becomes so onerous and dangerous that qualified people find something else to do, because they can, the alternative is unqualified, or those with an agenda.

 

[BULLDOG]

Black people have been after a right to commit crimes for decades. This new law might be described as "one free shot" with the police taking the bet.

They won't. Those that will, will also be likely to use their position to make a little money on the side as a form of paying them for the increased risk they are supposed to take.

So now you're trying to justify crooked cops. Thanks for the right wing ethics lesson. It was very informative.

Reality does not need to be justified. It just is. Once the job becomes so onerous and dangerous that qualified people find something else to do, because they can, the alternative is unqualified, or those with an agenda.

If you say so.....now, will you shut up?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Black people have been after a right to commit crimes for decades. This new law might be described as "one free shot" with the police taking the bet.

They won't. Those that will, will also be likely to use their position to make a little money on the side as a form of paying them for the increased risk they are supposed to take.

So now you're trying to justify crooked cops. Thanks for the right wing ethics lesson. It was very informative.

Reality does not need to be justified. It just is. Once the job becomes so onerous and dangerous that qualified people find something else to do, because they can, the alternative is unqualified, or those with an agenda.

If you say so.....now, will you shut up?

Now that you have admitted that you cannot refute what I say, I will be happy to shut up, for the moment. To get me to permanently shut up, you will have to do better than being an internet hot shot.

 

[BULLDOG]

Black people have been after a right to commit crimes for decades. This new law might be described as "one free shot" with the police taking the bet.

They won't. Those that will, will also be likely to use their position to make a little money on the side as a form of paying them for the increased risk they are supposed to take.

So now you're trying to justify crooked cops. Thanks for the right wing ethics lesson. It was very informative.

Reality does not need to be justified. It just is. Once the job becomes so onerous and dangerous that qualified people find something else to do, because they can, the alternative is unqualified, or those with an agenda.

If you say so.....now, will you shut up?

Now that you have admitted that you cannot refute what I say, I will be happy to shut up, for the moment. To get me to permanently shut up, you will have to do better than being an internet hot shot.

No reason to refute what you say. It's bullshit. It refutes its self

 

[skookerasbil]

Black people have been after a right to commit crimes for decades. This new law might be described as "one free shot" with the police taking the bet.

They won't. Those that will, will also be likely to use their position to make a little money on the side as a form of paying them for the increased risk they are supposed to take.

So now you're trying to justify crooked cops. Thanks for the right wing ethics lesson. It was very informative.

Reality does not need to be justified. It just is. Once the job becomes so onerous and dangerous that qualified people find something else to do, because they can, the alternative is unqualified, or those with an agenda.

If you say so.....now, will you shut up?

Now that you have admitted that you cannot refute what I say, I will be happy to shut up, for the moment. To get me to permanently shut up, you will have to do better than being an internet hot shot.

Tipsy.....you get to a point where you realize the thinking of some people is just fcuked.....its tough debating a mental case.

Take solace in knowing that folks who think like Bulldog are decidedly fringe.

The progressive assholes have been pissing and screaming and moaning since the fat black kid with the red cap got his ass shot off in St Louis about 3 years ago......and what has changed?

Dick

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Black people have been after a right to commit crimes for decades. This new law might be described as "one free shot" with the police taking the bet.

They won't. Those that will, will also be likely to use their position to make a little money on the side as a form of paying them for the increased risk they are supposed to take.

So now you're trying to justify crooked cops. Thanks for the right wing ethics lesson. It was very informative.

Reality does not need to be justified. It just is. Once the job becomes so onerous and dangerous that qualified people find something else to do, because they can, the alternative is unqualified, or those with an agenda.

If you say so.....now, will you shut up?

Now that you have admitted that you cannot refute what I say, I will be happy to shut up, for the moment. To get me to permanently shut up, you will have to do better than being an internet hot shot.

Tipsy.....you get to a point where you realize the thinking of some people is just fcuked.....its tough debating a mental case.

Take solace in knowing that folks who think like Bulldog are decidedly fringe.

The progressive assholes have been pissing and screaming and moaning since the fat black kid with the red cap got his ass shot off in St Louis about 3 years ago......and what has changed?

Dick

It's the nonsense spewed by people like Bulldog that have made the cities the hell holes that they are. This is how Baltimore became Baltimore and Chicago became Chicago.

The cartels advertise for police along the border. They call it 'Plata o Plombo'. Silver or lead. In cities where the police are themselves put in danger by asinine city rules, the police have a choice, they can collect their salaries, turn a blind eye toward criminals and get silver on the side. Silver or lead. The laws make them lean towards the silver.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That already happened, only the kid didn't even point it at the cop. He just had a toy gun in his hand. The cop just drove up and killed the kid within a couple of seconds. That is not the way it should work.

Well under the nessasary standard even if the kid pointed said toy gun at the cop the cop would be liable for shooting him, because the cop was never in any real danger. of course the cop wouldn't know that until after the fact.

I also noticed you didn't answer my specific scenario, and instead brought up another example.

The issue isn't changing the standard, the issue is holding them to a stronger version of "reasonable"

A cop making sure that a threat is real isn't too much to ask for. Too many kids with plastic guns being killed, and people reaching for their ID being shot. Yes, being a cop is a dangerous job, but they knew the danger before they took the job, and they don't have a right to kill people every time they are in doubt.

If the gun is real instead of plastic his first indication is a bullet in him or her.

Changing the standard to nessasary is an overreaction that would lead to mass resignations of police officers, or police officers not going on any calls anymore without SWAT backup.

And sometimes an ID is reached for, sometimes a gun is reached for, so basically the cops would only be able to shoot back AFTER the other side fires their first bullet.

So the SOP should be to shoot when a person reaches for his wallet, even after the cop told him to show his license? Your Cop, Judge, Jury, and Executioner attitude is why cops are receiving less respect by the day. The badge makes you a cop. It doesn't make you God.

I carry my ID and my Carry permit in my shirt pocket so I don't have to reach behind my back to get them.

But I guess that's just too much common sense to ask of the general public

The fact that you need to do that to not get murdered is just indescribably disturbing.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Well under the nessasary standard even if the kid pointed said toy gun at the cop the cop would be liable for shooting him, because the cop was never in any real danger. of course the cop wouldn't know that until after the fact.

I also noticed you didn't answer my specific scenario, and instead brought up another example.

The issue isn't changing the standard, the issue is holding them to a stronger version of "reasonable"

A cop making sure that a threat is real isn't too much to ask for. Too many kids with plastic guns being killed, and people reaching for their ID being shot. Yes, being a cop is a dangerous job, but they knew the danger before they took the job, and they don't have a right to kill people every time they are in doubt.

If the gun is real instead of plastic his first indication is a bullet in him or her.

Changing the standard to nessasary is an overreaction that would lead to mass resignations of police officers, or police officers not going on any calls anymore without SWAT backup.

And sometimes an ID is reached for, sometimes a gun is reached for, so basically the cops would only be able to shoot back AFTER the other side fires their first bullet.

So the SOP should be to shoot when a person reaches for his wallet, even after the cop told him to show his license? Your Cop, Judge, Jury, and Executioner attitude is why cops are receiving less respect by the day. The badge makes you a cop. It doesn't make you God.

That's not what I am saying and you know it. You don't want to admit a "nessasary" standard would make cops liable for shooting someone running at them unarmed, liable if some idiot pulled a toy gun out or aimed one at them, liable if they were only armed with a knife 50 feet away from them but moving slowly towards them (when would it be "nessasary" to shoot them at that point?)

I'm not sure. I know of one incident where a man with one arm and one leg in a wheelchair , in a well lit room and armed with a ball point pin was shot and killed because the cops were afraid for their lives. Yes, the cops knew it was only a ball point pen.

What the FUCK?

 

[Aba Incieni]

Another brilliant prog idea. Disarm the police, but not the criminals.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Black people have been after a right to commit crimes for decades. This new law might be described as "one free shot" with the police taking the bet.

They won't. Those that will, will also be likely to use their position to make a little money on the side as a form of paying them for the increased risk they are supposed to take.

So now you're trying to justify crooked cops. Thanks for the right wing ethics lesson. It was very informative.

She isn't "right wing". She is either psychotic, or a pathetic troll.