Thug charges cop; Fights him...TAKES gun...shoots cop in chest; Hey...better than a riot though.

[TheOldSchool]

Give them cameras to wear = no more controversies

 

[bucs90]

Give them cameras to wear = no more controversies

Ok...FINALLY a lefty offers an actual legit response. So you're saying the tactic isn't a problem....it's the trustworthiness of the account of the story. Ok. We disagree on how honest most cops are....BUT we can agree that cameras are good. Body cams for all cops. I'm for that. It would clear up some of it. Inevitable that some video won't be clear....like in a close quarter fight the camera will be covered up.

But yes...that's a good idea. At least we'll see some of it. But the camera won't show a person's hand grabbing for a gun....because the camera isn't pointed down towards the hip.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So you're saying the tactic isn't a problem

 

[TheOldSchool]

Give them cameras to wear = no more controversies

Ok...FINALLY a lefty offers an actual legit response. So you're saying the tactic isn't a problem....it's the trustworthiness of the account of the story. Ok. We disagree on how honest most cops are....BUT we can agree that cameras are good. Body cams for all cops. I'm for that. It would clear up some of it. Inevitable that some video won't be clear....like in a close quarter fight the camera will be covered up.

But yes...that's a good idea. At least we'll see some of it. But the camera won't show a person's hand grabbing for a gun....because the camera isn't pointed down towards the hip.

If Darren Wilson had been wearing a camera, there would have been no riots.

 

[bucs90]

So you're saying the tactic isn't a problem

Well....is it? You haven't offered an alternative. When 2 men are fighting for control of 1 gun....how is that gonna end?

 

[bucs90]

Give them cameras to wear = no more controversies

Ok...FINALLY a lefty offers an actual legit response. So you're saying the tactic isn't a problem....it's the trustworthiness of the account of the story. Ok. We disagree on how honest most cops are....BUT we can agree that cameras are good. Body cams for all cops. I'm for that. It would clear up some of it. Inevitable that some video won't be clear....like in a close quarter fight the camera will be covered up.

But yes...that's a good idea. At least we'll see some of it. But the camera won't show a person's hand grabbing for a gun....because the camera isn't pointed down towards the hip.

If Darren Wilson had been wearing a camera, there would have been no riots.

That may be true. I appreciate the legitimate response. And I too support body cams. Not for the same reason maybe you do....but I'm on board.

 

[sealybobo]

Give them cameras to wear = no more controversies

Ok...FINALLY a lefty offers an actual legit response. So you're saying the tactic isn't a problem....it's the trustworthiness of the account of the story. Ok. We disagree on how honest most cops are....BUT we can agree that cameras are good. Body cams for all cops. I'm for that. It would clear up some of it. Inevitable that some video won't be clear....like in a close quarter fight the camera will be covered up.

But yes...that's a good idea. At least we'll see some of it. But the camera won't show a person's hand grabbing for a gun....because the camera isn't pointed down towards the hip.

If you are resisting arrest and a scuffle breaks out and off camera you got shot, the cop is not guilty when you didn't comply with his verbal command. This is what people (black) need to learn. Put your hands behind your back means put your hands behind your back. It's not a request it's a command.

If the fat black in NYC followed this rule he'd be alive today.

And yes a cop should be able to shoot someone who drives away when pulled over. They might use that vehicle as a weapon. No more running from the cops or resisting arrest.

I'm a liberal.

 

[bucs90]

Give them cameras to wear = no more controversies

Ok...FINALLY a lefty offers an actual legit response. So you're saying the tactic isn't a problem....it's the trustworthiness of the account of the story. Ok. We disagree on how honest most cops are....BUT we can agree that cameras are good. Body cams for all cops. I'm for that. It would clear up some of it. Inevitable that some video won't be clear....like in a close quarter fight the camera will be covered up.

But yes...that's a good idea. At least we'll see some of it. But the camera won't show a person's hand grabbing for a gun....because the camera isn't pointed down towards the hip.

If you are resisting arrest and a scuffle breaks out and off camera you got shot, the cop is not guilty when you didn't comply with his verbal command. This is what people (black) need to learn. Put your hands behind your back means put your hands behind your back. It's not a request it's a command.

If the fat black in NYC followed this rule he'd be alive today.

And yes a cop should be able to shoot someone who drives away when pulled over. They might use that vehicle as a weapon. No more running from the cops or resisting arrest.

I'm a liberal.

I don't believe you think that....or that you're a liberal.

Resisting arrest should be met with deadly force ONLY if the resistance includes an action that could result in the cop being killed or suffering severe injury.

Cars fleeing? I'm almost 100% against car chases. Rare circumstances sure. But let it go. Too dangerous to the public. Now....if the fleeing driver is about to hit the cop or drag him underneath it? Maybe different.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Yet...when real incidents show that when an attacker takes a cops gun....the cop is shot with it....they cannot suggest a better solution on how to make sure that doesnt ever happen. I ask how an Academy should teach, say, a 5'6 130 pound female cop to defend her life should a 6'3 260 pound unarmed skinhead attack her and begin going for her gun. And liberals will respond with cartoon images and juvenile sarcasm.

 

[bucs90]

Well........seems the cop haters did it again. Bailed out of this thread like Goose in an F14.

 

[bucs90]

[...]

Yet...when real incidents show that when an attacker takes a cops gun....the cop is shot with it....they cannot suggest a better solution on how to make sure that doesnt ever happen. I ask how an Academy should teach, say, a 5'6 130 pound female cop to defend her life should a 6'3 260 pound unarmed skinhead attack her and begin going for her gun. And liberals will respond with cartoon images and juvenile sarcasm.

I was in the Marine Corps from 1956 to 1960. During that time there was a politically supported effort to assign Woman Marines to combat line companies -- a circumstance which had never before been considered. The Corps responded by allowing a platoon of women to process through the standard (thirteen week) Parris Island boot camp experience followed by the standard five week ITR (Infantry Training Regimen).

Not one of those females were able to complete the Parris Island experience, which is designed to approximate the physical and psychological rigors of sustained combat conditions. But I've learned the policy has changed in recent years and women marines are now being assigned to combat line companies.

When I was a young man living in New York City cops walked beats and every one I can remember was a big man who looked like he could kick some ass -- and most of them could. More recently I've seen some females in NYPD uniform whom I have no doubt I could easily overpower -- even at my old age. There is no question that these female cops have absolutely no choice if confronted by a strong, angry (or psychopathic) male but to use the gun -- or be seriously hurt. I also see a lot of relatively scrawny, utterly unimpressive-looking male cops, some of whom look out of place in a uniform which should project an authoritative image.

I believe this new equality-based policy is responsible in some measure to the rising level of disrespect for police in general. People see these obvious misfits and the impression is projected onto the uniform and all who wear it.

Combine this with the fact that the most basic function of the police officer has changed dramatically in recent decades. As mentioned, in New York City the police once walked beats and there was one car assigned to each sector. We knew the beat cops by name and, as mentioned, all were big, bad-ass guys. No wimps, no girls.

Today all cops ride in cars equipped with radios and computers. We don't know them. They are not recognizable components of our communities. They are strangers with badges and guns -- and when one of them goes off and does something really bad we don't relate in any way to that individual. We don't know him.[/u] We don't see a face. We see a uniform. And in the deeper levels of our minds an impression is formed.

You bring up some very good points. Cops should be strong and capable. Well trained in hand to hand and weapons. And...they should be more visible. But....we've allowed the profession to do something bad. A push for community policing has created a demand for softer, nicer, gentler cops. The diversity push of course has lowered standards. And a demand for quicker response time has put them all in cars.

It led to fewer truly capable cops. And less confidence in them. Many want metro sexual pretty boy cops who can whiz through computer software and do a PowerPoint presentation. Few want tattooed ex military or ex football types who eat steak with their coffee and kick in doors and would rather fist fight than taze someone. They're meanies. But which is more likely to panic in a fight and shoot someone??? We're hiring the former in droves. Not to mention the diversity hires.

You bring up excellent PR topics for sure.

 

[sealybobo]

Give them cameras to wear = no more controversies

Ok...FINALLY a lefty offers an actual legit response. So you're saying the tactic isn't a problem....it's the trustworthiness of the account of the story. Ok. We disagree on how honest most cops are....BUT we can agree that cameras are good. Body cams for all cops. I'm for that. It would clear up some of it. Inevitable that some video won't be clear....like in a close quarter fight the camera will be covered up.

But yes...that's a good idea. At least we'll see some of it. But the camera won't show a person's hand grabbing for a gun....because the camera isn't pointed down towards the hip.

If you are resisting arrest and a scuffle breaks out and off camera you got shot, the cop is not guilty when you didn't comply with his verbal command. This is what people (black) need to learn. Put your hands behind your back means put your hands behind your back. It's not a request it's a command.

If the fat black in NYC followed this rule he'd be alive today.

And yes a cop should be able to shoot someone who drives away when pulled over. They might use that vehicle as a weapon. No more running from the cops or resisting arrest.

I'm a liberal.

I don't believe you think that....or that you're a liberal.

Resisting arrest should be met with deadly force ONLY if the resistance includes an action that could result in the cop being killed or suffering severe injury.

Cars fleeing? I'm almost 100% against car chases. Rare circumstances sure. But let it go. Too dangerous to the public. Now....if the fleeing driver is about to hit the cop or drag him underneath it? Maybe different.

How do you know when a car pulls away squeeling the tires that the guy isn't going to turn around after 20 feet and come back to run you over? You don't know. Anyone who is pulling away from a cop that has pulled them over has serious mental problems and/or is hiding something. I say if you put that car in drive the cop should be able to put a hole in your head before you get even 1 foot away. Don't put that car in drive stupid!

I've heard gun lovers say that if a guy threatens you with a gun and runs away, should still be shot. Why? Because he may not be running away. He may be running for a better position.

 

[TheOldSchool]

We should make all cops into robots.

 

[bucs90]

Give them cameras to wear = no more controversies

Ok...FINALLY a lefty offers an actual legit response. So you're saying the tactic isn't a problem....it's the trustworthiness of the account of the story. Ok. We disagree on how honest most cops are....BUT we can agree that cameras are good. Body cams for all cops. I'm for that. It would clear up some of it. Inevitable that some video won't be clear....like in a close quarter fight the camera will be covered up.

But yes...that's a good idea. At least we'll see some of it. But the camera won't show a person's hand grabbing for a gun....because the camera isn't pointed down towards the hip.

If you are resisting arrest and a scuffle breaks out and off camera you got shot, the cop is not guilty when you didn't comply with his verbal command. This is what people (black) need to learn. Put your hands behind your back means put your hands behind your back. It's not a request it's a command.

If the fat black in NYC followed this rule he'd be alive today.

And yes a cop should be able to shoot someone who drives away when pulled over. They might use that vehicle as a weapon. No more running from the cops or resisting arrest.

I'm a liberal.

I don't believe you think that....or that you're a liberal.

Resisting arrest should be met with deadly force ONLY if the resistance includes an action that could result in the cop being killed or suffering severe injury.

Cars fleeing? I'm almost 100% against car chases. Rare circumstances sure. But let it go. Too dangerous to the public. Now....if the fleeing driver is about to hit the cop or drag him underneath it? Maybe different.

How do you know when a car pulls away squeeling the tires that the guy isn't going to turn around after 20 feet and come back to run you over? You don't know. Anyone who is pulling away from a cop that has pulled them over has serious mental problems and/or is hiding something. I say if you put that car in drive the cop should be able to put a hole in your head before you get even 1 foot away. Don't put that car in drive stupid!

I've heard gun lovers say that if a guy threatens you with a gun and runs away, should still be shot. Why? Because he may not be running away. He may be running for a better position.

Meh. Having encountered that countless times...they never turn back. If they do...and try to run you over...that's different.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I'm asking....if a 250 pound adult male is going for a cops gun....how should academies teach defending that? We see that if the man wins and gets the gun....cop is maybe dead. But if the cop shoots him....he's possibly jailed and fired, and riots burn the city.

[...]

The above hypothesis focuses on a major problem in the police/public relationship, which is the use of force and, mainly, the use of deadly force.

I'm recalling a time ('50s - '60s) in New York City when a cop had to actually see a deadly weapon in the hands of an aggressive subject to justify using his firearm. And Internal Affairs was very rigid and unequivocal about it. There was no latitude allowed for guessing on the cop's part.

Since then, as the result of a number of police officers being killed by armed subjects, the Supreme Court has issued a number of successive judgments, each allowing an increasing level (unspecified) of uncertainty where the use of deadly force by police is justified. As a result of these permissive judgments police began explaining their decision to use deadly force on pure supposition rather than affirmable fact. E.g., "I thought he was reaching for a weapon." Or the more common, "He reached for his waistband."

The first time such questionable but expedient excuses for using deadly force was accepted by a court a precedent was established which has grown into an administrative monster. The ability to simply take a life when convenient or desirable has reached a level exemplified in the South Carolina incident wherein a pissed-off cop deliberately and methodically aimed at a fleeing subject and shot him in the back -- seven times.

Of course this is not something all or most cops would do. But the impression formed by such examples resides at the pre-conscious level and it does not make determinant calculations as to how many cops do vs those who do not. It knows what it saw -- which is a cop shooting a fleeing minor offender in the back and attempting to justify it by subterfuge.

There is no doubt in any reasoning mind that the cop who did that has been conditioned by a presumptive notion acquired over the years that shooting someone is easy to justify. But the prevalence of video cameras in nearly everyone's pocket has caught up with that over-abused game and the result is emerging public outrage. The fact that only a small percentage of cops are guilty of such seriously abusive conduct is obscured by the aforementioned lack of contact and familiarity the public once had with its beat cops. People no longer know cops. All they know is a uniform, a badge and, very often, an authoritarian disposition.

 

[theHawk]

Wow. I couldn't have been more accurate. Liberals are responding to a legitimate question....with elementary school style childishness.

These aren't "liberals", they're assclowns that only know how to push an Agenda. They have no intention of having an honest debate on anything.

They are completely incapable of responding on a matter were we might all be in agreement, even if it is something as basic as a cop being able to defend his own life when it is genuinely being threatened. They are programmed to deflect, obstruct, and derail any dialogue that doesn't support their homo-progressive agenda.

 

[bucs90]

[...]

I'm asking....if a 250 pound adult male is going for a cops gun....how should academies teach defending that? We see that if the man wins and gets the gun....cop is maybe dead. But if the cop shoots him....he's possibly jailed and fired, and riots burn the city.

[...]

The above hypothesis focuses on a major problem in the police/public relationship, which is the use of force and, mainly, the use of deadly force.

I'm recalling a time ('50s - '60s) in New York City when a cop had to actually see a deadly weapon in the hands of an aggressive subject to justify using his firearm. And Internal Affairs was very rigid and unequivocal about it. There was no latitude allowed for guessing on the cop's part.

Since then, as the result of a number of police officers being killed by armed subjects, the Supreme Court has issued a number of successive judgments, each allowing an increasing level (unspecified) of uncertainty where the use of deadly force by police is justified. As a result of these permissive judgments police began explaining their decision to use deadly force on pure supposition rather than affirmable fact. E.g., "I thought he was reaching for a weapon." Or the more common, "He reached for his waistband."

The first time such questionable but expedient excuses for using deadly force was accepted by a court a precedent was established which has grown into an administrative monster. The ability to simply take a life when convenient or desirable has reached a level exemplified in the South Carolina incident wherein a pissed-off cop deliberately and methodically aimed at a fleeing subject and shot him in the back -- seven times.

Of course this is not something all or most cops would do. But the impression formed by such examples resides at the pre-conscious level and it does not make determinant calculations as to how many cops do vs those who do not. It knows what it saw -- which is a cop shooting a fleeing minor offender in the back and attempting to justify it by subterfuge.

There is no doubt in any reasoning mind that the cop who did that has been conditioned by a presumptive notion acquired over the years that shooting someone is easy to justify. But the prevalence of video cameras in nearly everyone's pocket has caught up with that over-abused game and the result is emerging public outrage. The fact that only a small percentage of cops are guilty of such seriously abusive conduct is obscured by the aforementioned lack of contact and familiarity the public once had with its beat cops. People no longer know cops. All they know is a uniform, a badge and, very often, an authoritarian disposition.

Yep. Again ...very good points. These SCOTUS rulings certainly changed things. Its given a cop the same standard of self defense any ordinary person would get. Plus maybe more...considering its reasonable for a cop who confronts a violent criminal to think the chance for violence is increased due to the nature of that confrontation. And you're right...the distance between officers and citizens has grown...and even though a small % do contraversial things, the uniform they do it in is associated with all.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

SO.....cop haters....when someone goes for a cops gun....what should they do? The fight is on. Lose that fight....and you may very well be dead. So....should police academies continue to train cops that when someone fights for the gun...deadly force is authorized? If not...why not?

The obvious answer to your question poses a quandary. Of course a subject who is attempting to seize a cop's gun represents an implicit lethal threat, which justifies the use of lethal force to repel. It is self defense, plain and simple. But the flaw in the hypothesis is equally obvious.

Back in the '50s & '60s New York City cops walked a beat and, as I recall, they were big guys, bad-asses as it were, and they carried night-sticks. I don't remember ever hearing about someone trying to take a cop's gun. Now it seems to be an increasingly common occurrence. While I'm not suggesting all or most of these reported gun-snatching events are fabrications there clearly is a problem that must be dealt with. And I believe I know how best to do that.

Police should no longer patrol alone. There should always be two. And the way to balance the patrol assignment book is to eliminate what amounts to an egregious waste of time and money -- the utterly useless and wholly counterproductive drug war! The attention of our police should be focused on real crime, actions which produce victims.

Anyone who doesn't understand what I'm talking about need only watch a few episodes of the TV "ride-along" documentary, COPS.