The LEO thread

[Vrede too]

To be fair, I don't really have a problem with cops shooting people that are waving crucifixes.

[Mr.B]

"To be fair, I don't really have a problem with cops shooting people that are waving crucifixes."

Would you have shot the old man without knowing what he had in his pocket? (despite that he was attempting to exorcise you)

[rstrong]

To be fair, I don't really have a problem with cops shooting people that are waving crucifixes.

I do.

I don't have any problem with people waving crucifixes, so long as I'm free to ignore them. It's only when they try to force others to pay attention - or turn purely religious beliefs into law - that I have a problem. And even then, short of their using violence or extreme coercion, no shooting. Not even a pieing.

[Vrede too]

....

Unlike some here, I declare that I'm joking before I get called out.

[O Really]

Everybody, including and maybe especially cops, should assess the situation they're in before doing anything that could get yourself or someone else killed. Let's take the scenario painted step by step. "Somebody calls in reporting a man with a gun." What do we know? There's probably a guy, who may or may not really have a gun, and he may or may not be entitled to carry that gun around. Where is the guy? In his own yard? His own neighborhood? Anybody else around or being threatened? Or threatening the guy? "It's dark." We've got bright lights on the car and with big flashlights. Probably we can spotlight him. What does he look like? Aggressive? Confused? What if anything is he saying? Does he respond to questions? Do we have cover available to speak with him from? If we need to bring him down, do we have choices of weapon? And so on... If they don't process these types of thoughts and do it almost instantly, they haven't been trained well. If they are too frightened to take the time and make the effort to assess the situation, they don't belong being cops.

But no. No matter what the officer thought or didn't think, it is not acceptable to shoot old unarmed guys for being out loose in the yard at midnight. It would not have been acceptable to shoot an old armed guy out in his yard until you've found out if maybe he heard a noise and thought he was being broken into. Part of the training cops get (and those who take training in practical shooting) is to walk through scenes and have people or things appear - some dangerous, some not. They don't consider it "passing" if you shoot the woman talking on her cell.

[Vrede too]

... he may ... be entitled to carry that gun around....

Bingo, just like demented Mr.B is.

[O Really]

That's true. Mr.B could be dead from having taken his legally owned firearm out to his yard because he thought he heard an intruder and was exercising his Second Amendment rights to perteck his family.

[Vrede too]

I deal with demented old geezers all the time, perhaps even Mr.B a time or two. I haven't shot any of them . . . yet.

[Mr.B]

....

"Unlike some here, I declare that I'm joking before I get called out."

"Some....?" You mean there's others who dare to joke around?
You better get with the program, that type of behavior is not tolerated.

[Vrede too]

....

"Unlike some here, I declare that I'm joking before I get called out."

"Some....?" You mean there's others who dare to joke around?

Excellent point. We are divided over whether you and Seth Milner are the same poster. Thanks for helping to clear it up.

You better get with the program, that type of behavior is not tolerated.

Oh, we tolerate how you magically claim to be "joking" when your posts turn out to be utter BS. We just pity your gullibility and cowardice, too.

[Mr.B]

"Everybody, including and maybe especially cops, should assess the situation they're in before doing anything that could get yourself or someone else killed."
I suppose that could be done .... while you're sitting back in your easy chair watching or reading about the story. Not meaning to be a smart-ass, but seriously I would like to know how you, Vrede, "demented Mr.B", or anyone else is going to "assess the situation" in split seconds when someone who could be armed, or is armed might shoot you?

"Let's take the scenario painted step by step. "Somebody calls in reporting a man with a gun." What do we know? There's probably a guy, who may or may not really have a gun, and he may or may not be entitled to carry that gun around. Where is the guy? In his own yard? His own neighborhood? Anybody else around or being threatened? Or threatening the guy?"
Being entitled to carry does not allow you to walk around with your weapon in hand, in or out of your own yard. Someone reported a man walking in a darkened neighborhood and erroneously reported he has a gun. Whether or not he was threatening anyone is a moot point and it is the responsibility of LEO to investigate why someone brandishing a weapon is walking around in a darkened neighborhood.

"It's dark." We've got bright lights on the car and with big flashlights. Probably we can spotlight him. What does he look like? Aggressive? Confused? What if anything is he saying? Does he respond to questions? Do we have cover available to speak with him from? If we need to bring him down, do we have choices of weapon? And so on... If they don't process these types of thoughts and do it almost instantly, they haven't been trained well. If they are too frightened to take the time and make the effort to assess the situation, they don't belong being cops."
Let's say he had a gun and was going for it. Do all these "assessments" still apply? Look at the last case of the Georgia officers getting shot. They were standing on either side of the guy when he suddenly whipped out a pistol and fired at the officers, fortunately only wounding them. When he pulled out the gun, do you think they were running these "types of thoughts" through their minds?

"No matter what the officer thought or didn't think, it is not acceptable to shoot old unarmed guys for being out loose in the yard at midnight."
They didn't know he was unarmed. The caller said he was armed; they knew he had dementia, but demented people are capable of pulling a trigger too. You just don't run up to them and take the gun away, or check to see if he even has a gun, because they're mentally incapacitated. There have been many cases recently where cops mistakenly shot unarmed people because someone called 911 saying they were armed.

"It would not have been acceptable to shoot an old armed guy out in his yard until you've found out if maybe he heard a noise and thought he was being broken into."
That's just it; he wasn't talking, just walking toward the officer with his hand in his pocket. The officer can't read his mind regardless whether he was an old man or a pre-teen. The cop knows they were told he has a gun.


"Part of the training cops get (and those who take training in practical shooting) is to walk through scenes and have people or things appear - some dangerous, some not. They don't consider it "passing" if you shoot the woman talking on her cell."
Walking through a scene in training and lying on the ground dying from a mortal wound is quite different.

[Mr.B]

"... he may ... be entitled to carry that gun around...."

"Bingo, just like demented Mr.B is."

I don't carry my gun around. It is in my car when I travel. More'n likely, so is yours, if you're not too wussy to own one.

[Mr.B]

"Unlike some here, I declare that I'm joking before I get called out."
"Some....?" You mean there's others who dare to joke around?"
"Excellent point. We are divided over whether you and Seth Milner are the same poster. Thanks for helping to clear it up."
Kinda had a feeling where the subtle hints y'all been dropping was going .... I may be crazy, but I'm not stupid. Knowing that Banni has probably given several of you powers of snoopability, (moderator) capable of finding IPA's, do you really think I'm dumb enough to think I could fool you with two identities? You and rstrong sometimes mirror each other; does that mean one of you is also the other? Boatrocker and Homophobe have the same trashy vocabularies, except one speaks liberal and the other speaks ... well, whatever. Does that mean they're one and the same?

"You better get with the program, that type of behavior is not tolerated."
'Oh, we tolerate how you magically claim to be "joking" when your posts turn out to be utter BS. We just pity your gullibility and cowardice, too."
Many of the memes I've posted ARE pure b.s. and are intended to be sarcasm or satiric; no magic in that; sorry you get duped into believing in them. I'm just surprised how you all are so gullible to believe that the message in them is true, or that the message in them portrays my beliefs.

[O Really]

Mr.B, you're wrong on so many levels. It is absolutely the responsibility of each officer to assess their situation. Knowing how often eye witnesses are wrong, s/he can't assume that just because somebody reported a "man with a gun" that the gun even exists or that the person poses an immediate threat. Officers encounter individuals regularly who may be difficult to handle for whatever reason. The vast majority of them don't get shot. One can make an argument that an officer had reason to believe a person was armed and thought he saw a gun, and that happens. But you can't start out with the assumption that every encounter is life and death or that all reports are accurate or that people don't have things in their hands or pockets that aren't guns.

I read a chilling article recently. As a licensed and trained firearm owner and occasional car-carrier, it was definitely startling to read an article written by a current law enforcement officer on how to conduct yourself if pulled over by police and you have a firearm. He discussed the states where you are required to state you have a firearm, where you have to answer if you're asked, and where you don't have to disclose. Bottom line, if you're stopped and show the officer your concealed carry license along with your drivers' license, keep your hands in sight and say yassah boss, you still heighten the officer's wariness and make him more nervous. If you don't mention it and, when asked, say yes you are armed, it still makes him nervous. Opening your glove compartment to gete your registration makes him very nervous if your properly owned, stored, and licensed firearm is in there and partially visible. So while the NRA and others are going around touting the value of being armed for "protection," truth is, you're more likely to get shot by a nervous cop than by some assailant. (unless you've got somebody after you anyway). And if you're not white, your chances are greater. A black guy with a properly owned and licensed firearm is in immediate danger. Fact, not opinion.

[Vrede too]

Mr.B has no honor, shame or regret when he screws up. That's how it is with people that have no spine or moral center. It's not certain but odds are that this cop is devastated and will never fully recover from having been so unreasonably scared as to have murdered a harmless old man.

[Mr.B]

"Mr.B has no honor, shame or regret when he screws up. That's how it is with people that have no spine or moral center. "
And you, being perfect in every manner, would be the nation's top cop had you been that cop. We know. Everyone screws up but you;
go feed your unblemished ego now.

"It's not certain but odds are that this cop is devastated and will never fully recover from having been so unreasonably scared as to have murdered a harmless old man."
And you, Mr Cool Cop, who never for a moment would be scared, would be nursing a broken arm from patting yourself on the back for a "job well done", and all would have lived happily ever after.

[O Really]

Yeah, and there's not enough difference made in what might be criminal vs. what is just bad judgement, panicking, whatever. Unfortunately, the standard has become criminal and if there's no indictment or conviction, the officer keeps his job. Not everybody is cut out to be a cop, and not all cops stay good cops. But no matter the excuses, the reasons, the "benefit of doubt", it is not acceptable to shoot an unarmed old man who is where he has every right to be, doing nothing dangerous.

(the neighbor) "She thought she saw a dark brown or black handle of a gun, went inside and told her husband to call police. He told a 911 operator the man had a revolver." Nothing wrong there, right? Cop acts on third-hand report? She "thought" she saw a gun handle. Husband reports definitively he had a "revolver." So from a "maybe handle" he knew it was a revolver, not a semi-auto - or maybe a cross? And they shot him 20 seconds or so after arrival?
"Martin said that in the 20 to 30 seconds between the neighbor saying "that's him" and the first shot, officers were taking cover, giving commands and putting together a plan." Ya think maybe instead of "giving commands" they might have used a couple of seconds to identify themselves and ask they guy what's up?

[Mr.B]

Mr.B, you're wrong on so many levels. It is absolutely the responsibility of each officer to assess their situation. Knowing how often eye witnesses are wrong, s/he can't assume that just because somebody reported a "man with a gun" that the gun even exists or that the person poses an immediate threat. Officers encounter individuals regularly who may be difficult to handle for whatever reason. The vast majority of them don't get shot. One can make an argument that an officer had reason to believe a person was armed and thought he saw a gun, and that happens. But you can't start out with the assumption that every encounter is life and death or that all reports are accurate or that people don't have things in their hands or pockets that aren't guns.
That may have been true, say, even 5 years ago; but with cops being intentionally targeted, can you blame a cop for being nervous? As I stated earlier, all the finest training ans stress assessment in the world can leave in a moment when suddenly faced with the possibility of being shot.


I read a chilling article recently. As a licensed and trained firearm owner and occasional car-carrier, it was definitely startling to read an article written by a current law enforcement officer on how to conduct yourself if pulled over by police and you have a firearm. He discussed the states where you are required to state you have a firearm, where you have to answer if you're asked, and where you don't have to disclose. Bottom line, if you're stopped and show the officer your concealed carry license along with your drivers' license, keep your hands in sight and say yassah boss, you still heighten the officer's wariness and make him more nervous. If you don't mention it and, when asked, say yes you are armed, it still makes him nervous. Opening your glove compartment to gete your registration makes him very nervous if your properly owned, stored, and licensed firearm is in there and partially visible. So while the NRA and others are going around touting the value of being armed for "protection," truth is, you're more likely to get shot by a nervous cop than by some assailant. (unless you've got somebody after you anyway). And if you're not white, your chances are greater. A black guy with a properly owned and licensed firearm is in immediate danger. Fact, not opinion.
I've been there and know what you're saying, and I agree with you about being Black and armed. Also, it depends on why you were stopped.

[Mr.B]

Yeah, and there's not enough difference made in what might be criminal vs. what is just bad judgement, panicking, whatever. Unfortunately, the standard has become criminal and if there's no indictment or conviction, the officer keeps his job. Not everybody is cut out to be a cop, and not all cops stay good cops. But no matter the excuses, the reasons, the "benefit of doubt", it is not acceptable to shoot an unarmed old man who is where he has every right to be, doing nothing dangerous.

(the neighbor) "She thought she saw a dark brown or black handle of a gun, went inside and told her husband to call police. He told a 911 operator the man had a revolver." Nothing wrong there, right? Cop acts on third-hand report? She "thought" she saw a gun handle. Husband reports definitively he had a "revolver." So from a "maybe handle" he knew it was a revolver, not a semi-auto - or maybe a cross? And they shot him 20 seconds or so after arrival?
"Martin said that in the 20 to 30 seconds between the neighbor saying "that's him" and the first shot, officers were taking cover, giving commands and putting together a plan." Ya think maybe instead of "giving commands" they might have used a couple of seconds to identify themselves and ask they guy what's up?

So maybe the caller who reported the "man with a gun" should be held accountable? That would open a whole new can of worms.

[Mr.B]

"Mr.B has no honor, shame or regret when he screws up. That's how it is with people that have no spine or moral center."

That puts you and myself in the boat together, doesn't it? You showed no shame or regret when you screwed up by "suggesting" I was someone else, but instead, wussily ran screeching away© rather than acknowledge my reply. That's how it is with people that have no spine or moral center.