- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: California eyes changing LEO deadly force standard
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:36 pm to Draconian Sanctions
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:36 pm to Draconian Sanctions
This strikes me as an emotional response to a tragic event that will lead to more deaths and more problems in the long run.
No cop wants to shoot anyone even when they have to for numerous, obvious reasons.
Laws like this just lead to more mayhem and fewer quality candidates wanting to be LEOs.
No cop wants to shoot anyone even when they have to for numerous, obvious reasons.
Laws like this just lead to more mayhem and fewer quality candidates wanting to be LEOs.
1
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:36 pm to ShortyRob
The point I am making is to say an officer absolutely has to see a gun before taking lethal action is ludicrous.
If someone is being asked to submit to police orders and stand down and instead take an aggressive posture like that, and asking an officer to not take lethal action is unreasonable. Sorry Shorty.
I wouldn't accept an officer to shoot someone just standing with their arms behind their back, but should they make a movement like he did, how could you say buckle up buttercup you better not shoot because you can't tell if he had a weapon when he raised his hand towards you?
That's just silly and unrealistic expectations.
If someone is being asked to submit to police orders and stand down and instead take an aggressive posture like that, and asking an officer to not take lethal action is unreasonable. Sorry Shorty.
I wouldn't accept an officer to shoot someone just standing with their arms behind their back, but should they make a movement like he did, how could you say buckle up buttercup you better not shoot because you can't tell if he had a weapon when he raised his hand towards you?
That's just silly and unrealistic expectations.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:37 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Yeah. But he can't just surmise a fricking gun.
Sure he can and should
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:41 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
My grief comes when they seem to think they should be take zero risk of harm.
If fire fighters approached the risk of their job the same as cops we would be hearing "Yes, there could have been children still in the burning building, but I feared for my life, and I have a right to go home at night."
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:45 pm to BobBoucher
quote:
What I'm suggesting is the cop shouldn't pull the trigger until he at least sees a gun.
What if perp is running from cops, they can see him doing something with his hands near his waistband but they can’t see what it is because his body is blocking their view. The perp suddenly begins to stop and turn back towards them...
Do they have to wait and visually confirm a gun is being brought up before they can shoot? If not, they could end up shooting an unarmed man who was simply about to give up and submit to arrest. Or that guy could have drawn a weapon and that split second was all they had to decide whether to shoot or not.
This shite isn’t black and white. That’s why the standard is what a reasonable person would have done in the shoes of that officer. That entirely depends on the officers perspective, not what we think about the situation after the fact and after we know more than the officer did in the moment.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:47 pm to Draconian Sanctions
I don’t jump to defend police but the standard has to be something like reasonable fear and not imminent danger.
There are instances when it’s reason to misread a situation and harm isn’t imminent. But the jury needs to use reasonable fear as a highly trained and armed professional not reasonable fear as a defenseless and helpless person.
There are instances when it’s reason to misread a situation and harm isn’t imminent. But the jury needs to use reasonable fear as a highly trained and armed professional not reasonable fear as a defenseless and helpless person.
This post was edited on 4/7/18 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:51 pm to NoSaint
Homie pulls out and points a big scary arse gun at a cop, but the gun is a BB gun.
There is zero threat to life, but there sure is the fear of that threat.
There is zero threat to life, but there sure is the fear of that threat.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:52 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
The point I am making is to say an officer absolutely has to see a gun before taking lethal action is ludicrous.
That's why my response to that was that you don't have to actually see it. But, you can't friggin surmise it either.
The dude with the "shower head"? Yeah. That was a damned fine shoot. No problem with it.
I also think how the interaction starts matters. I think the bar simply MUST be higher for interactions started by cops than by citizens. You pull me over for speeding, your bar for deciding you're scared enough to shoot me needs to be higher than you knowing I was just involved in a more serious crime and you're rolling up on me or caught me in the act.
quote:My posts in this thread have been general. You take a shooting poster to someone, you're gonna get shot and deserve it.
If someone is being asked to submit to police orders and stand down and instead take an aggressive posture like that,
quote:
I wouldn't accept an officer to shoot someone just standing with their arms behind their back, but should they make a movement like he did,
Well of course. But, alas, we have people get shot MUCH less significant movements.
quote:I think you misunderstand me. Do what the guy in the GIF did, you get shot and I'm good with it.
how could you say buckle up buttercup you better not shoot because you can't tell if he had a weapon when he raised his hand towards you?
But we have cops using FEAR of what that guy did to shoot a guy who flinches.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:53 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:I think you're reading something in to what I'm saying that I'm not.
Sure he can and should
I'm talking about cases where they're like, "I thought he was reaching for a gun".
Sorry cop. You're just gonna have to do better than that.
But yeah. Raise your arms towards me? You're probably going to have a bad day.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:56 pm to Jack Bauers HnK
quote:True
This shite isn’t black and white.
quote:A horrible standard. A "reasonable person" isn't a trained cop.
That’s why the standard is what a reasonable person would have done in the shoes of that officer.
Private Snuffy in Afghanistan wasn't allowed to shoot someone he "thought" MIGHT present a threat. And Snuffy was in a fricking war zone.
Moreover, I can't shoot someone in my own neighborhood using that same "reasonable person" standard. If I shoot your arse just cause you turned around towards me quickly and you're unarmed.........I'm going to be arrested by that same cop who wants a pass for it.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:56 pm to EA6B
quote:
If fire fighters approached the risk of their job the same as cops we would be hearing "Yes, there could have been children still in the burning building, but I feared for my life, and I have a right to go home at night."
Yup
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:59 pm to TigerBait1971
quote:
Homie pulls out and points a big scary arse gun at a cop, but the gun is a BB gun.
There is zero threat to life, but there sure is the fear of that threat.
Right - or dude ignores commands and reaches and pulls something metallic in a way that reasonably resembles a gun... I get it.
But when you have 9 officers with guns drawn and the guy crawling down the hotel hallway in that one video and he grabs his slipping pants... well, not so much. Or if the B.B. gun in your example is a yellow nerf gun that shoots foam darts I expect my officers to be able to tell the difference... I am down for reasonable fear but it’s got to be applied as highly trained, armed, and often with backup, professional.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 5:59 pm to ShortyRob
I don’t know what the standards are for military engagements so you’ll have to educate me on that. However, regarding a civilian chasing someone, the difference would be it’s the cop’s job to chase him. The civilian didn’t have to chase anybody.In fact, if the civilian is chasing someone, that civilian is now the aggressor.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 6:02 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
If I shoot your arse just cause you turned around towards me quickly and you're unarmed.........I'm going to be arrested by that same cop who wants a pass for it.
Bingo.
We expect perfection out of the untrained citizen and grant huge leeway to be unprepared for a situation as the trained professional.
When that flips, I genuinely think both sides end up safer.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 6:06 pm to NoSaint
Completely agree.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 6:10 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Looks fine to me. No one should be killing anyone unless they fear imminent death or serious harm
quote:
The proposed law says nothing about "fear".
quote:
Good
Posted on 4/7/18 at 6:29 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Running from the cops is now punishable by death?
No, but if it was called in that he had a gun, it's not unthinkable that he poses a threat to others. What if he takes a hostage? What if he fires at other LEOs and hits an innocent? What if he gets away and commits another crime injuring or killing another?
A common theme with police shootings (with few exceptions) is non-compliance with a LEO's directive. Just comply. Why is it so hard? And if you think you're being treating unjustly, comply and you'll have your day in court.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 6:34 pm to uway
quote:
and see that it’s about to be used to harm someone.
It will likely be too late then.
Posted on 4/7/18 at 7:07 pm to Draconian Sanctions
every cop needs to find employment in another state and leave that shite hole state that cares more about illegals behind...
Posted on 4/7/18 at 7:10 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
That is not the same as an officer absolutely has to see a gun before shooting?
If there's something in his hand and he draws it and points it as if it's a gun, he gets loaded with led.
That's a lot different than shooting someone in the back running away or someone crawling and pulling up his pants while begging for his life. (actually happened).
This post was edited on 4/7/18 at 7:11 pm
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News