stupidity with a badge

[dthmstr254]

The bold portion above is where you messed up.
Nobody should EVER use deadly force as a "last resort". In a general sense, yes that is what is done, however, that is NOT how anyone should remember the use of a firearm. The phrase "last resort" implies that other methods must be used first, and that is NOT how an officer, or even a citizen defending themselves, should ever remember use of a firearm. Why? Because if someone continues to think of deadly force as "a last resort" then when in a situation they will attempt to apply this same principle of a graduated use of force, which will cost them their lives.

And then, there is the phrase you stated, "Unless absolutely necessary".
A situation in which deadly force is necessary to an officer WHO IS FACING THE THREAT, AT THAT MOMENT, and the review of such an incident by a person of the news media who are in a sense "monday morning quarterbacks" are two totally different perspectives.
As was stated earlier by someone in the thread, or another thread, there is absolutely NO WAY an officer can determine all the facts/history/motives of a person who is attacking them in a very short amount of time. They can only determine one thing... This person is coming after me and they have a knife/crowbar/broomstick, I must defend myself... OR... This person is holding a firearm and refuses to drop it, while continuing to size me up, I must react.

If you think I, or any other police officer are going to stand and wait for the suspect to try to blow our heads off or beat my head in or otherwise mortally wound me your dead wrong. We don't have to wait to become the victim before we can defend ourselves. Thats a BIG problem with the way the media and more liberal citizens seem to have with police use of force policies.



I could care less. Its impossible to weed out all assholes in any profession. There are always going to be some, and Im quite frankly sick of having to hear about the less than 1% of my profession who do wrong things every time law enforcement is mentioned.

[rant]
Seriously, does anyone like to constantly hear about less than 1% of their group every time they are mentioned?
Hell, some groups have the troublemakers of their groups in numbers much greater than 1% and I know they are probably tired of hearing about stuff.

Do you think legal hispanic folks like to constantly hear about illegal immigration?


Do you think blacks like to hear people talking about how blacks are always robbing, stealing, doing/selling drugs and other stupid shit?

No, they probably don't.

However, if you generalize all blacks as a bunch of thug criminal fucks, then you will rightfully get shouted down.

If you generalize all hispanic people as illegal immigrant non english speaking wetbacks, then you will rightfully get shouted down.

But apparently its okay to talk shit about law enforcement officers.
:roll:
[/rant]

Actually, I do get tired of it, as evidenced by me running people out when they started ranting about the police. That is why I kept it out only on option.

I would say the same about my chosen profession of interpreting for the Deaf, but the percent of people doing the stupid things in my profession is much higher because Deaf people are unfortunately a favorite target for hearing scam artists, as are the people too naive to confirm certification of the interpreters they hire because they come so cheap.

PS: One of my best friends is a police Captain in the Chattanooga PD. He said that Officer Krupinski should have gone for the Tazer, since the man wasn't heading for him, and nobody was in attack range. That just my personal rant. The reason for the title of the thread was simply because it would draw people in.

 

[Caine]

PS: One of my best friends is a police Captain in the Chattanooga PD. He said that Officer Krupinski should have gone for the Tazer, since the man wasn't heading for him, and nobody was in attack range. That just my personal rant. The reason for the title of the thread was simply because it would draw people in.

Well, I agree that trying the tazer would have been the best option with this set of facts, no doubt, I have never disagreed in this aspect. Not knowing all the facts of the case (which I feel reluctant to take the word of the victim's family), I cannot condemn the action entirely due to the fact that a landscaping rake to the head could be a painful death.


However, I dislike it when people think the tazer is the only option, or that it is fail-proof. There are many problems with using the tazer effectively at a distance, sometimes the probes don't reach the skin due to clothing, sometimes the person's movements prevent both probes from getting skin, thus no energy goes through the body, etc, etc.

If I were in a situation where I thought someone was going to kill me but they were using something like a knife or other non-gun, I would still use my firearm. As often as it fails to properly work, im not trusting my life with it in a deadly force situation.

I could try the tazer and THEN go to the gun some would say. And how much time do you think I have with someone who is coming to kill me? How much time does it take to remove and deploy a tazer, then remove a firearm and accurately asses a safe shot with a good backdrop and fire?

I'll be more willing to save my own life than worry about ending the life of a person trying to end mine, rather than worrying about using the least amount of force possible and end up dying in the process.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Well some people on this board seem to think cops can slow time and discern the intent, mental stability, possible health concerns, upbringing, social inequalities, domestic issues, financial stability, and credit score of somebody advancing on them. They also believe that cops have x-ray vision and know exactly if the person they are confronting has a weapon or a cell phone in their pants.

So I would say from 15 feet away it should take someone at least a week to get to a police officer.......

I respect cops and all, but they aren't superman. They are people just like you and me.

Though you and I are better shots...... :monkey

 

[dthmstr254]

Well, I agree that trying the tazer would have been the best option with this set of facts, no doubt, I have never disagreed in this aspect. Not knowing all the facts of the case (which I feel reluctant to take the word of the victim's family), I cannot condemn the action entirely due to the fact that a landscaping rake to the head could be a painful death.


However, I dislike it when people think the tazer is the only option, or that it is fail-proof. There are many problems with using the tazer effectively at a distance, sometimes the probes don't reach the skin due to clothing, sometimes the person's movements prevent both probes from getting skin, thus no energy goes through the body, etc, etc.

If I were in a situation where I thought someone was going to kill me but they were using something like a knife or other non-gun, I would still use my firearm. As often as it fails to properly work, im not trusting my life with it in a deadly force situation.

I could try the tazer and THEN go to the gun some would say. And how much time do you think I have with someone who is coming to kill me? How much time does it take to remove and deploy a tazer, then remove a firearm and accurately asses a safe shot with a good backdrop and fire?

I'll be more willing to save my own life than worry about ending the life of a person trying to end mine, rather than worrying about using the least amount of force possible and end up dying in the process.

He weighed as much as me, which means not a whole lot. However, The facts were those drawn from the case itself, available, I believe, from CourtTV. As for the rest of it, no argument here.

 

[Cold Highway]

I don't understand why the police in our US of A aren't more like the military. The men and women "serving" in the police do very little to actually, and literally, "serve". They have no morals; no honor; no code of ethics to follow as guidelines. They just randomly act like *******s until they are the only ones left talking or standing. Have you ever tried to hold a convorsation with an "Officer of the Law"? Good luck with that.

Actually in NYC they are leaning towards having military experience as a requirement for the sole fact that military installs discipline into people. I trust a solider with my life than a cop. At least the solider wont think Im a gang banger and wont shoot me.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Actually in NYC they are leaning towards having military experience as a requirement for the sole fact that military installs discipline into people. I trust a solider with my life than a cop. At least the solider wont think Im a gang banger and wont shoot me.

Nonsense.


What do you think is the difference between the police academy and the military when it comes to dicipline?

Recruit - Requirements


These requirements have not changed for at least 15 years..... you need 60 credits or 2 years AD military to apply.





Cops are trained to protect people....

Soldiers are trained to kill the enemy...

You sure about your statment?