• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas cop fired after shooting, killing 93-year-old woman

Jango said:
She had a .38.

IIRC you were a police officer, right? If so, walk me through your response to this situation - how you would arrive, what you'd do, etc.
Click to expand...
See a weapon, draw mine, order person to drop theirs, the refuse and make ANY offensive move, fire.
 
CRUE CAB said:
See a weapon, draw mine, order person to drop theirs, the refuse and make ANY offensive move, fire.
Click to expand...

I will not say that there are absolutely no other options - as each situation is unique - but hell, the fact that there is any surprise that this is a legal possibility......crap, defies common sense.
 
year2late said:
I will not say that there are absolutely no other options - as each situation is unique - but hell, the fact that there is any surprise that this is a legal possibility......crap, defies common sense.
Click to expand...
I gave you the worst case scenario. Her age may not have been that evident at whatever distance and lighting he was working with. Plus, a gun is a gun and will kill you no matter the age of the shooter.
 
Are they not entitled to a home? :confused:
 
ric27 said:
Police get killed responding to domestic conflicts with appalling regularity and many don't get news coverage
Click to expand...

No, they don't. But there are reasons why this story made the news. One is that it's not every day that a 93-year old is shot by a cop. Another is that Quanell X showed up to stir the racial pot. Yet another is that Hearne is an interesting little town.
 
Henry David said:
You do not seem to understand the perspective one gains by serving in the military. That's OK. You cannot, and never will be able to appreciate that perspective, and that's OK.

But don't pretend it doesn't exist, because it does.
Click to expand...

As someone who has both served in the military and as a law enforcement officer........ the experience gained in the Military has little relevance to law enforcement matters..... Not NONE... but very little.
 
Jango said:
It's only fitting that police on occasion get their life uprooted and livelihood destroyed considering that when private citizens are incarcerated before being found legally guilty they experience the very same thing. Being on the other side off the fence gives perspective.
Click to expand...

Its fitting that a man doing his job which he is expected to put himself at risk doing gets screwed over due to public opinion and politics when he tries to defend himself?

You weren't lying that you were in the military....

BUT.... comparing it to pre-trial confinement on a charge where a judicial official has agreed probable cause exists to issue a magistrate's order or arrest warrant is just absolutely asinine.

Clearly, you don't have one ****ing clue how the criminal justice system works.

I suggest you bow out of any discussions on the criminal justice system in the future.
 
Jango said:
I served in an inherently more dangerous field of work in the Marines. Aside from that, when talking with my father (a retired CO), even he says what he sees and hears police doing to people is wrong.

So should I say "You question the man doing the job from behind the computer, why don't you try it some time," when you rage against POTUS or some other government official? I won't. Know why? Because politicians and bureaucrats are not above suspicion or criticism, neither are the boys in blue.
Click to expand...

Neither are asshole commanding officers either.
 
Caine said:
Its fitting that a man doing his job which he is expected to put himself at risk doing gets screwed over due to public opinion and politics when he tries to defend himself?

You weren't lying that you were in the military....

BUT.... comparing it to pre-trial confinement on a charge where a judicial official has agreed probable cause exists to issue a magistrate's order or arrest warrant is just absolutely asinine.

Clearly, you don't have one ****ing clue how the criminal justice system works.

I suggest you bow out of any discussions on the criminal justice system in the future.
Click to expand...

Lol okay, man.
 
Caine said:
As someone who has both served in the military and as a law enforcement officer........ the experience gained in the Military has little relevance to law enforcement matters..... Not NONE... but very little.
Click to expand...

Yes, well my small town just acquired an MRAP, so maybe those former soldiers would be more qualified drivers than those who had not driven it before? :lol:

Just kidding.

My previous points about the perspective provided by the military experience were not intended to be limited to the law enforcement situation, not at all. I was not thinking of law enforcement when I posted.

I was talking about the military experience providing insight into the workings of government, especially at the federal level.

Not just law enforcement, and really, not necessarily law enforcement, but government dynamics at all levels.
 
Henry David said:
Yes, well my small town just acquired an MRAP, so maybe those former soldiers would be more qualified drivers than those who had not driven it before? :lol:

Just kidding.

My previous points about the perspective provided by the military experience were not intended to be limited to the law enforcement situation, not at all. I was not thinking of law enforcement when I posted.

I was talking about the military experience providing insight into the workings of government, especially at the federal level.

Not just law enforcement, and really, not necessarily law enforcement, but government dynamics at all levels.
Click to expand...

The DoD is quite different from most aspects of Federal Government, as far as knowledge. Your common enlisted service member, sadly, isn't bright enough to learn anything about how the government works during his time there, unless it is what brand floor cleaner and pen the government issues (Simple Green... Skillcraft).

Many service members walk away from their service thinking they have learned this vast and great knowledge about the world..... only to not be able to articulate anything when asked to do so....

But, to follow up to another thing you mentioned....

Most Law Enforcement agencies are NOT run by the Federal Government anyhow.... Only a select few are Federal Agencies.....
 
Caine said:
The DoD is quite different from most aspects of Federal Government, as far as knowledge. Your common enlisted service member, sadly, isn't bright enough to learn anything about how the government works during his time there, unless it is what brand floor cleaner and pen the government issues (Simple Green... Skillcraft).

Many service members walk away from their service thinking they have learned this vast and great knowledge about the world..... only to not be able to articulate anything when asked to do so....

But, to follow up to another thing you mentioned....

Most Law Enforcement agencies are NOT run by the Federal Government anyhow.... Only a select few are Federal Agencies.....
Click to expand...

Some humans are more or less articulate than others, I'm sure you agree.

Thus, some have knowledge of certain things like how the government and the military mindset works, but they are not quite articulate enough to give a complete verbal description of their knowledge.
 
Caine said:
Non-lethal rounds arent typically carried by patrol officers. Period.

Lets review what you are expecting him and the department to have done prior to this call....

1. You are expecting the officer to have gained the knowledge through ESP that he would run into a situation like this and specifically requested in advance to be provided with non-lethal shotgun shells (departments don't use non-lethal pistol rounds)......

2. You are expecting that the officer either:
a. Show up to every call with shotgun in hand (a hell of alot more intimidating than a standard police response)
b. Ask Granny to stop shooting and don't continue shooting while he go get his shotgun and load it with non-lethal.
c. Risk death while being shot at by an active shooting to acquire his shotgun and load it with non-lethal rounds.



I think your level of expectations are EXTREMELY unreasonable.

If you want to make the argument that departments should require officers to carry non-lethal firing devices as well as lethal ones on their persons at all times, as well as re-train officers to risk death to use non-lethal methods of stopping lethal targets, then so be it..... However.....

None of that makes the officer in this scenario a horrible person, or at fault in any way....
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree to the above....but would like to add one thing. We should probably take "non-lethal" out of our vocabulary. I would say "less lethal". But frankly, where would it have been safe to hit the 93 year old?
 
Summerwind said:
We disagree then. I see a scapegoat. It's not often I side with the police, for example in the other two links I posted in the OP I don't think the Boise kid should've been shot, and I thought they should be fired and perhaps prosecuted, but in the other one where the boy's gun looked damned real, I think the cop did his job. If it had been what it looked like, just turning around with his finger on the trigger could've killed many.

I try to look at things case by case, and in this case, the cop did his job by this account, and I've never seen the LA Times be too kind to cops, so I'll take it as it's written.
Click to expand...

It might have been her way of committing suicide at 93.
 
clownboy said:
Those methods, and the tools that they rely upon, are not always available at the moment. And here we have an armed subject actively firing a gun. Cops don't always have tasers, beanbag rounds or other non-lethals on hand.
Click to expand...

Shooting her likely saved innocent lives.
 
Summerwind said:
That's what you think? Really? So in your twisted reality she should be able to both kill people with her car (since the nephew took the keys because of not driving safely) and with bullets and the cops are just assholes?

Wow, you're way too extreme in your cop hatred.
Click to expand...

I will have to say this. If the nephew knew she would act like this about her keys, he could have easily taken out the ignition fuse and the car would never start again. What would she have said then? Maybe she would have shot the car.
 
Jango said:
Do police not get trained in how to take cover? Was the woman shooting at the police?
Click to expand...

And if the bullet hit an innocent?
 
Jango said:
No **** that they're just as lethal. The head-scratching part of this is that she was only firing at the ground and was in the presence of law enforcement. That equation works out like this: if you discharge a firearm in the presence of law enforcement while not shooting or pointing at them then they get to kill you on the spot.
Click to expand...

What if the bullet hit a sidewalk, on the ground, and ricocheted and hit somebody. Would you still be Ok with somebody firing at the ground and calling it non-lethal?
 
Lutherf said:
Firing at the ground can also be dangerous especially if others are around. That bullet may not stop at the initial impact.



In this case the shooter was firing at an iron target but the same can happen if you hit a rock, part of a car, or any other hard object.
Click to expand...


I was once firing at an inside firing range aiming at the target. The bullet bounced somewhere and knocked down the overhead light. I was shocked and I don't think I have fired a weapon since.
 
Mason66 said:
I was once firing at an inside firing range aiming at the target. The bullet bounced somewhere and knocked down the overhead light. I was shocked and I don't think I have fired a weapon since.
Click to expand...

Interesting. It reminds me.... I don't know how many have read or remember in the bullying threads a mention of the family of huge boys down the street that bullied and beat my brother over the years. Anyway they were your typical redneck cowboy wanna-bees and went to the range to shoot regularly and rowdily. Apparently, the eldest had a similar ricochet except the thing ricocheted back into his eye, or so the story around the neighborhood as to why at at 19 he lost an eye. I don't know if it was a shot from his weapon that ricocheted or one of his brother's or even if the story is true, but your comment reminded of it nonetheless.
 
Mason66 said:
And if the bullet hit an innocent?
Click to expand...

Mason66 said:
What if the bullet hit a sidewalk, on the ground, and ricocheted and hit somebody. Would you still be Ok with somebody firing at the ground and calling it non-lethal?
Click to expand...

Nice "what if" scenarios. As I said earlier: "If the police are allowed to do "what if" thinking on the job then we're ****ed."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom