General

[Suffix]

I love how a police officer couldn't even tell the difference, what does that tell you about there training programs...

[RealtorTommy]

How about a law that states the law enforcement officer is not held accountable for a justified shooting with objects that appear to resemble firearms if object is used in a threating manner......

[John Satclaire]

Originally Posted by RealtorTommy

How about a law that states the law enforcement officer is not held accountable for a justified shooting with objects that appear to resemble firearms if object is used in a threating manner......

Bold: sorta begs the question, dunnit?

Underscore: far too much lattitude for the cops; I would, as a defense lawyer, have a field day with such a statute protecting my clients after they, say, blew away some poor bastard who was pulling out a black leather wallet.

[RealtorTommy]

Originally Posted by John Satclaire

Bold: sorta begs the question, dunnit?

Underscore: far too much lattitude for the cops; I would, as a defense lawyer, have a field day with such a statute protecting my clients after they, say, blew away some poor bastard who was pulling out a black leather wallet.

As someone who doesn't write law....it's a start....

You get my point.....Please fill in the proper wording that even you could not defend against....

[John Satclaire]

Originally Posted by RealtorTommy

As someone who doesn't write law....it's a start....

You get my point.....Please fill in the proper wording that even you could not defend against....

I get your point, and mine wasn't to say the law is problematic because of any abilities I may have. My points were as follows:

[1] a law that says "any justifiable shooting by the cops under X, Y, and Z cirumstances is an auto-acquit" is begging the question. Whether the shooting was justifiable is determined by investigating and perhaps ultimately trying the trigger-happy guys who think that anything that might be characterized as a potential threat at some point in the future justifies shooting to kill. Since such a law has no rational purpose--as it only restates the basic legal inquiry--its only conceivable purpose is to be trotted out by a defense lawyer and bias a jury by convincing them that there's some special lower legal standard for cops re: justification. As opposed to that which they'd apply should I, a mere civvie mortal, whip out my concealed carry and, say, drop some guy who I thought was maybe reaching into his coat for I knew not what, but suspected might be a weapon because I sure couldn't see for sure that it wasn't a weapon.

[2] I found the underscored text problematic because it allowed the cops too broad a legal protection for their decision to shoot, allowing a killing as justified by their being threatened if any random object sort of resembled a gun and was maybe displayed in a threatening manner. Don't get me wrong: if someone's reaching for a black plastic cap gun or a Zeus Warsensor, and the cop blows them away, I'm fine with letting him off the hook without so much as a trial. However, the language you put in place here creates the same problem that the "justified shootings are justified" language did above: a defense lawyer for a cop who shot someone under otherwise unjustifiable circumstances pointing to the text of a special "cop justification statute," which itself adds nothing to the legal standard for justifiable homicide, and telling a jury (which by its very definition is full of 12 gullible idiots) "although my client shot a man who was reaching for what ultimately turned out to be his black leather wallet, he must be acquitted without any review of whether the circumstances made that a justifiable act, because the wallet was a 'weapon like object' and his reaching for it was 'using the object in a threatening manner.'" There's already a legal framework that requires a contextual analysis for justification: the language I'd choose instead is none at all.

[Runamok]

Originally Posted by Suffix

I love how a police officer couldn't even tell the difference, what does that tell you about there training programs...

Cop's are Human and make mistakes,the best training can't change that. But at our PB store we have an airsoft gun that looks exactly like a Glock,made of pot metal and weights alittle more than the real gun. I would not blame even the most inept cop for shooting some fool who even turned in their direction with it.
But toy guns don't kill people, Stupidity does!

[Meph]

Originally Posted by Suffix

I love how a police officer couldn't even tell the difference, what does that tell you about there training programs...

There is a thread that shows the latest Wolverine comic cover, and on it is Mystique holding a pistol and an AK47.

Oh wait. It's not an AK47. It's a Tippmann A5!

What does that tell you about just how realistic a "fake" toy gun can look? And if an artist, a person paid for their attention to detail and a very long period of time to look at the object didn't distinguish between a paintball gun and a firearm... then why do you assume that police officers are somehow not human and have Terminator vision where they can instantaneously determine the make, model, caliber of the weapon, the perspiration and breathing levels of the person, and say some cool catch phrases!

Fact is that in a stressful and chaotic situation police need to rely on instinct, that and people do dumb ****. Namely pull fake toy guns on cops. Or whip their hand from around their back with a wallet. Or a hammer. Or a bare hand. That is just ASKING to be shot. You don't mess with the police, you cooperate. And if you make sudden moves that have any implications of threatening that officers life then they are going to protect their life at the expense of yours. I personally have no qualms with those actions. They are justified given the circumstances. They have a thankless job to begin with. We don't need to make people think they are hyper-evolved. They are regular humans. They do their best. Cut them some slack.


Except for traffic cops. **** them. There's real criminals out there that need the attention, stop trying to reach your quota and milk people with $120 fine + $45 surcharge for 5mph over the limit.

[John Satclaire]

Originally Posted by Meph

Fact is that in a stressful and chaotic situation police need to rely on instinct, that and people do dumb ****. Namely pull fake toy guns on cops. Or whip their hand from around their back with a wallet. Or a hammer. Or a bare hand. That is just ASKING to be shot. You don't mess with the police, you cooperate. And if you make sudden moves that have any implications of threatening that officers life then they are going to protect their life at the expense of yours. I personally have no qualms with those actions. They are justified given the circumstances. They have a thankless job to begin with. We don't need to make people think they are hyper-evolved. They are regular humans. They do their best. Cut them some slack.

In a word, No.

If it looks like a gun and it's being drawn, fine. The cop(s) may shoot without worrying about the chances that it's fake. But this issue of the cop(s) getting to err on the side of protecting their life at the expense of the civvies they're guarding is going too far when they can use lethal force against potential threats like someone "whip[ping] their hand from around their back with a wallet. Or a hammer. Or a bare hand." Wake up and smell the double standard: in the U.S. legal system, nobody would return a finding of "justifiable homicide" if a well-trained CHL holder shot someone because they felt threatened by the actions you described.

Far from "ASKING to be shot," those are all normal behaviors, and while I appreciate that there is added risk to the life of a cop who has to wait that extra second or less after someone makes a sudden movement like that, I'd rather have a few extra officers killed or injured in the line of duty than more cops thinking their personal safety may be protected at the expense of the safety of cititzens. Shoot first, and worry later what the civilian was really about, is a mentality best suited for U.S. troops patrolling hostile foreign cities (ironically, sometimes their ROE are more restrictive than those applied to the NYPD).

Is it fair to ask cops to endanger themselves that extra amount, which may not be small? At least they have the choice, knowing ahead of time that if they want that job, being entrusted with a gun and a badge, what the risks are. It seems more fair than putting the burden on everyone else, whose only option would be always act like a submissive robot around cops or get the out of the country.

[WilD]

^^ fantastic post. Very rarely do I see something on this subject that I agree with, but this is good.

[Meph]

Yes, lets tell cops to pause their trigger fingers in every situation and forget about protecting their life (which by the way is usually there to provide financial support for their families, not that you care you are in support of protecting criminals rather than police officers) due to people acting stupid. I'd rather have shady criminals killed than officers on duty.

There is a line where abuse of force is crossed. And this is not one of those times. If a person ignores what the cops are telling them, they run from them, they go into a dark corner of a house and you whip their hand around from behind their back I HOPE the cop shoots them between the eyes dead. When people pull garbage like that and force the cop to react on life or death instinct then they absolutely deserve what they get.

Afterall if I have 5 officers surrounding me with guns pointing at my grill... my natural reaction is to make fast threatening movements. Natural movements to you, I guess. I'd rather take very slow and calculated movements while telling the officers what I'm doing and that I'm complying with their wishes. I guess that's just too hard of a concept for some people to realize. (i.e. those that whip out their wallet in front of police who have guns pointed at them)