Bloody Bull#$%#

Status
Not open for further replies.
This case? Use of a taser was justified, the guy was attacking. But a lot of stuff I read about has cops using tasers because a suspect has a mouth. That's bullcrap. If he isn't a threat, don't tase. I respect cops, but I think some of them need to tone down their egos.
 
saiblade said:
Good point there, JetBlack; however, the scenarios mentioned are not life or death situations. As an officer of the law, or as a Soldier, danger will always be there in your daily duties. In fact, it's expected. But why shoot to kill when you don't need to? To serve and protect ... who were you protecting when you shot the bum who rushed you with nothing in hand? Who were you protecting when you shot the driver who didn't listen to you? Yeah, maybe if you didn't shot him, he MIGHT run over someone with his reckless driving, but that's "MIGHT".

I'm just not a big supporter of police brutality. I think that, if you're going to protect and serve, really think about what that means and do the job right. Too many trigger-happy cops out there that just don't or probably won't get what it really means to "protect and serve". And, if you don't feel comfortable with the dangers of being a protector, don't join..
Click to expand...

Not flaming you (pun intended) but it's obvious you have not been on the side or in the shoes of an officer in a dynamic, dangerous encounter. You speak as an armchair quarter back that doesn't really understand an Action-Response Continuum or the legalities and practicalities of the use of force in a police-citizen encounter.

I suggest you read Graham v. Connor and Illinois v. Gates to start. If you want to talk deadly force in particular, start with Tennessee v. Garner.

I've been in LE over 16 years now and trained a lot of officers and basic recruits in these same issues.

I've seen these types of comments, and your entitled to your opinion, multiple times and on multiple forums and it's the same rhetoric.

In the issue in the original post, if the officer identified the liquid as gasoline by sight immediately then it was a justifiable use for deadly force, not just a taser. It was certainly a justifiable use of force. Nothing says an officer has to be hit first or harmed first. Perceptions of harm to self or others by suspect actions justify the use of force. Remember, in most cases, actions of suspect precede force use.

Your hypothetical situations lack merit or substance for debate - you set them up based on your opinion, not facts or the totality of the circumstances of an individual situation.

As was said very well, I've never trained or been trained to kill anyone. Stopping the threat is what is done.

Also, for the record, I believe that all police use of force incidents should be subject to review and fall within Constitutional Standards. The Court has given us those standards and departments have established departmental policies and procedures. But one must remember that each use of force is it's own independent set of circumstances that must be viewed in the light of those particular circumstances that surround that single incident.
 
Last edited:
jsdvnc said:
This case? Use of a taser was justified, the guy was attacking. But a lot of stuff I read about has cops using tasers because a suspect has a mouth. That's bullcrap. If he isn't a threat, don't tase. I respect cops, but I think some of them need to tone down their egos.
Click to expand...

You are correct.

Ego needs to be removed from the uniform.
 
sailblade-your point is well taken, I don't know your experience, however, according to your posts me thinks you have NONE. Until you get some your posts are just a waste of space in this thread. Please refrain from giving just your opinion if you can't back it up with experience. And your little "scenarios" are ricockulous.
 
I've seen/read a lot of reports of police chasing suspects in their vehicles. I'm not sure I ever saw one that the police decided to end with shooting the suspect in the head 3 or 4 times. Now, I do know of a police chase that happened here in my town a few months ago. One of the officers chasing the suspect ended up crashing his vehicle and dying. He left behing a wife and four-week-old twins. I wish someone could have ended that chase with deadly force before it began. As far as I'm concerned, we don't have a problem with "Police Brutality" as much as the bad guys getting away with too much.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=4739391
 
jsdvnc said:
This case? Use of a taser was justified, the guy was attacking. But a lot of stuff I read about has cops using tasers because a suspect has a mouth. That's bullcrap. If he isn't a threat, don't tase. I respect cops, but I think some of them need to tone down their egos.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is going to happen, I think it is going to get worse.

As for some of the other comments, I don't think police should be trying to shoot guns or knives out of people's hands and the rest of the Hollywood nonsense, but I also think it is incredibly delusional to train to shoot someone to the deck with a .38 Spec., 9mm, .40 Cal., or .45 ACP, center of mass, and think you're not training to shoot to kill as opposed to the politically correct, "shoot to stop." Yes, you are shooting to stop the threat but the P.C.-B.S. inherent in the statement is the most effective way to stop, i.e., neutralize the threat is to kill the person or put them at death's door instantaneously. I won't get involved in appeals to authority or other stupid debating practices, this is reality to me and everything else is just feel-good nonsense. If you train to shoot someone center of mass multiple times until the threat is over, you can call it "Snow White and The Seven Dwarves" or some other Walt Disney title, you can call it something out of the Kama Sutra, I don't care. It's shooting to kill as far as I'm concerned and to claim otherwise is a complete and total disavowal of what bullets due to lungs and hearts.
 
whatever happened to batons and ASPs? are they not considered effective anymore? you don't hear much about them these days... are LEO's encouraged not to use/carry them anymore?
 
mckrob said:
whatever happened to batons and ASPs? are they not considered effective any more? you don't hear much about them these days... are LEO's encouraged not to use/carry them anymore?
Click to expand...

That might mean that someone would have to actually learn how to use something.
 
mckrob said:
whatever happened to batons and ASPs? are they not considered effective any more? you don't hear much about them these days... are LEO's encouraged not to use/carry them anymore?
Click to expand...

We carry ASPs, pepper spray, TASERs and handguns. It's nice to have a variety of tools to choose from but, on the flip side, there are also that many items to protect when in a physical encounter with someone. It sucks to have one of your own weapons used against you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top