23 police shoot 2 unarmed suspects 377 times

This forum is for discussion of politics, diplomacy, law, and justice
User avatar
308Mike
Posts: 16537
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 3:47 pm

Re: 23 police shoot 2 unarmed suspects 377 times

Post by 308Mike »

JKosprey wrote:It was brought up in another police shooting thread(I think the latest NYPD fiasco) that some departments are trained to shoot to slide-lock rather than to shoot to stop.
I don't think I've ever heard that before, since it would certainly put every department which trains that way into a TREMENDOUS liability exposure problem. Would they do the same thing if they had to put down an injured animal (and shoot until slide lock or be found in violation of their department's shooting policy)? Training people to do so would be absurd, but that hasn't stopped EVERYONE before. :roll: :roll:
POLITICIANS & DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN AND FOR THE SAME REASON

A person properly schooled in right and wrong is safe with any weapon. A person with no idea of good and evil is unsafe with a knitting needle, or the cap from a ballpoint pen.

I remain pessimistic given the way BATF and the anti gun crowd have become tape worms in the guts of the Republic. - toad
Aesop
Posts: 6149
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:17 am

Re: 23 police shoot 2 unarmed suspects 377 times

Post by Aesop »

PawPaw wrote:
like the crowd in the board room treated the guy who pointed the gun at ED-209
. Well, that was instructive.
Mainly in that no one in the room wants to be the second guy to point a gun at Ed-209.
Since that's evidently the new policing model there, turnabout is fair play.

Evidently no one has pointed that out to TPTB in BFFloridastadt, but when the penny drops, it'll be fun times there indeed.
"There are four types of homicide: felonious, accidental, justifiable, and praiseworthy." -Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Rusty Ray
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:01 pm

Re: 23 police shoot 2 unarmed suspects 377 times

Post by Rusty Ray »

To continue on from what Speedy said, I was flung up to respect the police. Why wouldn't you? They were the good guys, right? We were good people, so what was there to worry about, right? Right?

Well fuck that. I have had close encounters of the cop kind over the years, too many to recount actually. I have lost all trust in them. And by 'them' I mean cops from all over, not just Brit cops.

Where did the pact between Mr Bob Peel's boys and Joe Public go?

Rusty
User avatar
PawPaw
Posts: 4493
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: 23 police shoot 2 unarmed suspects 377 times

Post by PawPaw »

Rusty Ray wrote:Where did the pact between Mr Bob Peel's boys and Joe Public go?

Rusty
Most cops have never heard of Bob Peel, but many of us have and try to work by his principles. I happen to work for a Sheriff's department in a mid-size Louisiana metro area, and service is our byword. Many days we spend more time serving the people than enforcing the law, and that's fine with us. Many of the things we do aren't seen today as police work, but we serve nonetheless. For example, we routinely change flat tires for stranded motorists. We also routinely unlock cars for folks who've locked their keys in the car. We also have lists or elderly residents in our patrol areas and try to check on those folks when the time permits.

I've been shot once and cut twice, and I understand hazardous policing. I've also spent a big part of my career working for an elected sheriff, who has to answer to The People every four years, and has to justify the foolishness that young cops get themselves into. I've seen Sheriffs get voted out when they forget that we serve the people, and I've worked for guys who put public service before anything else. It's a fine line we draw, sometimes, and it helps if you can be polite to someone while you're putting the cuffs on them.

The type of policing that's described in the linked article is foreign to me.
Dennis Dezendorf
PawPaw's House
MarkD
Posts: 3969
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm

Re: 23 police shoot 2 unarmed suspects 377 times

Post by MarkD »

I began losing my trust on cops early on. Way before I came a long my Dad was a cop in Hoboken, NJ. He told me the uniform trousers had a little pocket sewn into the leg seam, the purpose of that pocket was to carry a switchblade you could throw down if you shot someone who you shouldn't have. These were the official uniform trousers every Hoboken cop wore, so official policy was to carry a throw-down. Perhaps that pocket originally had a different purpose (I've heard of them called sap-pockets), but he believed that's what it was there for.
User avatar
Aglifter
Posts: 8212
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 12:15 am

Re: 23 police shoot 2 unarmed suspects 377 times

Post by Aglifter »

They are called sap pockets - but, yes, I've seen a cop at a match, shoot a "no-shoot" pull out a cheap knife, and toss it at the feet of the no-shoot, and say "See, he was really a target."

Those types of things are why lawyers have a hard time being "friends" with many cops.

The cop is making a joke, and the lawyer sees all manner of wrong things - and a very easy way to undermine his testimonial value, any time he's in a case where the defendant claims "the knife wasn't his."
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our Fortunes, & our sacred Honor

A gentleman unarmed is undressed.

Collects of 1903/08 Colt Pocket Auto
Rusty Ray
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 4:01 pm

Re: 23 police shoot 2 unarmed suspects 377 times

Post by Rusty Ray »

PawPaw wrote:
Rusty Ray wrote:Where did the pact between Mr Bob Peel's boys and Joe Public go?

Rusty
Most cops have never heard of Bob Peel, but many of us have and try to work by his principles. I happen to work for a Sheriff's department in a mid-size Louisiana metro area, and service is our byword. Many days we spend more time serving the people than enforcing the law, and that's fine with us. Many of the things we do aren't seen today as police work, but we serve nonetheless. For example, we routinely change flat tires for stranded motorists. We also routinely unlock cars for folks who've locked their keys in the car. We also have lists or elderly residents in our patrol areas and try to check on those folks when the time permits.

I've been shot once and cut twice, and I understand hazardous policing. I've also spent a big part of my career working for an elected sheriff, who has to answer to The People every four years, and has to justify the foolishness that young cops get themselves into. I've seen Sheriffs get voted out when they forget that we serve the people, and I've worked for guys who put public service before anything else. It's a fine line we draw, sometimes, and it helps if you can be polite to someone while you're putting the cuffs on them.

The type of policing that's described in the linked article is foreign to me.
See, this with fucking bells on. That's the pact I was talking about. And bless you for remembering it. Rusty
User avatar
PawPaw
Posts: 4493
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 8:19 pm

Re: 23 police shoot 2 unarmed suspects 377 times

Post by PawPaw »

Aglifter wrote:The cop is making a joke, and the lawyer sees all manner of wrong things - and a very easy way to undermine his testimonial value, any time he's in a case where the defendant claims "the knife wasn't his."
Once upon a time, I was standing over a corpse, a recently deceased citizen who had the misfortune of being whacked in the head with a ball-peen hammer, stabbed a half-dozen times, and relieved of his wallet. Terrible crime, and I was there with three other plain-clothes officers, when one of them made a snide remark, totally unrelated to the poor deceased at our feet, and the other three of us cracked up. We completely lost it.

About that time a flash-bulb went off, and we realized that we had been photographed by the local journalist, laughing over a murder victim. We told that photog that if that picture was published, his ability to get other stories would be strangely diminished.

For the record, I believe that every citizen has the right to photograph or record the police. Some might even call it a due-process right. I generally get recorded several times a day. I'm okay with that. But, it all has to be taken in context.
Dennis Dezendorf
PawPaw's House
MarkD
Posts: 3969
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm

Re: 23 police shoot 2 unarmed suspects 377 times

Post by MarkD »

I've seen a cop at a match, shoot a "no-shoot" pull out a cheap knife, and toss it at the feet of the no-shoot, and say "See, he was really a target."
Sounds like the type of guy who tells jokes about frozen pizzas at synagogues.

And about as funny.
MarkD
Posts: 3969
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm

Re: 23 police shoot 2 unarmed suspects 377 times

Post by MarkD »

PawPaw wrote:
Aglifter wrote:The cop is making a joke, and the lawyer sees all manner of wrong things - and a very easy way to undermine his testimonial value, any time he's in a case where the defendant claims "the knife wasn't his."
Once upon a time, I was standing over a corpse, a recently deceased citizen who had the misfortune of being whacked in the head with a ball-peen hammer, stabbed a half-dozen times, and relieved of his wallet. Terrible crime, and I was there with three other plain-clothes officers, when one of them made a snide remark, totally unrelated to the poor deceased at our feet, and the other three of us cracked up. We completely lost it.

About that time a flash-bulb went off, and we realized that we had been photographed by the local journalist, laughing over a murder victim. We told that photog that if that picture was published, his ability to get other stories would be strangely diminished.

For the record, I believe that every citizen has the right to photograph or record the police. Some might even call it a due-process right. I generally get recorded several times a day. I'm okay with that. But, it all has to be taken in context.
See, I get that, having laughed way too hard over things that aren't that funny while under stress. Having such a photo published wouldn't look right, taken out of context, but I wouldn't fault you for your reaction.
Post Reply