He has a toy truck! Shoot him! FTP!

[jdgregory84]

Try being a cop for a day or stfu. So easy to be a mr know it all but when it's your ass worried about dying everyday it's different. What do you two clowns do for a living? Probably some safe job hiding behind a desk judging shit you know nothing about. Until you have the balls to do what they do you should keep your pie holes shut

The balls to shoot black people lying on the ground with empty hands in the air?

[Cum Dumpster]

You say the cop in this instance here should not be charged, but why? This cop in this story needs to be held accountable. The white guy with th toy (mistaken for a gun being waved around while yelling) was the percieved threat. I understand how that could have been tbreatening and percieved wrong. Trying to give him the benefit of the doubt there because the sivery truck pointd at him can look like a gun, I get that. Purposeful or neglignt discharge, there is no reason for him to have shot the black guy who was cooperating on the ground, when the white guh was the obvious percieved threat. That what I have a specific problem with here and you don't want him charged. I think the entire incident appears to be handled poorly, but even giving him the benifit of doubt I can't excuse shooting an unarmed ccoperative black man when the "armed" white man was the treat.

I have explained why I don't think this is a criminal act several times in them his thread. Go back and read them all again.


I think he should be held accountable. He made a mistake and shot an innocent man. Maybe he should be fired. Maybe he should get better training. There are lots of ways to be held accountable. Being charged with a crime is but one.

What if this is a cop who has may years of great service and this is his only mistake, even if it is a big one? What if he has a poor record of service and this is juts another in a long line of screwups? This is why his agency should do a full investigation.

There will also be a full investigation when he and his agency get sued in civil court.

There will be accountability. If he shot me like this I would sue him and his agency.

[Cum Dumpster]

In this incident? I'd be like paying the surgeon to stand there and maybe work on your nose and he decides to stab your girlfriend after jabbing the wall twice.

How many surgeons would have a license after that?

In any instance. You go back to the surgeon and twist it a lot. The surgeon was juts a way to show that people, well trained and intelligent people, can make mistakes and cost people injury and death. If you keep going beyond that you are missing the point.

Police officers can do things other people cannot. If they get a call that a woman is screaming for help in your house, they WILL come up to your house and knock on the door. It is not trespassing and you cannot shoot them. Society has decided that it is more important to allow police to investigate potential crimes than allow people to exercise their property rights in some instances. Yes, it can be abused. No it shouldn't be abused.

This is a fact, you can dislike it and all, but you can't say it isn't law and the truth. In fact, it has been ruled constitutional!

[Craizie]

I have explained why I don't think this is a criminal act several times in them his thread. Go back and read them all again.


I think he should be held accountable. He made a mistake and shot an innocent man. Maybe he should be fired. Maybe he should get better training. There are lots of ways to be held accountable. Being charged with a crime is but one.

What if this is a cop who has may years of great service and this is his only mistake, even if it is a big one? What if he has a poor record of service and this is juts another in a long line of screwups? This is why his agency should do a full investigation.

There will also be a full investigation when he and his agency get sued in civil court.

There will be accountability. If he shot me like this I would sue him and his agency.

And we the tax payers would pay you!

[Forever_frost]

I have explained why I don't think this is a criminal act several times in them his thread. Go back and read them all again.


I think he should be held accountable. He made a mistake and shot an innocent man. Maybe he should be fired. Maybe he should get better training. There are lots of ways to be held accountable. Being charged with a crime is but one.

What if this is a cop who has may years of great service and this is his only mistake, even if it is a big one? What if he has a poor record of service and this is juts another in a long line of screwups? This is why his agency should do a full investigation.

There will also be a full investigation when he and his agency get sued in civil court.

There will be accountability. If he shot me like this I would sue him and his agency.

6 years on the force and he's SWAT. And he shot an innocent man at 50 meters while hiding behind a car door with an AR.

[Forever_frost]

In any instance. You go back to the surgeon and twist it a lot. The surgeon was juts a way to show that people, well trained and intelligent people, can make mistakes and cost people injury and death. If you keep going beyond that you are missing the point.

Police officers can do things other people cannot. If they get a call that a woman is screaming for help in your house, they WILL come up to your house and knock on the door. It is not trespassing and you cannot shoot them. Society has decided that it is more important to allow police to investigate potential crimes than allow people to exercise their property rights in some instances. Yes, it can be abused. No it shouldn't be abused.

This is a fact, you can dislike it and all, but you can't say it isn't law and the truth. In fact, it has been ruled constitutional!

So was internment.

And yet a simple reading of the document says it isn't. I see 14th amendment says this: nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I am not seeing a special exemption for law enforcement that says "Except for law enforcement. They get special rights where they have more rights than citizens. If they assault you, it is fine. If you touch one, it is a felony. If they kill your animal, it is fine. If you touch theirs, it is assault on a peace officer. Traffic offenses also shall not apply to officers on or off the clock in or out of uniform or vehicle paid for by taxpayers."

Please show where the constitution carves out special rights for law enforcement.

[LANTIRN]

I have explained why I don't think this is a criminal act several times in them his thread. Go back and read them all again.


I think he should be held accountable. He made a mistake and shot an innocent man. Maybe he should be fired. Maybe he should get better training. There are lots of ways to be held accountable. Being charged with a crime is but one.

What if this is a cop who has may years of great service and this is his only mistake, even if it is a big one? What if he has a poor record of service and this is juts another in a long line of screwups? This is why his agency should do a full investigation.

There will also be a full investigation when he and his agency get sued in civil court.

There will be accountability. If he shot me like this I would sue him and his agency.

I hope there will be accountabity, but far too often there isnt. Good years of service shouldn't matter as much as they do. Yes, in the military they mattered a bit, usually on rather minor offences, and decades of law abiding citizens committing no crimes sometimes matter to a judge during sentencing, but often it doesn't. Often we hear "ignorance is no excuse" or something similar.

One thing the military does, or at least did well is making punishments somewhat public. When I was in the Air Force each base had their own newspaper (weekly I think) that had a section of ucmj violations and punishments including court martials. I don't think they usually mentioned names, but rank and squadron were always mentioned, as well as charges and punishments. It served to make public to all else knowledge you would be punished for fuck-ups, and also lets people know others are not getting away with stuff. Discipline is usually kept fairly well in check (DUIs not withstanding for some reason). The police across the nation need to do something like this. Before I woud have said locally in tbe county or city, but the kind of reputation cops have now I would suggest maybe state wide. If cops are being held accountable the public needs to know, this is one way to help regian trust. All we ever read about is administrative leave with pay, and more training. Rarely does the public see real accountability.

[Snatch Napkin]

So one shot was justified or excusable, but 3 was criminal?

You have fired your weapon in "anger" (use whatever word you want here),correct? Did you actually know how many rounds you fired every time? The reason I say that is even when I am qualifying I sometimes lose count and have another round on my weapon or have emptied my weapon when I thought I had more rounds.

Almost every police shooting I have reviewed as a police supervisor, the officer did not know initially how many rounds they fired unless it had only been one round.

Yeah, exactly that. To both, even.

I have never failed at recalling the number shots from my own weapons or those within earshot.

Edit: I'm excluding full auto. I'm not super human.

[Forever_frost]

Yeah, exactly that. To both, even.

I have never failed at recalling the number shots from my own weapons or those within earshot.

Edit: I'm excluding full auto. I'm not super human.

Same. It's kind of trained into you to keep count so you don't run out in the middle of a firefight.

[Snatch Napkin]

Same. It's kind of trained into you to keep count so you don't run out in the middle of a firefight.

I can definitely see that.

I'm just baffled at how someone couldn't recall the number of explosions.
Also, I don't shoot with reckless abandon. One shot, one hit.

For someone to fire 3 squirrely rounds is ludicrous. For SWAT to do that is despicable.

[Forever_frost]

I can definitely see that.

I'm just baffled at how someone couldn't recall the number of explosions.
Also, I don't shoot with reckless abandon. One shot, one hit.

For someone to fire 3 squirrely rounds is ludicrous. For SWAT to do that is despicable.

That is kind of the point. If it was a rookie, first month on the job? Fine. Idiot with a rifle, more training, smack him around in the locker room and fine the fuck out of him.

6 year vet SWAT member firing off 3 rounds and hitting the victim? Nope.

[Sgt Beavis]

Was this officer acting in a SWAT capacity on this or was he acting as another officer on the scene? I ask because I'm wondering why SWAT would be there in the first place. My perception is that SWAT is being called upon way too often. The scope of their work has steadily gotten broader over the years and I think it should be scaled back. If rank and file officers can't deal with this, then their training is grossly inadequate.

If I were one of his fellow officers, I would be concerned for my own safety. That guy shouldn't be trusted with a weapon.

[jw33]

I think he should be held accountable. He made a mistake and shot an innocent man. Maybe he should be fired. Maybe he should get better training.

That is fucking classic...

[Forever_frost]

That is fucking classic...

Yet in a self defense incident if you fire off 3 rounds and one of those accidentally wing a cop, I can pretty much guarantee you that said chief would not be out there calling it an accident and be saying the same things and making the same excuses.

[Sgt Beavis]

It gets worse. The officer was AIMING FOR THE AUTISTIC KID.

http://newsone.com/3487646/cop-firing-at-autistic-man-not-mental-health-counselor/

Thank God he's a shitty shot.