Do LEO have right to defend themselves?

[LanceOregon]

I cannot believe how this subject has been sidetracked, and turned into a totally different sort of discussion that the lawsuit clearly was not about.

The lawsuit was not about the officers that were involved doing anything wrong. They were not blamed in any way at all.

It was the county government that was faulted, for not having provided adequate training for the officers.

Are all of you against officers getting more training, so they can better do their job? Do you perhaps think that people should just be hired off the street, given no training at all, and asked to serve as a police officer?

This discussion has become ridiculous. It is simply amazing how defensive some people get about law enforcement. They seem to put them up on some kind of pedestal, as if they were some sort of perfect Gods, that can never make any mistakes, or have even the slightest flaws. Or even allow for the suggestion that maybe they could do things better, if they simply got additional equipment and training.

You know, we have had a handful of police shootings here where I live in recent years, where the police actually shot unarmed men. In each case, however, the officer mistakenly believed that they saw a gun, and thus shot and killed the criminal.

Now all of these people had committed crimes, but nothing that in any way warranted death. One of them was just a high school student who stole a car for a joyride, and lead officers on a wild and dangerous car chase. When the car was finally disabled and stopped, the approaching officer thought he saw the teenager go for a gun, and thus fired.

Now the boy was not an innocent kid, but he did not deserve to die either. His father was no good, and had many convictions himself. In fact, he was so upset over his son's death that he then plotted to have the officer that shot his son murdered. However, the police fortunately discovered his plot, and now he is locked up in prison for virtually the rest of his life.

In each of these cases, our local DA cleared the officer involved, since the law allows for an officer to shoot if he believes that his life is in danger. But does that then mean that the police should not try to learn from such situations, and try to do better the next time, and not shoot an unarmed person?

Why then should we not also try to avoid killing the mentally ill, if there are ways to lessen that from happening?

Many of you seem to be saying that you want the police to be totally unaccountable for their actions, and thus be able to do whatever they want, no matter what the outcome is.

.

 

[Powderman]

But does that then mean that the police should not try to learn from such situations, and try to do better the next time, and not shoot an unarmed person?

Why then should we not also try to avoid killing the mentally ill, if there are ways to lessen that from happening?

Do you think that we do not make supreme efforts to NOT pull the trigger?

Every time I contact someone in an official capacity, I do so with a clean slate. Each and every action taken is evaluated BEFORE I take it, and each action that I take is a direct result of the action taken by the person I contact.

In some (thankfully, not many) cases, my contact requires a use of force. The amount of force and type of force used depends on the actions of the person I am contacting.

Now, here's the important part...

Concacts with regular folks can be steered and controlled, after a fashion. I can talk to, yell at, and reason with a regular person, and hopefully they will see that they must STOP their actions or face the consequences. In a use of force scenario, usually the person/suspect will think about it and realize that they, too, will suffer injury if the contact goes physical.

With an EDP, that rationality goes right out the window--and the contact has the predictability of dice thrown on a craps table. I can contact people with the predictability of a hot shooter in the dice pit rolling the 6 and 8 and making lots of money; but sooner or later I'm going to go seven out--and if I'm not careful, I'll have my clock cleaned for me.

When an EDP decides that they will attack, it is NOT a rational decision. Most of the time, we get lucky--talk will do the job. And to be sure, most of the contacts I have with EDP's are somewhat comical in nature.

Once in a while, though, you get a real corker--and all the training and instruction in the world won't change the fact that you are about to tote off an a** whooping or worse.

Summary:

We can, and will do everything in our power to keep from using deadly force--or ANY force at all. But, do NOT expect me or any other officer to accept physical pain, punishment, disability or death on the altar of political correctness or feel-good doctrine.

To paraphrase Chris Rock, when the po-lice come, they're bringing an a**whipping with them. Whether the butt-whipping is dealt out or not depends solely on the individual.

 

[HKFan9]

I would side with the LEO's too. How are they supposed to know that the man was mentally handicapped? He's coming at them with a knife, last I checked that never wielded good results on anyone's part. People high on drugs are technically mentally unstable as well, but people don't mind when cops dispose of them if they are running towards the cops with a knife. It is sad this incident happened to a mentally disabled person, but why was he outside wielding a knife in the first place?

As for the girl..... its sad, but I can assure you I own a lot of very realistic Airsoft firearms I use for serious Mil-Sim scrimmages. If you use one in a crime you are prosecuted as using a real weapon since they are so realistic. You could bet your a$$ if someone turned and pointed one at me I'd most likely shoot, especially being a LEO and constantly put into danger.

Law enforcement officers have to make tough decisions a lot of times. Maybe once in a billion it results in someone being harmed that didn't need to be, but that necessarily isn't the officers fault. I would imagine having a job that MAKES you put yourself in harms way would make you a little uneasy when someone charges you with a knife, or someone points what pretty much is an exact resemblance of a high powered assault rifle. I respect officers for what they go into everyday, and the impossible task of trying to protect everyone. No LEO wants to kill someone who could of been innocent, unfortunately accidents happen. But in these two cases I would say the accident was more on the others than the LEO.

 

[jughead2]

defense

had a friend a while back showed me a pellet pistol. until i had it in my hand i thought it was a firearm. told him then if he had pulled it on me in anger i would have done my best to shoot him. death or injury is only an eye blink away if the weapon is real. i am not a police officer and would probably go hungry before taking that job.l

 

[MeekAndMild]

Many of you seem to be saying that you want the police to be totally unaccountable for their actions, and thus be able to do whatever they want, no matter what the outcome is.

Turn that around and it seems you're saying that the mentally deficient should be totally unaccountable for their actions and do whatever they want. Funny, but much of context for the first example given at the beginning of this thread seems to be a public sentiment which says exactly that.

 

[Tuckahoe]

When we get to the point that an officer cannot use deadly force against an attacker we are at a sad point in american history. On the award of money in the case of the mentaly challenged person there had to be more to this story. Any links to the news story?

 

[shortwave]

LanceOregon, I think many people are just tired of everytime an LEO has to face the dreadfull day he has to kill somebody there`s usually a huge amount of money shelled out by taxpayers cause some slick two-bit attorney finds some technicality,loophole or action by LEO that he(or she) can build a case to be questionable in a court knowing good and well the chances of winning are small but case will be settled out of court cause it will cost to much to defend. Not saying cops don`t make mistakes, they`re human. Facts in this case don`t say cops did anything wrong and the cops weren`t sued. County just opted to settle out of court for $500k (to family) and have more training of which Sheriff Karnes maintains his officers have had proper training. Don`t think I would have settled for a small amount if I had a good case. I would also bet that family settled on advice from attorney. Update on girl shot holding assault air-rifle under blanket. She was in court the other day with her two attorneys. They`re claiming the rifle she was holding was boyfriends and blanket was for puppy she had in her arms(remember,boyfriend inside carryout and manager fearing holdup,called LEO). I smell more tax $`s about to go bye-bye

 

[2afreedom]

This country constantly amazes me. If you want to turn and run from a guy coming at you with a knife go ahead. I don't run that fast and I'm not going to trust him not to stab me in the back. Too many "victims" families are suing in cases like this. Lawsuits should not be sources of income-stop paying them off and they will stop suing. This is not about training. It is about greed. Someday law enforcement is going to have to recruit at fast food restaurants due to cases like this. When that happens we will get what we truly deserve.