Rob Pincus
New member
I don't think the force continuum theory was violated... regardless of whether what he said was 100% appropriate, he was still using verbal commands.. he hadn't drawn his weapon, touched the suspect, or used a chemical.....
My name is George, and I am a civilian
- Thread starter GLV
- Start date
- Status
Danger Dave
New member
Rob and Phillip,
My friend is 6', 175 lbs, early 40's, glasses, and about the least intimidating looking person you'd ever see. He's an engineer, and he looks like one. I have seen the truck - "disrepair" seems like too harsh of a word; it had a broken tail light, period. Yes, the officer did tell him to get back in his truck or he would shoot him. By the way, I can remember being told that you should get out of your vehicle so the officer can see you are not armed (I know that has changed in the last 10-15 yrs).
Rob, your ideas for what the officer should have done seem much more appropriate to me. Had he gotten out of his squad car, his body language would have shown his intent, as well as allowing my friend to see what he was saying. Perhaps this is a training issue, or maybe he had just gotten off of a high-stress call, and was still wound up and/or scared. Or did the officer just get PO'd that any citizen would dare not to follow his instructions (tell me that doesn't happen)? I don't know.
Imagine the bad PR if he maced or physically restrained him, much less shot him. Yeesh.
Anyway, I hope it scared the daylights out of the officer that he was considering killing a law-abiding citizen in front of his son for having a busted tail light and being deaf. Maybe it will make him think more carefully in the future.
My friend is 6', 175 lbs, early 40's, glasses, and about the least intimidating looking person you'd ever see. He's an engineer, and he looks like one. I have seen the truck - "disrepair" seems like too harsh of a word; it had a broken tail light, period. Yes, the officer did tell him to get back in his truck or he would shoot him. By the way, I can remember being told that you should get out of your vehicle so the officer can see you are not armed (I know that has changed in the last 10-15 yrs).
Rob, your ideas for what the officer should have done seem much more appropriate to me. Had he gotten out of his squad car, his body language would have shown his intent, as well as allowing my friend to see what he was saying. Perhaps this is a training issue, or maybe he had just gotten off of a high-stress call, and was still wound up and/or scared. Or did the officer just get PO'd that any citizen would dare not to follow his instructions (tell me that doesn't happen)? I don't know.
Imagine the bad PR if he maced or physically restrained him, much less shot him. Yeesh.
Anyway, I hope it scared the daylights out of the officer that he was considering killing a law-abiding citizen in front of his son for having a busted tail light and being deaf. Maybe it will make him think more carefully in the future.
Rob, i am in agreement. Yes, the officer in that situation acted correctly. Giving a verbal warning is just fine. Letting the subject know he is walking into a lethal end is appropriat. If the subject doesn't stop after that! Well, then he should get shot, because who knows what he could be up to!
Its an easy line to draw... Does the Officer feel threatend? YES or NO?
------------------
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
Its an easy line to draw... Does the Officer feel threatend? YES or NO?
------------------
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
Rob Pincus
New member
Kodiac,
glad to hear that I am not completly off my rocker on this one....
D. Dave,
Consider that if the encounter has the affect which you hope, and next time the suspect really is a threat to the officer, but he doesn't remain vigilant, we could have another dead cop. No one was hurt. Perhaps your friend should consider a "driver is deaf" bumper sticker (no joke.. I've seen them.) for his vehicles, so that officers and others, will have a better idea whom they are dealing with.....
------------------
-Essayons
glad to hear that I am not completly off my rocker on this one....
D. Dave,
Consider that if the encounter has the affect which you hope, and next time the suspect really is a threat to the officer, but he doesn't remain vigilant, we could have another dead cop. No one was hurt. Perhaps your friend should consider a "driver is deaf" bumper sticker (no joke.. I've seen them.) for his vehicles, so that officers and others, will have a better idea whom they are dealing with.....
------------------
-Essayons
Thanks Mal, all i could remember was they were in Ga.
Phillip, i always get out of my truck when i'm stopped. I don't know if it's the right thing to do, but i've never had any problems w/ it. i do come out slow w/ my hands in plain sight to show that i don't have a weapon in my hand and i'm not a threat. i've never had a leo tell me to get back in. i've done this on all my many traffic stops. just what would the proper procedure be? any one in Ar. know?
------------------
fiat justitia
Phillip, i always get out of my truck when i'm stopped. I don't know if it's the right thing to do, but i've never had any problems w/ it. i do come out slow w/ my hands in plain sight to show that i don't have a weapon in my hand and i'm not a threat. i've never had a leo tell me to get back in. i've done this on all my many traffic stops. just what would the proper procedure be? any one in Ar. know?
------------------
fiat justitia
You guys are, well I don't know the word. You are going to shoot a guy over a broken tail light, and because he is walking toward you? No weapon showing, hands showing? No threatening gestures?
Have you never heard of retreat? Cover? No wonder civilians(citizens) fear you.
Those statements are exactly what scare me, and from people that carry badges?
What am I missing?
An old friend of mine told me many years ago, Power and Responsibility are Equal. Police need to demonstrate responsibility, as they have the power.
Law enforcement work is not risk free. Like combat arms in the military, there is the possibility that one might get shot or shot at. If this is not acceptable, one should find other work. Police officers are not drafted by their departments. GLV
Have you never heard of retreat? Cover? No wonder civilians(citizens) fear you.
Those statements are exactly what scare me, and from people that carry badges?
What am I missing?
An old friend of mine told me many years ago, Power and Responsibility are Equal. Police need to demonstrate responsibility, as they have the power.
Law enforcement work is not risk free. Like combat arms in the military, there is the possibility that one might get shot or shot at. If this is not acceptable, one should find other work. Police officers are not drafted by their departments. GLV
Rob Pincus
New member
GLV,
Its not what you are missing.. it is what you are adding.
The LEO never drew his weapon, never presented his weapon.. he was in his car (the best cover he had).
I re-read the thread, and no one seems to be saying that the guy should have been shot.
There are a lot of people at TFL, as Rich pointed out, who think that TFL can build bridges between LEO and Non-LEO gun owners, I wish that everyone at TFL was on that program.
------------------
-Essayons
Its not what you are missing.. it is what you are adding.
The LEO never drew his weapon, never presented his weapon.. he was in his car (the best cover he had).
I re-read the thread, and no one seems to be saying that the guy should have been shot.
There are a lot of people at TFL, as Rich pointed out, who think that TFL can build bridges between LEO and Non-LEO gun owners, I wish that everyone at TFL was on that program.
------------------
-Essayons
Rich Lucibella
Staff
George-
I think we'd have a hard time defending the position that anyone here was suggesting that the guy should be shot.
But I'll tell you this:
If a well meaning person stopped in the middle of the night to assist me with a flat tire, I'd probably wave him off with a smile.
If he got out of his car, I'd probably tell him "I'm OK".
If he apprached me, I'd probably put my hand on my weapon and tell him I had a gun.
If he continued, I'd probably take a bead.
Would I shoot? I'm not sure, but that's not the point. The point is that I'd be legally and ethically justified.
Now. Could this cop have escalated this situation more gradually? Maybe. But, as has been said, we don't know what call he just came off of; what car's or personal descriptions he had APB's on and like that.
Benefit of the doubt, George.
Rich
I think we'd have a hard time defending the position that anyone here was suggesting that the guy should be shot.
But I'll tell you this:
If a well meaning person stopped in the middle of the night to assist me with a flat tire, I'd probably wave him off with a smile.
If he got out of his car, I'd probably tell him "I'm OK".
If he apprached me, I'd probably put my hand on my weapon and tell him I had a gun.
If he continued, I'd probably take a bead.
Would I shoot? I'm not sure, but that's not the point. The point is that I'd be legally and ethically justified.
Now. Could this cop have escalated this situation more gradually? Maybe. But, as has been said, we don't know what call he just came off of; what car's or personal descriptions he had APB's on and like that.
Benefit of the doubt, George.
Rich
Rich's analogy is apt. If a non-LEO was approached by someone who ignored repeated requests to leave, verbal threats of deadly force would certainly be justified, and the sheriff was, too. I don't think he would have gone from verbal commands right to the quick draw. An obvious brandishing would have occured.
As in Rich's post, if an obvious brandishing of a gun doesn't send someone packing, it's hard decision making time, cop or not.
On a personal basis, I've only had experience with two police officers, and both of them are very bad. Bad cops, but more importantly, bad people. I'm still disgusted, even years later, that these people slip through the system and continue to have the influence over other people's lives that they do.
But the important thing I've taken from these experiences is that they weren't bad people because they were cops. They were run-of-the-mill bad people who just happened to be cops. I count them as a minority in law enforcement.
On a professional basis, I've dealt with cops four times, twice in Boston, once in Chicago, and once in North Carolina, and I was served by polite professionals every time.
My wife works late nights in retail, and the local sheriff's deputy stops by every night to check up on her. Community Policing, anyone?
And she got excellent service when some jerk threatened her. The sheriff's department even sent two cars out to our place to check on our house, and we're a pretty good way out of town. I met them in the yard and we talked a bit and they said, "If the guy shows up, just give us a call." I said something like, "Yeah, I've got the dogs out and guns in the house, so I think we'll be OK until you guys can get here." They were non-plussed, and didn't offer me any lectures on letting them 'do their job' or anything self-important like that. They recognized my right and obligation to provide for my own protection.
Although I've never been pulled over, the wife got a ticket for doing 63 in a 45, and when he gave her the ticket, he said,"Just try not to go over 60 on this road...er...I mean, 45..." I'm guessing over 60 is when they actually stop you, and he was just giving her a little hint.
To date, I've had a very mixed bag of LEO interactions, but they've mostly been positive, and the bad experiences had little, if anything, to do with the fact that the people were cops. I give cops as much benefit of the doubt, and subsequent respect, as I give to any other of my fellow citizens. And 'benefit of the doubt' means there is always doubt, but I won't let it turn into blanket indictment of all law enforcement officers, even if I happen to know what criminals a few of them are.
FWIW
-boing
[This message has been edited by boing (edited June 10, 1999).]
As in Rich's post, if an obvious brandishing of a gun doesn't send someone packing, it's hard decision making time, cop or not.
On a personal basis, I've only had experience with two police officers, and both of them are very bad. Bad cops, but more importantly, bad people. I'm still disgusted, even years later, that these people slip through the system and continue to have the influence over other people's lives that they do.
But the important thing I've taken from these experiences is that they weren't bad people because they were cops. They were run-of-the-mill bad people who just happened to be cops. I count them as a minority in law enforcement.
On a professional basis, I've dealt with cops four times, twice in Boston, once in Chicago, and once in North Carolina, and I was served by polite professionals every time.
My wife works late nights in retail, and the local sheriff's deputy stops by every night to check up on her. Community Policing, anyone?
And she got excellent service when some jerk threatened her. The sheriff's department even sent two cars out to our place to check on our house, and we're a pretty good way out of town. I met them in the yard and we talked a bit and they said, "If the guy shows up, just give us a call." I said something like, "Yeah, I've got the dogs out and guns in the house, so I think we'll be OK until you guys can get here." They were non-plussed, and didn't offer me any lectures on letting them 'do their job' or anything self-important like that. They recognized my right and obligation to provide for my own protection.
Although I've never been pulled over, the wife got a ticket for doing 63 in a 45, and when he gave her the ticket, he said,"Just try not to go over 60 on this road...er...I mean, 45..." I'm guessing over 60 is when they actually stop you, and he was just giving her a little hint.
To date, I've had a very mixed bag of LEO interactions, but they've mostly been positive, and the bad experiences had little, if anything, to do with the fact that the people were cops. I give cops as much benefit of the doubt, and subsequent respect, as I give to any other of my fellow citizens. And 'benefit of the doubt' means there is always doubt, but I won't let it turn into blanket indictment of all law enforcement officers, even if I happen to know what criminals a few of them are.
FWIW
-boing
[This message has been edited by boing (edited June 10, 1999).]
A threat without the intent of follow-through is the meaningless rant of a fool.
To tell someone that they will be shot for not returning to their truck is bullying, threatening, and entirely out of line. If you are in fact fearful of your safety due to the approaching menace, you have so many options, the only real problem is picking one before it comes to a "head."
An officer may shoot a person when that person presents a mortal threat to that officer or another citizen. Approaching the officer's vehicle does NOT constitute such a threat. If the citizen then refused to return to his truck cab, he would again NOT be constituting a deadly threat. If the facts of this story are to be believed, we are yet again seeing that "Us-Them" attitude that just scares me, and *I'm* supposedly one of "us."
"You're not breaking any laws, but if you don't do what I say, I'll kill you." Scare me.
To tell someone that they will be shot for not returning to their truck is bullying, threatening, and entirely out of line. If you are in fact fearful of your safety due to the approaching menace, you have so many options, the only real problem is picking one before it comes to a "head."
An officer may shoot a person when that person presents a mortal threat to that officer or another citizen. Approaching the officer's vehicle does NOT constitute such a threat. If the citizen then refused to return to his truck cab, he would again NOT be constituting a deadly threat. If the facts of this story are to be believed, we are yet again seeing that "Us-Them" attitude that just scares me, and *I'm* supposedly one of "us."
"You're not breaking any laws, but if you don't do what I say, I'll kill you." Scare me.
Anyone here get Vin Suprynowicz's article 'Many cops imagine they are in a war zone'?
It's dated for June 13th so I'm not posting it here at this time. It's long, but based on the mail that he's been getting from another article he wrote about a questionable police shooting, he concludes that there are more police out there that have the "us vs. them" mentality. Another conclusion that he draws, not just from the mail recieved, is that we are closer to a police state than many people think we are.
------------------
John/az
"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
www.countdown9199.com
It's dated for June 13th so I'm not posting it here at this time. It's long, but based on the mail that he's been getting from another article he wrote about a questionable police shooting, he concludes that there are more police out there that have the "us vs. them" mentality. Another conclusion that he draws, not just from the mail recieved, is that we are closer to a police state than many people think we are.
------------------
John/az
"Just because something is popular, does not make it right."
www.countdown9199.com
Danger Dave
New member
One clarification: It was the Cobb County Police, not the Cobb Co. Sheriff's Dept. My apologies to any officers with the Sheriff's dept. Cobb Co. is one of the most affluent areas of the metro Atlanta area, and includes the cities of Smyrna, Marietta, and Kennesaw (where it's the LAW that every home owner have a gun!!!). And Newt Gingrich was the Rep from the district mainly composed of Cobb Co.
Kodiak,
Uhh, it's kinda against most departments policy to shoot a civilian for "suspicion of being a threat." I don't want to live in a country where disobeying a police officer is grounds for my execution. Ever hear of "Civil Disobedience?" You scare me.
Rob,
He is seriously considering the bumper sticker, or making a big sign for his tailgate. I think it should read something like "Attention Police Officers, I am a law abiding citizen who happens to be deaf. Please don't shoot me for this..."
Also, while the safety of the officer is an important concern, you should consider the impact on his 12-yr old son, who just heard a cop threaten his dad. Is this a person who is going to trust officers in the future, or fear them???
Talked to one recently retired LEO who has a law degree, holds the record in Douglas Co. (metro Atlanta Co. - borders Cobb and Fulton Co's) for unassisted felony arrests and was Fulton Co's - you know, the city of Atlanta, the second most violent city in the US - law enforcement officer of the year about 6 yrs ago. He said, for a police officer or anyone else, there are three conditions which have to be met before deadly force is justifiable:
1) Intent to inflict bodily harm
2) Capability of inflicting said harm
3) Proximity - they have to be close enough to inflict harm (note that this is dependent on the weapon they have - a knife from across the street is not a threat, but a pistol is).
Boing, please note that all three HAVE to be met, not just two. If they aren't threating, you can't kill them, even if they walk right up to you. I'm assuming this is what most depts teach, it's what I was taught in a handgun class offered by the local Sheriff's dept.
longhair,
It was his intent to show that he was NOT a threat. I've done the same thing, too, and been in the car when my father did the same thing. No one ever drew down on me, threatened me, or even appeared nervous. I do stop at about my rear fender, though.
Long Path,
That Us-vs-Them thing is exactly why I posted it here. Now, I have relatives and several friends, including my TaeKwonDo instructor (who has known me since I was a kid) and several current and former students who are or have been law enforcement officers, but I still have a fair amount of fear whenever I encounter an officer, even in a friendly situation.
In short, we ALL need to be careful out there - there's a lot to worry about.
PS, totally off the subject - How do I add a signature to my messages?
Kodiak,
Uhh, it's kinda against most departments policy to shoot a civilian for "suspicion of being a threat." I don't want to live in a country where disobeying a police officer is grounds for my execution. Ever hear of "Civil Disobedience?" You scare me.
Rob,
He is seriously considering the bumper sticker, or making a big sign for his tailgate. I think it should read something like "Attention Police Officers, I am a law abiding citizen who happens to be deaf. Please don't shoot me for this..."
Also, while the safety of the officer is an important concern, you should consider the impact on his 12-yr old son, who just heard a cop threaten his dad. Is this a person who is going to trust officers in the future, or fear them???
Talked to one recently retired LEO who has a law degree, holds the record in Douglas Co. (metro Atlanta Co. - borders Cobb and Fulton Co's) for unassisted felony arrests and was Fulton Co's - you know, the city of Atlanta, the second most violent city in the US - law enforcement officer of the year about 6 yrs ago. He said, for a police officer or anyone else, there are three conditions which have to be met before deadly force is justifiable:
1) Intent to inflict bodily harm
2) Capability of inflicting said harm
3) Proximity - they have to be close enough to inflict harm (note that this is dependent on the weapon they have - a knife from across the street is not a threat, but a pistol is).
Boing, please note that all three HAVE to be met, not just two. If they aren't threating, you can't kill them, even if they walk right up to you. I'm assuming this is what most depts teach, it's what I was taught in a handgun class offered by the local Sheriff's dept.
longhair,
It was his intent to show that he was NOT a threat. I've done the same thing, too, and been in the car when my father did the same thing. No one ever drew down on me, threatened me, or even appeared nervous. I do stop at about my rear fender, though.
Long Path,
That Us-vs-Them thing is exactly why I posted it here. Now, I have relatives and several friends, including my TaeKwonDo instructor (who has known me since I was a kid) and several current and former students who are or have been law enforcement officers, but I still have a fair amount of fear whenever I encounter an officer, even in a friendly situation.
In short, we ALL need to be careful out there - there's a lot to worry about.
PS, totally off the subject - How do I add a signature to my messages?
Ed Brunner
New member
It was irresponsible for the officer to threaten to shoot in the circumstances described.That should cost him his job.
If that was all he could think of to say he is poorly trained at the very least.
Which brings up another can of worms-training.
I am very much pro-law enforcement,but there are problems and they need to be solved.It is not enough to say that it's dangerous out there.The police have created a lot of the danger.
It used to be that when we encountered a bad cop it was explained by saying that was all you could expect for $600 per month.At least you knew what you were likely to get.
Most agencies pay a lot more and its just like the education issue-more money doesnt help.
You say that more money will attract better people? It will also overpay the people we dont need.
About the money.Dont take the job and THEN start complaining about the money. If the money isnt right,dont take the job.
We need people in law enforcement who realize that they are being paid to serve and protect the public and that the public is their master not the other way around.
Power corrupts.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
If that was all he could think of to say he is poorly trained at the very least.
Which brings up another can of worms-training.
I am very much pro-law enforcement,but there are problems and they need to be solved.It is not enough to say that it's dangerous out there.The police have created a lot of the danger.
It used to be that when we encountered a bad cop it was explained by saying that was all you could expect for $600 per month.At least you knew what you were likely to get.
Most agencies pay a lot more and its just like the education issue-more money doesnt help.
You say that more money will attract better people? It will also overpay the people we dont need.
About the money.Dont take the job and THEN start complaining about the money. If the money isnt right,dont take the job.
We need people in law enforcement who realize that they are being paid to serve and protect the public and that the public is their master not the other way around.
Power corrupts.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
Byron Quick
Staff In Memoriam
Rich,
Please don't shoot in that scenario in Georgia. You will go to prison. Two primary tests must be met for lethal self defense in this state. The first is would a "reasonable" person have been in fear of life and limb in this situation? The second is that you must escape if possible. Your scenario showed no attempt to escape, also you would have difficulty with the "reasonable man" rule and thus is not in accordance with Georgia law.
I've seen both sides of this issue up close and personal. I've seen cops have to endure entirely despicable behavior by the "civilians." I've treated cops injured by the people they were trying to protect in domestic violence cases. They have a very difficult job. On the other hand, I have seen LEO perjury result in totally unfounded felony convictions. I have seen two onduty cops convicted of murder for shooting an unarmed disabled Korean veteran six times in the back of the head from a range of 18 inches. I have personally been left paralyzed in the middle of a busy highway in total darkness after being struck in the head by a riot baton wielding cop. No attempt at an arrest was made. In each of these situations, the cops were supported by their departments and colleagues even after it was apparent that there was no reasonable doubt they were guilty as charged. In my opinion, this support for bad cops damages the link between LEO and "civilians" more than any other single factor. I believe that each LEO must ask himself this question:"Does my support of this LEO, in this particular situation, have the effect of placing LEO's above the law?" If the answer is yes then your support is not only counterproductive but actively dangerous to you and to all LEO's.
The seizure laws are clear violations of both the intent and the letter of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The "rulings" of the Supreme Court are, in reality, meaningless. An eighth grader, who is diligent in their study of English grammar, can tell you exactly what these articles mean. You can tell for yourselves. The fact that they are supposedly being used against an unpopular criminal element is irrelevant. What's going to happen when gun owners are an unpopular criminal element? Do you think you can pick and choose which elements of the Bill of Rights to support?
Please don't shoot in that scenario in Georgia. You will go to prison. Two primary tests must be met for lethal self defense in this state. The first is would a "reasonable" person have been in fear of life and limb in this situation? The second is that you must escape if possible. Your scenario showed no attempt to escape, also you would have difficulty with the "reasonable man" rule and thus is not in accordance with Georgia law.
I've seen both sides of this issue up close and personal. I've seen cops have to endure entirely despicable behavior by the "civilians." I've treated cops injured by the people they were trying to protect in domestic violence cases. They have a very difficult job. On the other hand, I have seen LEO perjury result in totally unfounded felony convictions. I have seen two onduty cops convicted of murder for shooting an unarmed disabled Korean veteran six times in the back of the head from a range of 18 inches. I have personally been left paralyzed in the middle of a busy highway in total darkness after being struck in the head by a riot baton wielding cop. No attempt at an arrest was made. In each of these situations, the cops were supported by their departments and colleagues even after it was apparent that there was no reasonable doubt they were guilty as charged. In my opinion, this support for bad cops damages the link between LEO and "civilians" more than any other single factor. I believe that each LEO must ask himself this question:"Does my support of this LEO, in this particular situation, have the effect of placing LEO's above the law?" If the answer is yes then your support is not only counterproductive but actively dangerous to you and to all LEO's.
The seizure laws are clear violations of both the intent and the letter of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The "rulings" of the Supreme Court are, in reality, meaningless. An eighth grader, who is diligent in their study of English grammar, can tell you exactly what these articles mean. You can tell for yourselves. The fact that they are supposedly being used against an unpopular criminal element is irrelevant. What's going to happen when gun owners are an unpopular criminal element? Do you think you can pick and choose which elements of the Bill of Rights to support?
Danger Dave
New member
Spartacus,
Excellent post, I agree 100%!!!
To quote the aforementioned retired LEO: "That badge has to stand for something."
I also know two officers who were written up by their superiors during a felony arrest of two fleeing armed robbery suspects. The film was reviewed, and the Georgia Beareau (I hate that word) of Investigation was going to use the tape of the arrest from the in-car camera for a training film on how you're SUPPOSED to do it. They both got commendations for doing an excellent job in a dangerous situation, then they both got written up for violating dept. policy. Their offense? THEY DIDN'T PUT THEIR HATS ON WHEN THEY EXITED THEIR VEHICLE! I wish I made this up - I know both of them. That's the kind of BS our law enforcement officers endure - I think even in the depts it's us vs them-us - the beat cops vs the administration. They walk around paranoid because 95% of what they encounter in the office and in the field is the worst in human nature.
Rich,
In Ga. it's a felony to threaten someone with a gun, unless life is in danger. You lose your right to ever have another firearm, even if you don't fire. I know someone who spent a night in jail and $2000 in legal fees to get out of one of those after a "road rage" incident between him and another motorist. The other motorist approached his car when they were stopped at a red light, and he (while still in his car) showed him that he was armed. The other motorist walked across the street to a pay phone, called 911. When the police showed up, of course he had been threatened with a gun, and it was pointed at him.
Oh yeah - in Metro Atlanta at least, whoever reaches 911 first in the event of an incident is the one who is legally in the right, and is the one who gets to file the charges. In the incident above, the other motorist used a pay phone and his call went directly through, the fella I know used a cell phone, and had to get routed from Fulton to Cobb Co. (hmm, I never realized how often that crops up) 911 services. Once they take a warrant out on you, you can't take one out on them, even if they approached your car and you were only showing them that you were armed (no gun pointed at them, no shots fired)!
The moral is: firearms are not for threatening anyone with!!! If you're not justified in killing, keep it holstered, or face felony charges.
Excellent post, I agree 100%!!!
To quote the aforementioned retired LEO: "That badge has to stand for something."
I also know two officers who were written up by their superiors during a felony arrest of two fleeing armed robbery suspects. The film was reviewed, and the Georgia Beareau (I hate that word) of Investigation was going to use the tape of the arrest from the in-car camera for a training film on how you're SUPPOSED to do it. They both got commendations for doing an excellent job in a dangerous situation, then they both got written up for violating dept. policy. Their offense? THEY DIDN'T PUT THEIR HATS ON WHEN THEY EXITED THEIR VEHICLE! I wish I made this up - I know both of them. That's the kind of BS our law enforcement officers endure - I think even in the depts it's us vs them-us - the beat cops vs the administration. They walk around paranoid because 95% of what they encounter in the office and in the field is the worst in human nature.
Rich,
In Ga. it's a felony to threaten someone with a gun, unless life is in danger. You lose your right to ever have another firearm, even if you don't fire. I know someone who spent a night in jail and $2000 in legal fees to get out of one of those after a "road rage" incident between him and another motorist. The other motorist approached his car when they were stopped at a red light, and he (while still in his car) showed him that he was armed. The other motorist walked across the street to a pay phone, called 911. When the police showed up, of course he had been threatened with a gun, and it was pointed at him.
Oh yeah - in Metro Atlanta at least, whoever reaches 911 first in the event of an incident is the one who is legally in the right, and is the one who gets to file the charges. In the incident above, the other motorist used a pay phone and his call went directly through, the fella I know used a cell phone, and had to get routed from Fulton to Cobb Co. (hmm, I never realized how often that crops up) 911 services. Once they take a warrant out on you, you can't take one out on them, even if they approached your car and you were only showing them that you were armed (no gun pointed at them, no shots fired)!
The moral is: firearms are not for threatening anyone with!!! If you're not justified in killing, keep it holstered, or face felony charges.
Rich Lucibella
Staff
Spartacus-
You're absolutely correct. The retreat is a must for civil defense in all cases and legal defense in many. (Recently, one trainer insisted on having me do all my draw work with a very loud "No" or "Stop" command in the sequence...this will help where witnesses are present.)
Dave-
When someone approaches me in the dark, continues coming after I ask him to stop and continues coming after I tell him I have a firearm.... well, my life is in danger, IMHO.
But I'm still really uneasy with the rush to judgement here, guys. I take Danger Dave at his word that the story was relayed in this manner. However, it's still a 3rd party story, regarding the words of a policeman as relayed by a hearing impaired individual, absent any info from the other party.
I'm not trying to make light of the issue, and I believe the motorist has the right to file a complaint... but, at least the cop would get to respond.
Let me take my Administrator hat off for just a second and state that, as a Member, I hate to see us making these types of judgements based on one-sided information. It's exactly the complaint we have about the Anti-Defense crowd. And it only widens the gulf between LEO and all other gun owners.
There's enough cops (and other citizens) out there that deserve our disapproval. Creating more by Kangaroo Court hardly raises us above the level of our opponents.
Carry on.
Rich
[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited June 10, 1999).]
You're absolutely correct. The retreat is a must for civil defense in all cases and legal defense in many. (Recently, one trainer insisted on having me do all my draw work with a very loud "No" or "Stop" command in the sequence...this will help where witnesses are present.)
Dave-
When someone approaches me in the dark, continues coming after I ask him to stop and continues coming after I tell him I have a firearm.... well, my life is in danger, IMHO.
But I'm still really uneasy with the rush to judgement here, guys. I take Danger Dave at his word that the story was relayed in this manner. However, it's still a 3rd party story, regarding the words of a policeman as relayed by a hearing impaired individual, absent any info from the other party.
I'm not trying to make light of the issue, and I believe the motorist has the right to file a complaint... but, at least the cop would get to respond.
Let me take my Administrator hat off for just a second and state that, as a Member, I hate to see us making these types of judgements based on one-sided information. It's exactly the complaint we have about the Anti-Defense crowd. And it only widens the gulf between LEO and all other gun owners.
There's enough cops (and other citizens) out there that deserve our disapproval. Creating more by Kangaroo Court hardly raises us above the level of our opponents.
Carry on.
Rich
[This message has been edited by Rich Lucibella (edited June 10, 1999).]
Danger Dave
New member
Rich,
I'm not condemning police, or even the individual officer, just his lack of judgement and professionalism in dealing with this situation. I believe the officer created a tense situation where none existed. I know from many personal experiences (everything from traffic accidents to helping us round up horses in the rain when a fence got knocked down, not to mention growing up across the street from the local sheriff), this is the exception. I am one of "them" that the police are supposed "to serve and protect" - which to me, and 99% of the rest of the population, is "us".
The incident I mentioned took place in broad daylight. I think everyone agrees, the officer did the right thing in not shooting, but why did and why can he threaten to kill (shoot=kill - to me at least) someone for approaching him in broad daylight, unarmed, with his hands exposed, for simply refusing to listen to him? If I told an unarmed man approaching my vehicle I was going to shoot him if he didn't listen to me, I could go to jail unless he posed a DEFINITE threat. I don't see the justification in the double-standard - it's okay for the police to threaten anyone, but not for me - the potential lethality of the situation is the same.
My other point is, when you're armed (and even when you're not), you should be careful about threatening to kill someone - threatening to kill someone is a serious matter, reserved for only the most serious situations. IMHO, if you're not ready to pull the trigger and take someone's life, you shouldn't threaten to. What would be your reaction if someone threatened to shoot you, especially if you knew they were armed? How likely would you be to take the offensive immediately? If I was walking down the shoulder of a road, looking for a phone, and happened upon you changing a tire, and didn't hear your warning, would you threaten my life or fire on me? Remember, I have as much right to be on the shoulder of the road as you do, and I'm probably armed, too. When you tell me you're armed and threaten me, I'm legally in the right to fire on you immediately (you've shown intention, capability, and proximity).
To a point (e.g. there's a difference between someone walking towards you in a "threatening manner" vs. the guy firing at random strangers) it's a judgement call, subject to human error. Are you so sure twelve strangers would agree with your decision to kill? If you're not sure, or if you make the wrong decision, the consequences can be severe, for both of you and your families. Please be as sure as you can possibly be, a lot depends on your decision.
If the police officer didn't think he overreacted, why did my friend not get a ticket for the busted tail light (believe me, Cobb Co. is more than diligent in enforcing it's traffic codes)?
My friend has decided not to file a complaint - the thing that upset him the most was that his son heard the officer threaten him, not that he was threatened. He said it's just one more item in a long list of problems he's had to deal with as a result other peoples ignorance of his hearing impairment. By the way, he can hear somewhat. Otherwise, I don't think he'd be wearing hearing aids - they don't do much good if you're completely deaf. Having had to get his attention before, I believe a loudspeaker would be quite understandable to him at 10-20 feet - he would have heard "Sir, get back in you car NOW!" as well as he would have heard "Get back in your car or you will be shot".
Rich, I disagree that this is a Kangaroo Court. I'm not condemning anyone, just saying that the officer made a mistake in protocol, albeit a serious one IMHO. Words are important, they're what separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom, but on their own, they cannot kill or maim (much like guns). Could it have been more serious? Absolutely - had my friend been totally deaf, I might be going to a funeral instead of writing this. Was threatening to shoot a mistake I would condemn the officer for? No, not as long as he learned something from the experience - no one got hurt, just intimidated (part of the job, I know) and frightened. Did I ever suggest that he should be suspended, jailed, or otherwise punished? No, I just used the example of what would happen if one of "us" used the same threat (jail). It's an example of why there is an "us" and a "them" - we live by completely different sets of rules. The laws don't apply equally to LEO's and regular citizens - I could be arrested for a similar incident and lose my CCW and right to purchase another firearm forever, but I can never be tried both for battery and violating someone's civil rights if I club someone and leave them bleeding on the street. I just hope the officer learned something before he makes a more serious and permanent mistake. And yes, I'm angry. If it was your friend, how would you feel about ANYONE threatening their life over a busted tail light? Quite frankly, I think my friend (and I) would have been quite happy with an apology in front of his son. That didn't happen. Quite frankly, I've never heard of an officer apologizing, but I think not writing the ticket was, in itself, an unofficial apology.
One last thought - if we walk around threatening to shoot strangers whenever there is a possible (not a definite) threat, aren't we exhibiting the exact kind of behavior the anti's WANT and EXPECT out of us (you know, their perception of "us" gun owners as a bunch of "gun totin' trigger-happy redneck yahoos")? Every gun-owning citizen that gets arrested and every CCW permit that gets revoked is just another feather in their collective cap and another baby step towards taking our rights.
Later!
I'm not condemning police, or even the individual officer, just his lack of judgement and professionalism in dealing with this situation. I believe the officer created a tense situation where none existed. I know from many personal experiences (everything from traffic accidents to helping us round up horses in the rain when a fence got knocked down, not to mention growing up across the street from the local sheriff), this is the exception. I am one of "them" that the police are supposed "to serve and protect" - which to me, and 99% of the rest of the population, is "us".
The incident I mentioned took place in broad daylight. I think everyone agrees, the officer did the right thing in not shooting, but why did and why can he threaten to kill (shoot=kill - to me at least) someone for approaching him in broad daylight, unarmed, with his hands exposed, for simply refusing to listen to him? If I told an unarmed man approaching my vehicle I was going to shoot him if he didn't listen to me, I could go to jail unless he posed a DEFINITE threat. I don't see the justification in the double-standard - it's okay for the police to threaten anyone, but not for me - the potential lethality of the situation is the same.
My other point is, when you're armed (and even when you're not), you should be careful about threatening to kill someone - threatening to kill someone is a serious matter, reserved for only the most serious situations. IMHO, if you're not ready to pull the trigger and take someone's life, you shouldn't threaten to. What would be your reaction if someone threatened to shoot you, especially if you knew they were armed? How likely would you be to take the offensive immediately? If I was walking down the shoulder of a road, looking for a phone, and happened upon you changing a tire, and didn't hear your warning, would you threaten my life or fire on me? Remember, I have as much right to be on the shoulder of the road as you do, and I'm probably armed, too. When you tell me you're armed and threaten me, I'm legally in the right to fire on you immediately (you've shown intention, capability, and proximity).
To a point (e.g. there's a difference between someone walking towards you in a "threatening manner" vs. the guy firing at random strangers) it's a judgement call, subject to human error. Are you so sure twelve strangers would agree with your decision to kill? If you're not sure, or if you make the wrong decision, the consequences can be severe, for both of you and your families. Please be as sure as you can possibly be, a lot depends on your decision.
If the police officer didn't think he overreacted, why did my friend not get a ticket for the busted tail light (believe me, Cobb Co. is more than diligent in enforcing it's traffic codes)?
My friend has decided not to file a complaint - the thing that upset him the most was that his son heard the officer threaten him, not that he was threatened. He said it's just one more item in a long list of problems he's had to deal with as a result other peoples ignorance of his hearing impairment. By the way, he can hear somewhat. Otherwise, I don't think he'd be wearing hearing aids - they don't do much good if you're completely deaf. Having had to get his attention before, I believe a loudspeaker would be quite understandable to him at 10-20 feet - he would have heard "Sir, get back in you car NOW!" as well as he would have heard "Get back in your car or you will be shot".
Rich, I disagree that this is a Kangaroo Court. I'm not condemning anyone, just saying that the officer made a mistake in protocol, albeit a serious one IMHO. Words are important, they're what separate us from the rest of the animal kingdom, but on their own, they cannot kill or maim (much like guns). Could it have been more serious? Absolutely - had my friend been totally deaf, I might be going to a funeral instead of writing this. Was threatening to shoot a mistake I would condemn the officer for? No, not as long as he learned something from the experience - no one got hurt, just intimidated (part of the job, I know) and frightened. Did I ever suggest that he should be suspended, jailed, or otherwise punished? No, I just used the example of what would happen if one of "us" used the same threat (jail). It's an example of why there is an "us" and a "them" - we live by completely different sets of rules. The laws don't apply equally to LEO's and regular citizens - I could be arrested for a similar incident and lose my CCW and right to purchase another firearm forever, but I can never be tried both for battery and violating someone's civil rights if I club someone and leave them bleeding on the street. I just hope the officer learned something before he makes a more serious and permanent mistake. And yes, I'm angry. If it was your friend, how would you feel about ANYONE threatening their life over a busted tail light? Quite frankly, I think my friend (and I) would have been quite happy with an apology in front of his son. That didn't happen. Quite frankly, I've never heard of an officer apologizing, but I think not writing the ticket was, in itself, an unofficial apology.
One last thought - if we walk around threatening to shoot strangers whenever there is a possible (not a definite) threat, aren't we exhibiting the exact kind of behavior the anti's WANT and EXPECT out of us (you know, their perception of "us" gun owners as a bunch of "gun totin' trigger-happy redneck yahoos")? Every gun-owning citizen that gets arrested and every CCW permit that gets revoked is just another feather in their collective cap and another baby step towards taking our rights.
Later!
Folks,
This thread has exceeded the magic number at which we become concerned about length and load time. Consequently, it must be closed. If you'd like to continue the discussion, please feel free to do so, using the same title and adding "Part-II" to it.
Thanks for your cooperation in helping us keep TFL running smoothly.
Mykl
This thread has exceeded the magic number at which we become concerned about length and load time. Consequently, it must be closed. If you'd like to continue the discussion, please feel free to do so, using the same title and adding "Part-II" to it.
Thanks for your cooperation in helping us keep TFL running smoothly.
Mykl
- Status